Lolicon might just have got dangerous

Visual Novel Community Visual Novel Talk
#1

http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:HX … cd=6&gl=us

Reading thru this, it would appear that you can be charged with a violation of this statute merely for
a) Causing to be transported thru interstate commerce (i.e. importing)
b) Pornographic cartoon material depicting minors
c) that meets the legal test for obscenity

However, there is such a strong bias against lolicon content that the legal test for obscenity would almost be satisfied merely by the fact the material is fake child porn: the obscenity test essentially leaves the decision up to the jury, who must decide 3 things:

What this means, is the jury decides. If the jury decides all 3 conditions are met, you’re going down. And considering lolicon’s horrific reputation, it’s quite likely the jury will be so offended (part b)) they will be virtually certain to convict him regardless of c) being true or not. In this particular case, of course, the man was charged under the subsection of the law that contains prohibitions on beastiality and sadomasochistic violence and rape. But the upshot is, you could be in serious trouble if you try to legitimately import a lolicon game from Japan. If they decide to file charges.

Of course, you ALSO would get in trouble for moving product thru interstate commerce. Peter’s decision to remove the Lipp scene covertly was a mistake, but thinking thru the possible ramifications here, I think ditching the scene was a good idea.

#2

#3

You can’t charge anyone for the creation, purchase, or ownership of ficitional drawn loli pornography as a crime. The US Supreme Court has ruled twice on the matter, stating that it’s not a crime and a protected Amendment right of free speech. A person being charged for owning a lolicon anime/eroge/manga, can countersue the piss outta someone who tries.

Federal Law > State Law > Local Law

It has to be REAL lolicon, for anyone to be charged. Many people who a guilty of pedo crimes, have real and fictional images, so cops tend to just mix everything together as one. But if your house gets broken into, and all you have is anime and game ero of little girls, then they throw you in jail and try to hang you in court… well… just have your lawyer look up the Supreme Court rulings, and get ready to sue the city for several million dollars. Afterall, they’ve ruined your potential for getting a good job (revealing to the public you’re a lolicon causes negative opinions), falsly accused you of wrongdoing, suberted your rights, etc.

#4

Except that’s not true, if you read the court decision I linked to. It’s long, but Narg especially might run afoul of this.

Basically, they created a special class of obscenity. Trafficking things which are obscene AND fake child porn now carry up to 20 years, where normal obscenity is much lower.

#5

Exactly. It’s unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court hears of it, they’ll smack it down harder than Narg on twincest. Like the attempt to execute a rapist, when the Supreme Court said ONLY murderers could face capital punishment. The state was told to take their laws and rulings, and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Congress tried it with the PROTECT Act, and they stressed that illustrated lolicon is legal and cannot be punished:

In other words: it ain’t illegal, because no law was broken. Anime/eroge/manga lolicon is cosidered legal porn. That is the ruling of the hightest court in the US. It is final and unmoving. All other courts must obey, or they are breaking the law themselves.

Also I’d like to point out, that link you provided isn’t a court ruling: it’s just the opinion of the Plaintiff, and their argument against the Defendant. They’re subverting the hell out of creative artistic license to further their agenda of censorship.

Here’s other links on the situation:

Artistic merit is the key matter… and while the Icarus Comics commentor thinks it’s an uphill battle: considering that artists can use human shit and fetus blood as coloring material for paintings, artistic expression has a better record of trumping “conservative values” – predominantly because art is liberal. The precedence of this case has also been argued with “make believe lolicon” in adult films – all those adult titles that have a “bearly legal” actress pretend she’s not 18 yet. Kitty Jung in Babysitter #14 from Notorious as just one of many examples.

