Manga Translator Appeals Child Pornography Charges

[loa]

Finally, why the hell are people trying to legitimise this stuff?

Because it's punishing thought crimes, that's why.

 

[BX3]

I read this story and all I could think about was what we're gonna do on the bed... pomf.

Also, I laughed pretty hard at the absurdity of a cap from "Bleach" being used as a thumbnail for this. Genius!

She's 12, BTW. I don't think proving that she doesn't exist will be a problem.

OT: I expected this kind of nonsense from the U.S. WTF Sweden?

Actually, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sweden the one place that's a tad touchier on issues like this than us? Whenever things concerning sexuality in media come up, I find it's either us or Sweden house the news story. Or maybe I'm suffering from selective memory... i'unno.

Eh, what I'm saying is, this isn't as surprising as you think.
--------------------------------------------------

captcha: Nip and Tuck

...man, what...?

 

[Yopaz]

IMO many styles of manga seem to depict characters anywhere in the age range of 10 to 30 as virtually identical regarding age related features. Unless the comic comes right out and says the character is a child how could you prove the image is even of a child character?

You know there's an easy way to see if a girl character in a manga/anime is under 13 years old. If her boobs are smaller than a C then she's 12 or younger.

OT: I'm at loss for what to say on this matter. I guess they could find a connection between people who are pedophile and people who like this kind of manga, but wouldn't reading this kind of manga be preferential compared to living out those fantasies?

 

[shintakie10]

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.

Because it is bullshit to say that one depiction of an illegal act is perfectly acceptable while another depiction of an illegal act isn't.

If I browse pictures all day of hardcore guro (I don't cause that shits creepy), have an entire folder on my computer dedicated to just that, and some person reports me for havin them nothin will come of it. I wont be labeled a murderer. I wont be fined. At best I'll be looked at weird. Why? Because a picture born of pure fantasy is not and should not be illegal.

If I have the same situation involvin loli pictures, I can go be labeled as a sex offender.

Other examples. People in the US can make books, very detailed books, about bomb makin or even how to turn someone into a slave despite both acts bein completely illegal. Why is this you ask? Because that is what freedom of speech is. The intent of these people could easily be for people to go out and make bombs or mind fuck someone until they obey your every whim or their intent could be to put information out in the world. You can make an argument for either, but you can't prove one or the other unless they themselves admit to it.

Speakin of intent, your examples are pretty awful in context. The only way you should be able to get convicted of hate speech (which, admittedly, gets abused) is if you specifically target an individual.

 

[Dandark]

This news story....................
Really? REALLY?!?!?

This has got to be one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. I expected it was going to be some over the top reaction to Loli drawings since pedo hunts are the new witch hunts but this is just ridiculous.

Oh well he "COULD" have wanted to attack a child at some point, therefore our closed minds have determined that we should ruin his life because he has different kinks than us and despite no evidence to suggest that he has or planned to attack or molest a child, he "COULD" do it!?!?

This is just depressing..........

 

[PingoBlack]

Brought to you by the same court system that is trying to jail Julian Asange.

Who needs evidence when you can have assumption of evidence! Just as good!

 

[Therumancer]

Wait, wait, wait.
According to this, that man was guilty until proven otherwise, which goes totally against the law.

"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."

They didn't have any proof that the drawing was based on a real child. It was on him to prove that it's not, instead of them proving that it is.

Don't confuse the US Justice System with the way things are internationally. The burden of proof being on the state, and standards like "beyond a reasonable doubt" are not universal, and even when the terms ARE used, precedent in differant countries has lead to the interpetation used in court being far differant.

One thing that Americans, mostly liberals, who complain about the limits on our freedom and how much of a "police state" this country is do not get is exactly how loose the law is here even compared to other first world nations. Indeed some people from other countries even laugh at the US due to how tied the hands of the police are, and how "sue crazy" Americans have so much power within the law, especially when it comes to exploiting civil law and sometimes even pitting it directly against the criminal justice system.

I do not know much about Swedish law (mostly US law, and a bit about UK, and Canadian law in certain areas from back when I had to study it), but in practice the standards are probably a bit differant from the US. Indeed in most countries, the burden of proof is on the accused.

Oh. and one reason Americans aren't always well liked is because of our belief that American criminal standards apply everywhere, which affects behavior and treatment of law enforcement. The US Embassasies being so willing to defend US citizens (and backed by such a powerful country) also influances this as Americans have a tendency to stomp all over a lot of laws, especially in Europe.

