Why hasn't Japan banned child-porn comics?

[mrswdk]

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30698640

Why hasn't Japan banned child-porn comics?

"Everyone knows that child abuse is not a good thing," Hide says. "But having that kind of emotion is free, enjoying imagining some sexual situation with a child is not prohibited."

His candour takes me by surprise. He then introduces me to the word "Lolicon", short for "Lolita complex" - the name for manga featuring young girls engaged in sexually explicit scenarios. It can involve incest, rape and other taboos, though Hide's tastes lie more with high-school romance.

"I like young-girl sexual creations, Lolicon is just one hobby of my many hobbies," he says.

I ask what his wife, standing nearby, thinks of his "hobby".

"She probably thinks no problem," he replies. "Because she loves young boys sexually interacting with each other."

...

Among the manga shops of Akihabara, child protection campaigner Kazuna Kanajiri takes me to see something she thinks is a much bigger problem than cartoons and comics. We climb a flight of stairs off the main street and emerge into a room packed full of DVDs.

Kazuna picks one off the shelf - it features real images of a girl she says is five years old, wearing a skimpy swimsuit and posing in sexually suggestive positions that mimic adult pornography. All the other DVDs in the shop also feature real children.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't like murder. I think Hollywood should stop making action movies.

[2dimes]

You are not very good at this Japan beating thing.

[mrswdk]

I don't like murder. I think Hollywood should stop making action movies.

Another excellent Mets analogy. inb4 'pigs should be allowed to star in porn'.

Cartoon child porn is illegal in the US. Can we take it from your comment that you would be in favor of such porn being legalized?

[2dimes]

You don't think the last part is worse?

[Metsfanmax]

I don't like murder. I think Hollywood should stop making action movies.

Another excellent Mets analogy. inb4 'pigs should be allowed to star in porn'.

Cartoon child porn is illegal in the US. Can we take it from your comment that you would be in favor of such porn being legalized?

Yes. We have a First Amendment here, it is designed to protect against arbitrary incursions of free speech like this one.

The 2002 SCOTUS decision Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition overturned a law that criminalized "obscene" cartoon child pornography. What is determined as "obscene" is generally that which cannot be defended as having, say, artistic merit. I would probably go farther still in saying that any cartoon child pornography that does not depict an actual minor engaging in sexual activities should be legal to own and distribute.

[mrswdk]

Let's not play your usual semantics. What do you mean by 'actual minor'?

[Metsfanmax]

Let's not play your usual semantics. What do you mean by 'actual minor'?

No semantics were intended. I meant an actual, existing human being, as opposed to a fictional character created for the purposes of the cartoon.

[Lord Arioch]

Its considered to be art?
And if that doesnt satisfy lets burn all old paintings of nude people and just allow sacks in the future

[DoomYoshi]

I don't like murder. I think Hollywood should stop making action movies.

Another excellent Mets analogy. inb4 'pigs should be allowed to star in porn'.

Cartoon child porn is illegal in the US. Can we take it from your comment that you would be in favor of such porn being legalized?

In which state?

[thegreekdog]

We have a First Amendment here, it is designed to protect against arbitrary incursions of free speech like this one.

I think the correct term is "was designed" not "is designed." I mean, it's pretty clear these days that governments can ban anything if they have a remotely valid reason (like "it's obscenity!")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

Also, what the heck do you mean by "arbitrary?" There seems to be a reason behind most anti-speech laws.

Also, you know... this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't like murder. I think Hollywood should stop making action movies.

Another excellent Mets analogy. inb4 'pigs should be allowed to star in porn'.

Cartoon child porn is illegal in the US. Can we take it from your comment that you would be in favor of such porn being legalized?

Have rapes of adults decreased as the costs of porn have fallen?

As the costs of per-pubescent comics fall, does the rate of sexual victimization of children lower?

I've heard of evidence confirming the first question, so if it holds for the second, then banning odd drawings of fictional children would harm more real children.

[Metsfanmax]

We have a First Amendment here, it is designed to protect against arbitrary incursions of free speech like this one.

I think the correct term is "was designed" not "is designed." I mean, it's pretty clear these days that governments can ban anything if they have a remotely valid reason (like "it's obscenity!")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

Also, what the heck do you mean by "arbitrary?" There seems to be a reason behind most anti-speech laws.

Yes, certainly. The "obscene" standard is a reason. However, what is determined obscene is arbitrary; in part because it's based on the irrational standard of whatever is currently deemed acceptable by the US population, and in part because it's actually based on nine justices' interpretation of whatever that population thinks.

