It's even worse.. Did you read about the case of a 14 year old female idiot who took a picture of her crotch, and emailed it to her alleged friends? It went viral, and some older idiots want to prosecute everybody that got the picture.
So you can own sex organs, but talking a picture of your own body is a federal felony if you are under 18.
Comic books? How about the tons of Victorian nude kiddie pix demonstrating "innocence"? There are some Maxfield Parrish things that would be felonious. And the nude statue in the Mark Twain house.
My apologies if this double posts, but: I have questions about the Handley case. What makes lolicon something worth defending? Yaoi, as I understand it, isn't necessarily child porn, but the lolicon stuff is all about sexualizing prepubescent girls, yes? And haven't there been lots of credible psych studies saying that if you find a support community for a fetish, belief or behavior, you're more likely to indulge in it? That's why social movements are so important for oppressed or non-mainstream groups (meaning everything from the fetish community to free-market libertarianism) -and why NAMBLA is so very, very scary (they are, essentially, a support group for baby-rapists.)
The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic? It is, after all, more than possible to imply and discuss these issues (ex. if someone loses their virginity at 14, and chooses to write a comic about it) without having a big ol' pic of 14 yr. old poon being penetrated as the graphic. I also think there's a world of difference between the Sandman story arc-which depicts child rape as the horrific thing it is (and, I believe, also ends with a horrific death for the pervert, doesn't it?) and depicting child rape as a sexy and titillating thing. I think there is also a difference between acknowledging children's sexuality, and pornography about children that is created for adults. Where on this spectrum does something like lolicon fall? And, again, why do you, personally, think that it should be defended?
Thanks for reading my ramble, and for being accessible to us. Mostly, I think CBLDF is a fantastic org., but I'm really on the fence with this case...
xposted all over the damn place, incl. on the blog you originally linked to.
Lolicon is a fetish, yes, but a support group for fetishists of lolicon is different from a support group for child molesters.
I browse imageboards. Several of these imageboards have, at various times, hosted lolicon sub-boards. I browsed them. They were full of people trading disturbing manga. They didn't have people trading information for how to bang 12-year-olds and not get caught, which is what they'd need to have if they were actually supporting child molesters.
It's difficult to draw this distinction without actually viewing the boards, which is understandably repulsive to a lot of the same people who are involved with the legal situation about the distinction between lolicon and child porn. Still, for the law to be enforced, someone in power has to look at this stuff and decide whether it's legal or not, and I'd prefer if they were looking for actual threats to children, rather than disturbing manga.
I think it's an awfully slippery slope, which winds up threatening to make it impossible to have any discussion of sexuality in people under 18.
Which, extended to its obvious limit, criminalizes not only Ursula's autobiography, but--let's see--two seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Lolita. The occasional Judy Blume book. And some of my own ouvre, for that matter.
Talking about something is not the same as doing it.
I get really nervous around arguments like "if we save just one xx, it makes all these oppressions worthwhile." It sounds to me a little too much like "I got nuthin', but you should agree with me anyway!"
I say this not to criticise you specifically, but to point out something that might be hiding behind the basic argument.
And haven't there been lots of credible psych studies saying that if you find a support community for a fetish, belief or behavior, you're more likely to indulge in it?
I haven't found any, can you cite some?
The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic?
That is the wrong question. Rather, ask "How many people who have harmed no one is it worth putting in prison to reduce the chance of one child being raped?" Ask "By how many percentage points must we reduce the risk of one child being raped to justify putting someone in prison for an act that harms no one?" Ask "What other acts that harm no one can we justify putting people in prison for on the same basis?"
"If we save one child..." is an argument with terrible precedents.
I personally think it should be defended because I think all expression should be defended unless that expression is specifically and directly harmful -- the only basis for banning child pornography is that a child was harmed in making it. The only basis for banning slander or libel is that it is directly harmful -- and false.
The problem is not the art, it is the behavior. The map is not the territory. Looking at pictures is not the same as having sex.
