First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
News U.K. Man Sentenced for Prohibited Images of 'Manga' Children
36644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 10/21/14 , edited 10/22/14

xXNephilimHunterXx wrote:

i honestlt not sure where i stand on this because after all child pornography is a crime and a serious one at that but there not even real so it's not like anyone is getting hurt by these images.


And this sums up the main point. It's the frightening big brother world we live in now where we are being watched 24/7 and we are guilty until proven innocent. Everyone is entitled to their private life and if they are not hurting anyone their own fantasies. What next are we all getting thought chips installed so the Police can throw us in jail when we even think of doing something illegal?

If people have a fantasy about children I'd rather they take it out on drawings than actually hurt children. If anyone hurts a child they deserve to be thrown in prison for a very long time but if somebody wants to privately fap in the shower or get excited over drawings i think that is fine. There really needs to be a line about infringing on privacy without real cause to do so.

Other people have yet to be punished over drawings of various things that are illegal. If i have a bondage and rape fantasy it doesn't mean I'm going to go out and rape somebody. If i pay an artist to make Anime drawings of it am i going to prison too?
20361 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/21/14
Not all loli anime girls are human.....

They could be 5000 year old vampires that only look young.


Or if they are human, a 40 year old teacher.
Posted 10/21/14
This is so wrong...

Its like convicting someone for reading Lolita.
Posted 10/21/14 , edited 10/21/14
We should just convict them for having poor taste instead.
18665 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Nottingham, Engla...
Offline
Posted 10/21/14 , edited 10/21/14
Isn't this the definition of a victimless crime? Not only that, doesn't also make it a thought crime?
11441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Here
Offline
Posted 10/21/14 , edited 10/21/14
This really doesn't seem right. Regardless of his sexual tastes, this is an occurence in which no-one was harmed nor did he attempt to harm anyone; they're drawings. So he's getting arrested for getting off to images of kids who... don't exist? I can't say I agree with it. If he'd sexually abused a young child or even gotten off to images of said real children I might understand, but this is a crime with no victim. It's as crazy as a guy shooting a cardboard cutout of a character and being done for murder.
8156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Connecticut, USA
Offline
Posted 10/21/14 , edited 10/21/14

nekroneko wrote:

Isn't this the definition of a victimless crime? Not only that, doesn't also make it a thought crime?


Hey stop applying logic to the judicial system. There's no room for it there!
16761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Offline
Posted 10/21/14 , edited 10/21/14
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2014-10-19/u.k-man-sentenced-for-prohibited-images-of-manga-children/.80103

^_^ i understand now! it's not the manga that got this it court it was the "computer-generated pictures of fictional children".


That case was again considered a first for the British courts, with the judge telling him he had "crossed the line as to what is illegal" by creating the images. He was given a community order and completed a sex-offender treatment programme after being found guilty of six counts of making "indecent pseudo-photographs" of children.



Police forensic experts said the case was a legal first, which had prompted calls for new legislation to tackle computer-generated child pornography.



He was given a community order and completed a sex offender treatment programme after the 2008 conviction.
The former student and office worker had hundreds of “Manga Japanese style” pictures at that time, but they were not made illegal until 2010.


it all makes sense now.
481 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 10/21/14

This is material that clearly society and the public can well do without.


How did this judge become a judge, and why doesn't he ban himself? Clearly, society and the public can well do without him.
25601 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Northern Ireland
Offline
Posted 10/21/14
I'd say this is a bit more clear cut than the article suggests.

You can buy Strike Witches or Highschool DxD on DVD, and the Monster Musume and A Centaur's Life manga perfectly legally, all four of which depict girls who either appear to be or actually are under the age of 16 naked and/or engaged in suggestive or provocative acts. One of which even has a toddler.
Simple nudity or depiction of a fictional girl under the legal age of consent in any state of undress is not inherently illegal; what IS illegal is depiction of a boy or girl under this age engaged in a sexual act or with focus on their genitalia.

Long Story short the guy had loli ero.
8109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/21/14
I don't think there is much to worry about. People won't get convicted for watching High School DxD, I don't have many friends (the 11 year old nun runs around naked) or monotagari (the vampire). Those are quite normal wide spread anime. However you do have very nasty images that are absolutely meant for people who enjoy little kids and not in a good way. Most of us would be disgusted when we see those. For those images I can imagine people being convicted as there is no doubt what they are meant for.
98164 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Location
Online
Posted 10/21/14
Hey, seen any lolicon thread, seen 'em all.
67495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / US
Offline
Posted 10/21/14 , edited 10/22/14
Freedom of speech should only end where harm to another begins.

