5 ms·

I sure hope this is overturned. It's a ridiculous law - as per the "anyone with sense can see that this is wrong" definition of ridiculous.

by swombat 17y ago

jgrahamc 17y ago
Really, where's it going? I read the text of the law and it seems pretty clear to me. I don't have a problem with outlawing this material at all.
- wolfish 17y ago
  Why do you think it should be outlawed? Why should the government have any say in what art you are allowed to view?
  - jgrahamc 17y ago
    I do not believe that these manga depictions of sex with minors have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". So, I do not believe that they constitute art and therefore it's OK for the government to intervene.
    - radu_floricica 17y ago
      Neither do our comments. Should they be subject to government approval too?
      - jgrahamc 17y ago
        They are not obscene.
        radu_floricica 17y ago
        We're getting somewhere. So why do obscene stuff should, in your opinion, be controlled by the government? I don't mean why it's distasteful or unhealthy or something like that, but what makes you want to cross the line from "not socially accepted" to "men with guns ruin your life"?
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  The reason child pornography is illegal is that to make it, you need to abuse children. But what's wrong with drawings that makes them more than simply free speech?
  - sethg 17y ago
    It is well-established in the law that First Amendment protections do not apply to obscene material--where "obscene" is not just "pornographic" but "sexually explicit in a really really gross way with no redeeming social value". There's a summary of the relevant law on the DOJ's Web site here: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/links/citizens_guide.html http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/links/citizens_guide.html I'm not saying this a good law, but anyone who has this kind of stuff should know that the "it's just ink on paper" argument cuts no ice with the judges.
patio11 17y ago
I do not have the problem with the use of state power to enforce the consensus morality that it is absolutely and totally impermissible to have sex with children. As a conservative techy I'm quite familiar with the libertarian counter-argument, which rests so firmly on "everything is permitted save for that which harms non-consenting people" that it sometimes forgets that that assumption is not universally shared. I'm not going to try to talk you guys out of that one, but just wanted to mention that at least one person in your social circle thinks the other way.
- mtinkerhess 17y ago
  It's not against the law to own drawings of people murdering, or hatching ponzi schemes, or smoking pot. Why should it be illegal to draw one crime and not the others?
  - patio11 17y ago
    I have about as much desire to defend "laws should be internally consistent" as you have to defend "sex with children should be socially acceptable". I don't believe it and it isn't necessary for my argument. Or, if I wanted to play the score-free-debater-points game the other way, I'd say "You don't get a free pass on incitations to murder or solicitations to ponzi schemes or offers to sell marijuana just because they're written. Why should 'it is just ink on a page' save child pornography when it saves none of these things?"
    - mtinkerhess 17y ago
      I have about as much desire to defend "laws should be internally consistent" as you have to defend "sex with children should be socially acceptable". I don't believe it and it isn't necessary for my argument. I absolutely believe that sex with children should be socially unacceptable. However, I believe that fictional depictions of unacceptable acts are acceptable. By outlawing depictions of one unacceptable act because it has crossed a threshold from "unacceptable" to "super-unacceptable" such that drawing it is illegal, you open up two slippery slopes: 1) Other crimes may be deemed "super-unacceptable", creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding comic collectors. 2) Other mediums may be deemed off-limits. Could a written description of sex with children be illegal? Could a spoken description of sex with children be illegal? In an extreme worst-case Orwellian scenario the law would fall down both slopes: any depiction of crime in any medium would be illegal. Or, if I wanted to play the score-free-debater-points game the other way, I'd say "You don't get a free pass on incitations to murder or solicitations to ponzi schemes or offers to sell marijuana just because they're written. Why should 'it is just ink on a page' save child pornography when it saves none of these things?" You don't get a free pass on a written note that says "let's go make kiddie porn" either. I'm not making the "just ink on a page" argument, which doesn't save the examples you gave or real child porn, so it shouldn't save explicit manga either. What should save manga is that it's fictional; no other crime was committed in the creation of the work.

