Lolicon might just have got dangerous

Visual Novel Community Visual Novel Talk
#301

The interesting part is that the key laws violated were “interstate commerce”… which is the same loophole the Handley was caught up on. The Judges expressed that while they personally found the vids disgusting, it doesn’t mean the First Amendment should be overturned for that. With the verdict of this case, I think Handley might have won, had he not gotten cold feet (this one involved actual violence; his was totally fictional). Moreover since even the conservative Judges voted in support of the First Amendment (except one of them).

Pity. I’m sure he’s been brought to the attention of it. Too late for him though: pleading guilty sucks like that.

However I think it’s safe to say, with this revelation, “lolicon might just have got safer now.” Those interstate commerce law about obscenity just got a major slap in the face.

#302

Unfortunately, Supreme Court precedent already says obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. This was not obscenity.

Every time similar restrictions have come up, they’ve been struck down. But the Supreme Court can simply say “we’ve already decided obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment”, and ignore the entire issue of (as this case was decided on) Congress was narrow enough in drafting the restrictions.

#303

That’s not what all the legal analysts are saying (on all the major news channels). This entire case has also been fought on the grounds of obscenity. If you’re saying it’s not obscenity ¬ñ after the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled it as such ¬ñ that’s stating the obvious, after the fact.

According to CNN and FOX, the only two similar cases, are cruelty to animals (illegal in the US) and zoosexuality (pseudo-illegal in the US).

I was watching ABC News, and how it was explained: this case actually weakens obscenity laws, as it rejects the “morality standard” of the system. Recalling the report from memory:

#1: The average person, DOES NOT find the material to their interest (as the general public response shows).

#2: There is [u]NO[/u] serious artistic/literary/political/scientific value in the videos (plain to see).

The prosecution was seeking application of a new component, specific to animal cruelty, which they obviously didn’t get. As it was put: if the government has a sufficiently compelling interest in prohibiting the sale of depictions of sexual activity between consenting adults, it has an equal, if not greater, interest in preventing the torture, maiming, mutilation and wanton killing of animals who have no ability to consent to such treatment."

It was also noted, that New York v. Ferber - the case that officially made child porn illegal - was not upheld by the Supreme Court because it was literally obscene. It was upheld because: the availability and demand, economically motivates the victimization itself. The whole argument of “there can be artistic merit or scientific value in child pornography,” was overruled by the simple decision that anything of the sort is absolutely worthless in the face of exploitation (i.e. it doesn’t matter if child pornography is obscene or not; it is simply illegal). However the “spirit of the law” from that, was attempted to be extended outside of Child Porn… in this case, animal cruelty. The Supreme Court has ruled - with clarity (none of that legal loophole garbage) - that it doesn’t work that way. The standards of the Ferber case, only applies to the Ferber case. So no more of that “moral obligation” garbage, the FBI likes the throw around.

On a side note: the dog fighting videos in question, originated from Japan, and involved violation of inter-State transport… which is what got this whole mess started. :roll:

#304

So what exactly does this have to do with the topic of loli, anime, manga, pornography, or obscenity again?

You’ve been bumping up news involving speech featuring dogfighting and human corpses, neither of which have had any sort of direct relationship with the legality of lolicon or depictions of minors in fictional media. Just because depictions of dogfighting are safe does not inherrently mean that depictions of minors in sexual situations are safe–The content is too different to automatically assume that it’s somehow gotten safer. This is a “lolicon” thread, not a “free speech” thread.

If you want to bump this thread, why don’t you, like, post something that’s centered around the subject of lolicon, rather than just free speech in general?

#305

#1: That the expanded obscenity charges the FBI have been using to prosecute people, applies only to child pornography as dictated in the New York v. Ferber case (the morality argument). Or from another angle, that the rulings of the Ferber case only applies to child pornography. Federal prosecutors have been using Miller v. California in conjunction with the Ferber case. They can no longer do that.

#2: Something can be completely devoid of artistic/literary/political/scientific value AND considered universally repulsive by the common public, but not obscene. Furthermore, it doesn’t even matter when the material being covered, is itself an illegal crime.

#3: Child pornography is not illegal due to obscenity: child pornography is illegal due to the exploitation of children. Said exploitation clause applies only to children (and nothing else).

#4: Disregarding the nebulous definition of obscenity, only four things are NOT protected by the First Amendment… and only these four: child pornography, incitement, libel, and instigating danger to society (i.e. yelling fire in a theater, announcing you will kill the President of the United States, emailing the launch codes of nuclear weapons to everyone, etc). That now has complete legal precedent (no more loopholes).

They’re all obscenity cases.

Lolicon has always been a free speech issue. Regulation of obscenity is censorship. Censorship is a free speech issue. This case is worthwhile, because it brings focus to the root problem to lolicon: defining if the availability of lolicon creates a demand environment that victimizes children. If it does, lolicon is illegal. End of story. If it does not: then lolicon is allowed. Until that association is made, lolicon in of itself, can never be universally obscene (Miller v. California is still factored on a case by case basis).

