Santa wouldn’t have to worry about that: the defense network of 195 nations have shot him down for violating air space. 
There is also breaking and entering in many places.
Dengeki Hime’s actually an eroge magazine, and obviously contains a lot of sample images, including HCGs, so one could understand them being a bit cautious about that. The others though :roll:
You’ll have to sum up the story if you want me to care, since I’ve configured my browser to block all content from sites filled with people who actively want to murder me. 
What sort of pinups are being discussed?
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/20 … shojo-mags ANN decided to call Kinokuniya up in this followup and posted the responses.
Since I’ve never heard of this Reason.tv before, I dug up a Washington Post article as well… http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 05750.html
The case was tossed out on a technicality issue: there’s really nothing to stop the gov’mnt from trying again, when they get their paperwork in order.
It’s more of a delay than a victory. The judge basically said, “do better next time.”
Not like the FBI left empty handed anyways… More of that obscenity via mail stuff, so Kinokuniya’s paranoia ain’t all that unfounded.
It’s evidently owned by a libertarian think tank and Drew Carey. Therefore YMMV.
Seems they support total personal freedom and total business freedom: basically the combination of a hardcore Democrat and Republican, without party-centric inhibition I guess. Drill baby drill,for both oil and unborn babies. 
Hell if we were talking about obscenity I could wake up one morning wait in line for coffee and decide that Starbucks employees are wearing obscene clothes. I could do the same for nudists, lawyers (ties after all are extremely sexual on a woman), police (the blue is offensive to my eyes), anyone.
The definition of obscenity is flawed: Here’s the legal definition of obscenity (can you find the problems with it?)
"Such indecency as is calculated to promote the violation of the law and the general corruption of morals.
The exhibition of an obscene picture is an indictable offence at common law, although not charged to have been exhibited in public, if it be averred that the picture was exhibited to sundry persons for money.
For something to be “obscene” it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to “prurient” interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
An appeal to “prurient” interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.
The first test to be applied, therefore, in determining whether given material is obscene, is whether the predominant theme or purpose of the material, when viewed as a whole and not part by part, and when considered in relation to the intended and probable recipients, is an appeal to the prurient interest of the average person of the community as a whole, or the prurient interest of members of a deviant sexual group, as the case might be.
The “predominant theme or purpose of the material, when viewed as a whole,” means the main or principal thrust of the material when assessed in its entirety and on the basis of its total effect, and not on the basis of incidental themes or isolated passages or sequences.
Whether the predominant theme or purpose of the material is an appeal to the prurient interest of the “average person of the community as a whole” is a judgment which must be made in the light of contemporary standards as would be applied by the average person with an average and normal attitude toward, and interest in, sex. Contemporary community standards, in turn, are set by what is accepted in the community as a whole; that is to say, by society at large or people in general. So, obscenity is not a matter of individual taste and the question is not how the material impresses an individual juror; rather, as stated before, the test is how the average person of the community as a whole would view the material.
In addition to considering the average or normal person, the prurient appeal requirement may also be assessed in terms of the sexual interest of a clearly defined deviant sexual group if the material was intended to appeal to the prurient interest of such a group as, for example, homosexuals.
The second test to be applied in determining whether given material is obscene is whether it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct such as ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; or lewd exhibition of the genitals measured against whether the material is patently offensive by contemporary community standards; that is, whether it so exceeds the generally accepted limits of candor as to be clearly offensive.
Contemporary community standards, as stated before, are those established by what is generally accepted in the community as a whole; that is to say, by society at large or people in general, and not by what some groups of persons may believe the community as a whole ought to accept or refuse to accept. It is a matter of common knowledge that customs change and that the community as a whole may from time to time find acceptable that which was formerly unacceptable.
The third test to be applied in determining whether given material is obscene is whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. An item may have serious value in one or more of these areas even though it portrays explicit sexual conduct.
All three of these tests must be met before the material in question can be found to be obscene. If any one of them is not met the material would not be obscene within the meaning of the law. "
So this is how they decide. This is also further evidence on how our country is fundamentally flawed. Who is to say what the beliefs of the community are? Do they go around to each and every person and ask them what they feel on these topics? Because the only way they could ever truly do so is if they went around and asked every single bloody person. “Community as a whole” there own words not mine. Does that not mean you should have the consent of the whole community on what is and what isn’t accepted?