I sure hope this is overturned. It's a ridiculous law - as per the "anyone with sense can see that this is wrong" definition of ridiculous.

by swombat 17y ago

I sure hope this is overturned. It's a ridiculous law - as per the "anyone with sense can see that this is wrong" definition of ridiculous.

jgrahamc 17y ago

Really, where's it going? I read the text of the law and it seems pretty clear to me. I don't have a problem with outlawing this material at all.

wolfish 17y ago
Why do you think it should be outlawed? Why should the government have any say in what art you are allowed to view?
- jgrahamc 17y ago
  I do not believe that these manga depictions of sex with minors have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". So, I do not believe that they constitute art and therefore it's OK for the government to intervene.
  - radu_floricica 17y ago
    Neither do our comments. Should they be subject to government approval too?
    - jgrahamc 17y ago
      They are not obscene.
      - radu_floricica 17y ago
        We're getting somewhere. So why do obscene stuff should, in your opinion, be controlled by the government? I don't mean why it's distasteful or unhealthy or something like that, but what makes you want to cross the line from "not socially accepted" to "men with guns ruin your life"?
yummyfajitas 17y ago
The reason child pornography is illegal is that to make it, you need to abuse children. But what's wrong with drawings that makes them more than simply free speech?
- sethg 17y ago
  It is well-established in the law that First Amendment protections do not apply to obscene material--where "obscene" is not just "pornographic" but "sexually explicit in a really really gross way with no redeeming social value". There's a summary of the relevant law on the DOJ's Web site here: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/links/citizens_guide.html http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/links/citizens_guide.html I'm not saying this a good law, but anyone who has this kind of stuff should know that the "it's just ink on paper" argument cuts no ice with the judges.

patio11 17y ago

I do not have the problem with the use of state power to enforce the consensus morality that it is absolutely and totally impermissible to have sex with children. As a conservative techy I'm quite familiar with the libertarian counter-argument, which rests so firmly on "everything is permitted save for that which harms non-consenting people" that it sometimes forgets that that assumption is not universally shared. I'm not going to try to talk you guys out of that one, but just wanted to mention that at least one person in your social circle thinks the other way.

mtinkerhess 17y ago
It's not against the law to own drawings of people murdering, or hatching ponzi schemes, or smoking pot. Why should it be illegal to draw one crime and not the others?
- patio11 17y ago
  I have about as much desire to defend "laws should be internally consistent" as you have to defend "sex with children should be socially acceptable". I don't believe it and it isn't necessary for my argument. Or, if I wanted to play the score-free-debater-points game the other way, I'd say "You don't get a free pass on incitations to murder or solicitations to ponzi schemes or offers to sell marijuana just because they're written. Why should 'it is just ink on a page' save child pornography when it saves none of these things?"
  - mtinkerhess 17y ago
    I have about as much desire to defend "laws should be internally consistent" as you have to defend "sex with children should be socially acceptable". I don't believe it and it isn't necessary for my argument. I absolutely believe that sex with children should be socially unacceptable. However, I believe that fictional depictions of unacceptable acts are acceptable. By outlawing depictions of one unacceptable act because it has crossed a threshold from "unacceptable" to "super-unacceptable" such that drawing it is illegal, you open up two slippery slopes: 1) Other crimes may be deemed "super-unacceptable", creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding comic collectors. 2) Other mediums may be deemed off-limits. Could a written description of sex with children be illegal? Could a spoken description of sex with children be illegal? In an extreme worst-case Orwellian scenario the law would fall down both slopes: any depiction of crime in any medium would be illegal. Or, if I wanted to play the score-free-debater-points game the other way, I'd say "You don't get a free pass on incitations to murder or solicitations to ponzi schemes or offers to sell marijuana just because they're written. Why should 'it is just ink on a page' save child pornography when it saves none of these things?" You don't get a free pass on a written note that says "let's go make kiddie porn" either. I'm not making the "just ink on a page" argument, which doesn't save the examples you gave or real child porn, so it shouldn't save explicit manga either. What should save manga is that it's fictional; no other crime was committed in the creation of the work.