#306

Really? Then I guess I have to go do some more reading. See, the obscenity test as enshrined in Miller specifically is about sexually prurient material only, and dogfighting stuff isn’t sexual material (unless you’ve got some REALLY weird interests) but rather to the violent, competitive interest. So it seemed clear to me that this wouldn’t affect Miller or the obscenity doctrine.

If the legal analysts think differently, however, I may have to do some research.

#307

They wanted to use the same reasoning, and expand upon it, as obscenity isn’t limited to sexual material. Basically the Miller Test, with the third item being animal cruelty, instead of exclusively sex. The moral reasoning makes sense… but the cause and effect aren’t considered equal.

Here’s the overturned Law.

Here’s some archived material from the American Bar Association and Supreme Court. Both sides of the argument of course. I’m not like FOX or CNN. :wink:

#308

The opinion itself is all I was planning on researching …

From the ruling:

“Since its enactment, the First Amendment has permitted restrictions on a few historic categories of speech-including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct-that “have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 572. Depic-tions of animal cruelty should not be added to that list.”

This seems to me to be creating an explicit distinction between obscenity and this material. I’ll have to read the rest of the opinion though.

#309

So having read more of the opinion, it seems clear to me that the government wanted the dogfighting material to be categorized in the same way obscenity (and fraud, etc) is categorized. SCOTUS said “no, we’re not going to do that” and then applied the already-existing rules. Technically nothing in this opinion is binding on obscenity at all.

Of course, just because it’s not binding doesn’t mean that it might not have something to say about obscenity law. This is a clear indicator that these kind of restrictions don’t sit well with the Court (8-1 is pretty lopsided). So if the commentators are saying “if you look at this opinion, the same reasoning would undermine obscenity law, so the Court might rein it in pretty substantially in the future” that’s one thing. I wouldn’t know about that, I just know that the opinion itself doesn’t directly undercut obscenity.

(And obscenity is going to end up before the Supreme Court relatively soon: two seperate appelate districts have decided the question of “community standards” as applicable to the Internet in different ways, making federal law not uniform across the US - this is one of the things that traditionally prompts the Court to take a case.)

#310

I have to agree with Nandemonai. When obscenity is defined two different ways, striking down one definition has little bearing on how the other definition will be treated. The Miller Test very explicitly defines obscenity as prurient in nature. Whatever the dog-fighting case is dealing with, it’s not obscenity of the type that’s relevant to the Protect Act.

#311

Looks like those proposed bans of anime and manga in Japan could happen:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/20 … as-harmful

I did not expect yaoi to be the first to take a hit

#312

Unless I’m misreading that story it’s not saying anything about bans, it’s claiming that yaoi is now being designated as PORN, and that it wasn’t previously because someone had a weird idea that girls could not become sexually aroused…

#313

Thanks a lot, papillion, I just spat out my coffee all over my desk and keyboard

#314

Actually, I think it was the idea that yaoi couldn’t arouse anyone. (Tell that to the fujoshi. :wink: )

#315

Hey, if lesbian sex can arouse guys, why can’t yaoi for girls? XD

#316

http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/03/p … /#comments

Considering the competence of “experts” about a RL woman, it says a lot about those who want to condemn for “child porn” based on fictive characters who are “obviously” under 18.

#317

I’m not sure what it says other than “People are idiots. No, REALLY idiots. Even more idiotic than that. Absolutely blind. Won’t listen to facts staring them in the face.”

Or are you saying that this just demonstrates how hard it is to get a point across to someone who is actively jamming her fingers in her ears and humming?

Or just that there’s no such thing as “obviously” underage? (Well, in the case of six year olds, there probably is, but…) There’s a nasty legal history behind trying to prove someone’s age rather than listening to what they say their story is. ISTR there are several countries whose laws protect unauthorised immigrants if they happen to be unaccompanied minors, so there’s a good business in hiring doctors who will testify that someone is over 18 despite claiming to be 13.

#318

I lived with a girl who enjoyed gay stories and films (as long as they don’t show the cough input cough). I don’t know if she was aroused by them or not, but she never missed a chance to watch such films. Note, she was a straight girl who had a steady boyfriend at the time.

nope, I’d say, right wing extremist who have a preset idea about how society should be and how it is their job to fix the mistakes in it, are doing their job.

People have been trying to get the government to raise their children for them, and for the people to trust the government to do that job, the elected people must show an extreme righteous hand on how far they are willing to go to while thinking of the children. Few years from now, if this lady try to run for office, what are the chances of this incident being used to promote and strengthen her election campaign?

looking at the pictures of Lupe Fuentes… how could someone mistake her for a 13 years old? I haven’t watched the film in question, but her images show a short woman, defiantly not a child. If any thing, she is taller then one of my co-workers who happened to be the mother of 3!

any way, I’ve need to go back to my other “Conspiracy Theory”. :mrgreen:

#319

Pics of Lupe Fuentes.

If I see a vid of her in a store, I’ll just buy it, because she went that extra mile to clear someone’s name. :o

And to be honest… I’ve seen younger looking porn actresses. Miss Fuentes is just short (4 feet and 9 inches). :expressionless:

Amai Liu looks younger IMHO…

800×532 9.3 KB

and then there’s Kitty Jung (trying to find a WS image)

#320

WTF? 13 or 14? Has the “expert” in question never seen a 13/14 year old girl in his life?