Your Obscene Printed Manga is Illegal....

[mynameis]

U.S. Manga Obscenity Conviction Roils Comics World

* By David Kravets Email Author
* May 28, 2009 |
* 12:00 am |
* Categories: Crime, The Courts, porn

In an obscenity first, a U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality.

Christopher Handley, described by his lawyer as a “prolific collector” of manga, pleaded guilty last week to mailing obscene matter, and to “possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.” Three other counts were dropped in a plea deal with prosecutors.

The 39-year-old office worker was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Handley’s guilty plea makes him the first to be convicted under that law for possessing cartoon art, without any evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine child pornography. He faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.

Comics fans are alarmed by the case, (.pdf), saying that jailing someone over manga does nothing to protect children from sexual abuse.

“This art that this man possessed as part of a larger collection of manga … is now the basis for [a sentence] designed to protect children from abuse,” says Charles Brownstein, executive director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. “The drawings are not obscene and are not tantamount to pornography. They are lines on paper.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

[rhydra]

Looks like art galleries and other art collecters will be seriously worried since a lot of artists like to push the boundaries of convention. Not a very short step from legislation tantamount to the "degenerate" art where the German government decided what was art and what was not.

[brainfreeze]

The problemw with depicting child sexual abuse in comics is, where does the collector get his material when comics are no longer the stimulus they use to be? What next? Photos of real abuse? That's where the problem comes in.

It's the same with writing about sexual abuse. It's legal to write and read "fictional" accounts on child sex. Titilation for a sick mind, IMO.

[dreamweaver]

It's absurd to legislate against drawings, no matter what the content.

The argument used to criminalise possession of photographs of child abuse (as opposed to making of them, which was already illegal of course and rightly so) was that children were incapable of consenting to these acts and that even possession created a demand for this abuse. Nobody could really object to this, apart from paedophiles and their apologists.

But there was always a concern among civil liberties activists that governments would then use this as a stepping stone towards policing what goes on in people's heads. And that is exactly what has happened - nobody has been abused in a drawing. Now that they have got this through, there is nothing to stop them criminalising more and more art until eventually it becomes an offence to view any image that the government disapproves of, e.g. an image of Jacqui Smith in jackboots.

[brainfreeze]

It's absurd to legislate against drawings, no matter what the content.

The argument used to criminalise possession of photographs of child abuse (as opposed to making of them, which was already illegal of course and rightly so) was that children were incapable of consenting to these acts and that even possession created a demand for this abuse. Nobody could really object to this, apart from paedophiles and their apologists.

But there was always a concern among civil liberties activists that governments would then use this as a stepping stone towards policing what goes on in people's heads. And that is exactly what has happened - nobody has been abused in a drawing. Now that they have got this through, there is nothing to stop them criminalising more and more art until eventually it becomes an offence to view any image that the government disapproves of, e.g. an image of Jacqui Smith in jackboots.


Manga Art? PMSL :p Was Tracey Emins (?) unmade bed art? the subject of art is subjective. No surprise that the depiction of child rape is passed off in the name of art, I guess.

If I was a struggeling artists trying to earn a name on a big scale I'd draw the toruture pics Obama doesn't want to release and open a show called, Fucking For Art Of It

[dreamweaver]

The problemw with depicting child sexual abuse in comics is, where does the collector get his material when comics are no longer the stimulus they use to be? What next? Photos of real abuse? That's where the problem comes in.

It's the same with writing about sexual abuse. It's legal to write and read "fictional" accounts on child sex. Titilation for a sick mind, IMO.

I disagree, brainfreeze, this is "thin end of the wedge" stuff that follows a very familiar pattern with governments.

They don't bring in repressive legislation all at once, they bring it in piecemeal, starting with groups that are (rightly, in this case) pariahs. So back in the late 1990s, when governments were terrified of this newfangled internet that they didn't understand and couldn't control, they started passing laws to give themselves more power to control the internet.

And how did they sell this to the public? By claiming it was to "protect children" from paedophiles. But it hasn't stopped there, has it? They have spread their tentacles ever more tightly around the internet ever since.

Likewise, they knew that they couldn't get away with interfering with people's right to travel abroad. So they started off by taking passports off known football hooligans - after all, who could object to such a thing? Now of course they want everyone to tell the government their exact travel itinerary whenever they travel abroad, and on it goes...

In the case of these drawings, you're saying that the law should be based on what a child abuser might find erotic. This is the same sort of thinking that prevents parents filming their own children at school plays in case it gets in the hands of a kiddy fiddler.

Trying to police the content of people's heads is the real "What next?" here. Here's an account from someone who I personally know, who was a very senior Home Office psychologist who had to deal with sex offenders in prisons:

"Amongst my many case histories from my 20 years in the criminal justice system I had a number of individuals who, for reasons of situation, were isolated from access to images of their preferred 'sexual' outlet - this did not reduce their interest in the behaviour - it merely caused them to produce their own material by adapting ordinary photographs, making sketches and writing stories."

For many years the most popular masturbatory icons of fixated paedophiles were the pictures of children who carried the title of Miss Pears and were used in the advertising campaign for Pears soap. All soft focus and romanticised.

Although by no means a universal truth the tendancy is for many fixated paedophiles to prefer the 'romantic innocent child image' whereas the regressed paedophile may well seek out images where the child is presented as the 'sexually aware little adult'- ie dressed in clothes that one would normally associate with a much older age group - often wearing make up.

Catalogues that have childrenswear sections are often found amongst the personal possessions of arrested peadophiles - along with cuttings from local papers containing pictures of school swimming teams, travel brochures depicting children playing on the beach, videotapes of the t.v. series Grange Hill - the list goes on and on and the images used as icons are far more likely to be ones considered as 'everyday' than ones 'specifically produced'."

