1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2) Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
From a glance you can probably see the artistic community's main gripe with using the Miller Test as a legal tool: it's points are all but entirely subjective and one person's art may be somebody else's filth. The fear now in the comics and manga community is whether or not the Handley case will be the occasion prosecutors around the country will seize on to bust readers of "questionable" content, leaving us to wonder to what level obscenity standards will drop. Can even the casual manga and anime fan be in danger? If you're keeping some Kodomo no Jikan and Strike Witches around the house, or you've gotten your hands on the new Chu-Bra!! anime there may be every reason to fear a visit from the cops.
In this writer's opinion, I believe that though the aforementioned titles are well beyond the limits of good taste and skirting the edge of being morally repugnant they are not criminal. Handley's titles, however, were and I for one am in support of the prosecution.
As we all know, existing child pornography laws are easily understood and clearly exist to protect the safety and well-being of our children. Now, while no children are exploited in the production of hardcore lolicon manga I feel the situation is more complicated than just immediate harm to children who are used in such a way. I apologize if this comes off sounding condescending, but people often forget that all things operate on complex systems. Good and evil, black and white, toast and jam are all just far too simplistic ways to meaningfully view the world. My point here is that in the short term, while no children were victimized to make these titles, lolicon porn manga still promotes the practice of pedophilia and it's not an immense leap to see how these titles can set the gears in motion leading to the real molestation of children.
Critics of the Handley ruling have been quick to point out how this could lead to the illustrated depiction of any illegal activity, such as drug use, being banned. I find that assertion to be as absurd as comparing apples to oranges though, as drug use is a personal decision and more or less victimless crime whereas raping an adolescent is most certainly, well, do I even have to explain? Also, something I've noticed about Handley supporters from within the comics and anime/manga industry here in American has been their tendency to be childless (except for Neil Gaiman, who has three kids). I've spoken to a few parents and soon-to-be parents about the case and their feelings on the matter are solidly in support of the prosecution, not based on legal precedent or artistic freedom, but merely because they're concerned for the safety of their children. I myself am not a parent but can imagine how having kids can change pretty much everything.
What's your opinion: where should the line be drawn in anime and manga on what is and isn't obscene? Also, I'd like to hear from any parents out there in the AV community about what they think of the Handley case. We've all had a week to digest this decision, let's get some conversation going.























But there are many things worse the Nation (and states) has done in recent years concerning this issue:
How about an Army Soldier, about to be court marshaled because a relative e-mailed a picture of that relatives daughter - one of the pictures was the kid in a swim suit coming out of the water and part of her buttocks were shown, in a non sexual matter. (The Soldier BTW, is related to the girl and has been taken care of her since her father passed away)
How about what's going on now in Lancaster County PA, where we have the school's laptops being use to spy on the kids without the kids knowing about it. And making things worse - that school district is spinning it as protecting the school and the students...
How about Miley Cyrus's sister Noah? Rumors of a Lingerie line for 9 year olds? Nobody saying SHIT.
How about Philp Garoudo (or what ever his name is): Held a girl for almost 18 years. 18 YEARS. The Police did NOTHING every time somebody asked about the strange things going around in the home...
But you haven't read my blog about Handley (its somewhere there) Philadelphia had an incident where a 11 year old girl was sexually acosted in broad daylight when she was about to go to school, by some asshole.
You know what the streets did?
Took ACTION. Everybody who was everybody was looking for him. He wasn't safe.
And when we found him
WE KICKED HIS ASS. PERIOD.
So any of you supposed "conservatives" say we have no such morality - i scoff and laugh at your high-minded idiocy.
So when any of these predacons rear there ugly head, we smack them down.
Chris Handley sadly is a case of where our nation is breaking apart at the seems, because we just cannot seem to agree on reality. If he actauly hurt a Child, he goes to jail. If he showed those Manga to others younger than him or even other people - he should go to jail for being that fucking dumb but he possessed the items and had no intention of showing such work or hurting a kid.
It smells, IMO to get people elected in the basis of protecting children when there really the responblity of the adult in charge of the child. It always has been that.
The Supreme Court - again, and again had chances to change these rulings in the 1990's. Each time they said NO. But when it comes to the actual future of this country (Domain Laws, Election Reform etc) they say YES. So why would i trust these folks?
