Comment by Lyonel Nichols on December 2, 2009 at 1:56pm

I agree with you. Check this out, too. --> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/bart-simpson-child-porn...

Comment by Michel-san on December 2, 2009 at 1:59pm

Hmmmm.... so we split the issues.
1) He was in possession of indecent cartoons.
2) He might have a disposition towards child pornography.
3) He might be supporting the exploitation of children.

I'm guessing a lot of people would want to see him in jail because of (2), but no doubt (2) is the way he was born and it's inappropriate to punish someone for how they were born. If (2) can be established then it's a separate issue, and is not a criminal issue.

Next is (3), this is a serious point, if he was planning to copy and redistribute the comics that would be an issue, but the article makes it sound like he was just a collector. If it's for a private collection then there's no harm done. If there's any doubt over redistribution they can be confiscated, would be difficult to prove he'd want to redistribute.

After dismissing (2) and (3) we are left with (1) as the only issue. It makes me wonder what if he had drawn the cartoons himself? What if he had sat down with a pencil and paper and drawn and drawn, would it be possible for him to go to jail for drawing something? Then there's the issue of the quality of the cartoons, if they were badly drawn stick people it would be acceptable, but because they were coloured in and well drawn it's wrong? It's a slippery slope!

I can't see a crime unless there is proof that he intended to take actions that would have promoted exploitation of children.

Comment by Izzy on December 2, 2009 at 2:21pm

Slippery slope indeed. I agree with Michael. If child pornography takes the form of illustrated porn, it's still "indecent" and still porn, but it is not hurting or exploiting anyone so far as we know. Is it the action of exploiting children what we are policing, or is it the private thoughts of every individual?

Comment by Scott A. Hunt on December 2, 2009 at 3:22pm

There's no question for me. Child pornography involves a child. This is just drawings on paper. Doesn't matter if me or anyone else likes it, it's still just drawings on paper. Next step, thought crimes.

Comment by Apple on December 2, 2009 at 3:45pm

Thanks for the comments so far, I'll check out the Bart Simpson issue when I get home from work.

Izzy - Yes, that's the issue in a nutshell. I don't want thought police in any way, shape or form. The problem with many issues, this one included, is that there is a strong appeal to emotion. In this case it's "protect the children!" Nobody is disagreeing with that. When children are harmed, someone should be held responsible. Producing child pornography with real children harms the children. Drawing a picture does not hurt anyone. In this case, he is being convicted with "posession of obscene material." I find this dangerous because it means that whatever the general public defines as "obscene" is illegal. Our culture is still afraid of sex. A graphic drawing of murder or torture is perfectly acceptable but drawing a high school romance story that has a sex scene could warrent 20 years in prison. Food for thought. ^_~

Michael - Interesting points. Now if this person were somehow involved in exploiting actual children then there is a crime and he should be dealt with. What is interesting to me is how you say he should not be allowed to distribute the comics. I really have to ask, then, if it's okay for him to own this comic but not okay for him to distribute it, what exactly is the difference? (Don't say copyright laws!) Anyone receiving the comic from him could just as easily receive it from the place he got it from. The only difference is that he's buying directly from Japan. Is it the sale of such items in the USA that is the problem? If that's the case, I'd hate to inform you that they are sold all across the USA at Japanese animation convention vendor booths. Now, how can they sell them so openly while this guy gets punished? It seems like the same category as bootleg Louis Vuiton handbags. You see them for sale in shopping malls, and they are clearly fakes that are produced illegally. Yet, most of the time nothing is done about it.

Comment by Eric Strus on December 2, 2009 at 5:06pm

pff, i would compare it to other forms of virtual material.
like illustrated violence, or theft, bestiality, or any other illegal things.

there is no victim in any of these cases.

is it just because some people find it offensive?
then what about other offensive things?
like say... an illustration of muhammad with a bomb on his head?

Comment by Galen on December 2, 2009 at 5:43pm

I have always held that there is one and only rule concerning any sexual issue. If harm is caused, it it wrong. If nobody is harmed, then nothing wrong has been done. In this case, even if he really is a pervert, I can't see where he actually harmed anybody at all. I don't have a problem with perverts, just as long as those perverted thoughts stay inside their own sick brains and don't get acted out, ever. As far as I'm concerned, the man go to whack himself to underage cartoons until his penis falls off and if it keeps him away from real children, then GOOD!

I'd have to agree with everyone here that no crime has really been committed unless it can be shown that he intended to harm actual children. And, frankly, it is my understanding (and that of Wikipedia) that animated child pornography is legal in the U.S. and is protected as free speech. Unless that has changed recently, this man should have a good defense, although his life is over now, regardless.

Comment by Matthew on December 2, 2009 at 9:58pm

its intresting to live in Japan to say the least. there are comics, magazines and other media here that show the "school girl" all the time. some sexuall and some not. I agree with Galen that as long as he stays in his own head then fine and a drawing is not a picture in that no one was harmed. once harm is brought to someone than there is a problem. I am in stores with my Japanese wife all the time, and will pass by the magazine racks, and sometimes i say things like "creepy pic" and the wife kinda of smiles at me. We have had this discussion a few times as to what is the differance between American and Japanese culture in comics. (sorry for rambeling)

Comment by Apple on December 3, 2009 at 9:06am

Thanks for your responses everyone. These are actually the responses that I expected on this site. You know why? Because without god we have no morals! Haha, no. But seriously, the reason is because most of the people on this site are critical thinkers. The "for the children!" claim can move a lot of people to action on pure emotion. Atheists tend to think about issues and try to see the whole picture rather than just acting on emotion.

And yes, Eric, that's exactly what I'm thinking. If it becomes the norm to jail people for "offensive" pictures, then political cartoons mocking Islam will certainly demand the death penalty.

Galen - I agree with you. Once someone tries to "act out" a situation in real life, then a real person is harmed. Then there is a crime. But this is the case for ANY media. For example, I can sit at home and play Grand Theft Auto all weekend. But on Monday morning if I go around shooting people and stealing cars then I'd expect that I deserve punnishment.

Comment by Michel-san on December 3, 2009 at 10:59am

I really have to ask, then, if it's okay for him to own this comic but not okay for him to distribute it, what exactly is the difference?

My concern with the redistribution is it may encourage child pornography. The cartoons could be a "first step" for people who get hold of them and lead to a desire for more. Any reasonably preventable action that could put children at risk should be examined closely, to see whether it's worth addressing.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page