So indeed, "What next?"

What you need to realise here is that the people drafting these laws are very clever and know what buttons to push to manipulate people into supporting their agenda, which I dare say is quite different from your own.

[brainfreeze]

I disagree, brainfreeze, this is "thin end of the wedge" stuff that follows a very familiar pattern with governments.

They don't bring in repressive legislation all at once, they bring it in piecemeal, starting with groups that are (rightly, in this case) pariahs. So back in the late 1990s, when governments were terrified of this newfangled internet that they didn't understand and couldn't control, they started passing laws to give themselves more power to control the internet.

And how did they sell this to the public? By claiming it was to "protect children" from paedophiles. But it hasn't stopped there, has it? They have spread their tentacles ever more tightly around the internet ever since.

Likewise, they knew that they couldn't get away with interfering with people's right to travel abroad. So they started off by taking passports off known football hooligans - after all, who could object to such a thing? Now of course they want everyone to tell the government their exact travel itinerary whenever they travel abroad, and on it goes...

In the case of these drawings, you're saying that the law should be based on what a child abuser might find erotic. This is the same sort of thinking that prevents parents filming their own children at school plays in case it gets in the hands of a kiddy fiddler.

Trying to police the content of people's heads is the real "What next?" here. Here's an account from someone who I personally know, who was a very senior Home Office psychologist who had to deal with sex offenders in prisons:

"Amongst my many case histories from my 20 years in the criminal justice system I had a number of individuals who, for reasons of situation, were isolated from access to images of their preferred 'sexual' outlet - this did not reduce their interest in the behaviour - it merely caused them to produce their own material by adapting ordinary photographs, making sketches and writing stories."

For many years the most popular masturbatory icons of fixated paedophiles were the pictures of children who carried the title of Miss Pears and were used in the advertising campaign for Pears soap. All soft focus and romanticised.

Although by no means a universal truth the tendancy is for many fixated paedophiles to prefer the 'romantic innocent child image' whereas the regressed paedophile may well seek out images where the child is presented as the 'sexually aware little adult'- ie dressed in clothes that one would normally associate with a much older age group - often wearing make up.

Catalogues that have childrenswear sections are often found amongst the personal possessions of arrested peadophiles - along with cuttings from local papers containing pictures of school swimming teams, travel brochures depicting children playing on the beach, videotapes of the t.v. series Grange Hill - the list goes on and on and the images used as icons are far more likely to be ones considered as 'everyday' than ones 'specifically produced'."

So indeed, "What next?"

What you need to realise here is that the people drafting these laws are very clever and know what buttons to push to manipulate people into supporting their agenda, which I dare say is quite different from your own.

The Maga images are not a matter of "what the paedo might like" it's wrong in that it depicts children in the sexual act. It's wrong no matter how you want to justify it no matter what other agenda you suspect the government may have.

I'm aware of the more subtle pics paedos like, I've said before there are pics of me as a kid around, I lived the abuse in those pics, even the suble ones were taken under duress and show an unhappy kid whose boob tube slipped unawares or like those of my sis, showing off the new knickers she just got ect

But hey, paedos have rights too, give them their wank fodder, because as you point out, they'll find it in the most innocent of images. Let's spoon feed them great big dollops of Manga porn on top!

Are there any non paedo types on here who do not find Manga's child porn offensive, and if so please explain the beauty you find in this art, cause I'm at a lose here.

[dreamweaver]

The Maga images are not a matter of "what the paedo might like" it's wrong in that it depicts children in the sexual act. It's wrong no matter how you want to justify it no matter what other agenda you suspect the government may have.

I completely disagree with the idea of banning drawings on the grounds that someone finds them "wrong" - or indeed of banning parents from filming their own children at school plays or prosecuting parents who have photographed their own baby daughter in a bathtub.

I also believe that David Irving should not be imprisoned simply for saying things about the Holocaust that most people find "wrong".

I lived the abuse in those pics

And that goes to the heart of what all this is about. It seems to me that your buttons as a former abuse victim are being pushed by people with an agenda.

The "thin end of the wedge" that I was talking about is already happening in other things that the Common Purpose legislators behind these laws disapprove of. Are you aware of the restrictions on "extreme" porn that became law this year?

Under this new law, the following people are being criminalised:

*** the BDSM community (of which I am part, and this is where I come in on all of this) - an estimated 10% of the adult population, i.e. up to 4 million people (a newspaper survey found that around 50% of people had at sometime engaged in some form of BDSM activity)
*** the Goth community, members of which enjoy material featuring depictions of death that could easily be counted as pornographic under the proposed definition
*** people who own low-budget thrillers/horror films

And all because a woman who had a fetish for being strangled (Jane Longhurst) died at the hands of a serial killer. Obviously it was an extremely nasty business for her and her mother (who started the campaign to get this law passed) but I don't see why all the people listed above have to suffer because of it.

[brainfreeze]

I completely disagree with the idea of banning drawings on the grounds that someone finds them "wrong" - or indeed of banning parents from filming their own children at school plays or prosecuting parents who have photographed their own baby daughter in a bathtub.

I also believe that David Irving should not be imprisoned simply for saying things about the Holocaust that most people find "wrong".



And that goes to the heart of what all this is about. It seems to me that your buttons as a former abuse victim are being pushed by people with an agenda.

The "thin end of the wedge" that I was talking about is already happening in other things that the Common Purpose legislators behind these laws disapprove of. Are you aware of the restrictions on "extreme" porn that became law this year?

