5 ms·
‘Obscene’ U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 Months
- garply 17y agoDoes it stop being porn when it's old? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_Wife http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_...
- jrockway 17y agoUnrelated, because the girl in that painting is not obviously under 18. No, I don't think the legal system makes sense here.
- garply 17y agoNot unrelated, Wired implies that part of the problem with the manga was that they depicted bestiality. Although it seems that he wasn't convicted for the bestiality part? I don't totally understand the law - maybe the bestiality helped further classify it as 'obscene'?
- jrockway 17y agoI assume that's something that just sounds good in a press release, not something that was actually a factor. But who knows. This guy never got his trial, so we'll never really know.
- Confusion 17y agoHe wasn't convicted at all: he pleaded guilty. @metamemetics: OK, but you get my point :). Does anyone have a suggestion for a succinct way to say what I meant to say?
- metamemetics 17y agoconvicted=found guilty and punishment decided. He was convicted. Pleading guilty is how the majority of people are convicted.
- basugasubaku 17y agoI just googled the probable original Japanese titles of the first four listed seized items. I found they are all available on Amazon.co.jp (3 available as used from third-party vendors, 1 as new directly from Amazon). From the covers it's clear these are the items in question. It's not like you need to go underground to buy them; Amazon is selling them, though obviously Japanese standards of what counts as obscene are different than those of the U.S.
- iamaleksey 17y agoIs there even a word in japanese for "obscene"?
- c00ki3s 17y agohiwai
- anabis 17y ago"hiwai" works, but the "waisetsu" is used more in the legal context. Japan did a trial regarding a publisher few years back, called "Matsubunkan trial". Some details in the middle of page: http://comipress.com/article/2007/07/17/2307 http://comipress.com/article/2007/07/17/2307
- jrockway 17y agoThis showcases several major problems with our legal system. The first is obvious; cartoons are not children, nor can they be abused. So there is no point in going after people who possess said representations. Not really my thing, but definitely not a federal crime. (How long until any document the Ruling Party doesn't like becomes "obscene"?) The second problem is more subtle; and something I see as a major threat to the rights afforded to the accused -- ridiculous trumped-up charges, and minimal pleas in exchange for not going to trial. 15 years in prison for owning certain books? Who would risk a fair trial if that's a possible outcome? Much better than submit to the will of the system and take your six months. Fifteen years should not even be an option on the state's table. 1 year max. Fifteen years is what murderers and rapists get, if they have a really bad lawyer. Is owning books worse than taking someone's life? Not going to trial means that the legal system never has a chance to strike down these blatantly unconstitutional laws, leaving anyone who owns books open to potential criminal charges. Are you sure the government likes every book on your shelf? With this kind of precedent, you should probably quit reading and just watch CSPAN -- It's What's Best. Edit: I just realized that many actual child rapists face fewer than fifteen years in prison. So rather than reading a book showing someone who might be underage, it's better for you to just rape children instead. A fine message our lawmakers are sending us. A few more cases like this, and I'm quitting programming and going to law school. This stuff needs to stop.
- garply 17y agoI find myself inherently suspicious of US legal attempts to crack down on porn because 'cracking down on obscene content' is the justification that the CCP uses in China to censor many things that are clearly not porn.
- jrockway 17y agoI am especially confused on how arbitrarily the censorship is applied. I could maybe understand (but not be in favor of, of course) a law that made depicting any crime illegal. But this will obviously never happen; fantasizing about murder and terrorism and depicting it in great detail is a recipe for a blockbuster film. As soon as it's having sex with someone below a certain age, though... then you can't even read a book about it! I'd like to write some sarcastic reason for this, but I can't even think of one. I have a feeling that "one nation under God" has something to do with it, though.
- ghshephard 17y agoAnd yet, somehow 4chan continues on... The irony is overwhelming.
- baby 17y agois it really relevant ?
- radu_floricica 17y agoWell, it makes it even more obvious that local standards for obscenity are meaningless. Also that if you must find a common denominator it should probably be the most permissible. All things said and done, I very much like the old principle: "You do not have a right not to be offended".
- jrockway 17y ago"You do not have a right not to be offended". Not sure how that even applies here. The books arrived in sealed boxes and remained in the guy's home, free from public view. Nobody should even know that the guy has the books, making it even more powerful than "you do not have a right not to be offended". You do not have a right to open other people's mail and be offended, because you do not have the right to open other people's mail!
- radu_floricica 17y agoIf I read correctly, the package was opened by customs officials. While slightly annoying, it is their job to open packages from time to time, and it has its uses. The problem is it should not fall on me to keep my manga hidden. It's actually pretty hard to keep something completely out of sight... should he make a special room locked at all times just because he _may_ have questionable materials? I'd say "you don't have the right to be offended" is the more general principle here, and solves the issue much more elegantly then privacy.
- jrockway 17y agoSorry for two top-level comments, but I did some more reading on the case. It started when the postal service seized a box containing the books. So if there's someone you don't like, just order a few books from amazon.co.jp for them, and then they'll be facing 15 years in prison. "Land of the free," indeed.
- philh 17y agoNow you're getting slightly hysterical. They would just claim that they didn't order the books themselves, the evidence would back them up, and they probably wouldn't even be prosecuted.
- jrockway 17y agoOr maybe they'd just take the plea agreement, because they actually do have a few comic books on their bookshelf.
