Hentai Collector Sentenced to Jail Over "Obscene" Material

[TazTheTerrible]

Why yes they are guilty of the same thing i.e. nothing. There were no crimes involved in the creation of either work, so neither of them should be criminal to possess or read.

Freedom of thought and speech: "I may disagree to the bottom of my soul with everything you say, but I will defend to my last breath your right to say it."

 

[Hayami]

Why does erotic entertainment have to adhere moral standards unlike any other kinds of entertainment?

Many people (even among these who disagree with the sentence) seem to assume that if Handley enjoyed to look at these drawings, the reason is that he's a pedophile. Yet if you ever tried to estimate the number of people who consume this kind of erotic manga and used the same logic, you'd have to conclude that 1/3 or at least 1/4 of erotic manga readers are pedophiles. I think the truth is that many people like loli as well (as rape/humilation erotic manga) precisely *because* it's so "evil", not conform with common moral, yet doesn't you don't harm to any sentient being.

Remember Homer?
"I saw weird stuff in that place last night! Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff!! And I want in!"
That's how it works and it's only human.
Ragsnstitches posted a similar guess earlier in this thread (on page 16).
Loli H is about the most evil play one can imagine, thus it's such an attractive fantasy to indugle in.

Though in fact, for many people indulging an evil fantasy/roleplay may be not a way of sublimation of own evil impulses, but a way to make up with the screwed world we live in. (And to prove that our world is screwed it's enough just to look at how Handley was treated.)


It's similar to how some people act in MMOs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHJVolaC8pw
( Serenity Now bombs a World of Warcraft funeral )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDIYY0KRB_g
( "The Red Wedding" [Lineage 2, Lolish & friends] )

Now, personally I never liked PvP in MMOs because there's still a chance that people hurt the feelings of other real people like you can see in the comments to the first video. On the other hand, when you read a manga you create the "victims" just from author's and your own imagination and soul. And by the way, you must be able to emphatize with the "victim" to be able to enjoy such a dream/nightmare-like fantasy. If you're but an insensible bloke/gal whose mind dominates his/her heart/soul - it will not work. (I don't say that all people whose mind dominates their heart/soul are bad people though, we're just different.)


I'm a bit hesitant about quoting this because possibly Chris Handley would not wish to disclose this information to wide public, but since he didn't have the courage to fight for his own pride and the pride of the other fans of erotic manga - whatever... Especially since it was already posted and it's his own fault if he didn't discuss with his lawyer whether what he says to this psych may or may not be made public...

Sure, no problem. I'll actually post the few sentences directly from the sentencing documents, which I was just too lazy to do earlier. This is regarding his refusal to answer some of the questions on the "psychosexual" evaluation:

"In other words, Mr. Handley purposefully underperformed on the assessment to prevent Dr. Smith [psychologist] from obtaining accurate data about his sexual deviancy, which is a critical factor in this sentencing.
Rather than confirming his statements to Inspector Raper [US Post Office Inspector] that he was fantasizing about 14-15 year old girls, Mr. Handley changed his story, and told Dr. Smith that he was primarily fantasizing about being the female having sex with a male. This underscores that fact that the root of Mr. Handley problems appears to be complex and confusing gender and sexuality issues."

http://theyaoireview.com/2010/02/11/yaoi-news-christopher-handley-finally-sentenced/

Now, someone in the comments below says that probably Handley was not honest in his latter statement. But imo it's much more likely that the latter statement is true. It's more likely that he was honest with a psychologist than with an US Post Office Inspector. Also, these 3-4 years seem to have broken his will to fight for anything. I don't think he would make up such a crazy explanation especially while talking to a psych because if he lied there's a chance to be caught even without polygraph. Such a blatant lie wouldn't fit the image of him I got from reading his mother's letters to Matt [that were deleted later]

If his later statement is true, it would be a good example for dreams/nightmares/fantasies I described above. When you, filled with blind hatred, think of a typical loli fan as a monster who lacks ethics and imagines him/herself doing something nasty to children all the time - you the one who truly lacks sense of justice.


Also, regardless of how many or few of loli fans are sexually attracted to real children (personally I'm not), it never hurts to learn few facts regarding minor attracted persons:
http://www.b4uact.org/facts.htm


P.S.
I'd like to thank for good posts NeutralDrow (wow, so many well written replies), Imperator_DK, LazyAza, Caliostro, shadow skill, Ragsnstitches, Frungy, Amnestic, TazTheTerrible. I'm sorry, sure I forgot many ^_^;
It's nice to see that vast majority here is against obscenity laws (in their current form in US).