Under this new law, the following people are being criminalised:

*** the BDSM community (of which I am part, and this is where I come in on all of this) - an estimated 10% of the adult population, i.e. up to 4 million people (a newspaper survey found that around 50% of people had at sometime engaged in some form of BDSM activity)
*** the Goth community, members of which enjoy material featuring depictions of death that could easily be counted as pornographic under the proposed definition
*** people who own low-budget thrillers/horror films

And all because a woman who had a fetish for being strangled (Jane Longhurst) died at the hands of a serial killer. Obviously it was an extremely nasty business for her and her mother (who started the campaign to get this law passed) but I don't see why all the people listed above have to suffer because of it.

Is sex with a child ok?

[dreamweaver]

Is sex with a child ok?

No.

Should consenting adults who enjoy bdsm with each other be criminalised?

[brainfreeze]

No.

Should consenting adults who enjoy bdsm with each other be criminalised?

Then why is cartoon child porn - art - acceptable?

No, I don't believe consenting adults should be criminalised for any sexual act they indulge in.

Here's the thing, remember the consenting canibal case?

No, I do not believe we can consent to such extreems. In cases like that professional help is needed, they don't need to feed that kind of fetish.

[dusthead]

This is a pretty absurd matter isn't it?

I have no real desire to see the images in question. I can think of better ways to spend my time than reading through some nerdy comic containing images of child abuse.

However, the fact that someone has been arrested is pretty dumb. I don't see how they can get away with it. In order to successfully put this guy away for 15 years they will have to bring in new legislation that will make art an incredibly problematic legal matter - In terms of legislation, it would be an absolute nightmare.

I have a feeling some bright spark will eventually educate 'the powers that be' in order to avoid massive legal problems every time Marilyn Manson releases an album or Quentin Tarrantino releases a film.

They may get away with this - I'll be shocked and surprised if they do.

[dreamweaver]

Then why is cartoon child porn - art - acceptable?
It does not involve sex with children. Unlike photographs of actual abuse, which obviously does involve sex with children.

You have a very genuine concern that such material will feed the fantasies of potential abusers who may develop into becoming actual abusers in the future.

My problem here is that this material in which no child has actually been harmed is being treated as identical to that in which children really have been harmed. This is logically absurd to me.

It would make more sense to me if possession of such material automatically flagged the perpetrator as someone to be monitored, maybe even taken into protective custody and made to undergo compulsory therapy.

As I say, it's he "thin end of the wedge" element that bothers me here, especially as much of it seems to come from Common Purpose.

No, I don't believe consending adults should be criminalised for any sexual act they indulge in.

I'm pleased to hear it. The thing is that the thinking behind this legislation has been influenced considerably by the legislation on children. The politicians and civil servants involved were obsessed with "sending out messages on what is acceptable" (a classic Common Purpose phrase btw) and they were particularly encouraged by the way the legislation on children had moved from actual abuse to policing what was going on inside people's heads. They spoke approvingly of this quite a lot in the consultation documents.

It all makes me wonder who will they target next?

Here's the thing, remember the consenting canibal case?
I remember it partially, but I'm not up on all the details.

No, I do not believe we can consent to such extreems. In cases like that professional help is needed, they don't need to feed that kind of fetish.
I tend to veer more towards the laissez-faire side of the spectrum than the "we need protecting from ourselves" side. I have very little trust of the politicians who advocate the latter because of the way that trust has been so consistently abused over the years. But I wouldn't be so daft as to say nobody needs protecting from themselves, ever.

And for that matter, child molesters are vile scum who are not deserving of any sympathy, let me make that clear once and for all. My concern throughout this has been about the repercussions (whether intended or not) for the rest of us.

[rhydra]

I say it's a stepping stone because a paedophile won't go looking for rare Japanese magazines, he'll hang around a playground or befriend a single mother. It's just another way of controlling people. I don't like Manga personally, or depictions of violence, physical or sexual, it is, however, a very thin end of a very thick wedge and also done in a very clever way as anyone who brings attention to possible ramifications spreading further out will have to be treading on thin ice because of the material involved. Maybe one day when it's illegal to possess David Icke DVDs or books people will then wish that they had seen a little bit further than the immediate subject.

[brainfreeze]

I say it's a stepping stone because a paedophile won't go looking for rare Japanese magazines, he'll hang around a playground or befriend a single mother. It's just another way of controlling people. I don't like Manga personally, or depictions of violence, physical or sexual, it is, however, a very thin end of a very thick wedge and also done in a very clever way as anyone who brings attention to possible ramifications spreading further out will have to be treading on thin ice because of the material involved. Maybe one day when it's illegal to possess David Icke DVDs or books people will then wish that they had seen a little bit further than the immediate subject.

If not paedophiles, who is reading these Manga comics dipicting child sex?

I ask again, are there any non paedo types on here who do not find Manga's child porn offensive, and if so please explain the beauty you find in this art, cause I'm at a lose here.

[notthisshitagain]

Damn! I have to be careful now then.. gotta erase that gun I drew... people will think that I'm trying to kill people now.... :rolleyes:

[dreamweaver]

If not paedophiles, who is reading these Manga comics dipicting child sex?

I ask again, are there any non paedo types on here who do not find Manga's child porn offensive, and if so please explain the beauty you find in this art, cause I'm at a lose here.

I've never even seen any of these pictures, nor would I have any interest in them, which is why I haven't commented on them.

My concern throughout is that this is getting in the territory of "thoughtcrime". Not so long ago, it was photographs of actual abuse. Now it's drawings based on someone's imagination. Where does it go next?