Without knowing the exact standards constituting illegal pornography in Sweden, the rules of evidence, and what standards of proof are needed, this is impossible for me to comment on. Given that the Swedish courts seem to be getting involved in a lot of "Intellectual Properties" type stuff recently, ranging from this kind of pornography trial, to piracy, I'm lead to believe that it's a bit of a mess compared to other nations. I think a lot of cases of this sort are happening in Sweden to help establish international precedent as it's a friendly enviroment to those making the accusations. I wonder how much this ruling will matter throughout Europe as precedent for setting standards if it goes through for example, and how viable the case is there, compared to say if someone in France, Germany, or The UK tried to bring the same thing to trial.

Most of this is just speculation on my part (as far as motives and such).

At any rate, apologies if your from Sweden and the standard is the same as the US, but from the way this sounds, that isn't how their system works in practice.

As far as the case itself goes, all I can say is "meh". To be honest I think chasing guys with pervy comic books around is stupid. Mostly this kind of thing seems to happen because the authorities want to be seen to be doing something, but to actually make a differance in stopping kiddie porn would involved going to war against entire nations and cultures that have standards that allow for it... either legally, or in practice (by not enforcing their own laws). You talk about invading Thailand or Malaysia and other hotbeds of this kind of thing that act as major markets for the trade of sex slaves and producing and distributing child porn and such, and say killing a couple hundred million people to demolish the cultures (which is what it would take) and people will think your insane. Instead the authorities prove they care by going after manga translators. After all they have this guy in their back yard, as opposed to say a kiddie porn server operating legally in Thailand that is simply re-routed around their blocks, and would take an army (or an A-bomb or three) to stop because the authorities down there really just don't care.

My sole concern about this is that it's not the first case of it's kind, and I've increasingly begun to wonder what the legal fallout is going to be. Tons of comics are full of T&A and innuendo being aimed at teens. If they are going after Manga, how long is it going to be before someone decides to freak out over say old issues of Gen-13, Cloak and Dagger (especially early on, Tandy's costume was pretty over the top, especially considering her age), or the Marvel swimsuit collections (lol). Once you start applying this to comics, where DOES the line get drawn? Does some of the old artwork of Kitty Pryde meant to get a teenage readership thinking in a certain direction, deserve to be nailed as kiddy porn? At which point does a suggestive drawing of an "underage" character become illegal? I dread these questions and what it might mean for some of the things that remain in my comic collection.

 

[Neonit]

see, i live in netherlands, we have a pedophile association here. no, i shit you not, they even have a clubhouse as far as i know. and its 100% legal! iirc they even were going for elections!

so excuse me when i say that persecuting people because of drawings is a bit silly.
people tend to forget that laws are in place not because they are laws, but because they serve purpose - to protect children from being hurt. no one gets hurt from a drawing....

 

[JediMB]

Director, John McTiernan, could have perfected Die Hard's gritty, yet realistic, action scenes by mercilessly gunning down hobos as research - yet the Swedish police force have yet to arrest Bruce Willis as an accessory to murder.

More or less my thoughts on the subject. They'd have to prove that real photos were used in the production of the drawings to have a case.

Which I dare say doesn't happen with "manga", due to the usually very stylized natures of the drawings.

Unlike certain American comics:

"These are not real people," said University of Gävle comics researcher, Johan Höjer, during the initial trial. "The prosecution has a tendency to view these drawings as camouflaged photos, but these are animated fantasies."

Oh, hey, someone else in my hometown who understands the distinction between fiction and reality!

 

[JediMB]

Glad I don't live in Sweden, such a progressive place where owning cartoon pictures is a crime and "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.

There's a reason why this has garnered so much attention in Sweden. It's far from the norm of things, as we're traditionally rather liberal when it comes to nudity.

To be blunt, it's something I'd expect from the US rather than Sweden.

 

[Maxxn]

Hi everyone, a long-time lurker coming in here in order to clarify some things about this topic as an actual Swedish citizen and one that is interested in this particular use of Sweden's laws. Analysis time; wall of text incoming.

The first thing that many of you get wrong here, is that child pornography needs to have a concrete victim in order to be a crime. In Sweden, this is not the case. Instead child pornography (as in, looking at these pictures and/or distributing them) is a crime against society and its values (not sure how to translate it, Societal order I think would be the closest) and is as such something that is considered a crime even if a specific victim cannot be shown (think along the lines of hate speech, a crime that does not have always have a specific victim, but is illegal nonetheless). Child pornography is not a sex-crime in Sweden (I don't know how it is in other countries, but it needs to be emphasized), however sexual assault and/or actually taking pictures of the child during such actions is. In this scenario with Simon Lundström, it is indeed a victimless crime, but the law in Sweden sees it as a crime against the society itself, something so unacceptable that it does not matter if an actual victim (in this case, portrayed real children) can be found. It IS legal, however, to draw these pictures yourself, as long as they are not meant to be shown or distributed to anyone else.

