Manga Translator Appeals Child Pornography Charges

[Duckman]

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.

Thank you sir for saying everything that I came into this thread to say. Just because a real person isn't being abused doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Allowing it to be sanctioned as long as it is victimless means it just slightly more socially acceptable creating a slippery slope that encourages it. Especially with the possibility that making it obtainable may result in possible child grooming.

I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that it is wrong since you yourself just admitted that it is victimless.

Your argument relies on the assumption that people never had the desire to hurt others in the first place. This is not the case. If someone were to hurt a kid, they would do so whether or not lolicon was a thing. Even if you don't accept that having such an outlet may help the situation by offering a safe release for those that might otherwise do wrong, I understand. It is a bit of a stretch to assume that it really does any significant amount of good. But to say it does any significant amount of harm is equally ridiculous for the same reason.

What I'm getting at is that what people do with their spare times isn't anyone else's business as long as they aren't hurting people.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I was hoping I could wait a bit longer before I saw another one of these retarded cases. It's only a matter of time before they ban Nabokov's original Lolita.

I explained that in my last post. Looking at drawn child porn pictures keeps a sexual preference for children alive and active,

I don't even know where to begin with this.

and this increases the chances of child abuse occuring.

So because someone who reads this illustrated work, s/he might get the idea to abuse children? Did people lose all self control or something? As many have said befor, this is the exact same argument as "violent videogames make people violent." People have a choice, it's absolutely ridiculous if a person says "I read it in a book, so it must be ok."

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.

The law should not be invoked on "creepiness." Miscegenation laws were the result of such things.

 

[Gigano]

I harbour no illusion that the Swedish Supreme Court will be able to bring any sense into Swedish Criminal Law on this issue.

In spite of the - scarce and adjacent - indicators legal sociology have suggesting that pornography generally reduces real sex crimes, and common sense saying the same thing, Sweden is extremely paranoid about anything related to "sexual violence", to that point that it being fictional, a complete lack of evidence that it'll ever cause any harm, and massive concerns over artistic freedom of expression, are rendered null and void.

 

[Muspelheim]

Oh, for pete's sake... What the hell? We're supposed to be the -reasonable- types, damnit! D:

Yes, Lolicon is ever so slightly creepy, but... It's ink on paper. Noone, absolutely noone, has been hurt. Dragging him to court over that is nothing but idiotic moralism. Furthermore, wouldn't the Supreme Court have better things to do? Like solving actual crimes?

And futher-flippin-more. If he's going to court over that, why on earth is the person who perpetrated THIS...

http://www.thelocal.se/articleImages/40348.jpg

...not in court as well? *Sigh*...

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Oh, for pete's sake... What the hell? We're supposed to be the -reasonable- types, damnit! D:

Yes, Lolicon is ever so slightly creepy, but... It's ink on paper. Noone, absolutely noone, has been hurt. Dragging him to court over that is nothing but idiotic moralism. Furthermore, wouldn't the Supreme Court have better things to do? Like solving actual crimes?

And futher-flippin-more. If he's going to court over that, why on earth is the person who perpetrated THIS...

http://www.thelocal.se/articleImages/40348.jpg

...not in court as well? *Sigh*...

That cake is going to give me nightmares.

 

[Muspelheim]

That cake is going to give me nightmares.

*Medic-voice* Wait! It getz better!

The head is apparently the artist in make-up, and he is indeed screaming. Would you like the lights on? :3

I harbour no illusion that the Swedish Supreme Court will be able to bring any sense into Swedish Criminal Law on this issue.

In spite of the - scarce and adjacent - indicators legal sociology have suggesting that pornography generally reduces real sex crimes, and common sense saying the same thing, Sweden is extremely paranoid about anything related to "sexual violence", to that point that it being fictional, a complete lack of evidence that it'll ever cause any harm, and massive concerns over artistic freedom of expression, are rendered null and void.

Sadly, true. The paedophilic undertones have pretty much rendered the case fairly set in stone. Noone involved wants to touch either the case, the pictures of the accused with a five meter pole. And if they do side with him, they're likely to be accused for "standing up for them pedo perverts", either by part of the public or by their rivals and peers.