[brainfreeze]

I've never even seen any of these pictures, nor would I have any interest in them, which is why I haven't commented on them.

My concern throughout is that this is getting in the territory of "thoughtcrime". Not so long ago, it was photographs of actual abuse. Now it's drawings based on someone's imagination. Where does it go next?

Who do you think is reading the literature of child abuse?

It's perfectly legal to write fiction, and they do, it's all over the net, but never mind, we all have a right to express ourselves, right down to those who like to fuck children. No harm done, they're just words and drawings. It's not a matter of thought police, more common sense, which seems to have gone out the window.

Funny how the illuminati symbolism, hollywood movies and the music industry can affect those not in the know but images of sex abuse and liturature regarding it has absolutely no effect.

I don't get that either.

[darketernal]

I'm not certain he should be given a 15 year prison sentence... however illustrations of children being molested has no redeeming artist value. There at some point must be a line of what is art and what is too extreme, and this crosses that line. I have no problem with this being outlawed.

I know some will say, "yes but if this is banned what next?", however there should be some limits and this most definately is unacceptable.

[dreamweaver]

Who do you think is reading the literature of child abuse?

It's perfectly legal to write fiction, and they do, it's all over the net, but never mind, we all have a right to express ourselves, right down to those who like to fuck children. No harm done, they're just words and drawings. It's not a matter of thought police, more common sense, which seems to have gone out the window.
That's your viewpoint and you're entitled to it. I don't believe the people who are drafting these laws actually care about the children, you obviously think they do. There's no point in going round and round in circles about this.

Funny how the illuminati symbolism, hollywood movies and the music industry can affect those not in the know but images of sex abuse and liturature regarding it has absolutely no effect.

I don't get that either.
Neither do I. I'm not a great believer in people being subliminally influenced by Illuminati symbolism, actually.

Nor do I get why anti-porn campaigners like Mary Whitehouse were able to sit through hours, days, months of porn without it affecting them, while being so certain that it would corrupt and deprave lesser mortals like us. The same goes for the policemen and lawyers who sit through hours and hours of porn.

[rhydra]

Just because something is offensive does not mean it is harmful, many laws have been sneaked in under the cover of protection, defence, you oppose them you are accused of being a terrorist sympathiser, a paedophile sympathiser.
Of course it may be offensive, I would be offended by drawings of that sort of thing, and I hope never to see them but if everything that is offensive is legislated against then what would disappear, Banksy, Hogarth, Giles?

Edit, photographs of such are obviously rightly illegal and are depictions of actual crime and misery and anyone in possession of such must be taken off the street.

[mephibosheth]

It absolutely is a matter of policing thought and curtailing art. What we are saying, by supporting this judgment, is that we have a right to tell people what they can and can not think and feel. We're saying that not only can you not act in certain ways, but you can't even THINK about acting in certain ways, not EVEN in a fully imaginary setting.

We're saying that there are limits--prosecutable limits--of imagination itself. And if you start imagining certain things, we WILL do violence to you.

Imagination is the hallmark of humanity. It is essential. And it is essentially free. It is the essence of the fundamental liberty that all human beings partake of.

Outlawing imagination is more ridiculous than outlawing words of a language. How can we outlaw sound? Vibration? How can we outlaw lines and colours on a page? We say, these lines are OK, but THESE LINES will prompt us to do violence against you for merely daring to draw them.

Lines are lines and sounds are sounds. They are neither good nor bad in themselves.

What we are doing in supporting this judgment (and all like thinking) is, in effect, making concepts illegal with the threat of violence done to all those who entertain them attached.

This is THOUGHT POLICE. There is absolutely no question about it.

We are saying that as a society and as individuals we are not mature enough to make our own moral decisions. We are saying we do not trust ourselves or our neighbours, and that we require a strata of leaders above us making decisions and enforcing them with violence--forcibly pushing us into patterns of behaviour and thinking that exclude all manner of (what some call) 'distasteful practices'.

A man is potentially being sent to jail for owning comic books.

Think about that.

It doesn't matter what the content of the comics are--whether hailing death, sex, or Baphomet. He is being prosecuted not for any act that he has done to harm other people, but for merely owning a comic that depicts acts that some find distasteful.

As a society, we fully have the right to limit what people can do to other people. That all flows from the basic right of liberty--that we have a right to be free and express ourselves without censure, so long as in that freedom we do not restrict the freedom of others or censure them. The liberty of others requires that we respect their person and seek always not to harm them through violence--theft, agression, anger, murder.

It is our perogative as a society to say that we will pursue violence against any person who climbs over their neighbour's fence and steals his produce. But how shall we create a law that punishes the same person for drawing a picture of a person climbing over their neighbour's fence and stealing his produce?

The act of drawing, of expressing a concept, and of reading it, of owning it, is not equivalent to the directly harmful act of actually stealing, murdering, raping, or whatever.

By supporting this type of judgment we are admitting that we cannot be trusted to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

This is a law designed for infants. This is not a law designed for men and women.

The only thing that matters is what people DO. Not what they think. Possessing a line drawing of a distasteful act is and never should be considered 'criminal' with a threat of violence attached to it.

8)

[brainfreeze]

It absolutely is a matter of policing thought and curtailing art. What we are saying, by supporting this judgment, is that we have a right to tell people what they can and can not think and feel. We're saying that not only can you not act in certain ways, but you can't even THINK about acting in certain ways, not EVEN in a fully imaginary setting.

We're saying that there are limits--prosecutable limits--of imagination itself. And if you start imagining certain things, we WILL do violence to you.

Imagination is the hallmark of humanity. It is essential. And it is essentially free. It is the essence of the fundamental liberty that all human beings partake of.