Finally - its been long since time to have a really deep discussion about the issues that lead people into making such work. Its time to talk to them off the cuff and wonder what they are? Are they artists? Pornographers? Propagandists? Who are they? Why this work? What makes these folks tick? Its time for that industry to do some soul searching, because not enough people in the world can defend the rights of others when Governments have forgotten all aspects of reality. Im not saying about Censorship - im saying these Mangaka has got to look at themselves and wonder why am I this way? Maybe this "fad" of the Manga/Anime seane will pass - or maybe it will reach places where even certain things cannot be called for and we will, in our heart of hearts - have to leave it to wallow in its own sorrow and die.
Thats all i need to say on this issue.
I believe I understand that what you mean is when it's presented in an acceptable and erotic manner. Is the "average person" going to make that distinction? That's part of the problem, right there. And I think that's part of the issue Neil Gaiman has with the ruling.
I think what your getting confused with is that people are not trying to defend the idea that seeing eight year old kids getting fucked in the ass is ok as long as some one drew it, what people are worried about is this being used as a precedent for others getting things banned just because they don't agree with it. The fact that in this day and age some one could actually end up in jail just because they looked at a god dam picture some one drew is beyond repugnant, its down right criminal. Let alone the idea that a book can be banned, and the subsequent witch hunts that this precedent has historically caused (1 ) (2), is baffling. Until you can prove with 100% certainty that even one person decided to go out and rape a child because they happened upon a cartoon drawing of it, then there is no logical justification for why some one should be punished for owning such material; beyond you personally needing to feel justified in your warped beliefs that what you think is wrong and what some one else believes is acceptable.
Yes i have obtained and looked at the manga the man was charged for owning. While it was far from being literary genius and as though provoking as the script of Girls Gone Wild 23, they are still just pictures. Badly drawn ones at that.
(1) LINK
(2)
259–210 B.C.: The Chinese emperor Shih Huang Ti is said to have buried alive 460 Confucian scholars to control the writing of history in his time. In 212 B.C., he burned all the books in his kingdom, retaining only a single copy of each for the Royal Library—and those were destroyed before his death. With all previous historical records destroyed, he thought history could be said to begin with him.
A.D. 8: The Roman poet Ovid was banished from Rome for writing Ars Amatoria (The Art of Love). He died in exile in Greece eight years later. All Ovid’s works were burned by Savonarola in Florence in 1497, and an English translation of Ars Amatoria was banned by U.S. Customs in 1928.
35: The Roman emperor Caligula opposed the reading of The Odyssey by Homer, written more than 300 years before. He thought the epic poem was dangerous because it expressed Greek ideas of freedom.
640: According to legend, the caliph Omar burned all 200,000 volumes in the library at Alexandria in Egypt. In doing so, he said: “If these writings of the Greeks agree with the Book of God they are useless and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed.” In burning the books, the caliph provided six months’ fuel to warm the city’s baths.
1497–98: Savonarola, a Florentine religious fanatic with a large following, was one of the most notorious and powerful of all censors. In these years, he instigated great “bonfires of the vanities” which destroyed books and paintings by some of the greatest artists of Florence. He persuaded the artists themselves to bring their works—including drawings of nudes—to the bonfires. Some poets decided they should no longer write in verse because they were persuaded that their lines were wicked and impure. Popular songs were denounced, and some were turned into hymns with new pious lyrics. Ironically, in May of 1498 another great bonfire was lit—this time under Savonarola who hung from a cross. With him were burned all his writings, sermons, essays, and pamphlets.
1525: Six thousand copies of William Tyndale’s English translation of the New Testament were printed in Cologne, Germany, and smuggled into England—and then burned by the English church. Church authorities were determined that the Bible would be available only in Latin.
1559: For hundreds of years, the Roman Catholic Church listed books that were prohibited to its members; but in this year, Pope Paul IV established the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. For more than 400 years this was the definitive list of books that Roman Catholics were told not to read. It was one of the most powerful censorship tools in the world.
1597: The original version of Shakespeare’s Richard II contained a scene in which the king was deposed from his throne. Queen Elizabeth I was so angry that she ordered the scene removed from all copies of the play.
1614: Sir Walter Raleigh’s book The History of the World was banned by King James I of England for “being too saucy in censuring princes.”
1624: Martin Luther’s German translation of the Bible was burnt in Germany by order of the Pope.
