Manga Translator Appeals Child Pornography Charges

[Storm Dragon]

Come on Sweden, you used to be cool.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

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.

The problem has never been the actual viewing of child porn, but instead it's creation in which innocent children were abused.

In this case, no real children have been abused and should therefore be considered nothing more than a harmless sexual deviancy.

There has been a similar ruling here in the States were a man was cleared of 5 of his 147 charges of possessing child pornography because all he did was view them and not anything to store them.

Not reall to the point, but somewhat relevant.

 

[repeating integers]

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.

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.

Thing is, prosecuting people for getting off to fictional kids portrayed in a sexual way is still essentially thought crime.

I maintain that no matter how deranged and disgusting it seems, so long as it remains a fantasy, it should not be punished.

When looking at a subject we dislike (or downright loathe in the case of some people here). It is important to look at it and question who is getting hurt here.

Are kids getting hurt from him having the images? No, because they were drawn by somebody for the expressed reason of exploring a fantasy. Fantasy is an important word, by the way. Definitely keep it in mind.

Now, with the way things are, does the law hurt people? Well, I think it's quite obvious with this story that, yes. Yes it does hurt people. But why is that? How could a law intended to protect children also hurt people?

That's because when a law is made, rights need to be taken into consideration. And unfortunately for many non-americans, Freedom of Speech is not always an assured right. In most places (Not sure about Sweden, but I'll get to that in a minutes) Free Speech is less of an established right and more of an implied one.

Now why does this apply? Well, let's assume that Sweden does in fact have established free speech. Well, oftentimes, laws are voted on, and use scare tactics in order to pass. This is done while ignoring parts of the law that limit the rights of citizens. In this case, it removes their right to have drawings of children in pornographic situations.

Practices like this are dangerous, and do happen everywhere, and do tend to take different forms. The problem here is that new laws will continue to be made. And they will build off of what is already here. And if we lay a foundation where the rights of citizens are thrown aside at the first sign of something we don't like... It just gets worse from here.

It's fine not to like this stuff. And it's fine to like it too. It wouldn't exist if there weren't a place for it. The trick is in letting perverts be perverts as long as they keep their fantasies to themselves. Most people do.

Dunno why you're quoting me, mate, I agree completely. You can't make it illegal to enjoy something.

 

[Urameshi13]

In my experiences, most lolicons are harmless. People into lolicon H, though, little bit different.

It comes down to just not letting them around my nieces vs. putting two in their dome.

 

[JLML]

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?

Whilst I do not know more precisely, I remember from the news report when this law first came into action that images from Dragon Ball are amongst those counted. Remember early in the manga, when Yamcha was first introduced? There's an image of Bulma taking a shower. Or any of the situations with young Goku where he's naked. THAT is what they count as child pornography, according to this. Hope that helped to clarify. ^^

OT: Things like these make me ashamed of being from Sweden. Actually, a lot of things do. Actually, I'm kind of thinking of renouncing my citizenship. Actually, I wish I could be counted as 'Not Belonging to the Human Race' or something. That way I would in no way be part of all the stupidity we display on a daily basis.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

"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.

Isn't this the same show with graphic (non-sexual) torture being inflicted on said Lolis?

I remembered watching it as a series but was confuses, as the world seemed to reset itself after every couple of episodes.

Edit: Pull.... What? There does not seem to be anything to pull.

 

[DasDestroyer]

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.

For starters any kind of sexually explicit images are forbidden on the escapist, not just child porn.
Second, we already know that most officials think of drawings of CP to be the same thing, this whole thread is directed at how ridiculous that position is. The entire reason why CP is illegal is to protect children. If no children are being harmed, who are you protecting?

And the whole "will make child rape socially acceptable" argument is a slippery slope. It could just as easily cause child molesters to use images of fake children to get their "fix" instead of going out and raping a kid.

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.

So every movie that has a murder in it is a murder and everyone who is in possession of such a movie should be charged as such? Like you said, it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck so it must be a duck.

