Neil Gaiman has lived in America for what, ten years now?

Whether ymy comments are deemed to be “rambling” is not of consequence. I write how I write, and I do not candycoat my words. I’m ticked at what my friend has been going through from both sides of the debate without any consideration of his best interest.

In the end, it Chris alone who was up against the proverbial Machine, and he had to make the decision to save himself, whether or not some legal group or some prat author on another continent would approve.

Even so, while one should be way of such tactics of censors, to adopt absolute terms like ‘indefensible’ is being too negative. Cartoon child pornography is not indefensible, because even if there are people who portray stuff like rape as good (just like some might portray murder as good in fiction) you also open the window to portray tragedy and gain empathy.

In a way, censoring this stuff is a victor for molesters. The ones who are actually hurting kids, in a way, I think they smirk when it becomes illegal to portray the kind of things that happened. This just helps to sweep abuse under the rug.

Already there are teen girls facing criminal charges for ‘sexting’ explicit images of themself. Society has turned a blind eye to their plight. Why? I don’t know, maybe there’s that whole ‘they deserved it’ attitude or something? I don’t quite understand it, but people seem to be okay with punishing them for wanting to show off what they thought was beautiful and to engage in free expression.

But what’s next? What about victims who want to share their story? If a girl suffers a childhood of sexual abuse, and wants to portray her abuse and rape in all its horror in a comic, as a means of expressing herself, alerting people to social problems… will she go to jail too?

Not to mention, there is this whole assumption that bad things are being encouraged. We outlaw underage sex to protect from the bad things that occur such as exploitation, disease, unprepared parenthood, etc.

Sex is not inherantly a bad thing though, and much of what we have presented in fiction presents these good sides as well as bad. Nowadays, starting with the 2D, we seem to be outlawing both, as people get bored and despair at being unable to solve the crimes in the shadows they pursue people trying to live in the light who share their thoughts and feelings.

Look, I’ll just say it right up front. I personally KNOW Chris Handley! I’ve stayed at his place for several weeks some years ago. Back then, I never saw him with any loli stuff. But like I said, that was some years ago. Who knows how his tatstes developed since then.

He’s NOT some Martyr for the Cause of Comics Freedom as you exploiters are obviously trying to make him out to be. Most loli content is in books that are dedicated to that theme. You don’t just crack open any old manga and well watta know, butt-nekkid kids! It’s easy to find it if you look, but that’s just it. You’re LOOKING for it.

If he did order in said content, then he was a dumbass and he has no one but to blame for himself (which apparently he did when he saw the writing on the wall, no matter how much the CBLDF wanted to use him as their poster boy).

Simply put, no one from the Conservative Right has found a copy yet, or hasn’t had a need to pull that club from the bag.

The fact that it’s in a format and price point that puts it well out of the reach of “our children” is helpful as well.

But rest assured, no matter how impressive and high-brow it is, once it’s needed, it will be lowered to the status of “children’s funny book” by the watchdogs and the media alike, and it will be a losing battle to raise it up again.

§ 2252A: Actual or simulated CP (doesn’t have anything to do with Christopher Handley’s case)

- actual minors were used for production OR
- the image appears to be of real person who was a minor as the image was created AND you fail to prove otherwise OR
- as defined in section 2256 (8)(C) ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-.html#8_C ), “such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

“Sexually explicit conduct” includes “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person”.

I’m not familiar with these Starfire images, but if they’re identifiable as images of fantasy characters, they should fit 2256 (8)(B) rather than 2256 (8)(C). But I guess, you still may be charged if you don’t provide the evidence that no actual minors were used in production.

You can read § 2256 and § 2252A to see for yourself:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252—A000-.html

§ 1466A: “Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children”

- must be obscene according to the Miller Test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
In this case it doesn’t matter if they’re photorealistic or not ( just read Jeff Trexler’s article above;
www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html )

No actual kids were harmed in their creation, but do they perpetuate harm?

And I pose this question not as bait for an argument, but because I have no idea. I think it’s the real question in the discussion, not, “Should I go to jail for seeing Starfire naked even though she’s 14?!?!?!??”

When the government thinks they can legislate taste, no matter how disturbing, we should start lighting fires.

let’s take it further. The issue is children as victims in image depiction. What about drawings or comics that feature children being abused by their parents or kidnapped? They are fictional child victims too. Why must sexual=harmful?

Our society does plenty of harmful things to children that aren’t sexual…like religious indoctrination. That is brainwashing.

Neon-genesis has questionable images of 14 year old anime girls. Does anyone here own a manga or dvd from that series? Do they deserve to go to jail?