1616–42: Galileo’s theories about the solar system and his support of the discoveries of Copernicus were condemned by the Catholic Church. Under threat of torture, and sentenced to jail at the age of 70, the great scientist was forced to renounce what he knew to be true. On his death, his widow agreed to destroy some of his manuscripts.
1720: Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe was placed on the Index Librorum by the Spanish Catholic Church.
1744:Sorrows of Young Werther by the famed German author Goethe was published in this year and soon became popular throughout Europe. The book was a short novel, in diary form, in which a young man writes of his sufferings from a failed love affair. The final chapter of the book drops the diary form and graphically depicts Werther’s suicide. Because a number of copycat suicides followed the publication of the book, the Lutheran church condemned the novel as immoral; then governments in Italy, Denmark, and Germany banned the book. Two hundred years later an American sociologist, David Phillips, wrote about the effect of reporting suicides in The Werther Effect.
1788: Shakespeare’s King Lear was banned from the stage until 1820—in deference to the insanity of the reigning monarch, King George III.
1807: Dr. Thomas Bowdler quietly brought out the first of his revised editions of Shakespeare’s plays. The preface claimed that he had removed from Shakespeare “everything that can raise a blush on the cheek of modesty”—which amounted to about 10 per cent of the playwright’s text. One hundred and fifty years later, it was discovered that the real excision had been done by Dr. Bowdler’s sister, Henrietta Maria. The word “bowdlerize” became part of the English language.
1843: The English Parliament updated an act that required all plays to be performed in England to be submitted for approval to the Lord Chamberlain. Despite objections by illustrious figures such as George Bernard Shaw (in 1909), this power remained with the Lord Chamberlain until 1968.
1859: Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, outlining the theory of evolution. The book was banned from the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, where Darwin had been a student. In 1925, Tennessee banned the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools; the law remained in force until 1967. The Origin of Species was banned in Yugoslavia in 1935 and in Greece in 1937.
1859: George Eliot’s novel Adam Bede was attacked as the “vile outpourings of a lewd woman’s mind,” and the book was withdrawn from circulation libraries in Britain.
1864–1959: Victor Hugo’s novel Les Misérables was placed on the Index Librorum.
1881: Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass (published in 1833) was threatened with banning by Boston’s district attorney unless the book was expurgated. The public uproar brought such sales of his books that Whitman was able to buy a house with the proceeds.
1885: A year after the publication of Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, the library of Concord, Massachusetts, decided to exclude the book from its collection. The committee making the decision said the book was “rough, coarse and inelegant, dealing with a series of experiences not elevating, the whole book being more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people.” By 1907, it was said that Twain’s novel had been thrown out of some library somewhere every year, mostly because its hero was said to present a bad example for impressionable young readers.
1927: A translation of The Arabian Nights by the French scholar Mardrus was held up by U.S. Customs. Four years later another translation, by Sir Richard Burton, was allowed into the country, but the ban on the Mardrus version was maintained.
1929: Jack London’s popular novel Call of the Wild was banned in Italy and Yugoslavia. In 1932, copies of this and other books by London were burned by the Nazis in Germany.
1929:The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was banned in the Soviet Union because of “occultism.”
1929–62: Novels by Ernest Hemingway were banned in various parts of the world such as Italy, Ireland, and Germany (where they were burned by the Nazis). In California in 1960, The Sun Also Rises was banned from schools in San Jose and all of Hemingway’s works were removed from Riverside school libraries. In 1962, a group called Texans for America opposed textbooks that referred students to books by the Nobel Prize-winning author.
1931:Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll was banned by the governor of Hunan province in China because, he said, animals should not use human language and it was disastrous to put animals and humans on the same level.
1932: In a letter to an American publisher, James Joyce said that “some very kind person” bought the entire first edition of Dubliners and had it burnt.
1933: A series of massive bonfires in Nazi Germany burned thousands of books written by Jews, communists, and others. Included were the works of John Dos Passos, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Ernest Hemingway, Helen Keller, Lenin, Jack London, Thomas Mann, Karl Marx, Erich Maria Remarque, Upton Sinclair, Stalin, and Leon Trotsky.
