| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
shamisen the great
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 306
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:34 am |
 |
|
| Hooray for rational thought. It is nice to see some courts have some common sense |
| Back to top |
|
|
UtenaAnthy
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 686
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:51 am |
|
|
| shamisen the great wrote: | | Hooray for rational thought. It is nice to see some courts have some common sense |
I'd call it logical and scientific rather than common sense, but I'm in agreement with you that it's a good thing the court ruled against censorship. |
| Back to top |
|
|
sharonlover
Joined: 30 May 2008
Posts: 73
Location: Washington DC
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:59 am |
|
|
the U.S. could use some review of the material. While I may not agree with the content; I can't see hundreds of manga/anime fans behind bars or criminalized and labeled sex offenders for life because of a drawing. Makes no sense. Nudism alone is enough to constitute a child porn law and I bet if they wanted they could even go as far as a drawing of a upskirt as voyeurism as well (would not put it past the courts).
You would think we would have real exploiters to hunt down versus this. |
| Back to top |
|
|
rejer
Joined: 16 Mar 2011
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:32 am |
|
|
| Awesome. Now someone should let the King Ishihara to know about this. |
| Back to top |
|
|
enurtsol
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 7812
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:33 am |
|
|
| Murder, She wrote: |
The Local, a Swedish news source, reported that the "pastel-colored pictures [showing] children in different states of undress" were displayed on large screens in the Supreme Court. While the court ruled that one of the images could be considered a depiction of child ponography for being "sufficiently realistic," |
What I would've paid to see the reactions in that courtroom! 
But good for the pornos.
| sharonlover wrote: | voyeurism as well............
You would think we would have real exploiters to hunt down versus this. |
Japan hasn't been very good at hunting that neither.
| rejer wrote: | | Awesome. Now someone should let the King Ishihara to know about this. |
"Japan is unique and exotic." |
| Back to top |
|
|
phoenixalia
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 435
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:14 am |
|
|
| next thing you know, it'll be wrong to even read Sailor Moon.....oh Chibi-Usa's skirt is too short...CHILD PORNO! -_- |
| Back to top |
|
|
Hawkwing
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Posts: 153
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:26 am |
|
|
I was surprised when i read the report this morning. I never expected this, so I thank the supreme court with all my heart!  |
| Back to top |
|
|
Takeyo
 Subscriber
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 735
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:01 am |
|
|
| Score one for free speech! I just hope he's still able to find work after this. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Allison
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 193
Location: Athens-Clarke County, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:17 am |
|
|
| sharonlover wrote: | | You would think we would have real exploiters to hunt down versus this. |
It's easier for police to make an arrest and for prosecutors to prosecute possession-oriented offenses than exploitation than occurs behind closed doors. Possession is ongoing as opposed to happening in a matter of minutes, thereby giving police ample time to make their move rather than having to perform a stakeout. People who merely possess said thing are probably less dangerous than those who actively harm or exploit people, and police are like the rest of us in that they'd rather avoid those who might harm them. For prosecutors, there's no need for potentially unreliable witness testimony that can be picked apart by the defense. The jury only has to be convinced that the defendant possessed said thing, which is easier to get a guilty verdict on. They get to prove their "tough on crime" bona fides if they run for higher office with a successful legal career because they were able to get so many convictions.
At least in the United States, there are perverse logistical and even political incentives for such an intense focus on possession offenses as opposed to seeking out active person-to-person harm. Short of drug court (which only modifies the issue to issue a different penalty to the defendant), I do not see any real movement to fundamentally change that. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Cecilthedarkknight_234
Joined: 02 Apr 2011
Posts: 2708
Location: Louisville, KY
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:03 am |
|
|
in before 200 replies and thread gets De-railed.
Well know this is a bit of good news to hear, epically with people actually thinking logically for a change. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Hed
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: Singapore
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:14 am |
|
|
| As pleased as I am with the victory, I'm even more astounded that, with the precedent threatened to be set amounting to a mere $4000 (oh, wait, $800) fine, this case still went before the country's highest judicial body. |
| Back to top |
|
|
RAmmsoldat
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Posts: 773
Location: North wales coast
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:53 am |
|
|
hey why stop at child porn, i hear murder is a crime too so any comics featuring murder should land you in jail, but why stop at comics?
ever see game of thrones? oh man kiss your arse goodbye criminal scum.
It all gets a bit silly when people set out to defend the rights of fictional characters. |
| Back to top |
|
|
isoge
Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:48 am |
|
|
| Brent Allison wrote: | | sharonlover wrote: | | You would think we would have real exploiters to hunt down versus this. |
It's easier for police to make an arrest and for prosecutors to prosecute possession-oriented offenses than exploitation than occurs behind closed doors. Possession is ongoing as opposed to happening in a matter of minutes, thereby giving police ample time to make their move rather than having to perform a stakeout. People who merely possess said thing are probably less dangerous than those who actively harm or exploit people, and police are like the rest of us in that they'd rather avoid those who might harm them. For prosecutors, there's no need for potentially unreliable witness testimony that can be picked apart by the defense. The jury only has to be convinced that the defendant possessed said thing, which is easier to get a guilty verdict on. They get to prove their "tough on crime" bona fides if they run for higher office with a successful legal career because they were able to get so many convictions.