It's rather odd, Sweden is fairly open over sexual issues, but as soon as it reaches this point, the discussion just seems to stop dead in its tracks, and everyone zips it like a right and proper puritan. It's a shame, because this is a problem which needs to be dealt with, reasonably.

It reminds me of something similar. I believe it was the Minister of Justice's idea to specifically mark letters to people on the sex offender registration in some way, I think it was by having them sealed in hot-pink envelopes. Obviously, the idea was to out them to neighbours and the mail without having to sacrifice political integrity and suggesting a public publishment of the list. Of course, I could be wrong, but... It doesn't seem very foreign from this. They don't really want to deal with sexcrimes in any meaningful way, because it's icky and difficult.

 

[Durgiun]

Ye gods, I have commited murder and necrophilia 'cause I once drew a character murdering another and fucking their corpse for shits and giggles. Truly I'm a horrible person, no?

Oh shit, Kentaro Miura should be executed for crimes against humanity then!

 

[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!

 

[Duckman]

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.

 

[Zetatrain]

Indeed in most countries, the burden of proof is on the accused.

In most first world countries? that's BS and you know it. Most if not all first world countries have innocent until proven guilty as the standard. And we don;t find the American system silly because we think the accused should have to prove his innocence, we find it silly because it is so weak it is often abused by sue happy people to sue for foolish things.

Got fat by eating at mcdonalds? Sue.
Spilled coffee on your lap and it was hot? Sue.

that kind of shit.

Why do people bring up the coffee lady like its some bad thing? That coffee was a hundred degrees hotter than it needed to be and caused really horrific burns to the woman. She wasn't suin because she dropped coffee on herself. She was suin because the coffee was so hot that it caused horrible skin damage.

You can probably blame the media for that. When I was in high School I learned about the whole incident and thought the lawsuit was incredibly stupid. A year ago I was taking a Business Law course in college and this case was in the text book and I finally learned all the details that were left out, much to my amazement.

Believe or not most people don't know the whole story of this case and if I had a nickel for every time someone brought this case up as an example of how sue happy america is I'd be a rich man.

 

[shintakie10]

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.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

This is utterly ridiculous. People should be able to read and draw what the hell every they want as long as it's hurting no one. I don't care if it show straightforward hardcore rape themed child pornography it's a fucking drawing. Banning or condemning artistic expression only because you find it disgusting is ridiculously egocentric and most certainly against free speech (as long as no one is being hurt of course).

This is a pointless waste of time and resourcess and the fact that this marks him as a fucking sex offender is a mockery of justice.

 

[PurePareidolia]

As happy as I am that this lessens the amount of terrible anime being made available, and as much as I think "no guys, these anime kids are totally over 18" is a disingenuous defense, that's ridiculously harsh. He's not drawing this stuff, just translating it.

 

[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.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

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.

There really is only one question to ask here.

In the process of making these videos, images, or drawings is someone being hurt?

The answer to that is no. The process of making these things is more or less completely harmless to everyone involved. Saying children shouldn't be viewed in a sexual matter is just plain stupid. Just because YOU don't want to view children in a sexual matter doesn't mean other people don't. This applies to pretty much any form of pornography as well. And as long as it's not an actual child and no one is being hurt they have every right to do so. In fact, by removing the harmless option you might be encouraging them to seek ACTUAL child pornography.

And dismissing it as just lines on a piece of paper is a perfectly valid argument. Want to know why?

IT'S JUST FUCKING LINES ON A PIECE OF PAPER. It's a drawing. A fantasy. It doesn't necessarily imply intent. Just because you find the lines on a piece of paper personally disgusting doesn't change the fact that it's lines on a piece of paper. Sure it should never be done. Neither should murder, and no it is not different until you offer a valid reason for why it is.

Give me one valid reason for why it's wrong.

 

[Mabster]

This is not a pipe.

What does it say about me that I recognised that image right away?

Many good things I think. It would be hard to find a better image to put this whole thing into perspective.