1937: The Quebec government passed An Act Respecting Communistic Propaganda, popularly known as the Padlock Act. The statute empowered the attorney general to close, for up to one year, any building that was used to disseminate “communism or bolshevism.” (These two terms were undefined.) In addition, the act empowered the attorney general to confiscate and destroy any publication propagating communism or bolshevism. Anyone caught publishing, printing, or distributing such literature faced imprisonment for up to one year without appeal. In 1957, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Padlock Act in a case called Switzman vs. Elbling. The court said that the act made the propagation of communism a crime; however, the court’s reason for striking down the law had less to do with the evils of censorship than with the division of powers between federal and provincial governments. The court declared that the power to pass criminal law belonged exclusively to Ottawa, so Quebec’s Padlock Act was ultra vires and unconstitutional. Only two justices raised the issue of censorship in this case.
1953: The Irish government banned Anatole France’s A Mummer's Tale (for immorality), Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises and Across the River and Into the Trees (for immorality), all the works of John Steinbeck (for subversion and immorality), all the works of Emile Zola (for immorality), and most works by William Faulkner (for immorality).
1954: Mickey Mouse comics were banned in East Berlin because Mickey was said to be an “anti-Red rebel.”
1959: After protests by the White Citizens’ Council, The Rabbits’ Wedding, a picture book for children, was put on the reserved shelf in Alabama public libraries because it was thought to promote racial integration.
1960: D.H. Lawrence’s novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover was the subject of a trial in England, in which Penguin Books was prosecuted for publishing an obscene book. During the proceedings, the prosecutor asked: “Is it a book you would wish your wife or servant to read?” Penguin won the case, and the book was allowed to be sold in England. A year earlier, the U.S. Post Office had declared the novel obscene and non-mailable. But a federal judge overturned the Post Office’s decision and questioned the right of the postmaster general to decide what was or was not obscene.
1970:White Niggers of America, a political tract about Quebec politics and society, was written by Pierre Vallières while he was in jail. The book was confiscated when the writer was accused of sedition, and an edition published in France was not allowed into Canada. A U.S. edition was published in English in 1971.
1974:The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence revealed some of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s dirty tricks and failures overseas and in the United States. The authors (Victor Marchetti, a former senior analyst for the CIA, and John D. Marks, a former U.S. State Department official) were told by a U.S. court to submit their manuscript to the CIA before the book was published. The CIA demanded the removal of 339 passages from the text, but eventually the publisher won the right to retain 171 of those in the first edition of the book. By 1980, the publisher had won the legal right to publish 25 more passages, but the most recent edition (1989) still indicated numerous censored passages.
1977:Decent Interval, a memoir written by a former CIA employee, criticized the CIA, Henry Kissinger, and U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Author Frank Snepp succeeded in getting his book published before the CIA knew about it, but the government filed a lawsuit against him, even though no classified information appeared in the book. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Snepp; the government seized all profits from the book and imposed a lifelong gag order on the author. Snepp was required to submit everything he might write—fiction, screenplays, non-fiction, poetry—to the CIA for review. The CIA won the right to cut any classified or classifiable information within 30 days of receipt of Snepp’s work.
1977: Maurice Sendak’s picture book In the Night Kitchen was removed from the Norridge, Illinois, school library because of “nudity to no purpose.” The book was expurgated elsewhere when shorts were drawn on the nude boy.
1980s: During its examination of school learning materials, the London County Council in England banned the use of Beatrix Potter’s children’s classics The Tale of Peter Rabbit and Benjamin Bunny from all London schools. The reason: the stories portrayed only “middle-class rabbits.”
1983: Members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee called for the rejection of The Diary of Anne Frank because it was “a real downer.” It was also challenged for offensive references to sexuality.
1987:I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou was removed from the required reading list for Wake County, North Carolina, high school students because of a scene in which the author, at the age of seven and a half, is raped.
1987: After retiring from 20 years’ service with Britain’s MI5 counterintelligence agency, Peter Wright moved to Australia and wrote his autobiography, entitled Spycatcher, in which he accused British security services of trying to topple Harold Wilson’s 1974–76 Labour government. The book, a best-seller, was banned in Britain, and the British government waged a lengthy and expensive legal battle to prevent its publication in Australia. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said that if Wright ever returned to Britain, he would be prosecuted for breaching the country’s Official Secrets Act. But when Wright died in 1995, he got the last laugh, since his ashes were scattered over the waters of the Blackwater Sailing Club in southern England.
