U.S. Manga Obscenity Conviction Roils Comics World
wired.com
wired.com
As a conservative techy I'm quite familiar with the libertarian counter-argument, which rests so firmly on "everything is permitted save for that which harms non-consenting people" that it sometimes forgets that that assumption is not universally shared. I'm not going to try to talk you guys out of that one, but just wanted to mention that at least one person in your social circle thinks the other way.
Or, if I wanted to play the score-free-debater-points game the other way, I'd say "You don't get a free pass on incitations to murder or solicitations to ponzi schemes or offers to sell marijuana just because they're written. Why should 'it is just ink on a page' save child pornography when it saves none of these things?"
I absolutely believe that sex with children should be socially unacceptable. However, I believe that fictional depictions of unacceptable acts are acceptable.
By outlawing depictions of one unacceptable act because it has crossed a threshold from "unacceptable" to "super-unacceptable" such that drawing it is illegal, you open up two slippery slopes:
1) Other crimes may be deemed "super-unacceptable", creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding comic collectors.
2) Other mediums may be deemed off-limits. Could a written description of sex with children be illegal? Could a spoken description of sex with children be illegal?
In an extreme worst-case Orwellian scenario the law would fall down both slopes: any depiction of crime in any medium would be illegal.
Or, if I wanted to play the score-free-debater-points game the other way, I'd say "You don't get a free pass on incitations to murder or solicitations to ponzi schemes or offers to sell marijuana just because they're written. Why should 'it is just ink on a page' save child pornography when it saves none of these things?"
You don't get a free pass on a written note that says "let's go make kiddie porn" either. I'm not making the "just ink on a page" argument, which doesn't save the examples you gave or real child porn, so it shouldn't save explicit manga either. What should save manga is that it's fictional; no other crime was committed in the creation of the work.
So you'd go to prison for saying that the man did bad stuff to you.
But what's wrong with drawings that makes them more than simply free speech?
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/links/citizens_guide.html
I'm not saying this a good law, but anyone who has this kind of stuff should know that the "it's just ink on paper" argument cuts no ice with the judges.
This is probably worse. This means the next guy without the same collection will be sentenced based on what he is, not on what he does.
Does this mean that anyone from Japan or "all of Asia" who reads these comics is subject to arrest when they visit the United States with one of these comics in their backpack?
They have signs at the airports mentioning so. Your chance of getting caught is probably pretty low and most of the time when they catch someone with a Playboy they just confiscate it and destroy it, but the Ministry of Justice does not consider evenhanded ignoring of the law to be a priority.
This article skims the surface of this fairly complex topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Japan#Censorship...
第二十二章 わいせつ、姦淫及び重婚の罪
(わいせつ物頒布等) 第百七十五条 わいせつな文書、図画その他の物を頒布し、販売し、又は公然と陳列した者は、二年以下の懲役又は二百五十万円以下の罰金若しくは科料に処する。販売の目的でこれらの物を所持した者も、同様とする。
My comment:
法律上で禁じられているか禁じられていないかを判断するにはWikiを参照するより直接法律を見た方がいいんじゃあないか?例えば、「日本の法律で図に過ぎないものはわいせつにならないだろう。それは論理的だし、日本はポルノだらけとよく知られているし。」と思うなら、読んだらすぐ「いや、文字通り、図に過ぎないものでもわいせつとなる」と分かるだろう。
日本のわいせつの罪はアメリカに移行としたら憲法違反と必ず見られるほど広いふうに定義されている。例の漫画は明らかにわいせつである。わいせつとして罰されるかどうかは先言ったように別の話だが。
これは「おれは日本語読めるからカコイイゼ」とのオタクの台詞として受ける人もいるだろうが、まあ、しょうがないか。
The last line says, heavily paraphrased, "Some folks are probably going to think I'm saying 'lolz i can readz japanese im so cool' -- ah well".
Doesn't the US have similar statutes? (Which are almost never enforced...?)
Why are we not prosecuting Bush&co? Oh, very easy. It's not because he&co aren't evil (because they most certainly fucking are). In our world, might makes the right -- the one with power is the one with enough propaganda powers (and just powers) to make himself right.
And you ask me why I hate religion and wasps.. this is why :) It hides evil under the mask of morality and goodness.
I'm usually good at thinking that all sorts of things can be HN, but heck if I can justify this one. There's no technology angle, there's no hacker angle. I can't even extrapolate the general principles into something resembling a startup angle. It seems designed just to incite pointless argument.
Was this just copied from one of the more free-for-all boards like Reddit?
/(\W|^)bush\s*\(&|and)?\s*co/i
Similarly, we could build a Slashdot detector: /(\W|^)m\$(\W|$)/i
Save tons of trouble. Worse is better :)