Conquer Club

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

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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?

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

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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?

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

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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?

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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."

mrswdk wrote: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 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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."

mrswdk wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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?

rishaed wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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.

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

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