But actually quite a few people are against this law not only because it violates the principle of free speech, but also because it doesn’t help to protect children or is even counterproductive. It removes a harmless outlet for law-abiding pedophiles (1), it pushes quite a few curious anime fans into the underground where they have higher chances to encounter real child porn and whatnot (2), and it wastes resources that could be spent on protection of children that actually helps/works (3).
In addition, destroying the lives of people who didn’t harm anyone (these who choose not to follow the unjust law) and oppressing others (who choose to follow this law) may have a negative impact on the society as whole and affect children just like everyone else.

On another hand, the defense of this law often may be based on a guts reaction rather than facts and analyze. It may be not (or at least not only) to protect children but (also) to punish the people with deviant fantasies and deny their rights even if they don’t harm anyone.

Quote:
” for some people looking to ban all kinds of porn, the campaign targeting comics and kids is a tactic, not a goal–these critics seek to discredit the anti-censorship movement by linking it to the defense of child molestation. It’s classic political rope-a-dope: get your opponents to exhaust their reputational and financial capital defending the indefensible, then move in for the kill. ”

You sure have heard of the poem including the the lines:

(…)
When they came for the Jews,
I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
(…)
When they came for me,
there was no-one left
to speak out.

http://tagg.org/rants/Niemoller.htm

Actually it isn’t even necessary that these groups (like Jews) disappear. If one decides not to defend something that is right just because it puts him/herself in a weaker position, it’s a bad example for others. More and more people will decide to do so. Imho if a person acts courageous, it always helps the society in the long run (even if at the first glance it seems better to save ones strength for another possible yet not existing case). Sure this person may be lynched already by the time when it becomes clear and the remaining people may be too ashamed of what they did (or rather of what they didn’t do) to mention or even recall the one who gave his/her life, wealth or standing for the right thing.

Defending loli/shota may discredit the defenders to some extent (in the eyes of some people) and exhaust some of the resources, but it’ll help to increase public’s awareness of obscenity clause to the 1st Amendment. Miller Test reeks of the archaic prejudice “enjoying sex is vile or at least has no merit”. I think it’s very important that as many people as possible read the description of Miller Test and think about it. Hopefully sooner or later the majority will become aware of the absurdity of the obscenity clause.
And it may also make some people question the apparent witch hunt on pedophiles and study the facts like the ones mentioned on this site: http://www.b4uact.org/

Even fictional depictions of murders could create an environment conducive to the murder of American citizens.

Thus, we have no choice but to ban television series like 24, movies such as Die Hard and books including the Left Behind series. Even news programs might have to be constrained as they frequently depict *actual* murders.

What upstanding moral conservatives are with me on this?

I never liked that arguement. If some one is going to sexually expoloit a minor it isn’t because they just happen to see in a comic. They are going to to it because they are sick individuals.

People don’t decide to kill because they read an Agatha Christie novel or watched the latest CSI.

But back to the point. As some one mentioned somewhere else with manga it is sometimes hard to tell a minor from an adult. Are the authorities basing this case just on the art or are they actually reading the books and said book is saying that the character is a minor?

It would be interesting to know excactly what titles are being used in each case.

Isn’t the logic (a term I use loosely) behind this statement the same sort of logic used by people who want to outlaw guns and gay marriage? The only difference is the NRA and religious groups are heavily funded and can pay people off to sway the rulings in their favor.

The real problem I see is letting individuals go to prison for crimes which should not be crimes and not supporting their legal defense based on “potential future” crimes which they “might” be guilty of.. maybe… later on… possibly.

PROTECT ACT, PATRIOT ACT… we’re letting the government and the courts toss away our “civic ideals” and our civil liberties hand over fist, and for what?! A puritanical sense of moral superiority? Being a little bit creeped out by what other people might find enjoyable? Well tough! This country needs to be better than that.

You know what I find “obscene”? 700 BILLION DOLLARS to bail out some of the RICHEST BASTARDS in the country!!!! How about we prosecute congress for “obscenity” instead of the creepy guy who likes gross kiddie-sex cartoons?

Apparently, in all those years, neither of us has learned anything…

Since this is an issue that involves people and emotion, it virtually cannot be analyzed dispassionately. The overwhelming desire to “protect the children” is a powerful one. It’s all but impossible for the phrase “Yeah, I know, but…” not to enter the conversation.

Also, as mentioned, there are a lot of people involved in the argument who are using it as a means to an end, thus making the actual point somewhat lost in the fracas.

Yes, the law is a blunt instrument, but is the legal system that allows the possibility for the weight of the instrument to be deflected in certain cases. It is for such situations that organizations like the CBLDF are necessary and vital.

The phrase “The exception that proves the rule” is often misunderstood. “Proving” a weapon or a sword means to test it, to make sure it pasts muster and can be used safely (Hence the term “Proving grounds”.) People often mistake “proving” in this case to mean validating as in “proving true”. That’s technically accurate, but here it also suggests that the rule might be “proved” false.

“Are you saying the son of a Duke is an animal?”
“On the contrary; I am suggesting you MIGHT be human.”
–Dune