The PROTECT Act casts too wide a net. While I find non-photographic depictions of pre-sexual human beings engaged in sexual activity repellent, I do not think they should be legally equivalent to bona fide child pornography in which an actual child was abused. Assuming the facts are as presented, I do not think this man should go to jail, especially since as a result he would likely end up on a sex offender list and be subject to harassment for the rest of his life.

That being said, I can only hope that the material in question fails the three-pronged obscenity test. Otherwise that sad little otaku is gonna get sent up the Pokey.

It's a complicated subject for me. I don't want to limit creative freedom, but on the other hand, I'd question how Jews would react to Nazi propaganda cartoons. I doubt they'd say "Oh, that's alright, seeing as how it's 2-dimensional and all. No actual Jews were harmed, right?" The ideas and injustices being glorified are still dangerous. But then again, we still allow Nazi propaganda films to be viewed, don't we?

The big question is where we'd draw the line. Murder's pretty unjust, and yet I have no problem with violent movies or video games. Even sexual violence can be portrayed in a tasteful manner on film. I guess when it's being glorified...when it's being encouraged as something that's positive, law enforcement should take the same approach to moe as The Anarchist's Cookbook. Just as they see it as a red flag in identifying terrorists, they should see Moon Phase as a red flag in identifying pedos. Not necessarily sufficient evidence for a conviction, but if somebody's already under investigation, it'd make a good Exhibit A for the prosecution.

As I think about this more I think it really comes down to whether or not you believe that the moral consensus of a community is a legitimate foundation for law. For most of recent legal history, this would appear not to be the case. Hate speech isn't necessarily protected, but owning Mein Kampf isn't illegal. Beyond the first amendmant issues, there's also the 4th amendmant question the article brings up. Doesn't this guy have a right to privacy? Doesn't obscenity require some form of public interaction? If it does and this dude isn't putting up cartoon kiddie porn posters on his lawn what are they arresting him for?

There has to be more going on in the case. I mean the post master determined the guys package from Japan contained illicit material? How exactly? I mean it couldn't have just been some random search and seizure. He must have had some prior history of this already. In any case the whole thing is waste of tax payers dollars. It's not like they caught some child porn king or anything. It's just a sad otaku that got caught.

The ideas and injustices being glorified are still dangerous.

The notion that ideas themselves are dangerous are contrary to a free society. It leads to book banning, censorship of the press, and thoughtcrime. Considering Nazis prohibited certain avenues of academic thought as "Jewish science" and burned piles of "wrong" books at rallies.

Material that is without intellectual value such as racist propaganda is not a cause of ignorance, but a symptom.

As I think about this more I think it really comes down to whether or not you believe that the moral consensus of a community is a legitimate foundation for law. For most of recent legal history, this would appear not to be the case.

I agree. The law he's being prosecuted under is clearly a provision that was added as a "please think of the children" clause to win political points rather than crack down on a real problem.

[quote="Spankminister"]

The ideas and injustices being glorified are still dangerous.

The notion that ideas themselves are dangerous are contrary to a free society. It leads to book banning, censorship of the press, and thoughtcrime. Considering Nazis prohibited certain avenues of academic thought as "Jewish science" and burned piles of "wrong" books at rallies.

I think that somebody believing an idea is dangerous or wrong isn't the same as somebody having the desire to legislate that belief onto others.

I see a whole lot of hurt coming when CGI loli porn gets to the market.

Goki said:

You can't be arrested for owning a copy of Titus Andronicus.

That's the Shakespeare play you thought of first? Big Anthony Hopkins fan?

Goki is right, there has to be the distinction between real child pornography and the comic version. Its important to note that this guy is up for obscenity not possession of child pornography. Even though the material itself may be despicable its not the same thing as harming a child.

Seriously, vigilantism.

[quote="Dreg"]I think that somebody believing an idea is dangerous or wrong isn't the same as somebody having the desire to legislate that belief onto others.

Not what I meant. The ideas themselves are not what is dangerous. Saying the "Communist Manifesto" is dangerous and should be banned because it makes people Communists is asinine. In a free society, the solution is to let people read it, discuss it, and say, "Look, this works/doesn't work because of X, Y, and Z."

I feel that if we punish those who have the real deal even if they didn't ask for it or allow someone to profit from it, we should also punish someone who has it graphically portrayed in a comic.

A lot of disagreements I have with politics today is that people find it acceptable to legislate their feelings, rather than what is fair or rational. To go back in American history a little, check out anti-miscegenation laws for the kind of thing I mean. If something hurts no one, it is hard to make a case that it should be illegal because it makes you feel kind of yucky.

Godwin's law!

I thought about mentioning Godwin's law, but the irony seemed self-evident, considering both of us were using Nazis on either side of the argument. Surely no one would waste time making such a puerile remark, I thought. Truly, KN may be relied upon to prove me wrong. Also, I heard writing "Frist post!!!" in threads makes your e-peen huge.

[quote="Spankminister"]

Godwin's law!

I thought about mentioning Godwin's law, but the irony seemed self-evident, considering both of us were using Nazis on either side of the argument. Surely no one would waste time making such a puerile remark, I thought. Truly, KN may be relied upon to prove me wrong. Also, I heard writing "Frist post!!!" in threads makes your e-peen huge.

Oh, go to hell. I've already made contributions to this thread. It's not like I just swung by to snipe. There are better fucking examples than the Nazis to go to.

