Why hasn't Japan banned child-porn comics?

[DaGip]

[mrswdk]

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.

Who says good reason doesn't consider others' morality and outrage? Good reason needs to take into account various subjective factors relating to 'social good' - that's why the Pareto Optimum is a flawed measure of efficiency - so why should collective upset be written off as irrelevant? Discontent is a valid reason for limiting inequality. Why not for limiting behavior as well?

I'm not saying the majority has an objective and logical reason for opposing everything. To name just a couple, current drug and immigration policies around the world are illogical mainly because of prevailing opinion. That said, however nuts you consider the public to be, enacting policies that anger them comes with a cost that needs to be taken into account.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Who says good reason doesn't consider others' morality and outrage? Good reason needs to take into account various subjective factors relating to 'social good' - that's why the Pareto Optimum is a flawed measure of efficiency - so why should collective upset be written off as irrelevant? Discontent is a valid reason for limiting inequality. Why not for limiting behavior as well?

I'm not saying the majority has an objective and logical reason for opposing everything. To name just a couple, current drug and immigration policies around the world are illogical mainly because of prevailing opinion. That said, however nuts you consider the public to be, enacting policies that anger them comes with a cost that needs to be taken into account.

Look, I can be outraged about the most minor things, and then place my price at infinity. "Social" harm has happened because my harm outweighs everyone's. It's cheap talk. It's not good reasoning to just stick with arguments about "oh, that's nasty."

Don't argue the Pareto optimal case. The current murder rate is Pareto efficient. Trust me. Just don't go there.

Sure, enacting a policy which annoys some group of people might come with a cost. Let's enact a law against their wishes. They'll rail against a law which ignores them, nobody cares, and the exchanges still occur, so the efficient outcome arises. The cost occurs when prohibitions are enacted (mutual gains of trade aren't being satisfied when prohibition occurs. See "War on Drugs").

[mrswdk]

All laws involve prohibition, whether of exchanges, behaviors or whatever. That's why laws exist - to stop people doing something they would otherwise do. Most laws incur a mix of social and economic costs, and both need to be taken into account.

I'm not saying ban something because 'it's nasty'. Take inequality - I don't give a shit about whether or not someone else is poorer than me. If he has to live down a manhole then that's not my problem. However, if you let inequality get too high then all the people at the bottom get upset, bleat 'unfair' and become restless. Discontent eventually produces civil disobedience, higher crime rates and eventually starts to cost more to deal with than just giving the migrants a few handouts. Maybe they should just suck it up and get back to cooking my kebab, but they won't. So in reality, the best option for society in general and by extension me is to take at least some measures that reduce inequality. The same applies to other things that produce significant social discontent.

[Metsfanmax]

All laws involve prohibition, whether of exchanges, behaviors or whatever. That's why laws exist - to stop people doing something they would otherwise do. Most laws incur a mix of social and economic costs, and both need to be taken into account.

I'm not saying ban something because 'it's nasty'. Take inequality - I don't give a shit about whether or not someone else is poorer than me. If he has to live down a manhole then that's not my problem. However, if you let inequality get too high then all the people at the bottom get upset, bleat 'unfair' and become restless. Discontent eventually produces civil disobedience, higher crime rates and eventually starts to cost more to deal with than just giving the migrants a few handouts. Maybe they should just suck it up and get back to cooking my kebab, but they won't. So in reality, the best option for society in general and by extension me is to take at least some measures that reduce inequality. The same applies to other things that produce significant social discontent.

Fine. But you haven't actually argued that child porn comics do produce discontent significant enough to trigger a restriction on freedom of action. Implying that some things can be restricted does not mean that this particular thing should be.

[thegreekdog]

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.

In my opinion, typically when a court searches for a "compelling state interest" (which would uphold the validity of the alleged constitutional violation), they aren't doing high level statistical analysis.

[mrswdk]

All laws involve prohibition, whether of exchanges, behaviors or whatever. That's why laws exist - to stop people doing something they would otherwise do. Most laws incur a mix of social and economic costs, and both need to be taken into account.

I'm not saying ban something because 'it's nasty'. Take inequality - I don't give a shit about whether or not someone else is poorer than me. If he has to live down a manhole then that's not my problem. However, if you let inequality get too high then all the people at the bottom get upset, bleat 'unfair' and become restless. Discontent eventually produces civil disobedience, higher crime rates and eventually starts to cost more to deal with than just giving the migrants a few handouts. Maybe they should just suck it up and get back to cooking my kebab, but they won't. So in reality, the best option for society in general and by extension me is to take at least some measures that reduce inequality. The same applies to other things that produce significant social discontent.

Fine. But you haven't actually argued that child porn comics do produce discontent significant enough to trigger a restriction on freedom of action. Implying that some things can be restricted does not mean that this particular thing should be.

I was just making the point that moral outrage can be a valid reason for passing laws. Whether or not it is in the case of cartoons depicting child molestation is another question.

[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.

In my opinion, typically when a court searches for a "compelling state interest" (which would uphold the validity of the alleged constitutional violation), they aren't doing high level statistical analysis.

Maybe we should ask just a little bit more from the group that determines the law of the land?

[thegreekdog]

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.

In my opinion, typically when a court searches for a "compelling state interest" (which would uphold the validity of the alleged constitutional violation), they aren't doing high level statistical analysis.

Maybe we should ask just a little bit more from the group that determines the law of the land?

Good luck with that.