Forum - View topic

Frenchy Lunning Comments on Obscene Manga Case

I find the whole concept of "artistic merit" to be complete and utter nonsense. The way I see it, if you create something using only your own creative imagination, then it is art, period. If a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine can be considered art, then so should a hentai manga. It doesn't matter what some narrow-minded judge or jury thinks; they don't have the constitutional authority to punish someone for possessing an artistic work (unless it can be proved that somebody else had their rights infringed upon in the process), and I refuse to acknowledge the existence of such a power either. Someone really needs to come along and knock these people off of their moral high horses.

Homeland Security's to blame for this one also?
Another thing to thank former President Bush for-keeping our shores safe from the menace of foreign artwork.
Wiretaps, torture, why not?

vanfokerdumplestein wrote:

I find the whole concept of "artistic merit" to be complete and utter nonsense. The way I see it, if you create something using only your own creative imagination, then it is art, period. If a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine can be considered art, then so should a hentai manga. It doesn't matter what some narrow-minded judge or jury thinks; they don't have the constitutional authority to punish someone for possessing an artistic work (unless it can be proved that somebody else had their rights infringed upon in the process), and I refuse to acknowledge the existence of such a power either. Someone really needs to come along and knock these people off of their moral high horses.

That's not how the real world works. If you're in court, it does matter what the judge or jury thinks, so better have a good lawyer who could convince them to join your side. The law of the land currently gives them constitutional authority to decide whether it is art (the US Constitution is a living document which can be changed by the people for the people throughout time). So ya gotta realize, in the real world, ya gotta rely on what "the people" think. It doesn't matter what you alone think.

And you're dead wrong about the U.S. Constitution being a "living document" that changes with time. It is a static document, and is only to be interpreted exactly how James Madison did when he first wrote it. If you really want to change the meaning of something in it to suit your own political ideology, then that would require an amendment.

enurtsol wrote:

vanfokerdumplestein wrote: I find the whole concept of "artistic merit" to be complete and utter nonsense. The way I see it, if you create something using only your own creative imagination, then it is art, period. If a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine can be considered art, then so should a hentai manga. It doesn't matter what some narrow-minded judge or jury thinks; they don't have the constitutional authority to punish someone for possessing an artistic work (unless it can be proved that somebody else had their rights infringed upon in the process), and I refuse to acknowledge the existence of such a power either. Someone really needs to come along and knock these people off of their moral high horses. That's not how the real world works. If you're in court, it does matter what the judge or jury thinks, so better have a good lawyer who could convince them to join your side. The law of the land currently gives them constitutional authority to decide whether it is art (the US Constitution is a living document which can be changed by the people for the people throughout time). So ya gotta realize, in the real world, ya gotta rely on what "the people" think. It doesn't matter what you alone think.

Show me where it says in the U.S. Constitution that someone can be prosecuted for possession of a creative work that supposedly lacks artistic merit. Also show me where it says that a judge and jury have the authority to decide what does and doesn't constitute art. (Don't bother looking because you won't find anything.)

And you're dead wrong about the U.S. Constitution being a "living document" that changes with time. It is a static document, and is only to be interpreted exactly how James Madison did when he first wrote it. If you really want to change the meaning of something in it to suit your own political ideology, then that would require an amendment.

I wouldn't mind seeing more views on this story from the other side [a lot of it has seemed onesided, and I'm glad to hear that's not what ANN aimed for], and I wonder why many prominent mangaka weren't on that list..... I recall one shojo manga artist taking this sort of stuff really to task a few years ago, but forget her name.

Oh, I won't bother looking; I already know. There's a lot that the US Constitution says and prohibits, and there's also a lot that it does not say nor prohibit, one of which are the obscenity laws. Just because the US Constitution doesn't specifically state it does not mean it prohibits it. It depends on how it's currently interpreted.

The US Constitution does differ in interpretations through time. 100 years ago, "separate but equal" laws were deemed constitutional but then was struck down in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 1954. Roe v. Wade 1973 currently makes abortion legal, but it only takes 1 Supreme Court Justice to change sides to deem it unconstitutional. The US Constitution is very much alive and applicable to the changing times - that's what makes it so great. The forefathers had the forebearance to make it so, leaving it to the people of the current times to make it relevant, including as you said, the Amendments.

enurtsol wrote:

Oh, I won't bother looking; I already know. There's a lot that the US Constitution says and prohibits, and there's also a lot that it does not say nor prohibit, one of which are the obscenity laws. Just because the US Constitution doesn't specifically state it does not mean it prohibits it. It depends on how it's currently interpreted.

You're right, there are many things that aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, because it would've been nearly impossible for the Founding Fathers to include everything. However, I don't need the Constitution or any other legal document to tell me that jailing people for simply possessing something that not everybody happens to find morally acceptable is inherently wrong. I just rely on something called common sense, which dictates to me that unless possessing this material infringes upon another human being's rights, then there is no legal justification whatsoever for such a practice. This is America, not a tyrannical regime like Iran's.

enurtsol wrote:

The US Constitution does differ in interpretations through time. 100 years ago, "separate but equal" laws were deemed constitutional but then was struck down in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 1954. Roe v. Wade 1973 currently makes abortion legal, but it only takes 1 Supreme Court Justice to change sides to deem it unconstitutional. The US Constitution is very much alive and applicable to the changing times - that's what makes it so great. The forefathers had the forebearance to make it so, leaving it to the people of the current times to make it relevant, including as you said, the Amendments.

That's not what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do. If you attempt to interpret the U.S. Constitution the way you feel it should be just to make it relevant with the changing times, then the original meaning becomes lost and you no longer are following what was written. Judges are supposed to only be interpreting it one way, and that's exactly how our Founders did when they first wrote the document. Again, if you want to change the meaning of something, you should be doing it through the use of amendments, not just simple reinterpretation.