Forum - View topicNEWS: Japan's Lack of Laws on Virtual Child Porn Criticized
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BellosTheMighty Posts: 760 |
|
|||||||||
No, good logic is absolute. The thing is that unless your audience knows its stuff, it's very easy to pass off false logic as the real deal. Add to that the fact that often your audience WANTS to believe what you're saying and will overlook the flaws, and logic winds up with a tarnished reputation due to misuse. Also, proving something to be logical doesn't necessarily prove it's true. If you're acting on incomplete or false information, it becomes a "Garbage In, Garbage Out" scenario. Even if you're starting from accurate information, you could logically reach one of several valid conclusions, thereby needing more information to distinguish the truth. For example, I once heard some loudmouthed family values diehard talking about some study that found a correlation between divorced parents and children turning to criminal careers. He was adamant that this means criminal children were caused by divorces. That's a logical conclusion, but there's nothing to prove that it's the case. When in fact, it could have been the other way around- children who are on the path of a career criminal could put such a strain on a marriage that one or the other parent can't take it anymore. Or both phenomena could be effects of a common cause, such as poverty. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| 0utf0xZer0 Posts: 75 |
|
|||||||||
| I have to admit I find the whole lolicon issue unsettling, just because it seems to me if there is a link between media consumption and criminal behaviour, that should be it just because of the lolicon factor.
That said, I've seen the data Sunflower linked before, and I agree that any linkage is, at this point, unproven. Still, when you're talking something like child rape, I find that nagging feeling that maybe there is a one percent increase pretty hard to deal with. I personally think that's a large part of the reason the Supreme Court of Canada is okay with our ultra-hardline laws on depictions of sex involving minors (along, of course, with the fact our free speech provisions have generally been interpretted as being within limits). I reluctantly disagree with the SCC position and think the material should be legal, although I'd be terrified of arguing that in polite company... which is why I don't expect the law here to change any time soon. Who would be willing to potentially commit political suicide to do it? I'm also extremely wary of outlawing this kind of stuff just because I've seen the sort of precedent Canada has set. It's not just obvious lolicon stuff that you can go to jail for here... technically, as the law is written, you can be jailed for ANY very explicit depiction of sex involving someone depicted as being under 18. So yes, you can go to jail for having an Evangelion doujinshi in Canada. What makes it hit particularly close to home for me is the fact I have trouble imagining that there aren't at least a few people in my anime club who have such things - most people around here still seem to be under the impression that only true lolicon is illegal. The only thing that's really protecting people here is the fact the police don't, for the moment, seem to be targetting Eva doujinshi. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Mohawk52 Posts: 3862 Location: Celebrating Lindsey Hawker murder suspect arrest, in Basingstoke, UK. |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| BellosTheMighty Posts: 760 |
|
|||||||||
This is true. But there's a catch: if someone gets exposed for using false logic, not only does their flawed argument collapse, but they lose credibility with the audience as well. The trick is to expose false logic in a way that the audience accepts- and to be frank, most arguers are bad at that. If you attack the underlying values rather than the argument, then you're assaulting the audience's morals, and they start to see you as the bad guy. That mistake occurs a lot in lolicon debates: One side takes child protection as it's value, the other takes free speech, and then they try to argue which value is more important. In so doing, they each have to argue that the other side is morally flawed: favoring lesser values over greater ones. They don't see that as being what their argument is, but that is the case. The truth is that both values are important, so that we should instead see how they can be reconciled to each other. Another bad tactic, used depressingly often on the internet, is hyperbole. Oh, yes, so many arguments collapse under the weight of hyperbole. The slippery slope, the runaway analogy, the loaded language, the inevitable Nazi comparison- they try to connect something, no matter how insignificant, with something atrocious and monstrous. But of course, the audience doesn't hear that, and nor should they- the scale is all wrong, the leaps of logic too pronounced, the metaphor has holes all over it, and the argument becomes comical and absurd. And when the audience sees that your argument is absurd, they see you yourself as absurd, and your credibility is dashed. Ummm... what was my point?  ;;;;;;
Well, I guess the point is that you get a lot further with these things when you stop thinking you alone are speaking the truth and understand that the other guy has a point too. Rather than finding a view that beats his all hollow, you should find a view that takes in both competing ideas. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
mrsatan Posts: 199 Location: Olympia, WA |
|
|||||||||
| Scary stuff.