These laws are badly written, and stupidly enforced, because the legislators did not want to get down in the gutter and make meaningful definitions. Legislating with closed eyes does not work. And even my old fundamentalist right wing US Army dad knew that you cannot legislate morality.
And bottom line time; the huge majority of child molestation, just like the huge majority of assaults and murders happen within families. That is the place legislators do not want to go. Within the "sanctity of marriage".
Probably the second largest collection of child molesters in within organized religion.
I say that the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints alone probably commits a measurable fraction of total child abuse in the USA, and the Catholic Church takes up a lot of the remainder.
Go ahead, tell me i'm wrong. I would be happy to be wrong.
Thank you so much for saying this because it is what I always think in these discussions and do not have the courage to say: that so much abuse takes place inside the home/family circle, a place that legislation absolutely avoids.
Personally I think that allowing families to say "my child may not receive sexual education in school" probably increases the odds of children being sexually abused much more than comic book depictions of underage sex, but one right is protected by law while the other is prevented.
What I don't understand is A) I live in Iowa and haven't heard of this case and B) I can't find any local news articles at all about it. I'm not saying it's a hoax, just that there's a suspicious lack of information from any source other than the CBLDF.
I have some serious questions about the law in the US. Speaking as a citizen of the Internet since before there was an internet, and a porn-curious male, I've had the the "whoa wtf no more of that!" experience when encountering porn of dubious legality. As a recent commercial shown on MSNBC repeatedly reminds me, having possession of those images is a felony. And 'possession' can \mean 'ephemeral presence in your browser cache.' Or 'images recovered by forensic hard drive analysis after you purge your browser cache.'
By that standard literally tens of millions of Americans, male and female are guilty of that felony. Furthermore, pornographic images involving a minor who LOOKS of age are as illegal as the indisputable sickening child pornography.
And yet, when I look for statistics about convictions for child sexual abuse, the best estimate I can find is about 80,000 a year. Which leads me to a sort of bulls eye diagram -- at the center actual sexual predators, the ring around that, guys dumb enough to get caught by that "To Catch A Predator" TV Show, around that people who are dumb enough to have dubious porn stored durably in some format in their homes, around that everyone who might have at some time accidentally encountered illegal images.
What that target looks like is basically a circle with a small dot in the center. Yet everyone in the circle can be prosecuted. I don't know how often people with no possible inclination to abuse children have their lives ruined by prosecutions for 'possession of child porn,' but I suspect it's way too many.
I am in no way condoning the abuse and exploitation of children. Just pointing out that the pendulum has swung way too far on this issue. We've gone from punishing objectionable actions, to punishing actual intent, to punishing evidence of latent or possible intent. In essence we're punishing thought crime.
And furthermore, in the case of these manga, we're punish people for viewing pen and ink drawings. I submit that the really sick fucks are the people who prosecute these crimes, knowing full well they're ruining the lives of people whose only crime was to view an image.
And, prosecution in America has no effect on Japanese publishers, Beylorussian porn pushers, yadda yadda. A totally sick subject top to bottom.. I have never heard that the pedophile priests (the scum of the Earth) or the FLDS (runners up) were motivated by child porn..
And there is good evidence for snuff porn, death match porn, lots and lots of other sick sick stuff, that no body wants to even think about
Not even counting the Abu Ghraib porn...Any body ever ask if any of those prisoners were under 18?
The world; hot, flat, crowded, sick, and hypocritical.
Which is not to say that the Comic Defense Fund should not get a few bucks. I have a few Zaps on the shelf. I don't remember any child porn, but i don't know why there isn't. Got every other perversion ever invented and a few new ones.
Mr Natural #1 features 'Big Baby' performing fellatio on Mr. Natural. Now whether Big Baby is in fact a juvenile, or just an infantilized fantasy of an adult woman, is open to debate.
Thanks so much for the thoughtful replies. It's hard for me to think past the initial RAAAR! when dealing with the sexualiztion of kids and really young teenagers.
