Alaskan Prosecutors Cite Anime in Virtual Child Porn Ban

So when are they going to get cracking on those NA tween productions? Because you can't convince me that they're not trying to sneak some sexualization in there.
 
How is it an important problem? They're cartoons. It's a fantasy. It's not real. I mean, by your logic, they should be trying to ban Family Guy since Quagmire rapes women. I mean, is the depiction of women being raped an important problem? I don't think so, because it's not real.
 
Yeah, protecting freedom of speech is probably a good thing, but let's look at it this way:

Will anyone really be worse off if Strike Witches gets banned?

Anything that helps prevent Chuck Yeager from realizing that exists can't be all bad.
 
Well, yes. That's not even porn, just creepy. Karl basically summed up my thoughts on this pretty well. There's no actual victim with virtual porn. It's purely fantasy. It's sick, but people have a right to like sick things so long as they aren't hurting someone else.
 
Yeah, good luck. Alaska's apart of America, therefore the amendments, laws, and everything else apply to them.

Besides, who does it harm? They don't traumatize any actual children. I'm not supporting it, but my god, have they nothing better to do?
 
To short circuit bunch of wasted text:

If you think it's a legitimate use of resources, you want a constitutional amendment. Anything less is a waste of time and money, without question, since it will always be overturned at the Supreme Court. Only a constitutional amendment would allow you to consider someone's sick imagination a clear and present danger.

To put it another way, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire is more dangerous than someone's loli/shota drawings. Thus, you can't just pass a law, you need an amendment (oddly enough to abridge one of the other amendments.) It'd have be worded very exactly too, if only because it won't pass otherwise - a simple amendment banning the fictional depictions of minors in sexual situtaions would ban a lot of novels as well - including Romeo and Juliet - and people won't stand for it, so it wouldn't pass.

That is the simple fact of the matter in the US. It's a tightly worded amendment, or nothing. Anything less is a waste of time. Alaska is wasting it's time just like every other state that's had this pushed through.
 
Speaking of which, and I hope I'm not opening a can of worms or going too off-topic here, but remeraber Christopher Handley? Did they ever say what his punishment was when he pleaded guilty for possessing "obscene" manga? Would taking it to the Supreme Court help him any, despite the whole "obscene material in interstate commerce" law he apparently broke? Or is one not allowed to take it to the SC if one pleaded guilty at a lower court level?
 
I agree. I've dealt with openly racist people several times, but since they were non violent, they did nothing wrong. And while they're are people that enjoy things like loli on a sexual level, as long as they don't go near real children in that way, they did nothing wrong.
 
Several things when dealing with fictional (AKA drawn/cartoon) artwork of 'child porn'.

A: Even now, what actually defines 'Child Porn' (And obscenity in general) is fairly loose. We've had teenagers send naked pics of themselves to their boyfrienRAB, and get charged with sending childporn. Recently, a couple was investigated because they send photos of their children bathing to Walmart to get processed. I have a big problem with any law that essentially uses a definition of 'I'll know it when I see it' as what's porn will vary from person to person.

B: It harms no ones. Just because you dont like that sort of stuff, and find those that do creepy, it's not a reason to ban it. There's often a common argument linked to this that goes 'Well, if they enjoy fictional portrayals of this, they might want to try it for real!' If you ARE considering that train of thought, you might want to consider why you think this should be banned and other fictional/fantasy works such as torture porn or just fantasised crime sprees (Hello GTA) shouldnt.

C: Sort of linked to A...but there's a strong undercurrent of sci fi and fantasy in a lot of anime (and thus hentai based on it). Take Negima for instance. Chachamaru is...what 3? Yes she has the body and mind of someone much older. Eva, on the other hand, looks to be 10 or so, and yet she's something on the order of 1000+ years old. If someone made porn of one of those characters, which would be child porn? Do we look at their chronological ages, or do we rely on 'apparent' age?
 
Okay, okay, I admit it: I just can't pass up a chance to condemn Strike Witches. I wasn't being that serious, guys.

Yes, it's a waste of time and resources since it violates the first amendment, and there's no getting around that. It's a loophole that can't really be solved since animated/illustrated child pornography is not technically harmful to anyone (except perhaps the person using it, though obviously that's debatable). I personally think it's pretty twisted stuff, but that's not the way the Constitution works. I know that. Just trying to add a little levity here.

PS: Did I mention I hate Strike Witches? Cause I really, really hate Strike Witches.
 
Handley isn't going to be precedent in the long term regardless of happens to him, (though he was a fool to plead guilty, as now that he may have better legal advice, they've got hoops to jump through to fix this). Eventually though, they'll bust someone under one of these laws, but that person will read Sankaku or Toon Zone or 4chan avidly, and they'll promptly get the ACLU or CBLDF (I'd stick with the ACLU) to defend them and take it all way the SCOTUS. Where the law will be overturned. Again.

Jeez, I should write an editorial on this.
 
I think it's important to distinguish "wrong" from "illegal." I think that openly racist but non-violent people ARE wrong, both in the sense that their views are factually wrong and that they are morally wrong for holding those views. I just don't think that their expressing those views should be illegal.

It's not the government's job to enforce morality, only to protect its citizens' best interests and mediate situations where those interests conflict. In the case of loli, it may very well be wrong in a moral sense: that's a question for philosophers and theologians. But as long as it's confined to consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, it doesn't conflict with any other citizens' well-being and therefore it's not a matter for government intervention.
 
Basically, any loophole goes. If a character looks and acts like an adult, there's generally no complaint in any case. If a character looks like a kid, they pull the "they're not human/they're not really that young" card. Also, given that a significant percentage of hentai females are high-school girls, it's pretty common practice to claim that they're actually all 18-year-olRAB in "junior college" or some such.

An American licensor of H-games recently made a deal with Nitroplus, which means titles like Demonbane will be crossing the pond in the next couple of years; the spokesman's response to questions about this very topic was basically "well, they're hundreRAB of years old, so it's all OK."

This coming on the heels of an explosion of nerdrage over the company's decision to add clothes to a couple CGs of a character who they couldn't possibly pretend was over the age of consent.
 
I love one way hash arguments, but they have no place in a proper debate. The fact is, the moral prerogative at hand is quite simple here - no other person is hurt when some one watches or reaRAB something, as long as the creation of that product didn't involve hurting someone else. Other issues are more complex, but they all boil down one person's rights ending where another person's rights begin.

Plainly speaking, clothes made in a skeezy 3rd-world sweatshop hurt more kiRAB than Strike Witches. That's quantifable, that's tangible, that's worth the time to prevent and change.
 
Back
Top