After pleading guilty to the charges last year, Christopher Handley has been sentenced to six months in prison for possessing manga drawings of “children being sexually abused,” Anime News Network has reported.
Handley was charged after the U.S. Post Office seized the following books, back in 2006:
Mikansei Seifuku Shōjo (Unfinished School Girl) by Yuki Tamachi (LE Comics)
I [Heart] Doll by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
Kemono for ESSENTIAL 3 (THE ANIMAL SEX ANTHOLOGY Vol.3) by Masato Tsukimori et al (Izumi Comics)
Otonari Kazoku (Neighboring House Family) by Nekogen (MD Comics)
Eromon by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
Kono Man_ ga Sugoi! (This Man_ is Awesome!) by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
Hina Meikyū (Doll Labyrinth) by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
These books all have drawings of minors engaging in sexual activity, including with adults and animals. According to ANN’s thorough coverage of the legal documentation, Handley’s interest in manga eventually “evolved” in the mid-’90s to ”fascination for images of young girls engaged in sexual activity.”
Handley’s trial had the backing for the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, which did back out following Handley pleading guilty to the charges. Handley said that if he had known these were against the law he would never have ordered them.
That said, the prosecution’s main argument does set my Spider-sense tingling: ”The works at issue do not even have arguable scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, such as Vladimir Nabokov’s famed novel, Lolita, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, or even Alan Moore’s recent, but controversial, graphic novel, Lost Girls. By the defendant’s own statements, the works for which he was convicted of receiving and possessing are clearly obscene.”
At that point, isn’t it all or nothing? Let’s even step aside the obvious argument of whether a drawing of an illegal act is the same as partaking the real thing — at what point do we start labeling the art as “valuable” or not? When do we start discussing motive for consumption? Will viewers have to own up to seeing Transformers 2 because of the sheer art and beauty of an eye-bleeding transformation, or because they simply find Megan Fox to be extremely attractive? Let’s discuss.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
You really can never judge artistic value in legal terms, but I just can’t get behind anyone who creates or purchases something that glorifies child molestation.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Wow. This sets one Hell of a precedent. Why on Earth did the guy plead guilty if the items were purchased legally? Are these books *actually* against the law? Is that the issue here?
Because otherwise, this stinks. Look, I’m not gonna defend the guy for looking at that garbage, but last time I checked, this was still America, & that is his prerogative to do what he does in the privacy of his own home. This is almost as ridiculous as the marijuana laws in this country.
And, it’s not fair to compare this sort of Hentai to Child Pornography, not fair to the people who may suffer because of it, & is actually kinda insulting. Child pornography actually has victims, children are hurt by the act, the people involved are predatory criminals & are subjecting children to horrible acts. And those who purchase such items support those people.
But in this case, we’re talking about drawings, pictures, honestly. The only victims here are those with sensitive eyes.
And the poor bastard now going to prison for 6 months over it . . .
–J.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Ridiculous. I wonder if the guilty plea was part of a plea bargain. Regardless, people commit immoral acts in books, film and comics all the time, sometimes glorified, sometimes not. I simply don’t believe in “community standards” or anybody making value judgments about the “literacy” of anything, and I’m very disappointed in the outcome of this case.
February 13th, 2010 at 12:30 am
If they are going to arrest him for having these books, and I’m not sure how they found out that he had them, they should arrest anyone who saw or owns a copy of the movies Towelhead and Hound Dog. Both show minors having sexual relations with adults and and in Hound Dog the main character played by Dakota Fanning(she looks about 12 in the movie) is raped. Towelhead is way more graphic and suggestive, plus the actress is about 13 or so. They are both very disturbing movies and even more so when you see them and don’t know the actual content.
What about Taxi Driver? Wasn’t there a seen with a 13yr old Jodie Foster in that movie?(I’ve never actually seen it)
So I guess every theater owner that showed them, every video store that rents them, every one who saw them and everyone who owns a copy are all going to jail.
I honestly don’t think the guy even thought about the fact the characters were minors in the books. He probably just bought some dirty comics and that just happened to be the content. Of course I’ve only caught bits and pieces of the whole story so my opinion is only half informed.
If he did it with the purpose or seeing minors in sexual acts, shame on him. If not then the ruling and the entire case is BS.
All of this crack down regarding minors and sex reminds me of the Satanism scare in the 80′s. Back then everything and every one was linked to Satan. Psychologist used regressive memory therapy(a black mark on the psychiatric field)and suddenly everyone’s parents, their neighbors, and the mailman were satanist that participated in black masses and killed or molested little kids. Of course none of of actually happened, mass paranoia and hysteria at its best.
Now that kids under 18 are very sexually active[imagine that, it must be a new thing;-)], many as young as 11 and 12, it surprises everyone. Never mind the fact that you give your kids free, unmonitored access to the internet(of course they’d never look up porn LOL), cell phones with cameras(sexting), and let your 12 year old dress in daisy dukes and see through shirts, it isn’t your fault that kids are seen as sexual beings.(Special thanks to Brittney, Miley and all the other trashy teeny boppers) No it has to be that every guy past puberty is a predator.
So to solve this problem we have to go after some dork and his comic books. After all, even though I have heard nothing about him actually having sex with minors he might think about it. Once we’re done with him we’ll go after DC comics. They have two characters that are children under the age of 18 in the bodies of adults(Genna & Chris) and they have sexual relationships with actual adults. It doesn’t matter that that they don’t show anything except kissing. We might as well ban the DVD version of Big as well because sex is definitely implied there. Might as well nip it in the bud before it infects everyone’s mind and turns them in to predators. Meet me at the library, we got some books and DVDs to burn!
I don’t agree with the content of the guys comics, but since it didn’t involve actual minors it just seems like a witch hunt. I’m sorry about ranting but censorship just annoys me. People seem too eager to take other people’s rights away. They don’t realize that stuff like this sets a precedent and starts a chain reaction that could one day take your rights away. It always comes back to bite you in the rear end.
February 14th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Geek Gazette you make a good point and this precedent may come back to bite the industry in the butt one of these days….