I’m stubborn because you’re not giving me an explanation to why you’re thinking that way. I’m asking for how you managed to come to the conclusion that virtual and real child porn are equal. Sure, you got legal documents, but why aren’t you taking quotes/citations and pulling them together?
If you had to write a college essay on your opinion on how BP’s oil spill will impact environment, do you think you’d pass by just giving the professor a link to a government report on the spill and telling him look at page number 9?
No, you’re not showing me that you know anything at all or what’s making you think the way you do. Hell, what did the Supreme Court even say? I can’t possibly keep up with everything that everyone says. You gotta start from the top FFS.
Mostly because I think people should read everything, and not just get bits and pieces… but to move this along…
Among other things, in the first PDF it states:
In other words, real or fake doesn’t matter.
In the second PDF it states:
Speaks for itself.
It also says:
Again. Speaks for itself.
Three cases followed Whorely’s (only one got media attention): all three call on Whorely’s case, concerning their lolicon material, to add more criminal charges because of it.
EDIT
Also in addition:
[url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001466—A000-.html]¬ß 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children[/url]
EDIT 2
And just to put it all together (note that I don’t agree with it):
#1: Real child porn is obscene.
#2: Is a manga of children having sex, still pornography, despite being fake? Yea… it sure ain’t G-rated.
#3: Lolicon is fake child porn.
#4: As per ¬ß 1466A and the Whorely case, it doesn’t matter if something is real or fake.
#5: ???
#6: Prison!!!
Lolicon is illegal in Virginia: that’s how the regional courts and prosecution are working it. If the Supreme Court has an issue with that, then it will deal with it when the time comes. But until then, people can and are convicted for lolicon possession in Virginia. Those are the facts. As I stated earlier in the thread: don’t move to Virginia until that Supreme Court case pops up, or you might be the one doing the Supreme Court case.
First of all, before I begin, our entire legal system is entirely based off of splitting hairs and ensuring that things are precise as possible. If you think things are as simple as they seem, then why don’t they just say that “real child porn and virtual child porn” are the same like this Canadian judges did when they declared virtual child porn as equal with regular child porn?
If you merely generalize everything, focus all your attention on outer appearances and get caught up in political bantering, you’ll fail to see the details that actually make up these laws/legal opinions. Why would lawyers and legal officials have to create detailed, precise, documents in every legal case if things were that simple?
I see a distinct lack of willingness to engage in critical thinking/analysis. I mean, really? It speaks for itself?
But anyways, you’re saying that virtual child pornography is the same as real child pornography in the eyes of the Virginia court system. So it wouldn’t be unreasonable for me to say that with the PROTECT Act, if you get caught with loli/virtual child porn, you will be convicted as though you possessed real child porn by the VA courts, right?
Excuse me, but why do you keep ignoring the “obscenity” aspect of the case and dismiss it as nothing more than “bits and pieces”?
Okay let’s assume that child pornography, whether virtual or not, are treated equally and punished as such. Do you know how they convict real child pornography? Someone gets caught having pictures/videos of real kids engaging in sexual activity, the courts sees the pictures/videos in question, identifies them as children in said situations, and the person is found to be guilty of possessing “child pornography”.
But do you see that ever happening in either of these cases? Whenever someone supposedly gets convicted of possessing lolicon, someone gets caught having pictures/videos of kid-like characters engaging in sexual activity, the courts see the pictures/videos, then for each and every picture/video, they have to determine which ones are “obscene” under the Miller Test and which ones aren’t. For the ones that are declared “obscene”, that person is found to be guilty of possessing “obscene materials depicting children”.
Now I’ve got to ask you, if lolicon was treated as equally illegal as real child pornography, why don’t the courts try anyone possessing loli in the same manner as people who possess real child pornography? If you compare cases involving real child porn and that of lolicon, you’ll see that in cases where people are found guilty of possessing real child porn, they can be convicted purely on the virtue of having children engaging in sexual situations–They don’t even need to take a look at whether they appear “obscene”. Let’s say someone makes an explicit DVD with porn scenes involving a real child, it has a surprisingly sweet and deep storyline (just think of it as a live-action version of Kazoku Keikaku), and the child seems to be having the best time of his/her life in the sex scenes–You really think the courts need to care about whether the flick had any sort of “artistic merit” if they wanted to convict the producer? On the other hand, courts convicting people with “fictional materials” involving children have to go through a process to declare them as “obscene” via the Miller Test before any jailtime is mentioned. Even in the provisions of the Protect Act, requires whatever work that’s in question to be considered “obscene” or “lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value”.