Point 1 (test 1): prurient interest. A word I despise for its hypocrisy. More or less it means sexual interest. Which everyone knows everyone has different likes and dislikes in sex. The fact that they dare to say based on the “prurient interest of the average person” is an insult to the human race. Not one person is average because no two people are alike. To say that there is an average is uneducated at best. As far as people go there is no “average ground”. Everyone is different and will have divergent interests. If the law wishes to be accurate they should not say “average” because no one is. No one has the same exact sexual (prurient) interests. It’s all in the eye of the beholder after all.
Point 2 (test 2): A picture must be proved to be sexual and offensive to the community as a whole. Community standards is the big issue here. In 1957 Roth vs. the United States and Alberts vs. California were instrumental in determining exactly what was average and what was community standards. The government has decided this not the people. Community standards is defined by the judge or districts. This will normally permit the use of county standards or federal district standards, if a federal case. In fact community standards may be utilized without reference to a precise geographical area. How do you know then whether it is community standards and not just one judge’s personal bias? I believe that the idea of community standards is unconstitutional and does not have the people’s best interest at heart. This is merely federal districts or courts abusing their power and being allowed to determine what is a “standard”.
In this test though we also have the idea of “offensive”. This word goes back to my idea on subjectivity, bias, and perspective (all more or less similar). Everyone is different. For example if an atheist sees a shirt that says “The Only Way to Paradise Is Through Jesus…All Others Shall Burn In Eternal Damnation”. This atheist could take offense. But at the same time what if the atheist was wearing a shirt that said “The Only Good Christian Is A Dead Christian”. Then the christian could be offended as well. What if someone else is walking by and see that both of their shirts do not actually cover their stomach and they get offended. Hell we as humans can be offended by just about anything. Not to mention everyone will be offended by different things.
Point 3 (test 3): “Whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. An item may have serious value in one or more of these areas even though it portrays explicit sexual conduct.” Really? This is kind of pathetic that they have to resort to this. If an item lacks literary, artistic, political, and scientific value it is deemed obscene. I will argue that porn does have literary, artistic, political, and scientific value;
Does porn (of any type or sort) lack all of the above four things? No. Porn can be seen as scientifically valuable because it teaches how to have sex which is supposedly a natural and necessary function for humans in order to produce offspring. It also can be used to teach how to hold, grope, etc… and to give pleasure to a partner or oneself. Both of which can be valuable as masturbation is a natural process which actually is beneficial to the human body and so has scientific and medical properties. Is porn political? Usually not however considering the anti-porn status that most people believe then at this moment in time it can be of political value. It can be used as a protest against the current belief system. Artistic. Like many things art is in the eye of the beholder. Best example is the constant squiggles of nothing or dots/dabs of paint seen in art museums, toilet paper art, fetishist art, nude art, dramatizations (of which porn sometimes is), performance arts, etc… Then we have literary value. Some porn does tell a story, you can use porn to analyze the psyche of an individual, and you can use it to teach literary turns. If art has an allusion in it you can define the word through the art, you can find similes, metaphors, etc… So by all purpose and definition yes porn can teach ANY of the four things that it has to have no redeemable value to be obscene. Porn passes.
In order for a material to be defined as “obscene” it has to fail all three of the above tests and as I just showed it passes at least one of them with flying colors and for the other two I have shown how neither can effectively work in the proper way that they wish. Either being unconstitutional, having personal bias, or not being of the “whole people”.
With that out of the way it can be applied to anything that may be deemed obscene. The definitions in the legal system are faulty. Just like the government.
I’m not sure what other countries laws are but as far as America goes a good lawyer can easily argue one out of prison. There has never really been a real case for any of this. For the most time the people plead guilty and that is a mistake. Other times people who get caught are actually in possession of real cp and not just lolicon things. I believe the one person who actually did get caught with only loli/shota materials actually plead guilty…not innocent. A good lawyer could have probably argued against this.
and now my little post is done…
I have to admit though the YMMV is interesting. Total personal freedom and total business freedom. If only it were that easy. Sadly there is also border problems, foreign affairs, and a bunch of other stuff that will prevent such a thing from every happening on a bigger scale.
Manga? You got to be kidding me? If it is just regular manga then they could not charge this guy on anything. A good lawyer could prove his innocense without a problem. Child pornography refers to real children not drawn art which is a protected freedom of expression (at least in the united states).
