Manga Translator Appeals Child Pornography Charges

[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.

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[NiPah]

Oh so this explains why the Muslims were so angry at Lars Vilks for the Mohammad cartoons, since the Sweds think cartoons are actually people they were actually depicting him!
Well thank god for this case then, anyone who owns or draws religiously inflaming images might be a terrorist since we do not know if the bomb used in the image might have been drawn from a real bomb!

 

[rayen020]

okay aren't they prosecuting the worng person? He has loli manga believing it was just drawings from an artist imagination. It could be a drawing of a real person, but he doesn't know that, and (as far as we know) wasn't using it in a sexual manner. This is like prosecuting a chef for serving human meat, when he pulled it from a box labeled "BEEF STEAKS".

 

[Duckman]

The problem with the "Could have been" argument is that it is impossible to defend yourself against, since a hypothetical situation is not burdened by proof. So not only is the argument stupid, but it simply reeks of desperation.

As for the subject of lolicon being child porn... Again, that's stupid. Like it or hate it, there is a place for it. If Lolicon didn't have a demand, there wouldn't be a supply. And that isn't a bad thing. The Japanese tend to treat sex with a sort of accepted shame. While they won't publicly address their individual kinks, they do recognize the need to relieve the pent up urges. That's why you have so much raunchy porn coming out of the land of the rising sun. It doesn't hurt anybody, and it gives those with unusual tastes a chance to indulge in something that they may never have a chance to do otherwise.

And a man is getting charged because he had some... I agree with Professor Farnsworth on this one.

 

[The Wooster]

"Loli," a portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita Complex,"

I apologize for going all Diction Nazi on you, but I'm pretty sure you meant "short for the phrase" or something like that. A portmanteau is a combination of parts of two words to keep the meaning of both. "Lolex" would be a portmanteau of "Lolita Complex," for instance.

You're spot on, actually. Loli is short for Lolicon, which is a portmanteau.

 

[Weaver]

I guess I just don't feel the drawings hurt anyone. If there is actual (and unbiased) studies which are done that indicate these images strongly correlate with actual child abuse, then I believe they should be banned by law. Doing so before these studies is pure conjecture based on pushing an abstract set of morals. I, personally, don't believe this is how law should be passed.

I can clearly see how people (like myself) can find these images objectionable, offensive and obscene. However, this is still not reason to ban the images if there is no clear danger to anyone, or identifiable victim. Much the same way people see violent video games as objectionable, offensive and obscene. Yet, I play them all the time and it hurts no one.

Perhaps not a perfect parallel, but I feel there's a connection.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

The unfortunate thing is who here would be willing to stand up and defend him publicly, no matter how right you believe yourself to be, child porn is such a boogeyman issue, that you just can't seen to be defending anything even vaguely linked to it. It's similar to how I don't even bother bringing facts into it, if a friend of a friend gets onto the subject of immigration, as they're no defence against the nonsense he's been fed by the tabloids.

Over here , a policeman demanded a painting removed from a gallery, as it depicted obscene bestiality. It was a naked woman embracing a swan if I remember correctly, and he's being made out to be an idiot.

How is it 'cherubs' are fine to wave their tiny wangs in people's faces, but if it's a piece of art created by someone living, they must be a pedo? Maybe if these lolicon artists changed their style to 'classic', oil paints on canvas, suddenly it'd be fine?

Sure they're offensive to many, but as above, I don't want to see them banned until there's some solid proof.

There's an interesting piece on obscenity in art, in the famously offensive 'Brass Eye' special on paedophilia, where he brings an expert to an art gallery to decide if various artworks involving children are obscene. Thought it quite relevant

It's at 17 mins in, after the section about US pedo rapper 'JLB8'

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9031532194656768989#

 

[Tony2077]

i don't defend child porn but to go after the manga stuff seems retarded at best

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

A few questions:

Would anyone care to link to these images? Would doing so be considered a breach of posting rules? Would the Escapist receiving unwelcome attention from the FBI for allowing these images to be accessed via this site?

If theses are explicitly sexual images it's porn, and if those depicted are depicted as children then it's child porn.

The prosecution's arguments aren't exactly well thought out, but let's not hide behind technicalities. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck.

Or a picture of a fictional duck.

You sick bastard!

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/thinkoftheducks.png/]

That picture of a duck could be used to entice ducks into quacking and probably used real ducks as models. A photo of a real duck could have been used to make the drawing, although I'm not sure and don't give a fuck because I want a conviction.