As the test goes…

It’s that last one that always throws the jury off. EVERYONE must agree that it lacks this. Unless the entire jury is comprised of devoute conservative church people (and no sane defense lawyer would allow the prosecution to assemble such a jury), it ain’t going to happen. Plus if “people liking lolicon” is as prevelent as anonymous polls seem to indicate… In any case, it really doesn’t matter which side wins the State battle, because the loser will appeal… and appeal… and appeal… until it hits the Supreme Court. Who in the last few decades, has looked down on attempts to censor pornography that doesn’t break a law… and again: they’ve stressed that fictional lolicon doesn’t break a single law. Even the worst of Japanese porn (at least to Westerners), tends to have historic artistic roots. Yes… even tentacle rape (see pics below). If a writer can describe lolicon in print (which the entire genre gets its namesake from), so should an artist be able to depict it. There’s also the matter, that the government has been trying for DECADES to find a means to prosecute people with fictional lolicon. All three times the Supreme Court has smacked them down. I’m sure the judges are getting tired of this same 'old shit over and over again.

#6

After having read through all 19 pages of that last night, I think I’m with Narg’s interpretation of this; its just another attempt to try and sidestep what the SCotUS has repeatedly said.
On a completely different note, what is the name of the first picture in your post Narg? I (and many others on this board I imagine) am quite familiar with the second image (The Dream of the Fisherman’s Wife), but not the first image.

#7

I’m pretty sure that they briefly showed the second one in an episode of Samurai Champloo, the one where they made a parody on Hanzo the Razor if I’m not mistaken.

#8

An untitled wood block print by Utagawa Kuniyoshi (???). He’s a rather (in)famous artist from the early 1800’s, and was considered a great master of the technique. He took up “dark ero” as a theme quite often: as the attachment below, another of his many works, clearly shows.

#9

Or advertised in such a way that would lead a normal person to think it was real (law enforcement is except).

The Supreme Court, as Narg said, struck down proposals to limit drawn or computer generated images as having some protection under first ammedment since they aren’t real and because, like other artwork, it can be hard to draw the line on what is pornographic or not.

Anything that contuses itself to being real loli/shota is of course not protected. Thus if that material was labeled “real child porn” then it could be subject to the current federal law. If it wasn’t labeled as such, then it could not. The test here is not “could it be percieved as such” but rather “is it advertised as such”

Then, and especially for interstate transportation, the federal government has the final say as it’s the purview of the Federal, not State/Local, governments that regulate interstate commerce and transportation.

For a good example, several years ago about 17 or so states got together to try work something out so they could collect taxes from (mostly) internet purchases from out-of-state residence. Well the Federal Government stepped in and stopped it. The states couldn’t do jack-shit because the Federal government regulates Interstate commerce, not states, even when they have mutual agreements.

#10

I think this motivation poster, best explains the situation. :stuck_out_tongue:

#11

An interesting point someone mentioned to me. Why didn’t the Law go after the source and distributor of the lolicon?

They can’t go after the source, because that person falls under the protection of International (not to mention Japanese) laws. Strike One.

They can’t go after the distributor (i.e. the medium that the person ordered the lolicon from), because the Law lost multiple cases against such things. Strike Two.

Now the Law wants to go after the PERSON who buys lolicon… because they can’t touch the other two. Can you say Strike Three? :roll:

#12

OMFG and WTF… seriously…

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ … pstoryview

:roll:

#13

Except there are already court decisions saying that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.

#14

And yet we have a multibillion dollar porn industry that’s legalized… and bloody horror slash flicks that rake in millions per screening. Obscenity for the sole purpose of being obcene, can be outlawed. But obscenity that serves a purpose, tell a story, or deliver a message is allowed.

As we all know: eroge is not obscenity that simply means to be obscene. While I have no idea what lolicon manga are involved with this lawsuit, it’s pretty safe to bet, they had a plot. Even if they didn’t - it doesn’t take more than 15 minutes to find lolicon ero with an intricite plot and deep characters. That’s pretty much all the defense team needs to show. What the Law is trying to say in their legal attack, is that those lolicon manga have no other purpose but to spawn a desire for more lolicon and have the reader want to perform real lolicon crimes. That its completely mindless and exists only to disgust people and put evil thoughts in your mind. I guess they fail to notice there’s… you know… text bubbles…

Beginning. Conclusion. Plot. Setting. Characters. Struggle. It’s a story: that’s what defines it as art - and thus worthy of protection from complete censorship.