What really pisses me off about this article is that due to them finding no evidence of sexual abuse they decided to sue him based on his manga collection? Not hentai but manga? The government and law in general is obviously corrupt in Sweden as if the guy lived in the united states the searching through his manga collection would be deemed unlawful search and seizure and hell look at some of the manga being released legally in the united states. This is a pathetic attempt to fine a man simply because they were upset they couldn’t find evidence of sexual abuse (falsely…accused).
Second off why the hell would the LOCAL police search the translators belongings on a false allegation of child abuse? Would they not check the child? Why the hell would they decide to go look at his manga of all things to try and prove “child abuse” through literature? This makes no damn sense.
from the article:
“There’s a clear conflict between freedom of speech on the one hand and general regulations regarding children’s rights on the other.” “It was however our view that the protective aspect weighed more heavily when taking into account the intentions of the legislator. The aim of the law, as described in the preliminary work that led to its creation, is not just to protect individual children but children in general.”
Please tell me how this protects children? Will all the little children in the literature rise up out of the pages and demand protection. Will they then thank the law enforcement for protecting them? You know technically manga is nothing more than drawings and trees. You can not prove they are children. You can not prove that reading such harms children. So how the hell does this protect children.
The judge himself is in reasonable doubt. look!
“The judge has also stated that he would welcome a second opinion on the decision from the appellate court, because of the nature of the case to set legal precedent.” If a judge has reasonable doubt then why the hell would he be charged with the fine for child pornography? Child pornography should be easily recognized should it not?
Hell most of the public does not believe it is actual child pornography? Based on the united states legal system this could not happen. Sweden’s own legal system would not allow this either. The public: "“However unpleasant and nasty a work of fiction might be, and whatever one thinks about Japanese porn involving cartoon children, there is actually no victim here. The children in the Uppland man’s manga comics were not molested since they were characters in a comic.”
If the man repeals this he should easily be able to win. Surprisingly he has the public on his side…however I do notice one big difference between sweden and the united states…people do not get jailed for more years than a rapist, for child pornography possession in sweden.
A woman accuses a man of sexual abuse and the woman is given the benefit of the doubt. She has probably lied twice in court…in which case would she be fined for perjury or do they not have that in Sweden?
Actually, most polls I’ve seen indicate most of the public thinks the lolicon cartoon drawings should be condemned and illegal. And yes, this could happen in the US. People have already been arrested for lolicon manga.
And many of them could probably have gotten off had they actually bothered to try and fight rather than plead guilty. I am under the impression that no one has actually plead not guilty even once during these events. They’ve all plead guilty or they’ve had real child porn at the same time…which does not help their case.
The only reason child pornography is actually illegal is because in order to have child pornography real children are being hurt in the process. The whole basis around child pornography is that it hurts children. A cartoon drawn image hurts no one…unless you use it as a massive giver of paper cuts. ANY good lawyer could easily argue this case. Hell I’m studying law simply in the hope that I can get a case like this.
The only case anyone would have that lolicon hurts children is that it creates pedophiles. Which is for the most part untrue. For one in order to say this you would have to have evidence not just spoken gibberish. You would need hard facts and to do that you’d have to actually find lolicons and test them somehow…so yeah it is impossible for anyone to prove that being a lolicon actually hurts children. You cannot even say that it prevents would-be pedophiles from harming real children because the majority of lolicons do not actually like real children many of them find it disgusting.
The biggest threat a case like this has lies in the jury. The majority of people who are put into jury duty tend to be moralists, feminists, old people, religious people, or uneducated people. You never really get a good jury for a case like this. The best thing to do for a case like this would be to try doing it without a jury. Which is why people plead guilty. All it takes though is one win. One win to change the balance. If someone loses then nothing really happens and the usual result of guilty will occur. However if a win occurs things will be quite different. One win is all that is needed for an entire situation to become winnable. If anyone else would be arrested after a win they would fight it rather than plead guilty (which makes people think you did something in order to be guilty). By fighting it you lose nothing and with each more win the side gains more power. There are more examples. Eventually laws will attempt to be passed and stricken down. All it takes is one win.
The people who have been arrested for possession of lolicon manga are cowards. They have not attempted to fight the system out of fear that the jury will do them in or that the courts will. Which is certainly possible but they really have nothing to lose by trying.