You can't legally shout "fire" in a crowded theater because it could cause a panic in which people would be harmed. You cannot legally tell falsehoods about another person which would impact their careers or social standings (that would be libel/slander). You certainly couldn't legally cut up another human being and place the organs in creative ways as an art project (as depicted in David Bowie's Outside album), but you can preach about hellfire from a soapbox outside a theater, you can speak out against another's actions truthfully or even ridicule them in satire, and you can make horror movies which depict the most depraved acts.

Child porn is - and should be - banned in order to protect children from being harmed and exploited. A drawing is not a child. A horror movie is not a murder. The truth is not slander.

With no victim, there can be no crime. No country without a clear understanding of this distinction should be called "free" or "civilized."

If the guy is guilty of having poor taste, leave him be. If he harms a person, kill him and let society be rid of him. But legislating tastes becomes a slippery slope to oppressive theocracy.
Rin-R 
9216 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 10/21/14
Most anime meant for broadcast wouldn't be a problem at all... but that's not necessarily the case for manga/graphic novels or visual novels, much of which many anime are based. That's why there are some unwritten bypasses of this law, I'll explain this in a bit.

I think even the original manga for "Lotte no Omocha", what was adapted to anime as "Astarotte no Omocha" known on Crunchyroll as Astarottes-Toy, would be pretty close to breaching the law. More so though would be many of the smutty shoujo manga (still available to buy) such as almost anything by Shinjo Mayu (Haou Airen anyone?).

The biggest problem would be the visual novels which many anime are based, as many are far FAR more adult than their anime adaptations make them out to be, so a fan of a series who buys and downloads the series source material out of interest would suddenly find themselves in breach of the law, (though there are non erotic versions, but they may usually be released long after).


Basically under the law, a vast number of people would be innocently in breach of this law, and this issue was raised back when it was introduced, because many British graphic novels also fall in breach of the law, including Watchmen for one. The British parliament was also in charge of protecting British industry (Much like Japan is while trying to implement new censorship laws), and while specifically naming Japanese originating "Lolicon" artworks as the target of this law during its proposal, they couldn't be selective about its implementation either.

That is why the government instilled some promise to the various Graphic Novel industries that there would be no dangers to them or the fans of their works in the implementation of the law. A sort of "by consideration" free pass of the law.

I'm not sure where this stands with legitimate download sites such as DLsite from which you can still legally buy all this potential "contraband". The servers and company are based in Japan where the entire content of the site is still legal, with many of their customers in the US (where the entire content of the site is still legal as well), and the UK government hasn't imposed ISP level blacklisting for these sites like they do with pedophilia sites. It seems they can't block you from buying "Lolita complex artworks" legitimately through these sites (they have users who steer clear of the lolicon stuff too after all), it's an enforcement black hole for them, but you can't be caught with said materials after this point.

That's probably why it's taken this long before there's been a conviction on this victimless crime, (no cost implications, no NHS (or tax) burden, no risk to others health, well being or property, no societal inconvenience or damage, truly a victimless crime).
34546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Fraxinus
Offline
Posted 10/21/14 , edited 10/22/14

MrMoondoggie wrote:

And this sums up the main point. It's the frightening big brother world we live in now where we are being watched 24/7 and we are guilty until proven innocent. Everyone is entitled to their private life and if they are not hurting anyone their own fantasies. What next are we all getting thought chips installed so the Police can throw us in jail when we even think of doing something illegal?

If people have a fantasy about children I'd rather they take it out on drawings than actually hurt children. If anyone hurts a child they deserve to be thrown in prison for a very long time but if somebody wants to privately fap in the shower or get excited over drawings i think that is fine. There really needs to be a line about infringing on privacy without real cause to do so.

Other people have yet to be punished over drawings of various things that are illegal. If i have a bondage and rape fantasy it doesn't mean I'm going to go out and rape somebody. If i pay an artist to make Anime drawings of it am i going to prison too?


It's nice to meet someone who has the same view I've had on these kinds of issues for so long.

If someone wants to get their... controversial urges out, better it be on something fictional that can't be harmed or exploited rather than somone real that can.

On a little tangent, there was this story a little while back about how the UK wanted to essentially "ban" internet porn, or to be more accurate, make it so that you had to pay a one off fee if you actually wanted to view it. It was quite a recent-ish story, and it's probably still in Parliament's list of things to debate on, but when I heard this I instantly thought that nothing good would come out of it. Would it protect children whose parents are too lazy to moniter their kids' internet browsing? Sure. Would it result in more sexual offences because more people wouldn't have a safe outlet to let their sexual urges out on? Oh, I definitely think so. I could definitely see their rate for sexual offences rising if this were to happen. And the same thing applies here, I feel. If someone is a paedophile, I know I would much rather they let those urges out on fictional, I repeat, fucking fictional, children, than harm real children.

I mean, it really is basically the same as someone fantasizing about it in their head. Can the images in their head hurting people? Of course not. Are the images of fictional children hurting people? Putting aside whether one thinks of them as obscene or not, no. They're not hurting anyone.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.