We even discussed this very topic on our recent podcast on A Kite. The OAV definitely depicts underaged girls being raped. This work is depicting it, but it's also painting a very unfavorable picture of it. In the context of the narrative, this abuse has created damaged people with serious problems relating to others. Oh yeah, also they have no moral computions about splattering someone's brain all over a bathroom stall.

So again, if your work is decrying the sexual abuse of minors, but still depicting it, is that obscene? I think it's not, and even if it were, it's a cartoon and no one is being hurt.

That said, I think moe freaks are fucking disgusting but that doesn't mean I think they should be in jail.

[quote="Spankminister"]But none so iconic as the bonfires of books piled high, both in stock photos, and in the cultural consciousness thanks to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The banning of "Jewish" science also seemed more appropriate than simple book banning because it's more of a "dangerous ideas will pollute our society" than "children should not read X." Also, the material in question is not morally questionable, so it illustrates the absurdity of the argument.

Banning child porn, even cartoon child porn is not the same thing as banning books for being "Jewish" or full of calls for revolution or Marxist or whatever. This is an illogical slippery slope line of thinking.

[quote="Spankminister"]I agree with you re: Kite, though I would add that there is an aspect of it that's there to that is exploitative and added for titillation. I didn't think Kite was very good, but whatever artistic messages it has automatically validate it as having some objective value. Would anyone give two shits about Kite if there hadn't been this big deal with "uncensored" or "international uncensored for reals" editions? I think it'd be just another really violent, nudity-laden OVA that thinks it's smarter than it ends up being.

That's sort of water under the bridge, though, I think we agree on the underlying principle that speech should be protected unless there's a compelling reason not to.

A Kite definitely is exploitative. The violence alone proves that. You don't even need to get to the sexual content to know that. But I don't think it's trying to be sexy, I think it's trying to be disturbing and is selling itself on that. Yes, it's easier to be disturbing than well-written, but A Kite does not glamorize these sex scenes. They are horrible.

But yeah, I agree that it should be protected, even if it skeeves me out. I'd feel differently if actual children were being abused.

I recently heard of a case on the radio of a 13 year old boy getting in trouble for having child pornography when his also 13 year old girlfriend sent an image of herself naked to his cell phone. How stupid is that?

[quote="karaokeninja"]Banning child porn, even cartoon child porn is not the same thing as banning books for being "Jewish" or full of calls for revolution or Marxist or whatever. This is an illogical slippery slope line of thinking.

The precise phrase I was picking out was, "The ideas and injustices being glorified are still dangerous." My point was that not talking about ideas or past injustices is not the way that an open society deals with that sort of thing. Historical examination, rational debate, and public discrediting will always be more free and more effective than attempting to suppress thought and expression. A slippery slope argument would be saying "if we ban cartoons, next we'll banning political thought!" I'm not even saying that: I'm saying that objectively speaking, they're both the same. In the end, censorship is censorship, whether it occurs for political reasons or prudish ones. That's a fairly extreme viewpoint, but this is the United States of America.

A Kite does not glamorize these sex scenes. They are <i>horrible</i>.

See, that's what I'm saying: you and I think it's horrible, but I think it's not made to gross guys like us out as much as it is to appeal to other guys like Umetsu.

I recently heard of a case on the radio of a 13 year old boy getting in trouble for having child pornography when his also 13 year old girlfriend sent an image of herself naked to his cell phone. How stupid is that?

There's stories like this every month, at least. That 13 year old boy will probably get put on the sex offender registry for life as a result of simply receiving that image. These laws are exactly like the law the guy in the article is being prosecuted under, political resume-stuffers. This bullshit happens on both sides of the aisle, too.

I guess regular readers of 4-chan better get ready for some hard jail time.

Or is it just owning it in `physical` form that makes it obscene?

Sometimes I feel your country could give Iran a run for right win regilious hold on state morals and ethics.

MY personal opinion is that no victim no crime. I have not been presented with any evidence that points towards people who view this kind of erotic art are more likely to go out and try to actually commit child pornography, or some form of child abuse, which is the only legitimate problemI could see from what this guy is doing.

Wouldn't it serve the opposite, instead of doing those things, he is getting his fix from a pretend drawing on a peice of paper?

I personally don't have any interest in such comics or manga, I am not into pornorgaphy at all, but I feel some 18 year old due in Japan scibling his erotic fantasies on a peice of paper is a lot less damaging to people's lives than the pornography industry who take girls as soon as they turn 18 and make them into sex stars (many of whom are forced into such work through a poor economic background/family life).

If I am a 15 year old boy in high school, and I draw a picture of a girl in class naked and a penis next to her and write 'lolz penis' and hand it to the guy next to me for shits and giggles, am I to be prosecuted?

Seems this is just another scapegoat of the 'we are mightier than thou' lobby that seem to dominate American politcs and law and use scare tactics and scare mongering to force people to do what they want and say things like 'for the children, how can you not be for the children? You must be a child offender for offering a dissenting opinion.'

That being said, my own country Australia is heading down compulary internet censorship of all internet 'offensive' material as deemed by the government so, can't really lecture you guys.

If god wanted people to see vagina's he wouldn't have invented pants.

What are you, Canada or England?

South Africa, eh?

What grudge does SA have against us, other than constantly thrashing your weak ass rugby team :P

Can I get a definition on hiding in that sentence. I assume it means beating.