ComiPress Discusses Manga Legality
ComiPress now hosts a thorough article, by practicing legal expert Lawrence A. Stanley, analyzing the seeming erosion of the legally guaranteed rights of American citizens to access sexually gratuitous or explicit Japanese manga and anime, and even images and information about all types of anime and manga. The article specifically concentrates on the legal cases of Dwight Whorley and Christopher Handley, American citizens that have been indicted, and in the later case, even legally prohibited from having any interaction with anime and manga whatsoever, in contradiction to a seeming literal interpretation of present US constitutional law.
Please note that the article includes potentially offensive illustrations including one featuring nudity.
I’m not a legal expert, but this article by a professional legal expert does confirm my own arguments and citations from early 2006 asserting that “lolicon” material is not, and should not be, illegal in America. Certain overzealous prosecutors are clearly attempting to impose their own morality upon the law, regardless of the devastating impact on individuals who have, in any rational perspective, not broken any laws. As Mr. Stanley predicts, the basis of these legal convictions probably will be eventually ruled unconstitutional. But in the mean time, these convictions set dangerous legal precedents that impede the rights of all Americans to merely access information about Japanese comic art. This may sound like exaggeration. It isn’t.
Source: Anime News Network
Related Posts
About The Author
john
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I disagree.
I think there are titles out there which should be banned on the basis of child porno (in fact, including, quite possibly, one title which has been licensed recently by Funimation!).
The fact is that any pornography law is an attempt to impose morality upon the law, as a matter of definition of that pornography (whatever it is) is against the law.
If you believe that lolicon is constitutionally legal, then I question the existence of a law against any form of child pornography which does not involve explicit sexual contact.
“If you believe that lolicon is constitutionally legal, then I question the existence of a law against any form of child pornography which does not involve explicit sexual contact.”
The difference between lolicon and “child pornography without sexual contact” is that lolicon does not require an actual child to be produced. Some child psychologists might argue that a child posing nude for photographs of the nature you describe could be traumatized by the experience (whether intentionally or not), regardless of whether there is anything sexual about the photos, per se. Even though no actual molestation occurs, the simple fact that such actions could POSSIBLY harm a developing child’s mental state is where the distinction is drawn. In this way, it is impossible for lolicon images to ever harm a child because no children are used in making it.
In other words lolicon can include a movie-like disclaimer akin to “No children were harmed during the production of this piece,” whereas “child pornography without sexual contact” cannot.
“I think there are titles out there which should be banned on the basis of child porno”
First, I’m very curious about what title you’re referring to. I’ve NEVER seen FUNimation distribute adult material.
Second, banning a cartoon, regardless of the material, violates the Constitution. I couldn’t care less about your offense to the material as it was your choice to view it. Denying others the option to make/view it due to your offense is insulting to their freedoms.
The “law” regarding pornography/sexual content is gray, and will remain so while humans live on this planet. A recent case in which several teenagers were charged with child pornography for “sexting” goes to show just how gray this line truly is.
Show a “loli” image to 100 people, and you’ll often get 2 responses: “It’s a cartoon” or “It’s a little girl”. It’s those who view it as a little girl which often affects how the “law” is applied. There is NO changing the mind of these people who can not distinguish the difference between a cartoon and an actual child.
By your account, all toys produced in the manner of a child should also be banned, because there’s nothing stopping me from taking a child’s toy and placing it in a movie with sexually explicit situations. Would this also constitute child pornography?
I do agree with your final paragraph, but alas, the hypocrites who make/enforce the laws will warp all common sense to twist artistic views into a grandstanding opportunity for the sake of “protecting children” when not a single child was actually used.
This gets worse when 12 people are pulled from the street to make a verdict in such legal cases.
Starcade, thank you for sharing your rebuttal. I do believe in the constitutional freedom of expression to depict sexuality. America has laws in place which prevent actual living children from being associated with pornography. I certanly condone and appreciate those laws. As Joechummer, and even the US Supreme Court have said, “The subject here is fiction and fantasy. No children are abused in the production of these images.” As soon as real living children become involved, we’ve moved into an entirely different situation and discussion.
On a side note, I imagine the FUNimation title you’re thinking of is Strike Witches. I respect people’s right to be offended by Strike Witches, but I personally fail to see how a show about magic using girls with animal ears and tails fighting alien invaders is the legal equivalent of child abuse.
It is really depressing and disturbing that living in the 21 century in the year 2009 there is people like starcade who fail to understand the obvious: drawings (of any kind) are fictional.
