Alaskan Prosecutors Cite Anime in Virtual Child Porn Ban

From the way its worded, it sounRAB like they're just looking to ban hentai featuring children, and not neccesarily anything that falls under the lolicon/shotacon urabrella term.

So how many of these cases were thrown out because they couldn't decide what constitutes "virtual child porn"?
 
As much as I hate crap even as tame as Strike Witches (compared to real hentai, that is tame), there's no telling what exactly they'll call "child porn". Didn't that Dragon Ball story include someone calling it child porn? Yeah, they better not try to pull crap like that. Other than that, it's a case of my support of freedom of speech versus my hate for sexualizing children, so I have nothing else to say at the moment.
 
I'm not too sure I disagree with what they are doing, in fact I'd say that this really should come to pass. I realize that just because someone watches hentai featuring children doesn't automatically make them a child molester, but I suppose it never hurts to take precautions against things like that. However, Joan Bertin does make a good point that this then becomes a slippery slope when you enter into someones fantasy, but I guess the question then is who will it hurt to be banning this?
 
Agree with Funiop. the sexualization of children is bad & IMHO should be banned even in animated from (Like Hentai). But I don't think this will effect regular series, even if said series is loli/shota (wich althogh still arn't my cup of tea are no where near as messed up as Hentai!)

but im sure gorbash is right as well,nothing big will come of this......sadly, thanks to rule 34 you can't ban Drawings...even though some should honestly be banned!
 
Man, Alaskan prosecutors most be dealing with a lot of virtual child porn lately to try to tackle this on such a wide scale.



"If it exists, there's porn for it." Isn't at fault. It's just the truth. The sad, sad truth that someone jokingly pointed out. And oh the can of worms they opened...
 
The problem is that once you've accepted that any government in the world should legislate based on something as subjective as morality, you can't be certain that the resulting definition of what should or shouldn't be regulated will end up matching your own.

It's fairly easy to come up with a concensus against the more extreme examples, I'm sure, but where will the last line be drawn? I am disgusted by actual child pornography on principle, but also by the very concept of thought crime and what may come out of it.

This isn't a matter of studying the situation first and reaching a factual scientific conclusion, but one of seeking moral scapegoats.
 
Well, that kind of law has come up again, and again, and again in the US, and every time it gets shot down in the Supreme Court because it violates the First Amendment since no actual victim exists, meaning the right to free speech takes precedent. That said, it's speech that's come under an increasing amount of fire as availability increases, and in nations without such clearly stated protections of speech (such as most of Europe, Australia and all your dictatorships) such material is banned. Furthermore, niche lobbying groups and international children's advocacy groups alike, both seemingly oblivious to the fact their time might be better spent thwarting the massive criminal networks that make and distribute child pornography (read up on wikileaks and weep for the world,) are increasingly itching to get lolicon/shota material banned in the two first world countries that have most lenient laws in regarRAB to drawn pornographic content depicting minors, the US and Japan.

Legally speaking though, with Supreme Court precedent repeatedly protecting that kind of stuff, it would take a major act of Judicial activism in the US (namely the Supreme Court, many of whom were on the bench when previous attempts at these laws were declared unconstitutional,) or a Constitutional Amendment to ban it. It'd be have to be a very specifically worded amendment as well, lest we accidentally ban written works from Shakespeare, Nabokov, Scooter Libby and countless others.

The way I see it: I dislike lolicons, shotacons and the content they make as much as the next guy, but just like the guy with the white supremacist bumper sticker and rebel flag in the window of his truck, or boisterous homophobes who hold up hate-laden signs at any event where they can get attention, as long as they aren't actively out hurting other people, they aren't violating anyone else's rights, so they aren't committing a crime, at least from the legal standpoint. Since I'm a law-abiding, American citizen, I'll just have to deal with the fact that some people are ignorant/crazy/perverted/etc. If I don't want to deal with that, I can move to Germany or Australia where speech is more restricted on the subject.
 
Isn't hentai the Japanese word for porn? As in, over there everything porn related is refered as "hentai"? (Be it anime, manga, or live-action)?
 
As much as i dislike loli and shota and all, nodody is getting hurt in the slightest by it, so if there are those weirdoes who enjoy that sort of animated "not hurting real children" kind of thing then let them do so, jeez....
 
I think that's about all there is to say on the subject, other than to say that if I were an Alaskan taxpayer I would be furious that my state government was wasting public time and resources on something that has no chance of being upheld in court instead of dealing with more important problems.
 
I'd say that the depiction of children being sexualized would be considered an 'important problem.' Perhaps you are right in saying that it is a waste of time because it won't be upheld in court, but perhaps with more effort it will be, and that is only possible with taxpayer money.
 
I think Alaska is starved for attention. Sure, hentai is gross, but I'd rather people get their lollies from that instead of actual child exploitation.
 
I'd say that actual children being victimized is an important problem. What consenting adults read/watch in the privacy of their own homes is not. Or at least not important enough to warrant government intervention in direct violation of the First Amendment.
 
Back
Top