On the plus side, crap like 90210 and Degrassi will eventually have to be banned because they also depict underage characters having sex. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| luisedgarf Posts: 128 Location: Aguascalientes, Mexico |
|
|||||||||
What I mean is: Japan is NOT IN AN MORAL POSITION (or a legal position) for asking a different treatment, since they lose a war and they have to face the consecuences as long Japan exists as a country (or at least, the imperial system that provoked the war dissapears) And you don't need to cut off all trade to Japan to force the Japanese to change their ways, although some countries (like China and Russia) can do whatever they like without penalties due to the fact that both countries have the veto power in the UN (and Russia is the major producer of REAL child porn in the world, FYI) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Brass2TheMax Posts: 46 |
|
|||||||||
| While I agree that "virtual child pornography" doesn't harm any actual children, and while I agree that mere ideas are things that should not be regulated in this modern world of free speech, there is still something about this issue that doesn't sit right with me.
I mean, you can argue "it's not real", "it's only ideas", or whatever you want, but in the end (and I'm not saying it should be banned), it's still about children. Sure, they're virtual, but come on, who fantasizes about having intercourse with/making love to children, regardless of whether or not they're actually real? I know I'm treading a fine line on an already vague issue, especially considering no one is actually getting harmed and it's against my own ideals to "ban" ideas, whatever they may be. But it makes people like me think: "While I don't agree that they should ban ideas or conceptual representations of child porn that doesn't actually harm real children... When it comes to this particular issue, so what if they do?" We can be a bit selective. I couldn't care less if they banned virtual child porn because, quite frankly, it doesn't turn me on in the least personally, and I find the idea sort of sickening. Note I said "personally". I realize others might think differently. If this was about banning free speech or banning the right to "think" about whatever you wanted to, I'd obviously care a lot more. But this is about a specific issue that I think, if banned, wouldn't really matter a lot. Except to those who are turned on by it that is, in which case I would continue to think of them as "not quite right". Also those who make a living off of it would be affected, but if they can draw, I'm sure they could find another way to make money off their talents. In my personal opinion, I just fail to see why it's an important issue for some people. I think they assume that if something like this is banned, other free speech-like ideas will be banned. Generally, that is not always the case, in fact, it rarely is. These things are VERY selectively discussed and debated. Question: Why do you think most of the people speaking out against banning virtual child porn prefer to remain anonymous? Answer: Because they are ashamed. And chances are if the subject of discussion is something to be ashamed of, who cares if it's banned? If it was for a principle of much higher importance, sure I'd defend it. But that isn't the case. We're not talking about instituting public torture or banning the freedom to worship your religion's God. So don't compare with other issues at all, because this is solely about a particular issue. I'm not one for banning ideas, and I don't care if in the end they do or do not ban this one, because it doesn't affect me, thus there is no reason to flame me for this post if some of you are thinking about doing so. It's a hard thing to talk about. In my mind, no one should set out on a quest to ban such things, but if they do, and this sort of idea does get banned somewhere along the way, well... Meh. As for the argument going on about real children in need, that's a whole other issue, and shouldn't even be related to this discussion. Sure, UNICEF are dolts for not concentrating their efforts elsewhere, but it's an entirely different issue. This isn't about who is or who is not involved with said issue, but about the issue itself, which is about banning virtual child porn. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Cait SubscriberPosts: 312 |
|
|||||||||
I agree with you to a point. "Child Pornography," virtual or otherwise, is disturbing and doesn't interest me in the least, but the real question is, how should it be defined? I don't think the vast majority of the people here are personally defending depictions of little kids getting raped. However, anything of a sexual nature that contains minors ("minors" generally being defined as anyone under the age of 18) is covered under the "umbrella" of Child Pornography laws. I personally see a hypocritical contradiction between common "age of consent" laws in the US and child pornography laws. Why should it be illegal to portray two 16 year olds having sex (virtual sex, not actual pornography, mind you) when it is perfectly legal for two 16 year olds to have sex in real life (the specific age varies from state to state, I understand)? Art is supposed to "imitate" life, isn't it? Teenagers do have sex (a lot of it, despite what some would have us believe). If they can do it legally, it should be legal to imply it or even to show it in fiction. That is not to say the actual exploitation of teenagers under 18 should be tolerated, but I think everyone here is already in agreement about actual sex crimes against actual minors being wrong. I would even add to that argument that any sexual exploitation of anyone, regardless of age, shouldn't be tolerated. What I'm