They don’t even need to find real child porn to be “obscene” to convict someone, yet they need to do so for “virtual” child porn? Yet despite that, you say that those two are somehow equal? Where’s the logic here?
You have to consider the implications of what you’re suggesting. If two things were considered equal in the eyes of the law, why should they go through different judicial procedures? If a black man was equal with a white man in the eyes of the law, why should the judicial procedures be different when convicting either person? If one controlled substance was regarded as equally illegal as another controlled substance, why should the judicial procedures for convicting a person with one substance be different for convicting people with the other substance, provided their circumstances are similar?
Every time these courts go through these cases, they spend large amounts of time and money to reach a verdict. The more procedures they have to do, and the longer it takes, the more time and money they have to spend. Yes, courts actually do care about these sorts of things–They tend to be under a tight budget and a tight schedule. If lolicon and fictional materials depicting children in such situations was truly equal with real child porn, why would the courts waste valuable time and money trying to declare the materials as “obscenities”? Why bother making the cases last longer than they should be by bringing up the Miller Test? Why not just simply convict Whorely purely on the basis that such materials had children, just like what they usually do with real child porn, if they were truly equal?
Since when did minors actually have to exist in any case where obscenity laws are involved? Did you actually believe that a piece pornographic material was exempt from obscenity laws just because it happens to be drawn? There needs to be required element stating that fictional depictions of minors in such manner need not be declared obscene to be convicted for your argument to work. Loli works have. to. be. declared. obscene. to. be. considered. illegal.
Agreed, I would much rather have access to a document I can read myself than the bits and pieces cherry picked from it by someone else. If one is too lazy to read the material provided that is their failing; this is an open forum, not a classroom wherein the posters are striving for a grade. You cannot expect someone to write you up a twelve page paper with citations and foot notes because you are uncomfortable or cannot be bothered to read a link to a primary or secondary source. (nor should you be satisfied with someone else’s interpretation when the documentation is provided for you)
Well, it’s a sensitive issue and a very politically charged one at that. If you try to say something is what it is and declare it as “fact”, but can’t explain why you think so or how you came up with your opinion using your own words, then your argument fails in the debate. I wanted him to show me why he believes that loli and real child porn are equal in the Virginia courts, and back his statements up. If I wanted just the documents alone, I could’ve just searched on Google and Wikipedia.
Did you read the requirements for determining something obscene? You ask average people, adhering to standards of the community they live in, if the object is obscene - then you ask an educated person if it is art; that’s it. Ask anyone on the street if a depiction of a loli girl being sexed up by a middle aged man is obscene and you will almost always receive an answer in the positive - and considering how elitist and dismissive the artistic community is of anything not falling into a fairly narrow definition of art and it won’t be difficult to find a professional who condemns the piece as non artistic. Wow, them there’s some hard criteria to meet.
Oh, and your statement is supposed to be conclusive representation of what is and isn’t supposed to be “obscene”? If that’s the case, why don’t the courts just get rid of the stupid grey area presented by this whole “Miller Test” or this “community standards” crap and save themselves the headache by sentencing automatic jailtime for everyone possessing loli purely based on the fact that it has kids getting sexed up by middle-aged men?
Because the courts know better than to make stereotypes, overgeneralizations, and blanket statements like you just did, that’s why.
Sure, hell, since some people won’t find the material obscene we should throw the entire concept of the obscenity test right out the window - it is hardly objective.
At this point what I’m getting is “Anyone who disagrees with me and can’t prove their statements without a shadow of doubt, no matter whether I can back up my refutations, is wrong.” To which I say, congratulations, it is good to feel superior to others while actually doing nothing to earn that status. How about showing me cases where this anime issue was brought to court and it was determined the material wasn’t obscene.
Perhaps not, but since when the hell was it anymore objective to simply dismiss all forms of loli as obscene and label it all as equal with real child porn? Just because the law may be subjective, is that somehow an excuse to abandon any efforts to be as objective as possible? Why would there even be a process to these sorts of things if that was the case?
Oh yeah, they’re wrong alright. I just slaved away nearly an hour or so writing a friggin’ essay in response to Nargrakhan’s post, trying to cover my points as specifically as I could. I’ve also argued my points on other topics despite being outnumbered 4 to 1 at times, yet still managing to back up my statements and present my arguments to the best of my ability, all the while never giving up in the process. What’s your point?
