5 ms·
Police raid Amazon's Tokyo offices
- ekianjo 12y ago> The crackdown by police follows a change to Japanese laws enacted in June last year that criminalised the possession of real images of child sexual abuse. The creation and distribution of such images has been illegal since 1999. In the meantime in convenience stores everywhere across Japan, kids can get manga showing women or school girls being raped and nobody has any problem with that. I guess I will never understand morals here.
- Kenji 12y agoNo, they're not sold to kids. And I don't see your problem. On one hand, we have real children being abused in real life. A demand for such pictures would mean a demand for child abuse. On the other hand, we have drawings that most apparently satisfy certain fetishes that people seem to have. I don't see what's immoral with the latter, literally nobody was harmed in the process.
- ekianjo 12y ago> literally nobody was harmed in the process. Because you think being exposed over and over to something does not harm someone's mind, or change their perception ? > No, they're not sold to kids. I'm not talking about adult ones, I'm talking about even the ones for young folks: there's plenty of hard core sexual content as well in. Check it out for yourself.
- a_bonobo 12y agoThere is debate that heightened exposure to pornography correlates with lower incidences of rape: http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-continues/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-... >the U.S. states in which rapes rose by 53 percent had the least Internet access between 1980 and 2000—and so the least access to Internet porn. States with the most access saw a 27 percent drop in reported rapes. But there are so many other factors playing into this (with heightened exposure to Internet due to higher income and more free time also comes a higher level of education, which may deter rape), so the debate is still going on, but a clear "porn -> rape" correlation doesn't seem to exist.
- ekianjo 12y ago> There is debate that heightened exposure to pornography correlates with lower incidences of rape: http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-.. http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-.... Hello ? I'm not saying porn and rape is linked. I'm saying you can get tons of hardcore material everywhere in Japan, so why go only after the ones selling pictures ? Personally I dont see much difference between a drawing a kid being raped and an actual picture, for the end viewer. In both situations you are allowing that person to feel good about it, which is, in my view, wrong anyway.
- nothrabannosir 12y agoTo repeat what was said earlier: because it's not about the viewer. It's about the child actually being molested. Q: Why is child pornography illegal? A: Because it requires real life children to be abused in real life Q: Why is CG / drawings of child pornography controversial? A: Because we don't know if it will lead to real children being abused in real life. Does this answer your questions?
- ekianjo 12y ago> To repeat what was said earlier: because it's not about the viewer. It's about the child actually being molested. You would not get (much) child molestation if there was no public for these images in the first place. So on one side, it's forbidden to share pics of real children (for the reasons you mentioned), but it's fine to check/sell drawings of children being molested. It just seems very counter productive to go both ways at the same time. You can imagine that people who already enjoy drawings would also enjoy pictures and therefore actively look for them.
- nothrabannosir 12y agoOkay, that's a more nuanced and better argument. We are now entering the "do video games cause violence" discussion hall. We take a number. It's ZY412787A331992. The 90s LED display mounted on the south wall says "unmoderated caucus". We take a seat, close our eyes, and relax in the echoes of decades of brouhaha. Do you want a drink?
- warcode 12y agoNo, I don't see millions of call of duty players who have shot, exploded, stabbed and otherwise "murdered" people currently out in the streets on killing sprees.
- 72deluxe 12y agoBut does it desensitise them to such real-life acts? Just a thought. The constant barrage of horrible images on the news just means that shocking images no longer shock.
- corin_ 12y agoArguments have been made on both sides regarding legality of simulated images (be they manga or realistic drawings / computer models) when it comes to underage stuff. Some say that it's better for paedophiles to be able to enjoy images that didn't harm any children in their production and that it will help them avoid looking at actual child pornography, while others say it has the opposite effect, that by allowing themselves the fake stuff they're more likely to move onto real images. I've no idea which argument is correct (or maybe both depending on the person?), or if there is any actual evidence other than opinions. There's also a technical issue that some have predicted in terms of when computer images become too realistic, how do you tell whether it was computer generated or a real child in the video? Regardless of what side you come down on these arguments, I definitely don't get your parent's point about morals - it's clearly a huge amount less immoral to make or view fake pictures than to actually abuse children and film/photograph it.
- tomp 12y ago> while others say it has the opposite effect, that by allowing themselves the fake stuff they're more likely to move onto real images. I've no idea which argument is correct (or maybe both depending on the person?), or if there is any actual evidence other than opinions. Well, the evidence is everybody else - saying that pedophiles will go from images of child porn to actually raping children is like saying that non-pedophiles will go from watching porn to raping people. I'm sure many, if not most people have experience with unfulfilled sexual fantasies (that celebrity? this classmate? the one that got away?). > There's also a technical issue that some have predicted in terms of when computer images become too realistic, how do you tell whether it was computer generated or a real child in the video? By uploading the source code/models to a police server that is then used to fingerprint videos to determine which are real and which are computer generated.