trying to say is that there should be a line where, if we consider someone old enough to be able to make a decision concerning sex on their own, we should accept that that individual is mature enough to handle all that comes with the package of sexual activity, and that includes fictional depictions of it as well. Let's not delude ourselves into believing that one of the most viable demographics of the yaoi genre are, in fact, teenaged girls, and not necessarily depraved ones either. The question would still remain, however, where is the line to be drawn? At puberty? At the "age of consent?" I think a lot of people are getting a bad rap or even being put on lists of sex offenders for ridiculous things. If a 17 year old can be in a sexually active relationship legally, she shouldn't have to be put on a child sex offenders registry for taking nude pictures of herself. That's just stupid. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
MokonaModokiSubscriber Posts: 417 Location: Austin, Texas |
|
|||||||||
At least in the US, the reasonings behind the laws against child pornography are included in the congressional findings listed in both the CPPA (13 findings) and in the PROTECT act of 2003 (15 findings just for the obscenity clauses intended to fix the defects in the CPPA), so we don't actually have to guess. Outside of any of the "all CP inflames the desires of the perverts" rationale behind banning virtual child pornography (which are in the CPPA findings, at least) there was a concern that was objectively real: that technology existed or would soon exist that would facilitate the creation of virtual child pornography that would be indistinguishable from the real thing. Still no harm to children, right? Well, the CPPA ban on virtual child pornography had a couple of unintended consequences. One was that it was bad law, that got overturned by the Supreme Court in the Free Speech Coalition vs Ashcroft decision. The other was that the Free Speech Coalition decision opened up a defense that was very difficult to overcome in child pornography cases. Basically this amounted to "prove that a minor was actually used to create these images" and "prove that these images weren't actually just created on a computer", something extraordinarily difficult to do unless the minor has actually been identified. Even worse, the existence of this scenario caused child porn traffickers to begin digitally altering actual child pornography specifically to hide the identity of the minor involved, and to create reasonable doubt as to whether the images were real or computer generated. A task which is presumably accomplished far more easily than actually creating realistic virtual child pornography. Is all of that true? Beats me. It's just as difficult to prove that a Congressional finding is true as it is to prove that one isn't, and no one ever actually bothers. All a Congressional finding consists of is a statement that is agreed to be true by Congress. What matters to the law is what Congress believes to be true. The courts may determine that a law is unconstitutional, but Congressional findings count as fact. Now, how did this come to affect manga or anime or any drawing that could never be realistically confused with actual child pornography? Very simple. The PROTECT act corrected the free speech defects in CPPA's ban on virtual child pornography by requiring that the image be obscene, because obscenity isn't a protected form of speech any more than actual child pornograpy is. Rather than specify any specific medium (photograph, computer generated image, etc.) that would permit defenses hinging upon whether any visual depiction was that kind of visual depiction, or that would require as an element of the crime that the image be realistic, it just included all visual depictions. Since the charge can now hinge solely upon whether a visual depiction is obscene and appears to depict a minor (that need not exist), they just included everything. WRT to the case in Iowa, that's just as wrong as it obviously appears to be. The prosecution there demonstrates a blatant disregard for the legislative intent in creating the law in the first place, no matter how lax they were in limiting the law's breadth to that intent. Whether a conviction for manga could pass scrutiny under appeal up to the Supreme Court level remains to be seen. The UNICEF Japan/World Congress fingerpointing, OTOH, is just posturing. They have no legislative capacity, so all they are doing is saying that they want what they want. It has more meaning in real world terms than "bunch of otaku protest that lolicon hentai anime and manga should be protected free speech", but not a whole lot more. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| 0utf0xZer0 Posts: 75 |
|
|||||||||
I think the Canadian law concerning lolicon pretty much disapproves the "selectively discussed and debated" part, since it proposes jail sentences for ANY explicit sexual depiction of an under-18 character, not just an obviously prepubescent one.
If you were in the position of saying you don't think lolicon should be banned, would you trust ALL of your opponents not to misconstrue it as an admission you're a pedophile? If not, I don't think you'd trust them with their real name. Attacking this from another angle, I often share my political views online but not in real life, because I don't want them straining real life relationships. Most people practice this sort of selective sharing of personality traits. Sure, it's not like we're banning a political view or something. However, I don't think porn should be treated differently from other entertainment when it comes to freedom of speech, so I treat this sort of thing just as seriously as I would treat bans on mainstream stuff like TV or video games.