No it’s not. Attend a law seminar and ask the professor this question: “Is the Law a surgical scalpel or a blunt bat?” He will tell you it’s a blunt bat… or a speeding battle tank. Every law seminar I’ve ever had the dissatisfaction of attending, drill that into us. The Law is not a precision laser: there is HUGE room for interpretation. The legal system is designed exactly for that: that’s why we are [u]Common Law[/u]. It is not the only legal system… Japan is not Common Law for example.
Awesome quote. It has no precedence in the Virginia cases. When this matter goes to the Supreme Court, then it will. Until then, it’s outside the purview of the cases. See the history of State Law circumventing (not overruling; that’s not allowed) Federal Law. Furthermore states regulate obscenity: not the federal government. Which is why the statement has no direct bearing, just an abstract one (which doesn’t matter in a criminal case).
Because we are Common Law system: to establish Legal Precedence.
Right.
I’m not ignoring it. It’s the key to the Legal Precedence the prosecutors require.
Wrong: under Virginia state law, fictional child pornography ¬ñ lolicon included ¬ñ is equal to real child pornography. That is what the Whorely case ruled. That is what’s stated in the first PDF I posted. Everything else you mentioned is your interpretation of the Law. That is not what the case ruled. The case as ruled ¬ñ with complete Legal Precedence ¬ñ is that if child actual child pornography is obscene, fake child pornography is obscene. Read the entire first again PDF. The court majority has ruled that.
Irrelevant. Just because the media has not reported such a case, does not mean it is not happening or not happen. Read the second PDF: this is exactly what the federal prosecution said is possible.
Exactly. So under Virginia state law, if real child pornography is automatically obscene, then fake child pornography is automatically obscene. Both the first and second PDF state that.
Not what the Virginia courts have ruled. Real child pornography = obscene. Real child pornography = Fake child pornography. Fake child pornography = obscene. First PDF states that.
It could say, “How to catch a Legendary Pokemon with normal Pokeballs.” That header is just an eye catch. Read the conclusion.
This is EXACTLY why I didn’t want to “pick and choose” entries. You’re not reading the entire document, and only attack the segments on their own. That’s not how it’s working. Lolicon is illegal in Virginia. Come on down, order a bunch of boxed pornographic Japanese lolicon games, and tell the customs representative you want to make a tax declaration. When they open the mailing boxes and see the pics, they won’ t be letting you leave the post office. For an added bonus: do it in Richmond or Roanoke.
That’s what all four reported cases have outlined. To further emphasize, they assign the lolicon their own charges and punishment sentences. What the Supreme Court might rule, or what you or I think, is irrelevant: the Virginia courts and prosecutors are ruling as the Whorley case dictates. Lolicon is illegal in Virginia: whether or not you accept that, doesn’t change anything. That’s what Virginia media reports ¬ñ and they’re not spinning it ¬ñ because that’s what the Virginia court system has ruled.
You make a nice argument, and fundamentally I agree with you, but an argument is not the Law. Virginia has made their Law known. There is no Supreme Court ruling overturning what Virginia is doing, and until that happens, Virginia is 100% legal by the Letter of the Law (though it’s clearly fudging the Spirit of the Law).
One last item: I’m beating a dead horse here… so I’m probably just going to let you get the last word and not say anything more on the matter, because the documents are what they are.
The first PDF upholds the ruling, that fake child porn is equivalent to real child porn, in a Virginia criminal case (and has been used to uphold at least 3 later Virginia cases). That’s what the high court has affirmed, so it is the law. You rant on about obscenity. Child porn is obscene ¬ñ it’s the only thing that’s obscene in America. Does it have to be real or fake? Not in Virginia. You don’t want to take my word for it? Contact them:
Refer to case No. 06-4288 (3:05-cr-00114-HEH). Ask them if drawn child porn is equal to actual child porn. Go ahead. I can wait. So long as you don’t live in Virginia, or the Appeals Circuit it’s part of (none of the touch states), you should be fine. Request for Ms. McCoy: will get you to the right person and save you a lot of leg work: 1-804-371-8428
The second PDF illustrates how the prosecution came to that victory, and how future cases can use it to their advantage, by the legal experts in the federal government. Don’t wanna take my word for it? Refer to the document (Internet Pornography and Child Exploitation, Volume 54, Number 7) and contact them:
U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS)
1400 New York Avenue, 6th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
Ask them if drawn child porn is equal to actual child porn. For bonus points, tell 'em you have lolicon porn games too. Go on. I can wait. I don’t recommend the later part though… unlike Virginia, they can come get you if they want. The Power of Interstate Jurisdiction and all that. If you think you’ll win an easy victory: by all means, give 'em the proverbial finger.