There’s also the matter of the crime and punishment: they want to lockup a standup citizen who (I assume) has commited no major crime for 20 years, just because he had fictional lolicon porn? That’s kinda hard to sell, considering drug dealers and REAL pedo criminals get less time. Yea… you can tell they’re not trying to “witch hunt” something. :roll:

EDIT
I’d also like to point out, that just because something is obscene, does not mean it is universally punishable or universally indecent. For example a man walking around naked in a playground full of kids is obscene. A man walking around naked in the privacy of his own home with the windows covered, is not. There’s a level of context and common sense. Fictional lolicon falls into that purview. It’s obscene to show it to children or people who take offense to it… but its perfectly legal for private possession and viewing. Hence the existance of porn and slasher horror movies.

Furthermore, while the anti-lolicon love to use Miller v. California , note that something being labled as obscene does NOT mean it cannot be owned. It means it must mainted in a controlled environment - i.e. only shown to those who will NOT find it offensive.

Can you name a picture or book that will throw you in prison, purely because it’s obscene and does not break another law? You’ve got books that teach you how to build homemade bombs and deadly poisons, but they aren’t obscene or illegal. Documents on how to build an illegal nuclear weapon, are legal to own. Ficitonal pictures of people getting screwed by animals are legal to own, despite being obscene. However REAL pictures of people getting screwed by animals can be illegal, because they break the laws of beastiality.

I’d also like to point out: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

Remember that the key word of the Supreme Court going against fiction lolicon porn requires that: “rapidly advancing technology would soon make it very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between pornography made with actual children and pornography made with simulated images of children.” If you seriously can’t tell that a lolicon manga or lolicon ero does not have real people acting them out… :roll:

Could someone make a lolicon CG movie that looks so real, no one can tell the difference? In a decade or so… yea… they seriosuly could. At that point, maybe the Courts will rule that those kinds of lolicon are illegal. But that would be lolicon so real, you can’t tell it’s not real. What this case is seeking to challenge, is not anywhere at that level.

#15

I don’t disagree. The problem is, the jury might. In Texas, there was a case where someone was convicted of pandering porn to minors. For selling comic books (Urotsukidoji, I think) to an undercover cop. The prosecutor thumped on the table loudly enough that the jury completely ignored the facts of the case. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, they didn’t overturn the conviction.

You really think they’ll bother analyzing for story? Since it’s all in Japanese anyway, and the jury I’m sure will be able to read it? The prosecution is obviously banking on the fact the jury is likely to convict simply because the images exist.

#16

That’s why the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund got involved. :slight_smile:

They’re going to provide translators and experts to help our fellow otaku. I’m certain the people they provide will translate the manga being targeted into English, as well as cite examples of lolicon that’s plot focused and/or magnificently drawn… not to mention how Japan has a long history of erotic art that the West remains ignorant of (and thus its culture).

If those conservative idiots in the government had their way, they’d outlaw the Karma Sutra for being indecent. :roll:

#17

All too true. It often gets quite tiring to live in a country that is still hung up on the puritanical part of its roots. That bit you linked to about the movie “Zack and Miri Make A Porno” is just another example of this.

#18

The case about pandering might have some legal grounds under what the supreme court has cited only if the prosecution can show it was advertised as being “real[istic] child porn”. Short of that, even if the case is decided on the local level for the prosecution, it will be overturned upon higher courts who look more at technicality of the laws (as well as how the case was handled) and courts are bound to a large degree by precedent, especially precedent set by the US Supreme court.

#19

Being within the lolicon community this same debate has been going back and forth for years. My question is if lolicon is perfectly legal in this medium then why does the translation/localization companies feel the need to change ages to 18+ and change highschool into college. They just being extra careful or is there a clear risk for them if they didnt ?

#20

Translation/localisation companies do no such thing 99% of the time.

Eroges aren’t set in highschool, they’re set in a ‘gakuen’ (school).
Characters are almost always 18+ - they’re definitely 18+ by all eroges by companies in the EOCS (which is a very large portion of them).