I also got a really helpful response from the CBLDF when I emailed them, bringing up the danger of precedent, which is the best reason I can see to hold my nose and send CBLDF money for this one. I remain completely unconvinced that lolicon has anything resembling artistic merit, but in a legal system based entirely on precedent, I understand the necessity to defend this foul crap.
re: citing studies. In discussing this case with my partner, he brought up these apparently fictional "studies." He's taking a psych course, I thought maybe he heard about it from his professor. At any rate, once I looked, I found several things linking VIOLENT acts to the viewing of violent images, but nothing linking porn to sex acts- I think he confused the two. The closest I found was an abstract that said "The analysis illustrates the important role that the Internet plays in increasing sexual arousal to child pornography and highlights individual differences in whether this serves as a substitute or as a blueprint for contact offenses" (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713840114~db=all) and a few articles about the peer groups of sex offenders.
activating orbital mind control lasers
So you can own sex organs, but talking a picture of your own body is a federal felony if you are under 18.
Comic books? How about the tons of Victorian nude kiddie pix demonstrating "innocence"? There are some Maxfield Parrish things that would be felonious. And the nude statue in the Mark Twain house.
And i'm a little worried about Tinkerbelle.
lolicon
I have questions about the Handley case. What makes lolicon something worth defending? Yaoi, as I understand it, isn't necessarily child porn, but the lolicon stuff is all about sexualizing prepubescent girls, yes? And haven't there been lots of credible psych studies saying that if you find a support community for a fetish, belief or behavior, you're more likely to indulge in it? That's why social movements are so important for oppressed or non-mainstream groups (meaning everything from the fetish community to free-market libertarianism) -and why NAMBLA is so very, very scary (they are, essentially, a support group for baby-rapists.)
The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic? It is, after all, more than possible to imply and discuss these issues (ex. if someone loses their virginity at 14, and chooses to write a comic about it) without having a big ol' pic of 14 yr. old poon being penetrated as the graphic. I also think there's a world of difference between the Sandman story arc-which depicts child rape as the horrific thing it is (and, I believe, also ends with a horrific death for the pervert, doesn't it?) and depicting child rape as a sexy and titillating thing. I think there is also a difference between acknowledging children's sexuality, and pornography about children that is created for adults. Where on this spectrum does something like lolicon fall? And, again, why do you, personally, think that it should be defended?
Thanks for reading my ramble, and for being accessible to us. Mostly, I think CBLDF is a fantastic org., but I'm really on the fence with this case...
xposted all over the damn place, incl. on the blog you originally linked to.
Re: lolicon
I browse imageboards. Several of these imageboards have, at various times, hosted lolicon sub-boards. I browsed them. They were full of people trading disturbing manga. They didn't have people trading information for how to bang 12-year-olds and not get caught, which is what they'd need to have if they were actually supporting child molesters.
It's difficult to draw this distinction without actually viewing the boards, which is understandably repulsive to a lot of the same people who are involved with the legal situation about the distinction between lolicon and child porn. Still, for the law to be enforced, someone in power has to look at this stuff and decide whether it's legal or not, and I'd prefer if they were looking for actual threats to children, rather than disturbing manga.
Re: lolicon
Which, extended to its obvious limit, criminalizes not only Ursula's autobiography, but--let's see--two seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Lolita. The occasional Judy Blume book. And some of my own ouvre, for that matter.
Talking about something is not the same as doing it.
Re: lolicon
And some of mine. A remembered rape that helped make the protag who she is at the time of the story.
Re: lolicon
I say this not to criticise you specifically, but to point out something that might be hiding behind the basic argument.
Re: lolicon
I haven't found any, can you cite some?
The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic?
That is the wrong question. Rather, ask "How many people who have harmed no one is it worth putting in prison to reduce the chance of one child being raped?" Ask "By how many percentage points must we reduce the risk of one child being raped to justify putting someone in prison for an act that harms no one?" Ask "What other acts that harm no one can we justify putting people in prison for on the same basis?"
"If we save one child..." is an argument with terrible precedents.
I personally think it should be defended because I think all expression should be defended unless that expression is specifically and directly harmful -- the only basis for banning child pornography is that a child was harmed in making it. The only basis for banning slander or libel is that it is directly harmful -- and false.