As far as public opinion goes it depends on who you ask. You can not actually get public opinion because who is the public? A good lawyer can sway any public to his side. Most of those polls that you’ve probably seen are subjective. Do the polls ever give you a detailed account of who they asked? Does it say 100 people at random? Polls and surveys are useless in politics. Because the surveyer or poller has the power to choose who gets polled and who gets surveyed. Let’s say you were polling peoples opinion about border security. If you poll people away from the border you are likely to get people who do not think security is needed. If you poll people living right on the border the opinions will probably greatly differ. Unless the poll gives you the exact location, the name and address of every person who polled, their work status, their income, how many children if any they have, how close they are to family, etc… you will never have a real poll. Polls and surveys are a lie. Usually done to fix an idea in the mindset of the people.
Here’s one example of how polls can be used to sway public opinion and why you cannot trust polls or surveys for anything:
http://www.crestviewbulletin.com/news/c … aised.html
"Earlier this year, Barbaree had circulated a petition bearing 226 signatures of citizens protesting the availability of manga, which she mistakenly referred to as “anime,” which is actually Japanese animation. However library said some patrons complained they were misled when they signed the petition.
“They told us she (Barbaree) approached them at the Christmas parade and asked them to sign a petition protesting pornography in the library,” said Resource Librarian Sandra Dreaden."
You can not trust polls or surveys and in a court they should be dismissed immediately. A good lawyer need but argue how surveys and polls can be mislead and if all else fails all they have to do is plant the seed of doubt in the minds of the jury. Give a few examples of ill begotten polls or surveys and watch them be completely useless.
I completely believe that this is an issue/topic that can be won. It may simply be a matter of courage and time.
with that I will be done for now.
In many countries, the legal system is such that once the police decide they don’t like you, they can find SOMETHING to pin on you. At the least, they can charge you with things like “obstructing justice” or “wasting police time” if you refuse to answer their questions or ask them wtf they’re doing.
Of course, once you’re in the system, IF you’re sufficiently rich, you can get yourself back out of it with enough lawyers and enough publicity. Everybody knows the rich and famous don’t live by the same laws as the average middle class bozo (witness famous actors and musicians doing ridiculous shit and getting only tiny sentences for it), and members of underclasses generally know that they can’t even expect treatment at the level of the middle class bozoes.
Any trial, the lawyers involved will try to swing the juries if they can/care/are well-paid enough.
Yes, of course it’s possible to influence a poll for political reasons, but polling is also one of the only tools we have for judging the balance of opinion. There are semi-decent polls out there (Semi decent because the most reputable polling, iirc, is done by random phone number selection. This obviously leaves out anyone too poor to own a phone and, more recently, a stretch of young people who only have mobiles and no landlines.)
No poll is perfect, but arguing sight unseen that “Any evidence you have seen suggesting that people don’t support lolicon is clearly faked because I don’t want to accept it” seems a bit silly.
People tend to rush to conclusions based on their own personal feelings and then try to twist the evidence to fit that.
This applies very strongly to the police - if they’ve decided up front that you’re a suspicious bastard, they WILL find something to ring you up on, whether it makes sense or not, even if their initial suspicions are provably false.This applies to juries as well and is exactly why high-paid lawyers try to pick jurors carefully to get someone whose instincts will fall on their side.
And it also applies to those offended by and in defense of lolicon in general. Those shocked and horrified by it don’t need evidence that it harmed any real child ever. They know in their hearts that loli is wrong, wrong, wrong. They will jump on any tiny weakness they can find to push their agenda, and disregard anything that contradicts their viewpoint.
And loli defenders do exactly the same thing: look for potentially irrelevant weaknesses, jump to conclusions, attack people, disregard anything that goes against what they want to believe. An “anonymous source” claims something? Well, clearly, every word that source says is absolutely true, and not only that it was OBVIOUSLY done with malice, so that horrible evil woman should be in jail!If we can’t get her for perjury, we should get her for something else! … see the problem?
… And me as well, I’ll jump to emotional conclusions. A quick bit of research shows that this whole anonymous-source thing is nothing but something that was posted on the Site Of Evil. Who are PROVABLY LIARS, and therefore I emotionally conclude they made it up to manipulate their audience. My conclusion isn’t based on real evidence, though, it’s based on my utter contempt and hatred for those people.
(To reiterate my position in case people lose track of who’s who - Of course I support lolimanga. It’s a drawing, nobody got hurt. I can also understand someone having a bit of a freakout if they discovered someone with access to their young daughter was a lolicon, though.)
