Manga Translator Appeals Child Pornography Charges

[KillKill]

So if you burn a book, does it count as murder?

What if you steal one, would that be kidnapping on top of theft?

Ha, if you say you don't like a book it's slander. And if you throw it across the room, it's abuse.

and if you buy one it's slavery?

 

[loa]

Although I find the guy's fetish repulsive

What makes you jump to that conclusion?
He's a manga translator you know.
Maybe someone asked him to translate this for them and he was like "yeah, whatever".
It's only 59 pages, that's one or two mangas max out of how many he had in total?
Judging by his profession, I'd venture the guess it has to be quite a lot.

All we know is that he "posesses" those images. And what of it?
Nothing points towards this being "his fetish", actually.

 

[The Lunatic]

There's a good number of reasons why this should be is illegal, they are all more worthy than you wanting to get off to under-age anime characters.

These laws prevent the creation of legal child porn based upon real child abuse. They apply not just to manga but drawings, paintings, whatever else.

The reason for their existence should be obvious, and the benefits should far outweigh the needs of the viewers of this material.

The material being illegal, the fine and the Sex Offender status need to be considered different things.


The material should be illegal, and is, the fine is honestly pretty low considering.

The sex offenders registry should be considered a lot more thoroughly however.

 

[MammothBlade]

What an utter travesty of justice. It's wrong to restrict and ruin peoples' lives for posessing fictional depictions of anything, on a matter of principle. If anything, it's better for paedophiles to have a sexual outlet such as loli rather than the real thing. There ought to be evidence-based government policy which doesn't resort to fear-mongering and stigma. Studies still need to find out the effects of giving paedophiles access to material for sexual gratification. I don't care what anyone faps to, as long as it does not have a serious and high potential to turn them into child molesters or rapists.

 

[MammothBlade]

There's a good number of reasons why this should be illegal, they are all more worthy than you wanting to get off to under-age anime characters.

These laws prevent the creation of legal child porn based upon real child abuse. They apply not just to manga but drawings, paintings, whatever else.

There may be a case for maintaining to ban photorealistic depictions of actual child abuse, but it's hard to prove what is and isn't based on real events with modern photomanipulation and digital animation technology.

The reason for their existence should be obvious, and the benefits should far outweigh the needs of the viewers of this material.

Please explain these obvious reasons. I don't see how prohibiting fictional depictions protects children from molestation. People can just use their imagination of such things. It's an obscenity law, and such things are based on moral objections to the material depicted. I don't think that's a legitimate reason to ban people from looking at whatever content they like.

Art imitates life, and life imitates art; yet people can fantasise about and draw a lot of weird and potentially disturbing things without having any intention to act upon whatever they're depicting in real life.

 

[Duckman]

There's a good number of reasons why this should be is illegal, they are all more worthy than you wanting to get off to under-age anime characters.

List the reasons. I'd love to know what you think constitutes good reason for taking rights away from individuals over something that you don't like and doesn't hurt anybody.

These laws prevent the creation of legal child porn based upon real child abuse. They apply not just to manga but drawings, paintings, whatever else.

Alright, so the law is there to prevent the creation of child porn that is based upon real abuse... That isn't happening here. Nor does it happen in the majority of drawn images. For reasons already stated several times in this thread, this argument is nonsensical.

The reason for their existence should be obvious, and the benefits should far outweigh the needs of the viewers of this material.

That is a dangerous way of thinking, my friend. What are these reasons you speak of, and why do they outweigh individual freedom when there is no victim? Such reasoning is what leads to tyrannical levels of censorship.

 

[Biodeamon]

Why are resources being diverted from protecting real children to prosecuting someone who gets off on fictional children? I may disagree with his preferences, but he's not actually hurting anyone.

Would they rather he use real children?

Yeaaaaah. I'm of the opinion that 'pornography featuring fictional children cause people to become pedophiles/entice children into sexual acts' is about as accurate as 'Call of Duty is a war simulator that trains kids to shoot up their schools'.

I don't think this is really like the "when people play call of duty they get violent" nor "that pornagraphy is a vent" argument. lolicon is just creepy. end of discussion.