 

[evilneko]

"Loli," a portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita Complex,"

I apologize for going all Diction Nazi on you, but I'm pretty sure you meant "short for the phrase" or something like that. A portmanteau is a combination of parts of two words to keep the meaning of both. "Lolex" would be a portmanteau of "Lolita Complex," for instance.

You're spot on, actually. Loli is short for Lolicon, which is a portmanteau.

Again I object. Loli is not short for lolicon. Por ejemplo.

Rika Furude, on the left, is a loli. Keiichi, center, is the lolicon.

Satoko is also a loli, but despite the look of jealousy on her face, she is not a lolicon. A loli can not be a lolicon until she is no longer a loli.

 

[The Wooster]

"Loli," a portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita Complex,"

I apologize for going all Diction Nazi on you, but I'm pretty sure you meant "short for the phrase" or something like that. A portmanteau is a combination of parts of two words to keep the meaning of both. "Lolex" would be a portmanteau of "Lolita Complex," for instance.

You're spot on, actually. Loli is short for Lolicon, which is a portmanteau.

Again I object. Loli is not short for lolicon. Por ejemplo.

Rika Furude, on the left, is a loli. Keiichi, center, is the lolicon.

Satoko is also a loli, but despite the look of jealousy on her face, she is not a lolicon. A loli can not be a lolicon until she is no longer a loli.

...

I think I'm going to bow to your greater wisdom in this matter.

 

[loa]

The prosecution, however, argued that the images could be used to entice children into performing sexual acts, and even went as far as to suggest the artists involved in the work could have used real children as models.

"And even a drawing could be of a real child," said prosecutor, Hedvig Trost. "A photo depicting a real child could have been used to make the drawing. It is hard from the outside to know whether there is an original photo or not."

This actually made me burst out in laughter.
Then I realized he's serious and that someones life actually gets destroyed over this in a country not all that far away from mine because other people actually take that seriously enough for that to happen.
So now I grew 20% more cynical and hateful instead.

Poor is the country in which artists have to fear legal prosecution for something they draw.

Remember "draw muhammed" day?
I feel we need a "draw fisted toddlers" day though that may be a bit harder to pull off due to the subject matter but I feel we need something big that takes the important point of "it's just fucking drawings no matter the subject" and hammers it into even the thickest skull since it seems that is regarded as some sort of "minor detail" sometimes.

This shit needs to burn before it spreads even further.

 

[llubtoille]

It's a fairly concerning topic,
where ones hypothetical hentai collection might net them a life sentence (and social death sentence if / when you get out).
It seems redikky for from a logical standpoint,
If no one has actually been detrimentally effected, then why is someone being punished...
but given that most illegal drugs (in terms of using, not selling) fall into that concept also, and are punished by long stays in a cell,
and as we're not likely to be judged by those who would share this view-point... then it's worrying.

 

[Sixcess]

The prosecution's arguments aren't exactly well thought out, but let's not hide behind technicalities. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck.

This just then, Happy Tree Friends is facing legal trouble for their cruel treatment of animals.

Not the same thing, and unless you're extremely naive you know it's not the same thing.

I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of hardcore lolicon, but lets not pretend that people who enjoy it are child predators.

Then what are they?

As a pure issue of law then this case is dealing with a question that's yet to be settled - a number of countries including the US, UK and Germany are still debating whether or not sexualised portrayals of children are child porn - be they in the form of illustrations, or rendered images, or via 3D avatars in something like Second Life. The prosecution's arguments in this case are nonsensical, but the wider question is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, given how close we are to creating virtual images that are near indistinguishable from the real thing I think it's a question that has to be asked.

Noone is arguing that a drawing of a child in a sexual situation should be viewed on the same level as photos or video of actual child abuse. Badly thought out arguments aside, even the Swedish courts are not arguing this. If they were this guy would be in prison, not dealing with a relatively small fine and his name on a register.

So of course it's not remotely as wrong as the real thing, but that alone doesn't make it right.

Dismissing it as just lines on a piece of paper is not a valid argument. Written words are just a collection of lines on paper as well, but that doesn't stop people being convicted of things like hate speech and holocaust denial. The intent of the lines matters.

Finally, why the hell are people trying to legitimise this stuff? Children should not be viewed in a sexual manner, and anyone who does so bears watching in my opinion, and I don't care how narrow minded that may sound. I consider myself open minded and liberal, but I can certainly live with being seen as intolerent of that.