- corin_ 12y agoMost people with unfulfilled sexual fantasies are able to legitimately fulfill at least some of their fantasies - I may not be able to sleep with my favourite celebrity, but I can sleep with somebody I'm attracted to. Paedophiles (or at least exclusive paedophiles, i.e. those not also attracted to adults) don't have that opportunity without abusing children, so the logic is that it's better to try to kill the desire altogether (vs. the other side that non-real pornography gives them an outlet for that desire so as to avoid abusing children or looking at real images). Personally I think you're right and that simulated images shouldn't be banned, but I also think I don't know nearly enough about psychology to know if I'm right. edit to your edit about knowing real from fake images: Again, I'm no expert (this time regarding the technology rather than psychology), but there are more issues than your solution fixes. That would protect someone who was creating the images, but let's say you're a paedophile who wants to look at generated images but doesn't want to look at real images, how will you know wherever you're getting them from is telling the truth? You could be told "these are really realistic computer images" and actually be watching a real child get abused. And if the police investigate that viewing paedophile, without having models/etc uploaded (as he wouldn't have access to them) how do they know if they've discovered real or fake porn? Well I guess psychology does come into play here as I've no idea if there are paedophiles who would be willing to watch something realistic enough to not know the difference but wouldn't be willing to watch real images. Though I suspect there probably are.
- userbinator 12y agoThere is also the freedom of expression/art angle to consider, which the BBC has illustrated rather nicely here: https://a.pomf.se/odchri.png https://a.pomf.se/odchri.png
- poigant 12y ago> A demand for such pictures would mean a demand for child abuse. That is actually a pretty radical claim, for which I don't know that any evidence exists. Whatever the facts are, arguing this point is a lot like the Catholic church arguing against condoms because they promote gay and immoral sex acts. There's no evidence either way, and a scientific mind would assume the null hypothesis. Furthermore I would hope we can strive to have the standards for lawmaking be held to science. > On one hand, we have real children being abused in real life. What we have is a law that says that children are being abused, by decree. If you heve sex with someone who's 18 minus a day, abuse has taken place and you are a rapist. Tomorrow, though, it's love. Child sexual abuse definitely exists, as does adult sexual abuse, but you can't use age of consent, which is a mostly arbitrary legal matter (that historically nobody agrees on), to bolster a moral argument.
- higherpurpose 12y agoI wonder if that manga increases or decreases the number of actual child abuses. Doing a quick Google search, it seems UK and US are in the top 5 countries with highest child abuse rates: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/child-sexual-abuse-top-5-countries-highest-rates-1436162 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/child-sexual-abuse-top-5-countries-... There could be a theory that if you allow things that you'd normally consider crimes and unacceptable in a society, in virtual form, that would prevent the things from happening in real life, as those committing the acts would be "satisfied" by the virtual act, and wouldn't have a desire to do it in real life anymore. In a way, it kind of already works like that with (regular) porn. Now I wonder - and this is just a crazy idea I'm throwing out there - what if images of abused children, actually cause fewer "real" pedophiles to exist/commit those acts with real children? And what if our current "ban child porn from the Internet" policy just means more pedophiles will go looking for children to abuse in their local towns instead of watching online videos? Maybe it's just a crazy sick idea, but it might be worth exploring from a statistics point of view, to see whether our current policies are working or are actually making the problem worse. We probably don't even need to "experiment" with any new policy. I think we just need to carefully look at past data, and see what we can learn from it.
- ekianjo 12y ago> I wonder if that manga increases or decreases the number of actual child abuses. Doing a quick Google search, it seems UK and US are in the top 5 countries with highest child abuse rates: As I said in another comment it's not even the point. Is it moral to actually have kids access such depictions in the first place, whether it's actual pictures or drawings, is what I am talking about. Of course everyone will have a different opinion about that, I guess.
- nothrabannosir 12y agoReligion is for morality. Your point is fair, but we are talking about prohibition. That is (ideally) not done on the basis of morality alone. A good reason for a law to exist is to protect people from each other. Hence laws against real murder, and real child abuse. Photos of child abuse are clearly illegal because they mean actual child abuse has taken place. Not because they are immoral, per se. They may be, but that's not as clear an argument. For the same reason, the discussion about the legality of drawings / enactments of illegal acts centers not around morality, but around whether or not it will lead to more of those acts actually happening. You're getting downvoted because you stick to making the morality argument, implying that is reason enough for prohibition. HN is a crowd where many people feel it's not. In the spirit of "Live and let live", I tend to feel the same way.
- Drakim 12y agoDrawing rape, and raping somebody and taking pictures, is exactly as far apart as drawing murder, and murdering somebody and taking pictures. I'm on board with talking about whether drawing rape and murder is moral, but in no way can it be said to be immoral simply because rape and murder in itself is immoral. If so, Hollywood would be put on trial for crimes against humanity.