You know what I find creepy? People who feel its perfectly acceptable to violate peoples human rights and justify it by sayin they think the other person is creepy or that a part of another person is creepy.

yo dawg i heard you like creepy...ha

 

[Biodeamon]

I don't think this is really like the "when people play call of duty they get violent" nor "that pornagraphy is a vent" argument. lolicon is just creepy. end of discussion.

Yeah.
And you don't legally prosecute people on the grounds of just "being creepy" without actually doing anything to step on someone elses rights.
End of discussion.

actually they do in some countries. oh ho ho!

Read what he said again. They don't do it without violating the rights of others. They may prosecute people for stupid reasons in other countries, but it still violates their rights as human beings. Really should read a comment before you post a response that claims superiority.

i don't claim suppority...

if you know what i mean, ha

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

Why are resources being diverted from protecting real children to prosecuting someone who gets off on fictional children? I may disagree with his preferences, but he's not actually hurting anyone.

Would they rather he use real children?

It's the action of "he or she might commit this crime" based on the lewd material at hand. The same goes for charges against people that smoke weed and never sell it. Take into account the charges that can be filed based on the amount the said person has "intent to distribute a controlled substance", even if you never planed on selling it.

So we're to condemn people for what they might do? That seems a little silly to me.

now you are getting it or to put it bluntly yes. In order for people to feel "safe" the people in charge do this to keep social order in check.

...Wouldn't that apply to everything else morally questionable shown in any form of fiction?

And if that's the case, why isn't every single writer in sweden in prison?

Oh wait, that's right. It's because that makes no sense.

Laws shouldn't be about how "safe" people feel. They should be about how safe people actually are. All this man did was translate some text. I don't fully understand how that makes him a threat to anyone.

Since when did it have to make sense, the thing is they arrested him under the intent of distributing, possessing and having sex exploitation of a minor by their laws due to the drawings at hand. Keep in mind this also falls into our laws as well due to the protect act of 2003 to outlaw virtual child pornography/artwork if not valued by the miller test. He doesn't have to be threat when people have that fear/mindset that some-one is going to hurt/molest their children and people don't want to argue or even debate this issue half the time so that's why these laws are there and keep getting stricter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

 

[Galite]

As disturbing as I find lolicon I don't see how they can convict someone of child porn for translating a manga on the basis of "it could be based on a picture of a real child". Why stop there? Why not convict all artists and film makers who depict someone being brutally murdered? I mean it could be based on a real person after all the sick fucks... right?

 

[Lovely Mixture]

These laws prevent the creation of legal child porn based upon real child abuse.

That's a vague statement. What is "real child abuse?" Historical child abuse that actually occurred, or the child abuse of present day?

They apply not just to manga but drawings, paintings, whatever else.

So anything with the remote hint of child abuse (sexual or otherwise) should be banned?

The reason for their existence should be obvious, and the benefits should far outweigh the needs of the viewers of this material.

That first statement implies that you believe in thought crime. Fantasizing about shit, disgusting as it may be, is not a crime. Unless we live in an ultra totalitarian state.

snip

What are you even arguing now? It's the law, so obey it?

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

These laws prevent the creation of legal child porn based upon real child abuse.

That's a vague statement. What is "real child abuse?" Historical child abuse that actually occurred, or the child abuse of present day?

They apply not just to manga but drawings, paintings, whatever else.

So anything with the remote hint of child abuse (sexual or otherwise) should be banned?

The reason for their existence should be obvious, and the benefits should far outweigh the needs of the viewers of this material.

That first statement implies that you believe in thought crime. Fantasizing about shit, disgusting as it may be, is not a crime. Unless we live in an ultra totalitarian state.

snip

What are you even arguing now? It's the law, so obey it?

I didn't say I agreed with the law, I break it myself all the time but downloading copyrighted material and those objectionable Japanese comic books however the penalties I can face are what I just posted. If you want to object the law then sway the thinking of mainstream people who think anime is tentacle rape porn or FPS games are murder simulators. Those are the people that vote, keep people in office that make the laws etc. Unless you are willing to change peoples views on subject material then these debates will continue.

 

[The Lunatic]

The obvious reasons I mentioned,

Somebody has tried it before.

Do you really find it that much of a stretch to think that people would abuse the legal status of this stuff?

People are into child abuse, there's nothing new in this, some of these people are probably into loli as well and some of these create images based on this.