- philh 17y agoPlea bargaining is one stage of prosecution, intended to avoid a trial. If they don't get prosecuted (for example because there's no evidence that they ordered the books), there's no plea bargaining. Plea bargains are not unique to manga-related crimes. If your claim was accurate, it would be easy to get someone locked away for any crime just by planting weak evidence against them.
- metamemetics 17y agowire article from 2009 with more details: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/ ''' Chase says he recommended the plea agreement (.pdf) to his client because he didn’t think he could convince a jury to acquit him once they’d seen the images in question. The lawyer declined to describe the details. “If they can imagine it, they drew it,” he says. “Use your imagination. It was there.” ''' moral of the story: GET A BETTER LAWYER
- jrockway 17y agoI don't think the jury should even matter. They determine the facts of the case, not the law. The fact is, he has what the law disallows. But the reality is, the law is totally illegal. I would be shocked if he didn't win his first appeal. (Some other details seem shady. Is receiving books in the mail grounds for the warrant used to search his house? Were the obscene pictures in "plain view"? If this is what I can think of, having never studied law, you'd think someone's whose job it is to think of stuff like this would do better.)
- pmccool 17y agoCan he appeal, having pleaded guilty? Shouldn't the invalidity of the law have been raised At the trial he elected not to have?
- rglovejoy 17y agoIANAL. Having said that, there are a few avenues for appeal. For instance, if the defendant's lawyer was provably incompetent or did not disclose a conflict of interest against his client. Or if the prosecution withheld evidence that would have prevented the defendant from taking the plea. In most jurisdictions, the defendant could also opt for a bench trial, which would have just the judge and no jury.
- igorhvr 17y agoThis is utterly absurd. You cannot limit in any way fiction that people read or write - not if you claim to be a free country. Seriously - why is this happening? I am not talking about "protecting the children" or other such nonsense - the question is what actually is happening here? What is the reason? What possible advantage can anyone have from destroying the life of this man like this? EDIT: Improved wording.
- jrockway 17y agoWhat possible advantage can anyone have from destroying the life of this man like this? "God" will like them more. Pleasure is evil, sex is even more evil, and sex involving people who look like they're under 18 is so evil that you shouldn't even be allowed to think about it.
- olefoo 17y agoNot to mention that it establishes a precedent. Your library, your viewing habits, your browser history are all potentially criminal now. Can you declare with certainty that you possess nothing incriminating? What if the definition of obscene materials were expanded to include depictions of abortion or of darwinism...?
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoIt seems the legal system as well as our society as a whole is pretty schizophrenic about that relationship between fantasy and reality. Do we believe that representations of violent fantasies generally cause crime? And secondly, if something does indeed cause a tiny group of people to commit a crime is that a good enough reason to prevent everybody from using it? Depending on the answers the consequences of applying it consistently are very far reaching. Clearly, if comic books depicting child porn are prohibited, any depiction of rape and murder for entertainment purposes must be prohibited as well. That includes mainstream movies, TV programs and video games. I suspect the real purpose of laws like the one applied here is not preventing crime or protecting anyone. So the meta question is whether laws should be consistent and effective at preventing crime, or whether it is sufficient if they allow some kind of collective emotional identification. I'm concerned that if we put up with the latter the law will become a mere pretence for mob rule, which is easily exploited by fanatics and populists.
- jrockway 17y agoClearly, if comic books depicting child porn are prohibited, any depiction of rape and murder for entertainment purposes must be prohibited as well. That includes mainstream movies, TV programs and video games. It is interesting how many arbitrary lines this creates. Soldiers killing the enemy would be legal to depict, but the enemy soldiers killing us would be illegal. Depicting someone having sex at 23:59:59 on the day before her 18th (or whatever) birthday would be a crime, whereas at 24:00:00 it would be legal. Extending this to cartoons is even more arbitrary. How do you know which side is the good guys (where killing is legal) and which side is the bad guys (where killing is a crime)? How do you know the age of someone being depicted? (I've seen 14-year-old girls that could pass as 25, and 25-year-old girls that could pass as 14. If you depict someone who is 25 but looks 14, is that a crime? If you depict someone who is 14 but looks 25, is that a crime?) All I can come up with is that any fantasy should always be permitted, unconditionally.
- gnosis 17y ago"Handley was the nation’s first to be convicted under that law for possessing cartoon art, without any evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine child pornography." Mike Diana was first to receive a conviction for publishing, distributing, and advertising "obscene" comics (in 1996). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_diana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_diana And Diana's website to see the comics he was jailed for: http://www.mikedianacomix.com/mikediana/mikediana.html http://www.mikedianacomix.com/mikediana/mikediana.html
- cousin_it 17y agoThe whole article was pretty horrifying, but this sentence in particular stood out for me: The high court ruled that the ban was too broad, and could cover legitimate speech, including Hollywood productions. So Hollywood's business interests matter and regular people don't?
- Methos 17y agoThat sounds absurd. What about South Park creators? Shouldn't they be jailed by same laws?
- jongraehl 17y ago“I’d say the anime community’s reaction to this, since day one, has been almost exclusively one of support for Handley and disgust with the U.S. courts and legal system,” I'd say the reaction of any intelligent, decent person would be the same. Which, I guess, is why his lawyer told him he'd better not face a jury.