 

[Duckman]

Dunno why you're quoting me, mate, I agree completely. You can't make it illegal to enjoy something.

Hit the wrong quote button. My mistake.

 

[Dresos]

I don't know if it's the same case that I read about in a local newspaper, but if it is the same case then the images that were in his possession were images from Dragon Ball.

 

[Hazzard]

J.R.R Martin had better run for cover then, since there is something very close to an under-age sex scene in book 3.

 

[Dinasis]

Going to fall in with most of the opinions I've read so far and say that I don't like the subject matter, but I don't think it should be illegal because, after all, who is being harmed by fictional characters in a fictional setting (or rendition of a real place)? Translating and distributing the stuff, in my opinion, is a different matter entirely that, legally, is more easily determinable. Where this really gets to me is the whole push for human rights to be applied to fictional characters.

There was a controversy a while ago with the Red Cross (on one level or another) suggesting that the violence in Call of Duty violates the Geneva Convention. I've seen articles about women's rights organizations in Japan pushing for human rights to be applied to characters in games, manga, animation, and literature.

Say you want to protect real people, real children, and real victims all you want, but do we really come out ahead as a society by stifling creative freedom so, as an extreme example, a character can't be kidnapped, enslaved, raped, murdered, etc. as a part of their background--let alone having it happen on a page--because to do so would violate their human rights? Think about what those sorts of limitations would do to comics, to literature, probably to movies. Welcome to Fahrenheit 514 and The Giver, anyone?

 

[evilneko]

Isn't this the same show with graphic (non-sexual) torture being inflicted on said Lolis?

I remembered watching it as a series but was confuses, as the world seemed to reset itself after every couple of episodes.

Edit: Pull.... What? There does not seem to be anything to pull.

Yes. That's all explained in the second season.

And look at Rika's swimsuit.

 

[Zefar]

This isn't exactly common in Sweden and in fact it's pretty damn rare. It's one of the very few times I've seen this happen.

There is still this where people who are generally within the court and such are most likely older types. Who are VERY protective or VERY strict. In their eyes this lolicon guy would be as bad as a murderer.

I'm also quite sure these people are behind the times as well. Not to mention no one has been bothered to go through the rules and such in quite some time. If they did they surely are keeping it secretly.

I think we still have a rule where it says you're allowed to kill people with a crossbow on Sundays or something. It was something stupid at least.

 

[Gatx]

Actually "lolicon" is a noun, at least as far as I've seen it used. You would describe someone as a lolicon the same way you would use a -phile word, like, say, "bibliophile" (you thought I was going to use the other one didn't you?). There's "shotacon" for young boys (target audience is women so don't go having misconceptions), and "brocon" and "siscon" which is what they sound like.

Also who is Magritte? He/She isn't mentioned until the sentence: "The Swedish courts are still struggling with the question of whether or not lines on paper technically count as children - evidently they don't agree with Magritte's view on the matter - but Trost's argument is ridiculous."

Anyway, stupid public, poor victim, hope he gets off free and the situation doesn't have any lingering after effects on his life.

 

[Vinterdraken]

- but Trost's argument is ridiculous. 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.
[/B]

Its actually even dumber then that. This is like arresting the guy who wrote the subtitles to Die Hard if Bruce Willis had actually gunned down people to practice for the role.

 

[anaphysik]

Also who is Magritte? He/She isn't mentioned until the sentence: "The Swedish courts are still struggling with the question of whether or not lines on paper technically count as children - evidently they don't agree with Magritte's view on the matter - but Trost's argument is ridiculous."

Magritte [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte], creator of the painting used as the article image. The Treachery of Images [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images] is a simple reminder of the difference between object and image. Microscopists know this well.

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.

Wait... people can actually own books? SLAVERY!

 

[Robert Ewing]

Great, his entire life ruined because he was translating a loli manga. He will be forever labelled as a sex offender for doing his job. For god sake Sweden, you're supposed to be an ascended god tier country! Act like one! ¬¬