These laws are badly written, and stupidly enforced, because the legislators did not want to get down in the gutter and make meaningful definitions. Legislating with closed eyes does not work. And even my old fundamentalist right wing US Army dad knew that you cannot legislate morality.
And bottom line time; the huge majority of child molestation, just like the huge majority of assaults and murders happen within families. That is the place legislators do not want to go. Within the "sanctity of marriage".
Probably the second largest collection of child molesters in within organized religion.
I say that the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints alone probably commits a measurable fraction of total child abuse in the USA, and the Catholic Church takes up a lot of the remainder.
Go ahead, tell me i'm wrong. I would be happy to be wrong.
Personally I think that allowing families to say "my child may not receive sexual education in school" probably increases the odds of children being sexually abused much more than comic book depictions of underage sex, but one right is protected by law while the other is prevented.
I have some serious questions about the law in the US. Speaking as a citizen of the Internet since before there was an internet, and a porn-curious male, I've had the the "whoa wtf no more of that!" experience when encountering porn of dubious legality. As a recent commercial shown on MSNBC repeatedly reminds me, having possession of those images is a felony. And 'possession' can \mean 'ephemeral presence in your browser cache.' Or 'images recovered by forensic hard drive analysis after you purge your browser cache.'
By that standard literally tens of millions of Americans, male and female are guilty of that felony. Furthermore, pornographic images involving a minor who LOOKS of age are as illegal as the indisputable sickening child pornography.
And yet, when I look for statistics about convictions for child sexual abuse, the best estimate I can find is about 80,000 a year. Which leads me to a sort of bulls eye diagram -- at the center actual sexual predators, the ring around that, guys dumb enough to get caught by that "To Catch A Predator" TV Show, around that people who are dumb enough to have dubious porn stored durably in some format in their homes, around that everyone who might have at some time accidentally encountered illegal images.
What that target looks like is basically a circle with a small dot in the center. Yet everyone in the circle can be prosecuted. I don't know how often people with no possible inclination to abuse children have their lives ruined by prosecutions for 'possession of child porn,' but I suspect it's way too many.
I am in no way condoning the abuse and exploitation of children. Just pointing out that the pendulum has swung way too far on this issue. We've gone from punishing objectionable actions, to punishing actual intent, to punishing evidence of latent or possible intent. In essence we're punishing thought crime.
And furthermore, in the case of these manga, we're punish people for viewing pen and ink drawings. I submit that the really sick fucks are the people who prosecute these crimes, knowing full well they're ruining the lives of people whose only crime was to view an image.
And there is good evidence for snuff porn, death match porn, lots and lots of other sick sick stuff, that no body wants to even think about
Not even counting the Abu Ghraib porn...Any body ever ask if any of those prisoners were under 18?
The world; hot, flat, crowded, sick, and hypocritical.
Which is not to say that the Comic Defense Fund should not get a few bucks. I have a few Zaps on the shelf. I don't remember any child porn, but i don't know why there isn't. Got every other perversion ever invented and a few new ones.
R Crumb & Child Porn
I also got a really helpful response from the CBLDF when I emailed them, bringing up the danger of precedent, which is the best reason I can see to hold my nose and send CBLDF money for this one. I remain completely unconvinced that lolicon has anything resembling artistic merit, but in a legal system based entirely on precedent, I understand the necessity to defend this foul crap.
re: citing studies. In discussing this case with my partner, he brought up these apparently fictional "studies." He's taking a psych course, I thought maybe he heard about it from his professor. At any rate, once I looked, I found several things linking VIOLENT acts to the viewing of violent images, but nothing linking porn to sex acts- I think he confused the two. The closest I found was an abstract that said "The analysis illustrates the important role that the Internet plays in increasing sexual arousal to child pornography and highlights individual differences in whether this serves as a substitute or as a blueprint for contact offenses" (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713840114~db=all) and a few articles about the peer groups of sex offenders.
Thanks again, everyone.