Another thing to bear in mind, is the fact that Swedish law does not differentiate between real and not-real characters when it comes to this law, and (I think) follows some kind of guideline when deciding whether a character is underage or not (something to do with chest size, body form and amount of pubic hair, if I remember correctly). Basically, the law says that the character portrayed in pornographic situations needs to be over 18 and have undergone ?a full cycle of puberty?(my trans.) In effect, this means that characters under 18, but look older, are safe UNLESS their age is detailed (remember the Dead or Alive game on 3ds? It didn't get to Sweden because fear of Kasumi, who is under 18 in the game and could be considered to be in ?pornographic? situations in the photo-shoot portion of the game. No precedent has been set, the game is not officially illegal, but fear of the implications of it being related to child pornography was enough to not sell it here). Characters that look younger than 18 but are older, are never legal here, because of the way the law is constructed. A vampire who is hundreds of years old but looks like a 7-12 year-old(Look up the Negima character Evangeline)? Illegal in Sweden in pornographic situations. The same goes with all characters that does not meet both criteria of being 18 years old and have gone through puberty.

The devil is, of course, in the details. How about a female character who happens to have small breasts and have shaved her pubic hair? What about a male character who happens to have little body-hair and a small frame? No one really knows, since no precedent has been set. The problem also lies in the fact that since looking at these pictures is illegal, no one outside the court was allowed to see the offending pictures (except for in one particular place in Stockholm, under police observation, I believe), which many saw as rather shady. Since the law is so vaguely worded, it causes fear as to what is considered illegal and what is not, particularly in the world of drawn characters, where ages and body types can vary extremely depending on the style and the artist. People have drawn conclusions that Love Hina (a rather famous manga here) is illegal in Sweden because of the vague words used (this is probably not true, but remember that it is up to the courts to actually say whether a picture is ?pornographic? (as opposed to sexual, which is okay if it has ?artistic values? (my trans.). The movie Lolita? Probably okay (but again, it has not been proven. This is my interpretation of the law, and the fact that there IS interpretation involved is my biggest issue with it).
The fact that the law equals drawn characters with actual children as well as it being very vague are the biggest flaws of it. That combined with the societal fear of being associated with even speaking about child pornography in Sweden means that the issue is not really brought up by the people that should discuss it, and the show goes on, ridiculous though it may be.

 

[RaNDM G]

Spoiler: -snip-

Hi everyone, a long-time lurker coming in here in order to clarify some things about this topic as an actual Swedish citizen and one that is interested in this particular use of Sweden's laws. Analysis time; wall of text incoming.

The first thing that many of you get wrong here, is that child pornography needs to have a concrete victim in order to be a crime. In Sweden, this is not the case. Instead child pornography (as in, looking at these pictures and/or distributing them) is a crime against society and its values (not sure how to translate it, Societal order I think would be the closest) and is as such something that is considered a crime even if a specific victim cannot be shown (think along the lines of hate speech, a crime that does not have always have a specific victim, but is illegal nonetheless). Child pornography is not a sex-crime in Sweden (I don't know how it is in other countries, but it needs to be emphasized), however sexual assault and/or actually taking pictures of the child during such actions is. In this scenario with Simon Lundström, it is indeed a victimless crime, but the law in Sweden sees it as a crime against the society itself, something so unacceptable that it does not matter if an actual victim (in this case, portrayed real children) can be found. It IS legal, however, to draw these pictures yourself, as long as they are not meant to be shown or distributed to anyone else.

Another thing to bear in mind, is the fact that Swedish law does not differentiate between real and not-real characters when it comes to this law, and (I think) follows some kind of guideline when deciding whether a character is underage or not (something to do with chest size, body form and amount of pubic hair, if I remember correctly). Basically, the law says that the character portrayed in pornographic situations needs to be over 18 and have undergone ?a full cycle of puberty?(my trans.) In effect, this means that characters under 18, but look older, are safe UNLESS their age is detailed (remember the Dead or Alive game on 3ds? It didn't get to Sweden because fear of Kasumi, who is under 18 in the game and could be considered to be in ?pornographic? situations in the photo-shoot portion of the game. No precedent has been set, the game is not officially illegal, but fear of the implications of it being related to child pornography was enough to not sell it here). Characters that look younger than 18 but are older, are never legal here, because of the way the law is constructed. A vampire who is hundreds of years old but looks like a 7-12 year-old(Look up the Negima character Evangeline)? Illegal in Sweden in pornographic situations. The same goes with all characters that does not meet both criteria of being 18 years old and have gone through puberty.