Also, you know... this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

How does that interact with the 2002 decision? This is starting to approach the limits of my understanding.

[mrswdk]

I don't like murder. I think Hollywood should stop making action movies.

Another excellent Mets analogy. inb4 'pigs should be allowed to star in porn'.

Cartoon child porn is illegal in the US. Can we take it from your comment that you would be in favor of such porn being legalized?

Have rapes of adults decreased as the costs of porn have fallen?

As the costs of per-pubescent comics fall, does the rate of sexual victimization of children lower?

I've heard of evidence confirming the first question, so if it holds for the second, then banning odd drawings of fictional children would harm more real children.

Have you seen evidence which shows that those two falls are linked?

[thegreekdog]

We have a First Amendment here, it is designed to protect against arbitrary incursions of free speech like this one.

I think the correct term is "was designed" not "is designed." I mean, it's pretty clear these days that governments can ban anything if they have a remotely valid reason (like "it's obscenity!")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

Also, what the heck do you mean by "arbitrary?" There seems to be a reason behind most anti-speech laws.

Yes, certainly. The "obscene" standard is a reason. However, what is determined obscene is arbitrary; in part because it's based on the irrational standard of whatever is currently deemed acceptable by the US population, and in part because it's actually based on nine justices' interpretation of whatever that population thinks.

Also, you know... this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

How does that interact with the 2002 decision? This is starting to approach the limits of my understanding.

I'm simply pointing out that while the original writers of the First Amendment's free speech clause may have determined that it was universal, it no longer grants universal free speech, so it felt weird to me that you invoked the First Amendment. Some would argue that the original writers of the First Amendment didn't intend that in any event.

[Metsfanmax]

We have a First Amendment here, it is designed to protect against arbitrary incursions of free speech like this one.

I think the correct term is "was designed" not "is designed." I mean, it's pretty clear these days that governments can ban anything if they have a remotely valid reason (like "it's obscenity!")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

Also, what the heck do you mean by "arbitrary?" There seems to be a reason behind most anti-speech laws.

Yes, certainly. The "obscene" standard is a reason. However, what is determined obscene is arbitrary; in part because it's based on the irrational standard of whatever is currently deemed acceptable by the US population, and in part because it's actually based on nine justices' interpretation of whatever that population thinks.

Also, you know... this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

How does that interact with the 2002 decision? This is starting to approach the limits of my understanding.

I'm simply pointing out that while the original writers of the First Amendment's free speech clause may have determined that it was universal, it no longer grants universal free speech, so it felt weird to me that you invoked the First Amendment. Some would argue that the original writers of the First Amendment didn't intend that in any event.

I don't think the first amendment is universal. I think that if you want a suppression of free speech, you need something that is in the public's interest that justifies the suppression. People who oppose child-porn comics aren't attempting to make such an argument, they're just saying "ewww child porn."

[rishaed]

I don't like murder. I think Hollywood should stop making action movies.

Another excellent Mets analogy. inb4 'pigs should be allowed to star in porn'.

Cartoon child porn is illegal in the US. Can we take it from your comment that you would be in favor of such porn being legalized?

Have rapes of adults decreased as the costs of porn have fallen?

As the costs of per-pubescent comics fall, does the rate of sexual victimization of children lower?

I've heard of evidence confirming the first question, so if it holds for the second, then banning odd drawings of fictional children would harm more real children.

BBS Link the study/studies? Also having pornographic images/representations of children in the first place is highly disgusting and people who take satisfaction from it should probably be locked up anyways. I'll stay on topic since it is child-porn, but I can't condone regular porn either. (In b4 i get called a right-wing nut by someone). Also from various means of the word "loli" can also mean someone who is an adult but looks very young (just a note, not a support/critic). If you get actual pleasure to kiddie porn then you should really be in jail. Its disgusting, sick, and repulsive on every level. And if they become cho-mo's then honestly i think they should be drug out into the street and shot.
(Personal opinion, but I can't bring myself to actually have any form of kindness for either child molesters or people who beat their wives).
fp'd
Also Mets: Children are still developing and don't have the full mental capacity to understand the complete ramifications for all their actions. Kiddie porn is, and should be illegal just like statutory rape is illegal.

[mrswdk]

We have a First Amendment here, it is designed to protect against arbitrary incursions of free speech like this one.