Image manipulations, drawings based on, at what stage do you put a line at "This is child porn" and "This is fine, it's just a drawing".

So, yes, the grey areas have to be covered. The law has to be vague because the subject is vague. It has to be this way to prevent weaknesses and exploits.

That's basically the only reason the law exists. Nobody forced this guy to possess the material, it's illegality is clear to anyone with the internet.

And what's the downside of this law? Some people on the internet can't jack off to a certain material without the low risk of being caught?

Guys, listen, I appreciate people have needs, but really?

You want to remove a law that prevents legal porn based upon the abuse of children so that you (Or other people.) can get off to images you found in the internet?

No, it's not "Hurr, thought crime", there's no law against thinking about it, don't be ridiculous. It's simply a case where the benefits are fewer than the abuses.

He committed a crime, that's the law. It's there for a reason.

I know we all like to think we know better, but, the law has been established years ago by people much more knowledgeable on the situation than anyone here. And if you think about the potential implications of not having it, you'll see why it stands.

 

[Duckman]

The obvious reasons I mentioned,

Somebody has tried it before.

Do you really find it that much of a stretch to think that people would abuse the legal status of this stuff?

People are into child abuse, there's nothing new in this, some of these people are probably into loli as well and some of these create images based on this.

Image manipulations, drawings based on, at what stage do you put a line at "This is child porn" and "This is fine, it's just a drawing".

So, yes, the grey areas have to be covered. The law has to be vague because the subject is vague. It has to be this way to prevent weaknesses and exploits.

That's basically the only reason the law exists. Nobody forced this guy to possess the material, it's illegality is clear to anyone with the internet.

And what's the downside of this law? Some people on the internet can't jack off to a certain material without the low risk of being caught?

Guys, listen, I appreciate people have needs, but really?

You want to remove a law that prevents legal porn based upon the abuse of children so that you (Or other people.) can get off to images you found in the internet?

No, it's not "Hurr, thought crime", there's no law against thinking about it, don't be ridiculous. It's simply a case where the benefits are fewer than the abuses.

He committed a crime, that's the law. It's there for a reason.

I know we all like to think we know better, but, the law has been established years ago by people much more knowledgeable on the situation than anyone here. And if you think about the potential implications of not having it, you'll see why it stands.

Boy does this have a lot wrong with it. Let me give a whack at listing the ways.

First of all, you didn't list any "obvious reasons" aside from saying that people will "abuse it". You can abuse cheeseburgers too, you know. I don't see anybody breaking down the doors at Burger King and arresting the fry cook. A silly analogy, I know, but your argument is equally silly.

As far as the law having to be vague in order to cover the grey areas, this is the opposite of true. Grey areas of a subject matter need to be defined properly in order for a fair ruling to be made. And they are often made on moral grounds, which brings me to my next point.

The laws were made by people with more knowledge on the subject... Seriously? That's the best you've got is "Well, they're in charge so they must know best!" Not exactly sound argument here... An argument should never be judged off the prestige of the one making the argument. It should be judged on the merits of the points made. As far as the lawmakers go, their worries tend to dwell less on public safety, and more on re-election. It isn't their fault entirely, it's how the system works. But you can't simply accept everything that comes out.

Lastly, the consequences are a tad more than you give credit. The problem here is one of censorship. In certain context, censorship is entirely appropriate. There are plenty of obscene things in this world that shouldn't be broadcasted to everyone. However, there needs to be a line. And the line should (as with any subject) be drawn at the point at which there are victims. You inhibit on others' rights, then you've done wrong. Basic, logical morality, if you're one to back such a thing.

I'm sure I won't be alone in things said about this, so I'll end my rant with this. Don't be so quick to write off the rights of others. When it happens to you, there may not be anybody to fight for your rights.

 

[lapan]

Image manipulations, drawings based on, at what stage do you put a line at "This is child porn" and "This is fine, it's just a drawing".

So, yes, the grey areas have to be covered. The law has to be vague because the subject is vague. It has to be this way to prevent weaknesses and exploits.

Photorealistic drawings or image manipulations have to stay banned, that much i can agree on. However, manga drawing style is far from that. You really want to ban them on the basis of: "This plot could have maybe been inspired by real events"? What about "normal" rape hentai?

Removing a sexual release for pedos that doesnt hurt anyone could even drive them to worse acts, since they see little way to release their sexuality on legal ways.