P.P.S
The most recent comments on this topic by Neil Gaiman
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/02/what-today-is.html
and Charles Brownstein / CBLDF
http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/ann_christopher_handley_sentenced_to_six_months_jail_followed_by_supervised/
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000415.shtml

 

[Jima B]

It makes me utterly sick to think that somebody who hasn't (and didn't plan to) hurt anybody can be arrested for something as silly as taking an interest in questionable erotic art in the privacy of his own home.

Really, who was he hurting? It's not as if a real child is present in these images... It's drawn, fictional. It hurts nobody, and he was punished for no reason.

 

[southparkdudez]

so this guy is charged for stuff that japan gives out why dont they just sue japan then charge this guy

 

[Vimbert]

How much do you wanna bet there's gonna be at least one person who shuffles through their manga collection and/or destroys some of it after reading this thread?

...I need to throw some things in the trash for reasons completely unrelated to this thread.

 

[TazTheTerrible]

I thoroughly dislike the "this might be like a gateway drug to real child pornography" argument. For one, even it was, then you should STILL penalize only the actual child pornography distribution and consumption and not the action that aren't criminal or harmful.

For two, that argument holds exactly as much water as "well someone might play violent videogames and realistic shooters for violent catharsis and decide that they might want to move up and try the real thing."

To use that analogy, I don't know about any of you guys, but I play violent videogames exactly because I want to vent my violent impulses in an environment where it doesn't harm any real creatures.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

so this guy is charged for stuff that japan gives out why dont they just sue japan then charge this guy

US law does not apply in Japan. There was no breack of international trade law. Any attempt at a civil action would take place in Japanese courts where there is a clear cultural bias that would essentially make it a waste of time for all parties. There are plenty of reasons why.

Cases like this are, quite simply, an attempt to make an example to serve as a warning to others. The plea the man was offered was 1/30th the maximum possible penalty for the crime he was being charged with - and this if nothing else is telling of just how flimsy the case was. By any account I have seen the man had not broken a law and the prosecution would have simply been forced to appeal to the jury's sense of moral outrage. Since I don't have any knowledge of the court system in question, I don't know what portion of the jury would have to agree. Based off less than a minute of research, it appears that it requires a majority of some sort rather than a unanimous vote, and since there are various articles pertaining to hung juries it would appear that supermajority is required (that is greater than 2/3 of jurors - a simple majority vote never results in a hung jury unless there are an even number of jurors). Simply put, I don't think the prosecution really believed their case could win.

The question therefore becomes why bother pleading guilty in the first place if this seems likely? The trouble is, Iowa is a staunch "red state" and with this voting record comes a tendancy towards conservative "values". Any random jury selection would inherently be weighted against the man when it comes to question of "moral outrage". What's more, the damage of the case had been done irrespective of the outcome. The ordeal was already very public, and in the state in question this would inevitably result in a similar stigma regardless of the verdict. If the end state outcome is already similar and the penalty for being found guilty is severe enough to ensure he would never have a chance to rebuild his shattered life, a plea seems completely reasonable. Still, the entire thing disgusts me. As I said in my first post I may question how he spends his money and I may not want to ever visit his home but none of the articles I have read have led me to believe the man committed a crime.

 

[S_K]

This could go either way to be honest, on the 1 hand he was not effecting anyone else with his private collection, but you could also argue that all art has some grounding in reality and by owning this collection he is promoting bestiality (although lets be honest it's probably more likely furry =P) and child rape.

 

[Hayami]

I thoroughly dislike the "this might be like a gateway drug to real child pornography" argument.

And this argument was already rejected by SC in 2002, a year before PROTECT Act:

The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles' appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (per curiam).

The only problem is the view (apparently shared by the the US Supreme Court) that obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment. But the questions are:

1) Why is the speech A (text, drawing, etc.) not protected at all while speech B is protected only because the primary reason for creation or usage of the speech A is its erotic component? (S)LAPS value(s) of the speech B may be just as questionable and as of the speech B and it may be just as offensive to the average person in a given community, yet it is protected by the full weight of the US Constitution. Why is a speech that is of erotic value not only not especially protected (even though many people "vote" for its value with their wallets & time and there are statistics showing a clear correlation between increasing of access to such a material and decreasing of sex crimes *) ) but even NEGATES such a protection?

2) Let's assume it's always possible to know whether something appeals to the prurient interest and whether it is or is not "patently offensive" before importing a book (I don't think so, but let's assume it's possible). But can a law require from an average person to do a (S)LAPS test (or to know what a (S)LAPS test would show) before importing a book or even just transporting it across state borders? To me it makes no sense whatsoever.

.

*)
I'll just quote configspace's post from ANN since it's the best presentation suited for forums I've come across so far:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/rape-porn-and-criminality-political.php

Source: U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey. The National Crime Victimization Survey. Includes both attempted and completed rapes.