I think the correct term is "was designed" not "is designed." I mean, it's pretty clear these days that governments can ban anything if they have a remotely valid reason (like "it's obscenity!")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

Also, what the heck do you mean by "arbitrary?" There seems to be a reason behind most anti-speech laws.

Yes, certainly. The "obscene" standard is a reason. However, what is determined obscene is arbitrary; in part because it's based on the irrational standard of whatever is currently deemed acceptable by the US population, and in part because it's actually based on nine justices' interpretation of whatever that population thinks.

Also, you know... this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

How does that interact with the 2002 decision? This is starting to approach the limits of my understanding.

I'm simply pointing out that while the original writers of the First Amendment's free speech clause may have determined that it was universal, it no longer grants universal free speech, so it felt weird to me that you invoked the First Amendment. Some would argue that the original writers of the First Amendment didn't intend that in any event.

I don't think the first amendment is universal. I think that if you want a suppression of free speech, you need something that is in the public's interest that justifies the suppression. People who oppose child-porn comics aren't attempting to make such an argument, they're just saying "ewww child porn."

Given that obscenity in legal terms refers to that which offends the prevailing morality of the time, and things that grossly offend the prevailing morality of the time (e.g. cartoons in which school girls get raped) are likely to cause significant upset and social conflict, then arguably banning such material is in the public's interest.

[Metsfanmax]

Given that obscenity in legal terms refers to that which offends the prevailing morality of the time, and things that grossly offend the prevailing morality of the time (e.g. cartoons in which school girls get raped) are likely to cause significant upset and social conflict, then arguably banning such material is in the public's interest.

There's two ways we can go here.

Let's go with the easier one first. One can certainly imagine cases which are clearly illegal by statutory definition, yet do not grossly offend prevailing morality. For example, an 18 year old female having sex with her 16 year old male boyfriend. It is hard to imagine anyone getting deeply offended by a cartoon depiction of such an action.

Now, when it comes to school girls getting raped -- do such things really cause significant upset and social conflict? The only people who read them are people who enjoy that sort of thing, and the people who get upset about it are actively seeking to get upset just because they think it's immoral. If these people stopped complaining about something that doesn't actively hurt them, the social conflict would disappear. More to the point, I think that people thinking that something is immoral is not a strong enough standard. There needs to be a justifiable reason why the immoral action harms real people.

For example, there are neo-Nazis here in the United States. I find the Nazi platform rather offensive. However, as long as these Nazis aren't actually killing my father, I do not see how I could argue that they have to stop being Nazis.

[thegreekdog]

We have a First Amendment here, it is designed to protect against arbitrary incursions of free speech like this one.

I think the correct term is "was designed" not "is designed." I mean, it's pretty clear these days that governments can ban anything if they have a remotely valid reason (like "it's obscenity!")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

Also, what the heck do you mean by "arbitrary?" There seems to be a reason behind most anti-speech laws.

Yes, certainly. The "obscene" standard is a reason. However, what is determined obscene is arbitrary; in part because it's based on the irrational standard of whatever is currently deemed acceptable by the US population, and in part because it's actually based on nine justices' interpretation of whatever that population thinks.

Also, you know... this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

How does that interact with the 2002 decision? This is starting to approach the limits of my understanding.

I'm simply pointing out that while the original writers of the First Amendment's free speech clause may have determined that it was universal, it no longer grants universal free speech, so it felt weird to me that you invoked the First Amendment. Some would argue that the original writers of the First Amendment didn't intend that in any event.

I don't think the first amendment is universal. I think that if you want a suppression of free speech, you need something that is in the public's interest that justifies the suppression. People who oppose child-porn comics aren't attempting to make such an argument, they're just saying "ewww child porn."

And I'm saying the US Supreme Court is pretty okay with the argument "ewww child porn."

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't like murder. I think Hollywood should stop making action movies.

Another excellent Mets analogy. inb4 'pigs should be allowed to star in porn'.

Cartoon child porn is illegal in the US. Can we take it from your comment that you would be in favor of such porn being legalized?

Have rapes of adults decreased as the costs of porn have fallen?

As the costs of per-pubescent comics fall, does the rate of sexual victimization of children lower?

I've heard of evidence confirming the first question, so if it holds for the second, then banning odd drawings of fictional children would harm more real children.

Have you seen evidence which shows that those two falls are linked?

Nope! It's what I'd lean toward though. I could google for the supporting papers, ignore the opposing papers, not bother reading any, and then post them here, but why bother? I'll minimize costs by equating "Japanese" with "evil people," so anything that they're not doing to prevent something which is bad is always bad.