He committed a crime, that's the law. It's there for a reason.

Laws can be far from perfect.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Why are resources being diverted from protecting real children to prosecuting someone who gets off on fictional children? I may disagree with his preferences, but he's not actually hurting anyone.

Would they rather he use real children?

It's the action of "he or she might commit this crime" based on the lewd material at hand. The same goes for charges against people that smoke weed and never sell it. Take into account the charges that can be filed based on the amount the said person has "intent to distribute a controlled substance", even if you never planed on selling it.

So we're to condemn people for what they might do? That seems a little silly to me.

now you are getting it or to put it bluntly yes. In order for people to feel "safe" the people in charge do this to keep social order in check.

...Wouldn't that apply to everything else morally questionable shown in any form of fiction?

And if that's the case, why isn't every single writer in sweden in prison?

Oh wait, that's right. It's because that makes no sense.

Laws shouldn't be about how "safe" people feel. They should be about how safe people actually are. All this man did was translate some text. I don't fully understand how that makes him a threat to anyone.

Since when did it have to make sense, the thing is they arrested him under the intent of distributing, possessing and having sex exploitation of a minor by their laws due to the drawings at hand. Keep in mind this also falls into our laws as well due to the protect act of 2003 to outlaw virtual child pornography/artwork if not valued by the miller test. He doesn't have to be threat when people have that fear/mindset that some-one is going to hurt/molest their children and people don't want to argue or even debate this issue half the time so that's why these laws are there and keep getting stricter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

I'm not questioning the illegality of his actions i'm questioning the logic and morality of the law. And a law that limits freedom of speech for the purpouse of giving people some strange false sense of comfort and safety is neither morally or logically correct. He needs to have done something directly harmful to someone (or himself) for it to be either.

I'm confused here, do you agree with the law? And if not what's the point of this argument?

And "our" laws? I'm not from the united states, I'm from Finland. And the miller test is idiotic.

 

[Brett Bowling]

Yeah and Darth Vader should have to pay child support, that leather clad deadbeat.

 

[Nikolaz72]

How are they the same thing? No actual children are harmed or being exploited in the making of these drawings.

I explained that in my last post. Looking at drawn child porn pictures keeps a sexual preference for children alive and active, and this increases the chances of child abuse occuring.

Also, not acting against it obviously has a normalising effect. If sexual pleasure from ideas of child abuse is considered normal as long as it's not actual pictures, then why wouldn't child abuse be so bad as we regard it now?

The harm being done isn't just directly, and also the indirect forms require to fought. And let's realise something else for a moment: No normal person wants that drawn child porn, so nobody who doesn't deserve is going to be affected by such a ban.


As for that translator, well, he works on child porn and doesn't realise there could be trouble? That's like throwing bricks through people's windows and then complaining that you had no idea it was illegal when getting caught.

Actually. I would say its the opposite, giving pedophiles sexual release without having to do it to 'actual' minors decreases the chances of child abuse occuring.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Do you really find it that much of a stretch to think that people would abuse the legal status of this stuff?

What abuses? And if it's legal, people will "abuse" it as much as they abuse anything else that is legal. You know, just like they do now.

So, yes, the grey areas have to be covered. The law has to be vague because the subject is vague. It has to be this way to prevent weaknesses and exploits.

Vague interpretation of law is the very opposite of what constitutes as beneficial.

You want to remove a law that prevents legal porn based upon the abuse of children so that you (Or other people.) can get off to images you found in the internet?

No, it's not "Hurr, thought crime", there's no law against thinking about it, don't be ridiculous. It's simply a case where the benefits are fewer than the abuses.

Again what "abuses" ?
And none of us are really talking about removing a law, we are talking about the removal of the idea that drawn erotic material constitutes as a real person.

I know we all like to think we know better, but, the law has been established years ago by people much more knowledgeable on the situation than anyone here.

Wow. I really hope you don't believe that. What would you have said to miscegenation laws? What about Jim Crow laws? What about Apartheid? What about laws against teaching evolution? Were the people behind these laws "more knowledgeable" ? No, they were based on bigotry and paranoia.

And if you think about the potential implications of not having it, you'll see why it stands.

I don't. All I see is less of these court cases, and thank god.