See here [http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=3121] for a specific BoJS report 1992 - 2000 as example. Stats from Bureau of Justice also includes rape not reported to police. Furthermore, "attempted rape" includes non-physical, verbal threats.

Anthony D'Amato of Northwestern University School of Law:

There is, however, one social factor that correlates almost exactly with the rape statistics. The American public is probably not ready to believe it.

My theory is that the sharp rise in access to pornography accounts for the decline in rape. The correlation is inverse: the more pornography, the less rape.

In addition he shows a correlation with rape stats according to internet access by state:

While the nationwide incidence of rape was showing a drastic decline, the incidence of rape in the four states having the least access to the internet showed an actual increase in rape over the same time period. This result was almost too clear and convincing, so to check it I compiled figures for the four states having the most access to the internet.

See his link for figures and analysis, but he shows, aggregate per capita:
Four states with lowest internet access >>> Increase in rape of 53%
Four states with highest internet access >>> Decrease in rape of 27%

And anecdotally, I would also add that the level of "obscenity" rose sharply as well.

D'Amato studied the subject when he served President Nixon's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography:

The Commission concluded that there was no causal relationship between exposure to sexually explicit materials and delinquent or criminal behavior. The President was furious when he learned of the conclusion.

But later,

President Reagan tried the same thing, except unlike his predecessor he packed the Commission with persons who passed his ideological litmus test. (Small wonder that I was not asked to participate.) This time, Reagan's Commission on Pornography reached the approved result: that there does exist a causal relationship between pornography and violent sex crimes.

He examined Reagan's report back in 1990 in this article [http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/A90b-newtruth.pdf] published in the William and Mary Law Review, with summary of flaws citing scientific and social-science studies to the contrary in Pitt U link above. Today we can see:

For if they had been right that exposure to pornography leads to an increase in social violence, then the vast exposure to pornography furnished by the internet would by now have resulted in scores of rapes per day on university campuses, hundreds of rapes daily in every town, and thousands of rapes per day in every city. Instead, the Commissioners were so incredibly wrong that the incidence of rape has actually declined by the astounding rate of 85%.

So, what about Japan?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

[http://img28.imageshack.us/i/rapestatsworld1.png/]

[http://img5.imageshack.us/i/rapestatsworld2.png/]

Normalized per capita (rapes per 1000 persons). If you switch to total rapes reported, all of the more populous countries shift upward as you'd expect, but Japan still ranks very low.

 

[anthony87]

But what I'm saying is that this guy was masturbating to images of people who are not yet ready to think for themselves having sex and I'm not OK with that.

No...he was masturbating to drawings. They're not real people, they will never be capable of "thinking for themselves."

Do you endorse banning all hentai?

No I'm just saying that A guy who is aroused by children doesn't sit right with me.

But he's not getting aroused by children. He's getting aroused by drawings.

Pictures.

Lines of ink and color.

That's not grounds for being sent to jail.

 

[anthony87]

The law has everything to do with why people are defending him.

Fucking hell!

I do not think he should be in jail!

I just don't feel sorry for him!

Except no one actually cares about how you feel about his choice in fapping material. Everyone who has been arguing that this guy shouldn't be facing any jail time and should not have felt the need to plead to anything are doing so because no actual people were involved in the material. Obscenity laws are probably not constitutional since they utilize an arbitrary metric. He has not actually done anything to anyone, his importation of the material has caused no one injury of any kind directly or indirectly. The courts are not there to prosecute "crimethink", nor are they there to humiliate people because some people find their hobbies strange.

Wasn't he actually masturbating to drawings? What the hell is wrong with that?

You posted here saying you shouldn't put this guy in jail because of what the thinks.

And now you're persecuting me because of what I think.

No he is asking you two questions, as far as I can tell those who have replied to your posts don't particularly care about what you think as it relates to Handley's choice in pornography. We are simply explaining why we are defending him. That is not persecution.

Hey! That's exactly what I was gonna tell him.

 

[Ziggy the wolf]

wow thats a load a bull and a side of crackers. now for one thing: yes it is weird and different and if this were Australia then yes i can understand but if the kid dicking only occurs in ink and paper then the law shouldnt be able to touch him. when he starts fondling little kids then get the plea bargains set up but until then i would be setting up appeals like a mad man

 

[Hayami]

Cases like this are, quite simply, an attempt to make an example to serve as a warning to others. The plea the man was offered was 1/30th the maximum possible penalty for the crime he was being charged with - and this if nothing else is telling of just how flimsy the case was.

Yes, certainly they won. Whether it's a win for children - I'm sure it's rather a loss for them (considering the correlation mentioned in my last post).

The more people fear to view this content even just to inform themselves, the easier it is to demonize the medium and instigate public outrage.