Fair enough. Tons of rights issues don't affect me either, so whether I choose to care or not is my business. Just remember that by being apathetic, you're basically siding with whatever side holds more power. And in my experience, largely underground subcultures rarely hold much political weight compared to the large numbers of people who like to tell other people what to do. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Mr. sickVisionz Posts: 296 |
|
|||||||||
I totally agree with the law, but on the surface it seems like the Iowa guy will get off if this is indeed the comic that he was in possession of. I think there is a major difference between something serious that depicts child molestation in a negative light and something like manga porn thats adults having sex with kids and there is no negative consequences and the act is depicted as a fun time to be enjoyed by all. I see alot of people complaining, but the US has one of the highest murder, rape and theft rates per capita of any developed country in the world. Perhaps their is something fundamentally flawed with our way of doing things and not everyone should rush to be as liberal as us. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
daxomni Posts: 2422 Location: The morally challenged land of cheap guns and expensive health care. |
|
|||||||||
I don't think anyone is rushing to be as "liberal" as the US is. Many developed countries have long since passed us and we're now on the conservative side of many debates. Even American sites with text-only stories have been shut down and prosecuted for obscenity. If that's having a liberal view toward free speech then I can't imagine what you think a conservative view is. Look up United States v. Fletcher if you don't know what I'm talking about. Whether you approve of such stories or not, whether you read them or not, the idea that a fictional story that harmed nobody could get you convicted is simply un-American in my view. Free speech has been under attack for years and nobody even seems to realize it. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Bussani Posts: 5 |
|
|||||||||
That's a good point, I forgot to mention that when I replied about the KKK story. There is a difference and that's what makes it a difficult subject. But if you banned it, what would you be charging the creators and readers for exactly?
I think murder, rape and theft existed before manga. Or the US itself. And as daxomni pointed out, America today is no where near as free and liberal as it thinks it is. That's actually what a lot of this is about I think. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
CCSYueh Posts: 1913 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||||||
Do you mean if they were asked "Why do you NOT drive faster than the speed limit?" because your explanation is lacking. Getting a ticket has squat to do with WHY it's illegal drive over the speed limit. Maybe they would say "because there's a law against it", but getting a ticket--the PUNISHMENT for the crime ISN'T the reason for the illegality of it. That's like saying it's illegal to murder because you'll be executed.
How do you explain the Autobahn? (although I know they were threatening to put a speed limit on that one). The problem ISN'T speeding, it's people unwilling to recognize their own limitations & drive too fast. The actual problem is people driving different speeds causes accidents. If everyone's going 55 & one idiot's going 20, that one person is interrupting the flow, forcing people to pass, perhaps unsafely. It's that driver whipping in & out of traffic that's more likely to cause an accident even if that person isn't in that accident, but those peopel also change lanes erratically & cut people off, forcing the other drivers to react, etc.
Most people see the value in protecting our children in society. Children are the future. Many people can push that desire to protect to the extreme. It's totally wrong to sexually molest children. Many people see no dif between a REAL picture of a child being sexually abuse & a drawing of a child being sexually abused. It's "sick" & "disgusting" as many people can see no point for it. Only sick minds would want to see that stuff IE-adults get irrational when it comes to kids.
Most laws regarding child abuse are there because the idea of harming a child is abhorrent to many adults. Children, like animals, are deemed as being unable to fully protect themselves, thus requiring protection.
But the people passing these laws don't believe that's a good thing. They feel any sicko wanting to see children abused are ticking time bombs waiting to explode all over their own precious child. They don't want that to happen. David Westerfield had porn images of cartoon characters on his computer as well as anime hentai which came out in his trial. He has never harmed any child until he kidnapped & killed Danielle Van Dam All parents fear people like him, They don't want their child to be Danielle to the next David Westerfield. Their perception is any person who would want to look at this stuff would have to one day do the things depicted in the pictures. Their love for their children make them less than rational on the issue. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| grgspunk Posts: 131 |
|
|||||||||
Excuse me for being late, but what exactly is your point in bringing up the fact that they lost WWII? What "consequences" are you referring to, if they've already grown out of it? I already said that foreign influences aren't likely to change their position because they've become a very important component in the world economy, especially when such change may negatively affect their ability to contribute to the world economy. Besides, a lot of countries, UN superpower or not, continue to do a lot of things that they aren't in a moral position to defend. Morals "talk", whereas money "speaks". The only real method the other countries could immediately change the Japanese government's position on its cartoons is if they got compensation (read: billions) to stop producing such material. Even then I can't guarantee they'll actually honor it and neither can I see it actually happening, considering the fact that the other countries most likely won't get anything in return. Anything else the other countries *might* do will most likely be "non-binding", which often translates to "easy-to-ignore". You also underestimate just how much these guys in the Diet are resistant to change: Just look at how it took them until 1998 to ban real child pornography. When issues like sex slavery, child prostitution, genocide, environmental pollution, a slow economy, diseases and famine are plaguing the world as we speak, do you really think the other foreign powers would be that concerned about some lewd cartoons from a well-developed country? Oh sure, the UNICEF might be bitching, but that isn't saying much, considering they don't even have the power to affect other issues impacting children in this world. Gimme a break. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Anime Castle
Robert's Anime Corner Store
AAA Anime Distribution
Big Bad Toy Store