Outlawing imagination is more ridiculous than outlawing words of a language. How can we outlaw sound? Vibration? How can we outlaw lines and colours on a page? We say, these lines are OK, but THESE LINES will prompt us to do violence against you for merely daring to draw them.

Lines are lines and sounds are sounds. They are neither good nor bad in themselves.

What we are doing in supporting this judgment (and all like thinking) is, in effect, making concepts illegal with the threat of violence done to all those who entertain them attached.

This is THOUGHT POLICE. There is absolutely no question about it.

We are saying that as a society and as individuals we are not mature enough to make our own moral decisions. We are saying we do not trust ourselves or our neighbours, and that we require a strata of leaders above us making decisions and enforcing them with violence--forcibly pushing us into patterns of behaviour and thinking that exclude all manner of (what some call) 'distasteful practices'.

A man is potentially being sent to jail for owning comic books.

Think about that.

It doesn't matter what the content of the comics are--whether hailing death, sex, or Baphomet. He is being prosecuted not for any act that he has done to harm other people, but for merely owning a comic that depicts acts that some find distasteful.

As a society, we fully have the right to limit what people can do to other people. That all flows from the basic right of liberty--that we have a right to be free and express ourselves without censure, so long as in that freedom we do not restrict the freedom of others or censure them. The liberty of others requires that we respect their person and seek always not to harm them through violence--theft, agression, anger, murder.

It is our perogative as a society to say that we will pursue violence against any person who climbs over their neighbour's fence and steals his produce. But how shall we create a law that punishes the same person for drawing a picture of a person climbing over their neighbour's fence and stealing his produce?

The act of drawing, of expressing a concept, and of reading it, of owning it, is not equivalent to the directly harmful act of actually stealing, murdering, raping, or whatever.

By supporting this type of judgment we are admitting that we cannot be trusted to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

This is a law designed for infants. This is not a law designed for men and women.

The only thing that matters is what people DO. Not what they think. Possessing a line drawing of a distasteful act is and never should be considered 'criminal' with a threat of violence attached to it.

8)

I'm so tempted to display some of my ugly thoughts right now. I know you wouldn't like it, but hey it's my right to fantasise about sending some pale faced sweaty paedo round to read your kids bedtime stories.

No offense meant, it's all just thought you see, no harm done. :rolleyes: :o yeah right!

I even feel dirty having typed this simply to make a point.

Where do you draw the line?

Funny, you can't draw a pic of Allah but drawings of grown men raping kids is A-OK. Where's the sense in that?!

God I'm batteling to bite my tongue and not spit prophanaties here.

[apekteina lordosis]

consider that manga is japanese in origin and that it was/might still be common practice in japan for teenage boys to be jacked off by their mothers to relieve them of stress when studying for exams. with that in mind is it any wonder that the wonky art-form that is manga was born.

i dunno really what would you rather have? adults who are attracted to the underaged wanking off to risqué cartoons or adults who are attracted to the underaged actually trying to engage sexually with kids? physically speaking such adults are no different to any other adult male. they have testicles that produce sperm that requires a regular release. perhaps extreme manga provides them with a release aka they flick thru a manga comic, ejaculate then get on with their day without harming any children.

oh and don't forget, the biggest bunch of child molesters on this planet are the very people bringing these laws in. not all of them might actually rape kids, however they sanction children being blown to bits in iraq etc.

[mephibosheth]

This issue always become a hot button for people who rail violently against any suggestion of child sexuality. Thus it becomes an easy way for those who seek to remove our rights and freedoms and replace them with chains, bondage, suspicion, hate to rally people to their cause.


I'm so tempted to display some of my ugly thoughts right now. I know you wouldn't like it, but hey it's my right to fantasise about sending some pale faced sweaty paedo round to read your kids bedtime stories.


Indeed, fantasize away. It's your mind, afterall, and what goes on in there is nobody's business but your own.



No offense meant, it's all just thought you see, no harm done.


No, there isn't any harm done. Show me the harm. The mere presence of a thought in your head is nothing to me.

If, otoh, you took actions to send 'sweaty paedos' round to my kids, that is a different matter altogether.

And again, if you merely drew a comic depicting your fantasy to command an army of sweaty paedos who go round to folks' homes at night and read bedtime stories to kids, its not even remotely the same as actually commanding such an army and actually molesting kids.



Where do you draw the line?


That's funny, since the issue is about lines.

The line is drawn on a page. It circumscribes a figure. And the figure reflects a concept.

There is no 'line', and no place to draw it, when it comes to imagination and the right of people to explore their own fantasies through art and literature--the abstract and conceptual expression of concepts.

Again, to suggest that there is a line, means to outlaw concepts, to say that there are certain ideas that are so henious that we dare not even THINK them, and those who do will be rewarded with violence and righteous anger heaped upon them.



Funny, you can't draw a pic of Allah but drawings of grown men raping kids is A-OK. Where's the sense in that?!


I stand for the rights of people to draw silly pictures of gods and men.

The fact is that Muslims, not unlike people that support this criminalization of thought tendancy, can only enforce their values through radical violence.

'You draw Allah, we will kill you infidel!!'

'You draw a sexualized child, we will kill you pervert!!'

It doesn't matter what the thing drawn is, and that's the whole point. It can be anything--and it will, as there is no way to stop the slide down Mount Slipmore.



God I'm batteling to bite my tongue and not spit prophanaties here.


Case in point. Stop being so emotional and look at the issue objectively. You and your neighbours kids are not at risk here. There is no epidemic of paedophilia. The dangers have always been there, but we know about them more now and can both educate ourselves and our kids and thereby help them protect themselves.