It however dose not surprise me that individuals like starcade always try to impose their “morality” and/or “beliefs” in others, those kind of people always exist, but really, we all ask of you is take whatever measures you like as long as you do not invade and try to cut the freedom of others.
A cartoon character kills another character, should we have trial for homicide?
For those that were never taught what fictional means: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fictional
I think many of you are forgetting one very simple problem:
The very fact that this kind of stuff might exist creates an acceptability which we cannot allow a certain part of the population to have. I think it akin to what I believe fansubbing has done to the anime fandom (and one of the reasons my interest in anime has significantly waned over the last two years): It creates an acceptability in the fandom which can (and does!) carry over into other unacceptable conduct.
That a child is not produced to be defiled in this manner is not relevant to the equation. It creates an environment (not like a lot of these kiddie pageants – Jon-Benet, anyone?) where it’s OK to gawk and drool at little girls in their panties.
That isn’t 21st century, chise. That’s common sense. You wouldn’t want me to operate within what you probably consider a 21st-century “advanced” society in that sense.
Remember: All law is an imposition of one’s morals onto another. I mean, I have a pet peeve about not being allowed to find a dark corner of a screening room and passing out at some of the 24-hour cons. That’s, apparently, a matter of law in some jurisdictions. Hence, I tell them that they better not allow me to their shows anymore. (One of the reasons I’m now banned from AX and should be from Fanime.)
But that action is considered harmful, probably more in a tourism-money sense — just as these actions are considered harmful to children, promoting the sexual objectification of little children.
John: I don’t believe the Constitution grants that freedom, to be blunt. If the Constitution were to grant that freedom of sexual expression, then what right does anyone have to restrict that freedom just because the expression is with a member of the same gender? (One example, but one which comes up.) What right do they have to say that two people can’t have sex just because one is 18 and the other will turn 18 in two months? (Another.)
I truly believe that anime fans are scared that, if they are called on to the carpet on any degree of these issues, that the entire anime fandom will be exposed as one big illegality and shut down.
They may well be right.
PS: Yes, I am referring to Strike Witches. How that piece of pedophilic garbage ever got a license, or was ever allowed to…
Starcade:
It sounds to me that you are just pissed that lolicon even exists, and you disagree with it because you do not even remotely understand it, nor do you WANT to understand it.
I will say that lolicon isn’t for everyone. Some people either just don’t like it or they can take it too far. But then again, other legal activities, such as drinking alcohol for example, isn’t for everyone either. Sure, some people will go out have have a (perfectly legal) drink with friends on the weekend, but then there are some people who binge and turn that legal thing into something illegal (getting a DUI) or something even worse (killing someone while drunk). But will they outlaw alcohol because of a few stupid people? Not by a long shot; the US tried once and basically gave birth to organized crime. It’s not right to punish everyone who drinks just because of the those few who do stupid stuff because they don’t when they’ve gone overboard.
This same phenomenon holds true with lolicon. Lolicon is a (perfectly legal in the US) fantasy, and even well-known lolicon communities in Japan have the motto “Remember, look, but DON’T touch,” which further cements their view on the fetish to others. As far as the Japanese are concerned, there’s nothing wrong with fantasy so long as you don’t ACT on that fantasy with a real person (especially if that act would hurt or otherwise damage that person). And you know what? The vast, vast, VAST majority of lolicon fans would never in a million years ever THINK about molesting a real child. They KNOW it’s wrong to have their fantasy become reality, and they encourage others to adopt the same mindset.
And to be frank about it, most of the lolicon fans I know like it because they think it is CUTE, not because they are lusting after the supposed age of the cartoon subjects. They’re fetishizing the IMAGE itself, not what it represents.
Honestly, whatever you’re into — whether it’s sports, anime, video games, alcohol, hentai, lolicon, or what-have-you — if you don’t have any kind of outlet for it, you tend to go a little batty. And THESE kind of people are the ones that turn into molesters. Did you know that since lolicon was ruled legal in Japan several years ago that incidences of child molestation (in Japan) dropped dramatically? This is proof that a safe, LEGAL alternative to a harming real people is better for society as a whole than not providing any kind of outlet at all.
Starcade said “The very fact that this kind of stuff might exist creates an acceptability which we cannot allow a certain part of the population to have.”
I didn’t know that he was part of a censorship board. Well censor this, Starcade – http://www.lotoons.ru And good luck.