Because, of course, it cannot happen in the USA where a man, for instance, wouldn’t get condemned for obscenity “simply because (government and law) were upset they couldn’t find evidence for” child pornography. And we all know that, obviously, in order to find evidence, they wouldn’t (search) through his manga collection and seize it since that “would be deemed unlawful”.
Oh, wait…
@kyrt: The manga is obviously pornographic in nature. Also, look up the Christopher Handley case. You’ll learn something. At least this guy got off with just a small fine.
Admittedly, it’s just speculation at this point. I included that as much to show the potential for abuse of such laws as anything else. This is the same as any law that’s arbitrarily enforced–the unscrupulous and the police will end up manipulating the law to their own ends. This is one of the reasons obscenity laws are so dangerous–it’s not even clear what constitutes a crime and what doesn’t. The police have as much say as the court system, simply based on where and when they choose to crack down.
The manga is not pornography. Pornography requires sex and the likelihood that all of these 3000 manga were actually of children is highly unlikely.
“I have a collection of about three thousand manga books with millions of drawings, some of which are of erotic nature. Among those, there were about thirty (some duplicates) which the prosecutor believed to be criminal. And there were no hardcore images, mostly just nudity. This is NOT about drawings that depicts violent penetration if anyone thinks so. Simple nude drawings of cartoon characters are categorized as pornography.” from the man in question but poorly translated.
In regards to the Site of Evil if you mean sankakucomplex I’m not going to base my findings on anything those creeps post… I found it online at a un-credible source (nothing in the media is credible):
http://www.massgate.net/read.php?39452,542931 (admittedly this is a forum)
http://www.stilnocturnal.com/index.php/ … rnography/
and of course http://www.animenews.biz/manga-translat … sion-4680/
In the end you’re absolutely right about juries. They believe it is wrong so they condemn. It’s also why the United States justice system fails so absolutely. People do not care about rights they care about “their” beliefs on right and wrong. There needs to be a change. There are ways though to sway juries you can use a number of tactics and like I said before all it takes is one win. There can be hundreds of failures but if one person succeeds then the rest will be acceptable losses.
In regards to the christopher handley case the guy had multiple strikes against him and the main one was that he was using the interstate commerce to transport obscene materials. Or some rubbish like that. There is a huge fine for things like this. I’ve done plenty of research on the Handley Case and he is but one of the few examples.
Christopher Handley caved to pressure. He plead guilty to possession. He did not try and fight it. His lawyer probably said he could probably get off better with pleading guilty. The guy obviously picked a bad lawyer. Hell in many of these cases the lawyers will be against you. Your best bet is to find a lawyer who is not hesitant about their beliefs and who will fight even if the going looks tough. The lawyer Handley picked was a bad choice. Hell he should have tried to defend himself before pleading guilty.
By pleading not guilty (it isn’t the same as innocent) you have a chance to win despite how small it is. All i takes is a good lawyer (or good defense if you represent yourself) and an open-minded and intelligent jury. Usually you never get the two at the same time but eventually you will. Hell many people who believe in this type of thing should try to get on jury…manipulate the system. The lawyers will attempt to.
By pleading guilty you are immediately going to be punished. There is no silver line to escape on. You admit you did something wrong and in the case of Handley goes the admittance to possession of child pornography was a great punishment. They didn’t punish him lightly either because he plead to guilty. Meaning he did do wrong.
You have nothing to lose by pleading not guilty you win awesome you lose you’re merely going to the hell you would have had you plead guilty (prisoners do not take well to pedophiles…and I doubt they would know the difference between a pedophile and a lolicon). At least by pleading not guilty you have a chance.
In regards to the police I think they have too much power and with the recent patriot act of 2004 they’ve been given way too much power. Our privacy has been invaded. It was also recently renewed (without the public’s approval) so until a time when someone declares that the patriot act is unconstitutional (which it is) the police will be able to do whatever they damn well please.
What are you talking about? He could have been sent to jail for 20 years. He was sentenced to six months. That sounds like a light sentence to me.
I can’t seem to find any solid legal definition of pornography. But here’s some language on the matter from the Protect Act of 2003 (the law under which Handley was prosecuted): http://mangagamer.site11.com/viewtopic. … 4636#p4634
So connecting the dots, pornography consists of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct; sexually explicit conduct at a minimum simply requires exhibition of the genitals in a sexual manner. You can tack on “lacking serious artistic, social, or literary value” to the definition if you want. In any case, the definition doesn’t require actual intercourse.