Don’t tell me what you think: [u]tell me what they tell you[/u]. This thread ain’t going anywhere after all. If you think I’m bluffing, knock it out. I’ve already contacted one of them directly… I don’t need to contact the other, cause I already know what they will say (and I’m in no mood to cut my own head off or be a martyr).
Much of B173M3’s argument here is that the process, and the sentence, for real child porn is different from the fictional variety. There’s legal charges that’ll be made against a person for possession of real child porn that wouldn’t apply to fictional media. Real child porn is obscene, but it’s ALSO a completely separate offense. On the other hand, lolicon can ONLY be obscene. Furthermore, real child porn has a very definite definition: a graphic portrayal of sexual acts with a real person that is under 18. “Fake” child porn is determined by the Miller Test. Give me a real image and I can tell you with some investigation whether it’s child porn or not. Give me some lolicon and all I can do is wave my hands in the air and give my personal opinion on whether it’s obscene or not (and therefore criminal).
Bottomline: Lolicon is not child porn anywhere in the US. Obscene lolicon is not child porn either. However, obscene lolicon could get you thrown in jail.
Did you pass it? The law may have a huge room for interpretation, but all precedents are designed to serve as a guideline on things that may not be so easily understood in legal documents. The only subjective, or “grey” element in these rulings was whether the works were considered to be “obscene”, and that was a key requirement for a successful conviction as per the rulings in the Protect Act. If it is a clear-cut ruling that sets a black-and-white precedent in a grey legal matter, then I should see a clear cut statement made in a black-and-white manner.
I have not been given a clear explanation showing that this was as definitive as you claim. If these cases present such a clear precedent, should not be seeing a bunch of grey language in a document supposedly contains a black-and-white ruling.
I am merely taking your word that the courts ruled that lolicon is illegal and treated the same as real child pornography. We may be in a legal system set by precedents, but precedents need to be specified as clear as possible to ensure that it will serve as an effective outline for future rulings. If a court makes bold, black-and-white rulings such “visual depicions of fictional children in sexual situations are equal with real child pornography” or “depictions of children in sexual situations are always obscene”, then the judges that ruled in favor of such opinions would have clearly stated as such instead of saying obscenity this and obscenity that. It is neither in the interest of any courts to intend to set such a precedent without using clear language.
And by the way, Canada does operate via Common Law.
By making such statements such as lolicon is treated equally as child porn, you have completely ignored the fact that lolicon needs to be declared obscene while real child porn does not. How can you say such material is treated the same if they don’t go through the same procedures under a conviction?
Excuse me, I merely looked at the documents, the quotes you gave, and the laws they pertain to, and have found no statement even remotely suggesting that virtual child pornography is equal with real child pornography. If anything, the only precedent this sets is that fictional works are not exempt from obscenity laws. I guess I’m a little bit stupid. Can you please give me a quote and bold the statements specifically stating that it’s equal to real child porn?
Okay, now you’re pulling shit out of your ass. Nobody has written that real child pornography is automatically obscene, nor did anyone say that fake child pornography is automatically obscene. Highlight and show me where the courts have concluded that fake child pornography is “automatically” considered obscene in bold. If it is “automatic” as you state, then there should be no need to take into consideration the Miller Test and its requirements. The Miller Test itself created a precedent that if a sexual work is inconsistent with community standards are possesses no literary/artistic/scientific/political value. It set a precedent as something that is applied on a case-by-case basis, not as a “blanket” option.
None of the PDF statements have stated that their declaration of materials were “obscene” by default or by automatic assumption. By making references to the Miller Test, it suggests to me that they actually looked over to see if the material in question was “obscene” or not. If this creates such a black-and-white precedent and there is no clear-cut explanation showing how and why this is the case, then this is obviously a case of gross negligence of the courts.
How can such a bold, clear-cut precedent be made without a bold, clear-cut statement? Suffice to say, I don’t think they’d be that stupid. It’s atrociously unreasonable for me to assume that the courts would refuse to state such a pressing thing in such a clear manner. Get your head out of the gutter.
Do you know why these laws supposedly exist? The reason why real child porn is banned is because kids are getting hurt and abused. The reason why lolicon (or any porn for that matter) is subject to the Miller Test is because there are concepts that people find objectionable. There is a distinct difference.
The only thing that the PDF has stated that these people have been convicted of possessing depictions of childlike characters, which had been found obscene under the Miller Test–That’s what it says. Get it through your head.
How about I just order a bunch of regular pornographic DVDs and make a statement? I’m pretty sure they’re going to try and come up with an excuse to send me to jail from seeing all that. Do you honestly believe that lolicon is somehow the only thing that would get you into trouble?