A drawing in a manga is not going to cause a person to suddenly become a paedophile.

These sorts of depictions are raw, laid bare, and very evocative. which is, I think, the point.

The alternative is to shut up and never discuss it or even think about it.

And that route, we should have learned by now, only leads to denial, repression, and a healthy and vibrant underbelly teaming with events that nobody discusses for fear of society's righteous anger.

It is perfectly legitimate to stand and say 'we will not tolerate certain kinds of behaviours' where people are actively and directly harming others--causing them pain, suffering, oppressing them, bullying them, tormenting them, abusing them, taking advantage of them. But here we ought only be concerned with what they DO, not with what they THINK.

If thoughts never manifest as actions then there is never any harm done. And if thoughts are expressed as fiction, as fantasy, as representations--then there is no harm done.

Now, we can take this material and burn it in the streets, destroy it wherever we find it, if it is that detestable. We can teach others to avoid it. But we should never make its mere existence criminal, nor should we make its mere consideration, its mere conceptualization, an excuse for us to do violence against a person.

8)

[mephibosheth]

oh and don't forget, the biggest bunch of child molesters on this planet are the very people bringing these laws in. not all of them might actually rape kids, however they sanction children being blown to bits in iraq etc.

Therein lies the biggest irony.

:(

[brainfreeze]

This issue always become a hot button for people who rail violently against any suggestion of child sexuality. Thus it becomes an easy way for those who seek to remove our rights and freedoms and replace them with chains, bondage, suspicion, hate to rally people to their cause.



Indeed, fantasize away. It's your mind, afterall, and what goes on in there is nobody's business but your own.




No, there isn't any harm done. Show me the harm. The mere presence of a thought in your head is nothing to me.

If, otoh, you took actions to send 'sweaty paedos' round to my kids, that is a different matter altogether.

And again, if you merely drew a comic depicting your fantasy to command an army of sweaty paedos who go round to folks' homes at night and read bedtime stories to kids, its not even remotely the same as actually commanding such an army and actually molesting kids.




That's funny, since the issue is about lines.

The line is drawn on a page. It circumscribes a figure. And the figure reflects a concept.

There is no 'line', and no place to draw it, when it comes to imagination and the right of people to explore their own fantasies through art and literature--the abstract and conceptual expression of concepts.

Again, to suggest that there is a line, means to outlaw concepts, to say that there are certain ideas that are so henious that we dare not even THINK them, and those who do will be rewarded with violence and righteous anger heaped upon them.




I stand for the rights of people to draw silly pictures of gods and men.

The fact is that Muslims, not unlike people that support this criminalization of thought tendancy, can only enforce their values through radical violence.

'You draw Allah, we will kill you infidel!!'

'You draw a sexualized child, we will kill you pervert!!'

It doesn't matter what the thing drawn is, and that's the whole point. It can be anything--and it will, as there is no way to stop the slide down Mount Slipmore.




Case in point. Stop being so emotional and look at the issue objectively. You and your neighbours kids are not at risk here. There is no epidemic of paedophilia. The dangers have always been there, but we know about them more now and can both educate ourselves and our kids and thereby help them protect themselves.

A drawing in a manga is not going to cause a person to suddenly become a paedophile.

These sorts of depictions are raw, laid bare, and very evocative. which is, I think, the point.

The alternative is to shut up and never discuss it or even think about it.

And that route, we should have learned by now, only leads to denial, repression, and a healthy and vibrant underbelly teaming with events that nobody discusses for fear of society's righteous anger.

It is perfectly legitimate to stand and say 'we will not tolerate certain kinds of behaviours' where people are actively and directly harming others--causing them pain, suffering, oppressing them, bullying them, tormenting them, abusing them, taking advantage of them. But here we ought only be concerned with what they DO, not with what they THINK.

If thoughts never manifest as actions then there is never any harm done. And if thoughts are expressed as fiction, as fantasy, as representations--then there is no harm done.

Now, we can take this material and burn it in the streets, destroy it wherever we find it, if it is that detestable. We can teach others to avoid it. But we should never make its mere existence criminal, nor should we make its mere consideration, its mere conceptualization, an excuse for us to do violence against a person.

8)

I'm emotive because it is an emotive subject.

No wonder mankind is in the state it's in. Let's give the paedo all his rights lest it infringe on ours? Afterall, we can fight for the paedo rights but not for our own.

The point of art is to stimulate.

I cannot agree with art that stimulates the paedo, no matter what.

And that little drawing that I didn't draw but thought of as an example?

Well, if I drew it some freak may not come fuck your kids, just someone elses, but hey, that's still not your problem, and as you point out, paedos have been around forever, we're just more aware of them. Now it's time to feed them, is what I get from your articulate post.

I'll go out on a limb and say, fuck the paedo and the filth who draw pics of kids being fucked by adults in the first place. They are entitled to no such titilation, and the minute they act on their urges they nul and void their rights.

[citroen999]

Never understood that manga shit...

i can see the attraction of the martial arts style manga but the semi paedo stuff is beyond me..

[the nine]

Is sex with a child ok?

that depends on what religeon you are and where you where born demographically..

different cultures have different attitudes towards ages of consent.

why was there not a biblical commandment about this?


I would just like to say at his point that I too think sex with children is wrong!

also, the subject is not so easily cut and dried..
what about adult with a mental age of a child? should they be allowed to take part in sex?

[siphon880di]

The problem with manga is that there's a lot of high school girls in uniforms. Funny though that they have double D. How can a typical high school girl have double D? I heard the consensus of people there have a thing for uniforms because ever since they were growing up in school they had to wear uniform. I believe that's where they draw the line.