1997: In Ireland, a government censorship board banned at least 24 books and 90 periodicals.
1998: In Kenya the government banned 30 books and publications for “sedition and immorality,” including The Quotations of Chairman Mao and Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.
1998: American publishers expressed outrage over news that a Washington bookstore was ordered to turn over records of Monica Lewinsky’s book purchases to independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Lewinsky is the former White House intern with whom President Clinton had what he later termed an “inappropriate relationship.” The Association of American Publishers declared: “I don’t think the American people could find anything more alien to our way of life or repugnant to the Bill of Rights than government intrusion into what we think and what we read. I would suggest Mr. Starr give some thought to his own reading list. Maybe it’s time for him to re-read the First Amendment.”
2001: The U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, passed by the American Congress in response to terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, gave the FBI power to collect information about the library borrowings of any U.S. citizen. The act also empowered the federal agency to gain access to library patrons’ log-ons to Internet Web sites—and protected the FBI from disclosing the identities of individuals being investigated.
Drug use doesn't fit? How about murder, then? Or rape?
I gotta say, "promotes the practice of pedophilia" is pretty vague and can easily be argued against. Specifically, I'd say "immense leap" isn't too far off. The idea that kids are in more danger because of people having this material doesn't fit for me. What, does it embolden pedophiles? Make them more pedophiliac than they were (which I doubt)? Turn people into pedophiles (hardly likely)? "Set the gears in motion" is a pretty dubious basis as well, and sets an uncomfortable precedent.
I'd much rather stick with the basis for the illegality of child pornography being actual harm to specific children. Unless causation can be proved -- and again, I'm pretty sure the causality chain runs the other way -- save the jail incentives against child molestation for people who actually DO it. No need to broaden the liability.
Also, are you sure the only difference with the people you asked was that they were parents? 'Cause I don't think their children are actually any safer with this, or would be in more danger if the court had ruled the other way. Think "security theater." Fear, even fear of an actual Very Bad Thing, can lead to some definite irrationality.
(One more thought off the top of my head -- if the materials discovered were purely text-based, without even drawings, would they have ruled the same way?)
Where as with the case you stated, that's some cause for concern.
Handley realizes maybe too late that the people he voted to serve him and protect him are only out to make him a prisoner.
Remember what I said about earlier about the incident in Philadelphia? The Police would have never found him, if we - the people didn't care. We did care and we stopped him. Period.
Humanity as a whole have deep phycological problems - its isn't going get solved in a day, it isn't gonna get solved in a generation.
All I have been seeing, the last 5 - 10 years - is a shift from nations, a shift from states and communities into what was called communes where law has no baring on that commune. You're beginning to see it in Music where you see acts promoting lifestyles, your seeing it with Glenn Beck and The Tax Revolt/Neo Tea Revolt and Fox News.
This nation and most of the western world is splitting apart as much as all of these Nations Governments are trying to bring the world as one. We reached a point where one can be so brazen that he belongs to a group that get such work as Handley did and say - im protected by this and this right - not knowing others dont care.
I have a feeling that we need to investigate not on the basis of Problem, React, Solve - because that isnt working anymore. We HAVE to talk to these artists - and tell them about these cases, and wonder if they are artists etc. Because maybe if there fault - maybe its there fans fault - maybe its our fault... only then maybe we can start changing this. I dont want see another Handley in my life time, I rather see the fuckers who stole our money (and Japans Money too) Like Goldman Saks get waterboarded than to see this man go to jail.
So what happens to Freedom of speech now? is this legal precedent going to apply out side of pornography? (yes)
Thus, the never ending cycle...
"My point here is that in the short term, while no children were victimized to make these titles, lolicon porn manga still promotes the practice of pedophilia"
Where's your proof of that? The only scientific studies I've seen come up with the very opposite conclusion, that it lowers the amount of actual sex crimes. Handley himself is a case in point. He's been reading this kind of manga since 1992. 17 years. You'd think if your supposition were true he'd have succumbed by now, but he evidently hasn't. Some risk he is.
You ask where we draw the line? We draw the line at an actual crime being committed. There was no victim, there was no harm done. You can't throw people in jail because you think maybe on a hunch that they might commit a crime someday, that their behavior might lead to them being a criminal in the future. What kind of way is that to administer justice?