No, that is not what the courts have stated. They are stating that they have found the accused persons’ works that depicted children in sexual situations are obscene under the Miller Test (not by default), and their owners have been convicted under the Protect Act as a result. if they did interpreted this as a blanket-ban on all loli as if it really were real CP and intended to make a precedent out of it, then they would have said that without bothering with this “obscenity” crap.
You have not explained to me how this case has set “precedence” as to how lolicon will be ruled in the same manner as real child porn. I keep asking you “where” and “how” you managed to come to that conclusion, but all I ever heard from you is just “that’s the way it is” while pointing me to paragraphs in a hard-to-read document. I don’t buy that, as it’s painfully obvious to me that these statements you’re making are a result of your own fears and politically charged feelings about our court systems and our society as a whole, as opposed to an actual informed analysis of these rulings/laws. You’re using information on an unclear situation and making arbitrary conclusions. “Bias” is not exclusively prevalent among right-wing conservative activists, pal.
This is telling me you have an agenda to push and that you’re the one “picking and choosing” things. You’re making such black and white conclusions in a grey legal area, while using documents with complicated language that can anyone can trip up on if not read carefully–You don’t pay attention to crucial details, you take sketchy, easily misinterpreted information, and turn them into something as if it were clear as day. It’s the same sort of mentality/behavior as those ridiculous conspiracy theorists.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sorry, but I haven’t had a good laugh like that in a long time. Anyone can fuck information up, especially in frequently misunderstood topics such as this.
If you’re going to discuss legal issues with me, then think like a lawyer, not a political activist.
According to ¬ß 2252A, if an intention is made to make child porn look real - even if it’s fake - it’s a criminal offense. No Miller Test needed whatsoever. It’s criminal for trying to look real: “i advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains-[/i]”
That Law was written before CGI had advanced to a point, where such a thing is possible… but it’s getting there (some say it’s already here).
Literally moot at the moment, but some poor guy is likely to fight such a battle, given what the FBI intends to expand upon: The successful prosecution of Dwight Whorley demonstrates how innovative employment of obscenity statutes, in conjunction with a thorough computer forensic analysis, can be used to contain a dangerous individual and help ensure the safety of the children in our communities. Section 1466A allows federal prosecutors to pursue all cases involving visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct regardless of how those visual depictions were produced. Accordingly, not only should federal prosecutors use the statute to prosecute cases involving cartoons, as in Dwight Whorley’s case, but they should also consider using the statute to prosecute cases that may be difficult to prosecute under 18 U.S.C. ¬ß¬ß 2252 and 2252A, for example, where it may be difficult to establish that the children depicted in the images are real.
Sooner - not later - that confidence to test the Miller Test is going to happen. My money is it’s going to be someone in Virginia, at the rate things are going. So if you’re willing to bank that XXX lolicon is illegal and ZZZ lolicon is not, and you unfortunately live in that state, I hope the best for ya. At the moment, the lolicon = real porn score is 4 for 4 there.
To make up for getting this topic going off topic, since we already have a lolicon in court thread: before 1999, the age of consent in Japan was as low as 13 years old, depending where you lived. That’s why games before 1999 could give specific ages. After 1999 the law was changed to 18. Then games started being vague with ages. While like in America, sex between two teenagers is not considered a criminal act in Japan - so your true love story about “high school” students should not be illegal if they’re sexing it up - the various studio simply accept that it’s not something worth fighting over.
Though I find the OT to be slightly amusing, because there’s a worry that eroge aren’t realistic because they refuse to acknowledge that certain characters are allegedly younger than they should be, but accepting that most of these settings have magic cherry trees, supernatural powers, advanced robots, a guy with undocumented levels of pheromone production, or something of the like that should draw more eyebrows.
While i agree that it will be brought up to the miller test, I’m wondering why you think Virginia? This administration (and they’d be the ones in the best position to ask for a specific court) aren’t that interested in prosecuting such victimless crimes.
Also all of them would probably fail #2. #3 and #1 might still pass in some cases because certain works, taken as a whole, may not appeal to the prurient interest. This is especially true for those that focus more on storytelling than sex scenes.
Ulysses did that law a huge favour, thankfully, so #1 and #3 should be the ‘weak points’ of that law. So Kodomo Milk Parfait may not be safe but Saihate no IMA (Sayaka hscene #2, she was pretty obviously quite young at that point) should be fine. Hence, if you want to actually risk a test suit like that, Saihate no IMA might be one of the safer things to risk it on.