If the manga depicts girls with very small size breast and obvious body height and weight resembling that of a child, then it constitutes manga child porn.

The line can easily be blurred in manga because of unrealistic depictions. But if the lawyers take it seriously, they can see which mangas have serious pedo intentions. Singapore wanted to ban all hentai because some hentai has child porn. It does not make sense. They need some manga/hentai experts on the board. lol yea that is funny.

[brainfreeze]

that depends on what religeon you are and where you where born demographically..

different cultures have different attitudes towards ages of consent.

why was there not a biblical commandment about this?


I would just like to say at his point that I too think sex with children is wrong!

also, the subject is not so easily cut and dried..
what about adult with a mental age of a child? should they be allowed to take part in sex?

Does a child want sex? Or should it do as it's told?

I've yet to see adult animals rape their young, have you?

Mohammad married Aisha when she was 5 (?)

When Lots wife turned to a pillar of salt he went into the mountains, drank wine - got pissed- and impregnant his daughters, so I guess to religious folk not just child fucking but incest too is acceptable?

I'm not religious and with the above examples do you blame me? I'm spiritual. I believe in a universal conciousness.

[the nine]

I say it's a stepping stone because a paedophile won't go looking for rare Japanese magazines, he'll hang around a playground or befriend a single mother. It's just another way of controlling people. I don't like Manga personally, or depictions of violence, physical or sexual, it is, however, a very thin end of a very thick wedge and also done in a very clever way as anyone who brings attention to possible ramifications spreading further out will have to be treading on thin ice because of the material involved. Maybe one day when it's illegal to possess David Icke DVDs or books people will then wish that they had seen a little bit further than the immediate subject.

good emphasis of the point.
well put

[wez004]

I'm emotive because it is an emotive subject.

No wonder mankind is in the state it's in. Let's give the paedo all his rights lest it infringe on ours? Afterall, we can fight for the paedo rights but not for our own.

The point of art is to stimulate.

I cannot agree with art that stimulates the paedo, no matter what.

And that little drawing that I didn't draw but thought of as an example?

Well, if I drew it some freak may not come fuck your kids, just someone elses, but hey, that's still not your problem, and as you point out, paedos have been around forever, we're just more aware of them. Now it's time to feed them, is what I get from your articulate post.

I'll go out on a limb and say, fuck the paedo and the filth who draw pics of kids being fucked by adults in the first place. They are entitled to no such titilation, and the minute they act on their urges they nul and void their rights.

Where do you draw the line. Maybe we should extend the boundaries. Lets start with 16th century Italian renaissance artists who very often depicted naked children including babies with naked and half naked men and women who where clearly not their parents. Now I'm not saying any of them were buggered in these so called works of art but I'm sure someone 'knocked a quick one out' while viewing these pictures over the last 500 years or so. I tell you what I'll bring the sticks and matches and you can bring the books and we'll really get things going.

[brainfreeze]

Where do you draw the line. Maybe we should extend the boundaries. Lets start with 16th century Italian renaissance artists who very often depicted naked children including babies with naked and half naked men and women who where clearly not their parents. Now I'm not saying any of them were buggered in these so called works of art but I'm sure someone 'knocked a quick one out' while viewing these pictures over the last 500 years or so. I tell you what I'll bring the sticks and matches and you can bring the books and we'll really get things going.

As long as you bring the paedos with you, ok?

You know what else happened in days gone by, was accepted by a civilised community even? Slavery. And that too wasn't right, was it? Or do I have a right to a slave on the grounds that moses brother's sold him into slavery so why can't I have one?

[the nine]

Does a child want sex? Or should it do as it's told?

I've yet to see adult animals rape their young, have you?

Mohammad married Aisha when she was 5 (?)

When Lots wife turned to a pillar of salt he went into the mountains, drank wine - got pissed- and impregnant his daughters, so I guess to religious folk not just child fucking but incest too is acceptable?

I'm not religious and with the above examples do you blame me? I'm spiritual. I believe in a universal conciousness.

we are all spritual, when we isolate our materielistic indoctrinations.
regarding animals..what is the age of consent for animals?

your question regarding 'does a child want sex'..what determines a child?

you say should he/she do as they are told? this is clear child abuse..but not only regarding sex, but forcing them to do things they dont want to, et al.

also, BF what is you take on an adult with the mental age of a child regarding sex?

I would just like to say regarding child sexual abuse and art.. if a good painter can capture the horror contained within the look of a childs eyes, this would be very powerful and motivate people against these hienous acts..
It could quite possibley rebut the thoughts of some people in the early stages of this mentality, who are confused and think that children actually may like it.. there has to be many many facets to this argument.
I particulately liked the point someone made that censorship using this disturbing subject, would deter most from even commenting, for fear of be tarred with the same brush!!!

i am not trying to anger you btw brainfreeze :)

peace and love.

[brainfreeze]

we are all spritual, when we isolate our materielistic indoctrinations.
regarding animals..what is the age of consent for animals?

When the animal comes into season it is mature enough to mate, nature dictates.

your question regarding 'does a child want sex'..what determines a child?

Prepubesent is a child. Paedos also seem to love the age group 9 - 13. Would I be right to call them kids?


you say should he/she do as they are told? this is clear child abuse..but not only regarding sex, but forcing them to do things they dont want to, et al.

also, BF what is you take on an adult with the mental age of a child regarding sex?

I personally wouldn't have sex with an adult with the mental age of a child as he's obviously not mentally mature enough.