See? I fully agree with you in the OP.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't like murder. I think Hollywood should stop making action movies.

Another excellent Mets analogy. inb4 'pigs should be allowed to star in porn'.

Cartoon child porn is illegal in the US. Can we take it from your comment that you would be in favor of such porn being legalized?

Have rapes of adults decreased as the costs of porn have fallen?

As the costs of per-pubescent comics fall, does the rate of sexual victimization of children lower?

I've heard of evidence confirming the first question, so if it holds for the second, then banning odd drawings of fictional children would harm more real children.

BBS Link the study/studies? Also having pornographic images/representations of children in the first place is highly disgusting and people who take satisfaction from it should probably be locked up anyways. I'll stay on topic since it is child-porn, but I can't condone regular porn either. (In b4 i get called a right-wing nut by someone). Also from various means of the word "loli" can also mean someone who is an adult but looks very young (just a note, not a support/critic). If you get actual pleasure to kiddie porn then you should really be in jail. Its disgusting, sick, and repulsive on every level. And if they become cho-mo's then honestly i think they should be drug out into the street and shot.
(Personal opinion, but I can't bring myself to actually have any form of kindness for either child molesters or people who beat their wives).
fp'd
Also Mets: Children are still developing and don't have the full mental capacity to understand the complete ramifications for all their actions. Kiddie porn is, and should be illegal just like statutory rape is illegal.

I forget where I've bumped into that study. If you care enough, you can find some stuff on the internet.

So, there's nonfictional child porn and fictional child porn. The former has problems of consent and actual victims, so it's pretty easy to understand why it should be prohibited. The latter has no problems of consent because if you don't like it, then don't buy it (Yes, this is where the moderate national socialist interjects with "well, no one should enjoy it, so Ban and Punish!," but that's a matter of coercion and mandates--not consent between exchanging parties).

It's fictional, so the effect on real children and adults is ambiguous. So, before you start bringing out the torches, rope, and pitchforks, it helps to understand the outcomes caused by fictional porn.

Good point about loli. I didn't know that.

[BigBallinStalin]

We have a First Amendment here, it is designed to protect against arbitrary incursions of free speech like this one.

I think the correct term is "was designed" not "is designed." I mean, it's pretty clear these days that governments can ban anything if they have a remotely valid reason (like "it's obscenity!")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

Also, what the heck do you mean by "arbitrary?" There seems to be a reason behind most anti-speech laws.

Yes, certainly. The "obscene" standard is a reason. However, what is determined obscene is arbitrary; in part because it's based on the irrational standard of whatever is currently deemed acceptable by the US population, and in part because it's actually based on nine justices' interpretation of whatever that population thinks.

Also, you know... this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

How does that interact with the 2002 decision? This is starting to approach the limits of my understanding.

I'm simply pointing out that while the original writers of the First Amendment's free speech clause may have determined that it was universal, it no longer grants universal free speech, so it felt weird to me that you invoked the First Amendment. Some would argue that the original writers of the First Amendment didn't intend that in any event.

I don't think the first amendment is universal. I think that if you want a suppression of free speech, you need something that is in the public's interest that justifies the suppression. People who oppose child-porn comics aren't attempting to make such an argument, they're just saying "ewww child porn."

Given that obscenity in legal terms refers to that which offends the prevailing morality of the time, and things that grossly offend the prevailing morality of the time (e.g. cartoons in which school girls get raped) are likely to cause significant upset and social conflict, then arguably banning such material is in the public's interest.

What are some other activities which I can label as "offensive to the prevailing morality of the time"?

Homosexual activity. BAN AND PUNISH!
Anyone crossing genders. BAN AND PUNISH!
etc.

I don't think we should appeal to a vague majority for these matters. And even if we did, we'd tend to get the wrong policies (since the majority has been wrong). There's also the preference revelation problem (talk is cheap). Mets is taking the right path about ignoring the 'ew, gross" argument and sticking with the standard of Good Reasons.

[BigBallinStalin]

And I'm saying the US Supreme Court is pretty okay with the argument "ewww child porn."

Well, the US Supreme Court is full of old stuffy, curmudgeons whose silly opinions about grossness should be ignored.

[Metsfanmax]

And I'm saying the US Supreme Court is pretty okay with the argument "ewww child porn."

I understand. I am not disagreeing with their decision on legal precedence grounds; I don't know enough. However, on ethical grounds I absolutely disagree with their decision if they are not showing why there is real harm being inflicted upon society by "obscene" depictions.