The devil is, of course, in the details. How about a female character who happens to have small breasts and have shaved her pubic hair? What about a male character who happens to have little body-hair and a small frame? No one really knows, since no precedent has been set. The problem also lies in the fact that since looking at these pictures is illegal, no one outside the court was allowed to see the offending pictures (except for in one particular place in Stockholm, under police observation, I believe), which many saw as rather shady. Since the law is so vaguely worded, it causes fear as to what is considered illegal and what is not, particularly in the world of drawn characters, where ages and body types can vary extremely depending on the style and the artist. People have drawn conclusions that Love Hina (a rather famous manga here) is illegal in Sweden because of the vague words used (this is probably not true, but remember that it is up to the courts to actually say whether a picture is ?pornographic? (as opposed to sexual, which is okay if it has ?artistic values? (my trans.). The movie Lolita? Probably okay (but again, it has not been proven. This is my interpretation of the law, and the fact that there IS interpretation involved is my biggest issue with it).
The fact that the law equals drawn characters with actual children as well as it being very vague are the biggest flaws of it. That combined with the societal fear of being associated with even speaking about child pornography in Sweden means that the issue is not really brought up by the people that should discuss it, and the show goes on, ridiculous though it may be.

Well, I suppose that settles it then. Thanks for clearing that up Maxxn.

I suppose this is being treated less as a felony and more as disorderly conduct. This still does not settle right with me though. If Lundström was paid professionally to translate the offending manga, then I still believe the company who hired him should be at fault as well for providing said offending material. Why only go after him?

That stuff about not allowing the jury to see the offending pictures seems kinda shady too. Isn't that considered withholding evidence?

 

[Maxxn]

-SNIP-

Thanks for some of the clarification. So he's basically being charged with what would be the equivalent of an obscenity charge in the States?

I get that people want to protect the children, I'm one of those people that are against the exploitation of children, however, it seems that the vagueness of a law has once again bitten someone in their ass.

It does seem a bit silly to charge someone whose profession is that of a Manga Expert with these charges.

EDIT: I would presume it to be like an obscenity charge, I am not very well versed with US legislation though, so I can't be certain.

The law is indeed vague, and the fear and stigma associated with the actual crime is so huge in Sweden that most people would rather avoid talking about it altogether than actually adress it. Any government that actually tries to change it would, in the public eye, be "making it easier for the pedophiles".

Regarding whether or not to charge this person in particular, well.. The law as it is now couldn't have done it in any other way. The problem isn't so much that the law exists as much as how they thought it to be a good idea to incorporate all drawn pictures that could be perceived as humans, no matter how much the style gave it away as a fictional work.

The interesting bit is that children in sexual situations are still allowed in written media... The question is whether that will be censored too, or whether the law will be changed to something more sensible.

 

[Maxxn]

Well, I suppose that settles it then. Thanks for clearing that up Maxxn.

I suppose this is being treated less as a felony and more as disorderly conduct. This still does not settle right with me though. If Lundström was paid professionally to translate the offending manga, then I still believe the company who hired him should be at fault as well for providing said offending material. Why only go after him?

That stuff about not allowing the jury to see the offending pictures seems kinda shady too. Isn't that considered withholding evidence?

Lundström's work was not (according to my knowledge, I haven't seen the pictures in person so I don't know if they have any relation to their manga work) providing him with the pictures; they were more along the lines of "research material" for his work as a manga-expert, according to his own words. Actual licensed manga has yet to be part of any court here in Sweden as far as I'm aware. So the company had nothing to do with the pictures themselves, but were very fast in firing him as soon as the charges came. His professional work has nothing to do with children (he's a translator), but like I said, companies does not want to be affiliated with these things, so they fired him.

About the evidence, it was indeed very close to be withholding evidence; the problem was mostly (according to the courts) how to actually show the pictures without committing a crime themselves for doing so. So they did something else: Told people that if you wanted to see the evidence, you need to come to a very specific place, where you will be shown the pictures in a way that makes it impossible for you to copy them or otherwise show them to anyone else. I don't know if this is standard operating procedure for other cases, but that is how they solved it.

 

[shintakie10]

well said and frankly i couldnt of put it better myself.

no matter what the defence is, no matter what people say to legitimise this stuff its still boils down to .. reality check.. DUDE you are portraying kids in a sexual way.

Question. Do you feel the same way when it comes to the fictional portrayal of murder?

 

[Gingernerd]

Another rare example of people having criminal charges put on them despite not owning any child abuse images or having committed any real life sexual offences. We cannot conflate looking at and drawing images with actual immorality.

Simulated child pornography (i.e. Material intended to look realistic and sometimes based off models.) might be bad, especially if it is based off a model, but for your average manga/anime girl..."This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance of characters to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

A big problem with cases like these, is that sometimes the judges wont even look at the "offensive" images.