I would just like to say regarding child sexual abuse and art.. if a good painter can capture the horror contained within the look of a childs eyes, this would be very powerful and motivate people against these hienous acts..
It could quite possibley rebut the thoughts of some people in the early stages of this mentality, who are confused and think that children actually may like it.. there has to be many many facets to this argument.
I particulately liked the point someone made that censorship using this disturbing subject, would deter most from even commenting, for fear of be tarred with the same brush!!!

i am not trying to anger you btw brainfreeze :)

peace and love.

And now I've had enough. I'm sure others will come in and quote me with their next posts but forgive me if I don't come back. I stand by my view. Maybe if all of society had been fucked since childhood they'd understand why it is so fucking wrong too?

[guuna]

Looks like art galleries and other art collecters will be seriously worried since a lot of artists like to push the boundaries of convention. Not a very short step from legislation tantamount to the "degenerate" art where the German government decided what was art and what was not.


Maybe Damian Hirst will be going down for a good stretch then?

[motleyhoo]

Whether you believe in the validity of it or not, this law is not even about public safety or protection, or anything like that. Like most new laws it is about someone trying to get ahead, to make a name for themselves, to get their name in the spotlight by having it attached to a new law. Maybe it started with a lawyer who has his sights set on a Judgeship someday. Maybe it started with an activist group that wants more exposure. Maybe it started with a bunch of busybody housewives who have way too much time on their hands. Maybe it started with a legislator looking to secure his incumbency. Everything is about politics and money.

.

[mephibosheth]

I'm emotive because it is an emotive subject.


And that is exactly why objectivity needs to be maintained.



Let's give the paedo all his rights lest it infringe on ours? Afterall, we can fight for the paedo rights but not for our own.


False. This isn't about giving anybody 'special rights' that 'infringe' on anyone. How is a person making a drawing infringing upon any person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? It isn't.



The point of art is to stimulate.

I cannot agree with art that stimulates the paedo, no matter what.


That's your feeling. You just said art is for stimulating. You can't then limit in what ways it may be stimulating. That's just your feeling, and you can stand by it. Nothing wrong with hating things you detest and abhor. But whether they might validly be called 'art' is an entirely separate matter.



And that little drawing that I didn't draw but thought of as an example?

Well, if I drew it some freak may not come fuck your kids, just someone elses,


Or none at all. This argument just doesn't work. It leads to the extreme of 'lets ban all the [whatevers] because they lead people to do [whatever], which we despise!!'



but hey, that's still not your problem, and as you point out, paedos have been around forever, we're just more aware of them. Now it's time to feed them, is what I get from your articulate post.


No, that's not what I'm saying. No one is under any obligation to support this type of expression, as I said. But I don't see that we need to eliminate it entirely either or punish people for having or producing it, distasteful as it may be. It may have no merits whatsoever, but neither does a Big Mac.



I'll go out on a limb and say, fuck the paedo and the filth who draw pics of kids being fucked by adults in the first place. They are entitled to no such titilation, and the minute they act on their urges they nul and void their rights.

Yes, the minute they act on their urges.

But a person reading a comic is not 'acting on their urges' as it impacts other individuals.

Let the law police actions not imaginations.

8)

[rhydra]

Does a child want sex? Or should it do as it's told?

I've yet to see adult animals rape their young, have you?

Mohammad married Aisha when she was 5 (?)

When Lots wife turned to a pillar of salt he went into the mountains, drank wine - got pissed- and impregnant his daughters, so I guess to religious folk not just child fucking but incest too is acceptable?

I'm not religious and with the above examples do you blame me? I'm spiritual. I believe in a universal conciousness.

She was a full six years old, though give him his due, he did wait until she was nine before he... :(

[disorder2k8]

the things you are arguing about is really more a thought crime vs actual crime debate

I do think those manga hentai are pretty twisted, but they are just art, they are drawn onto a piece of paper, and a person looking at them is not always a criminal

now, I would be more concerned with an actual snuff film or other real scene involving children, which ive sadly been exposed to


art does not make someone a criminal, actions make someone a criminal

[and justice for all]

2 wrongs don’t make a right. First of all; no morally healthy society should condone and/or encourage the abuse of minors in any form, kind or shape. Depictions of children in sexual situations shouldn’t be allowed, like someone else already pointed out the line must be drawn somewhere. All a non-corrupt government have to do about this, is illegalize it at the source and distribution level. There’s no logical or moral need to jail people for possession of the material. Confiscation and fines is all you should need in the handling of these cases.

15 years for possession of some drawings, however objectionable those drawings might be, is plane insanity. Weren’t the perpetrators of the killing of the baby ‘P” getting about that amount of years in prison for something that’s unquestionably far worse?

[citroen999]

its not just art its also entertainment, they are made into cartoons so anyone of a young age could be influenced in either copying the acts or being dumbed down as they think its normal so they dont shout up...

the fact is whether you think its art or not, the fact is what subject does the image depict?

does it depict consenting adults or minors? it depicts minors having sex, now if you are still going to call it art, questions have to be asked about the artist creating the so called art and anyone wanting to view it whether it be a drawing or a cartoon...

fact is it depicts child porn...

what next?? softcore child porn??? would that be ok? the child doesnt really have sex but just simulates it?? dont think so!!!

[octopusrex]

Governments protecting people from themselves. The whole "red light" idea that if you drive you need to stop at the red lights.

Oddly enough, it's governments that end up killing people. Folks, when given a choice, prefer not to slaughter each other with bombs and bullets. Governments pay for bombs and bullets..

Ever more strangely: we are the government! :(

I say: All censorship is bad.

[hawk]

No as long as you make sure you use the safe words and follow the rules.
Right?