It's not the way the laws in this country are supposed to work. We have the freedom to think and read what we want, no matter how repugnant any of us find anything else. Taking away that freedom takes away something that makes the US great, and one of the reasons this country was founded. You want people jailed for thinking something you don't like? Go live in some religious dictatorship. They'll throw you in jail for a lot of the things you read. But not here. The minute we allow that we not only cheapen our freedoms, we lessen ourselves.
(You will please note that possession of obscene material is not illegal. In the end, he was only charged with shipping it across state lines. And too, since the case didn't come to trial, the Miller test which is administered during a trial was not used.)
1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Here is the legal Definition of Prurient Interest= A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex. So dose that once a day you look at porn or twice a day is ok or not. Where dose it stop.
Other thing I don't get is why wasn't Christopher Handley dosen't have to go on a registry state's sex offender after he get's out of Jail. If is just a danger to the community (This one of the reason why people go to jail) and he has to go to jail looking child porn manga then should he have to be a Registry for Sex offenders. Here is the law in Iowa on this matter.
§692A.2 PERSONS REQUIRED TO REGISTER.
1. A person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a minor, an aggravated offense, sexual exploitation, an other relevant offense , or a sexually violent offense in this state or in another state, or in a federal, military, tribal, or foreign court, or a person required to register in another state under the state's sex offender registry, shall register as provided in this chapter.
I have a book called Manga: 60 Years of Japanese Comics I bought at boarders. It has a chapter that shows pictures from Secret Plot. It has underage boys having sex with school teachers. So by the law in Iowa should I have to go to jail.
Also Christopher Handley gets to keep his other anime and manga (besides the manga in question) after he free from jail. I don't about you but the law dosen't like keeping any porn when you are on Probation when you have comment a sexual crime of any kind. So I don't get this one either.
I think people like Boddington and the parents that he/she talked to have good intentions, but that should not be law.
I'm sorry I just cannot agree with that point. Yes, in some way it is indulging the pedophile, but that is no guarantee or solid evidence (that I know of) to show that it sets the gears in motion for the pedophile to act upon real children. I don't think the comparison to illustrated depictions of drugs is that dissimilar. It is a slippery slope we're treading on. I think the main concern is how many manga/anime titles could easily be lumped in with loli porn because it''s all subjective. There's not a perfect resolution to the situation. It's hard to determine where to draw the line; it's easy enough for me to say, "Well, I draw the line where children are being physically touched sexually or placed in explicit sexual positions." But that statement is very general and blanketing; right now, I'm reading Dance in the Vampire Bund which has one very disturbing scene where:
Art is about representation. I agree with what's been said that the actual line is drawn when there is a crime committed. Representation of an act is NOT the act itself.
I'm afraid I don't have a lot of time tonight to respond to all the comments here (I'm certainly interested in all opinions and am digesting them), but I did want to quickly cover this bit. Though the issue at hand is admittedly ambiguous I'm perplexed at how the depiction of drug use and child rape could be viewed as similar. They're both crimes, sure, but one is a personal choice while the other is taking choice away from somebody. Often violently or with coercion. It seems to me that they are not in the same ballpark or even in the same game.
BTW, I'd still really like some parents in our AV audience to weigh in on this issue from their perspective as such. Hope to hear from you guys.
" My point here is that in the short term, while no children were victimized to make these titles, lolicon porn manga still promotes the practice of pedophilia"
In response to the above quote, I must say it's true in the same sense that Call of Duty promotes terrorism. Even though I open fire during the "No Russian" level, I personally don't feel like I will become a terrorist. It was an artificial representation of a horrendous crime against humanity and yet no one can positively link anyone who has committed such an act to being inspired or motivated by any such simulation. I would say that many pedophiles may have loli manga and actual child pornography, but not everyone in possession of loli manga is going to develop that particular psychological disorder. I had a cutlass I bought from a fair, but I am not a swashbuckler, yet a swashbuckler very well could have a cutlass. The quote presumes that the medium causes one to lose their ability to separate reality from that medium.
*If you read all of that and didn't get the joke at the end, I apologize, but, foregoing the last sentence, my analysis stands.
I'm not saying that the depictions of child rape and drug use are the same. I'm saying the core issue is the same; the issue is: does exposure to a representation of a criminal act lead to or cause a person to commit a crime. The answer is clearly no. Thus, you cannot simply dismiss that comparison as being irrelevant.