At least in the United States, there are perverse logistical and even political incentives for such an intense focus on possession offenses as opposed to seeking out active person-to-person harm. Short of drug court (which only modifies the issue to issue a different penalty to the defendant), I do not see any real movement to fundamentally change that. |
Possession-oriented are of course much easier to act upon. If you catch a guy with drugs, you charge him with drug possession right? And he can't get away from the charges (unless of course he is a really talented liar, and even then I doubt his chances of getting away from facing charges).
However, as harmless as these kinds of images can be, even if it would depict child pornography, the court decided to prosecute him, not only once but twice before being acquitted by the supreme court. Why was that?
We all know that these images are harmless to any living human being. I know it, you know it, the court knew it. But they decided to act upon it anyways. The reason for this is that in a recent documentary, they reported that only 5.8% of the crimes reported last year were solved. Not only that, but a lot more cases are dropped than actually solved. A penalty judgement on this case would make it SO MUCH easier to go after more of these "criminals", since as you said so yourself, Possession-oriented crimes are easier to judge. Imagine how many more of these you could sentence and fine? And the crime solving ratings would go way up for little Sweden, not to mention that the government would also earn money by fining each and every one of these.
This, judging to higher the ratings isn't just used inside court in Sweden by the way. The police actually have quotas for how many tickets they should give out each year to make the ratings look nice. And if you haven't filled your quotas of tickets served (or as they call it, "crimes solved"), get back out on the streets and charge people for the mistakes they make.
Or maybe this is just the beer talking and I am just pissed off that this case went this far...... |
| Back to top |
|
|
Kougeru
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 1457
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:03 pm |
|
|
| UtenaAnthy wrote: | | shamisen the great wrote: | | Hooray for rational thought. It is nice to see some courts have some common sense |
I'd call it logical and scientific rather than common sense, but I'm in agreement with you that it's a good thing the court ruled against censorship. |
Agreed |
| Back to top |
|
|
dragon695
Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 1100
Location: Clemson, SC
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:26 pm |
|
|
| isoge wrote: | | Brent Allison wrote: | | sharonlover wrote: | | You would think we would have real exploiters to hunt down versus this. |
It's easier for police to make an arrest and for prosecutors to prosecute possession-oriented offenses than exploitation than occurs behind closed doors. Possession is ongoing as opposed to happening in a matter of minutes, thereby giving police ample time to make their move rather than having to perform a stakeout. People who merely possess said thing are probably less dangerous than those who actively harm or exploit people, and police are like the rest of us in that they'd rather avoid those who might harm them. For prosecutors, there's no need for potentially unreliable witness testimony that can be picked apart by the defense. The jury only has to be convinced that the defendant possessed said thing, which is easier to get a guilty verdict on. They get to prove their "tough on crime" bona fides if they run for higher office with a successful legal career because they were able to get so many convictions.
At least in the United States, there are perverse logistical and even political incentives for such an intense focus on possession offenses as opposed to seeking out active person-to-person harm. Short of drug court (which only modifies the issue to issue a different penalty to the defendant), I do not see any real movement to fundamentally change that. |
Possession-oriented are of course much easier to act upon. If you catch a guy with drugs, you charge him with drug possession right? And he can't get away from the charges (unless of course he is a really talented liar, and even then I doubt his chances of getting away from facing charges).
However, as harmless as these kinds of images can be, even if it would depict child pornography, the court decided to prosecute him, not only once but twice before being acquitted by the supreme court. Why was that?
We all know that these images are harmless to any living human being. I know it, you know it, the court knew it. But they decided to act upon it anyways. The reason for this is that in a recent documentary, they reported that only 5.8% of the crimes reported last year were solved. Not only that, but a lot more cases are dropped than actually solved. A penalty judgement on this case would make it SO MUCH easier to go after more of these "criminals", since as you said so yourself, Possession-oriented crimes are easier to judge. Imagine how many more of these you could sentence and fine? And the crime solving ratings would go way up for little Sweden, not to mention that the government would also earn money by fining each and every one of these.
This, judging to higher the ratings isn't just used inside court in Sweden by the way. The police actually have quotas for how many tickets they should give out each year to make the ratings look nice. And if you haven't filled your quotas of tickets served (or as they call it, "crimes solved"), get back out on the streets and charge people for the mistakes they make.
Or maybe this is just the beer talking and I am just pissed off that this case went this far...... |
I'm quite surprised that some unscrupulous hacker hasn't developed a virus/trojan that loads a bunch of kiddie porn onto the victim's computer and then notifies the authorities. I mean, given how easy it is with the possession laws, it seems like that kind of attack would be quite effective at ruining peoples' lives. |
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Robert's Anime Corner Store
Visit AniplexUSA.com
Rightstuf