By any account I have seen the man had not broken a law and the prosecution would have simply been forced to appeal to the jury's sense of moral outrage. Since I don't have any knowledge of the court system in question, I don't know what portion of the jury would have to agree. Based off less than a minute of research, it appears that it requires a majority of some sort rather than a unanimous vote, and since there are various articles pertaining to hung juries it would appear that supermajority is required (that is greater than 2/3 of jurors - a simple majority vote never results in a hung jury unless there are an even number of jurors). Simply put, I don't think the prosecution really believed their case could win.

Perhaps you're right, but I guess especially considering the state, Therumancer's advice was the best: waive the jury.

What's more, the damage of the case had been done irrespective of the outcome. The ordeal was already very public, and in the state in question this would inevitably result in a similar stigma regardless of the verdict. If the end state outcome is already similar and the penalty for being found guilty is severe enough to ensure he would never have a chance to rebuild his shattered life, a plea seems completely reasonable.

But isn't the bigger part of the damage (the damage to his image in the state) is already done?
Sure if he decided to fight up to the highest court in the country, much more people would know about his "crime". But if I was him, I'd tell my employer and my landlord about my past either way rather than live in fear of losing my job and my apartment if they find it out accidentally or someone tells them - especially in the age of the internet.
The fact that he admitted his guilt and said that the drawings he bought were clearly "obscene" is not necessary a good sign for everyone. Some people surely will appreciate it and pat him on the head, but for others it will be just a proof that there must have been something truly terrible in his collection. And don't forget the people who either don't consider any kind of erotic manga a bad thing as well as these who don't like it yet don't consider transporting erotic manga across state borders a crime. People from the latter groups would have respected him more and possibly even helped him if he decided to fight.

Personally I'd choose to fight no matter how dire the chances are to win this battle. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. But it may also have something to do with the fact that I don't value even my life too highly.

In fact, if I lived in US I'd seriously consider contacting Neil Gaiman, Charles Brownstein or someone from ACLU or a similar organization about creating a test case of myself. I'd check which manga would be the best to use and whether it would make a difference if I intently imported imported such manga to challenge the law I consider unconstitutional or it would be better to start this fight by claiming that the law may be OK but the manga I imported does have serious artistic value.

If everyone just talks in the anonymity of internet forums, if everyone values their own safety higher than ideals of freedom... I wonder if the thought that everyone else is just as apathetic is a comforting enough...

Unfortunately in my country there is no Supreme Court like in US that would make a decision such as quoted above (in ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION) and no pro-freedom organizations like CBLDF and ACLU. And it seems possession and import (if not for distribution) of loli manga is not even illegal here anyway according to the common interpretation (though the law is rather muddy).

 

[Hayami]

I really think that Americans are some of the nicest people ever. But as much as they love to lecture the world on "freedom", they never seemed to have gotten the concept right.

And who did? The British? The French? Canadians? Australians? Germans? Russians? Chinese? Danes? Brazilians?

You still have better chances to win a fight for freedom in US compared to the most other countries, and even compared to the most other Western countries.

 

[uncle-ellis]

But what I'm saying is that this guy was masturbating to images of people who are not yet ready to think for themselves having sex and I'm not OK with that.

No...he was masturbating to drawings. They're not real people, they will never be capable of "thinking for themselves."

Do you endorse banning all hentai?

No I'm just saying that A guy who is aroused by children doesn't sit right with me.

But he's not getting aroused by children. He's getting aroused by drawings.

Pictures.

Lines of ink and color.

That's not grounds for being sent to jail.

As I have said before, I do not think he should be in jail.

 

[shadow skill]

I really think that Americans are some of the nicest people ever. But as much as they love to lecture the world on "freedom", they never seemed to have gotten the concept right.

And who did? The British? The French? Canadians? Australians? Germans? Russians? Chinese? Danes? Brazilians?

You still have better chances to win a fight for freedom in US compared to the most other countries, and even compared to the most other Western countries.

What Americans posses is the illusion of freedom. Our own politics constantly has our politicians drone on about "freedom" while we have cases like this and judges that make rulings that are self contradictory. Corporate entities that plant people in political events claiming to be ordinary citizens comparing health care proposals to Nazi plots. Telling people in no uncertain terms that they should be happy that the health care industry screws them at every possible turn.

 

[anthony87]

But what I'm saying is that this guy was masturbating to images of people who are not yet ready to think for themselves having sex and I'm not OK with that.

No...he was masturbating to drawings. They're not real people, they will never be capable of "thinking for themselves."

Do you endorse banning all hentai?

No I'm just saying that A guy who is aroused by children doesn't sit right with me.

But he's not getting aroused by children. He's getting aroused by drawings.

Pictures.

Lines of ink and color.

That's not grounds for being sent to jail.

As I have said before, I do not think he should be in jail.

You also said that he was getting aroused by children. Which he isn't.