Forum - View topicAnime/graphic art in relation to the law.
|
|
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Asho
Posts: 8 |
|
||
|
Hi all
I have a question regarding the legality and definition of art as opposed to child pornography (CP) on the internet. As a very large community site for viewers of a relevant genre of art (anime) I thought this would be a good place to find out a bit more, and the communities general sentiment on the issue. A bit of background first: I’m a student at the University of Tasmania doing a unit of moral philosophy called Law, Morality and Society, exploring sexual morality, the power of governments over its citizens and finally feminism. Having just begun some background reading, I stumbled upon this article. http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/simpsonsstyle-cartoon-is-child-porn/2008/12/08/1228584707575.html I was quite surprised to say the least. As someone who appreciates and enjoys the odd bit of graphic art and anime this got me thinking, and lead to my first question: is material such as ecchi/hentai considered as CP or is it graphic art? Both in your opinions and in your understanding of the law? Unless it is designed as such (loli) I don’t believe it is. This leads to my second question, if one does view or download ecchi/hentai on sites like 4chan for example, is this considered viewing CP and are you breaking the law and therefore liable? The difficulty I see here is proving that images (if they can be classed as CP in the first place) are of minors, as many are just purely fictional creations, and given the stylistic considerations of the anime genre finding the exact age of an fictional image would be difficult. Any thoughts and knowledge you might have on the issue would be appreciated. Thanks in advanced. P.S If someone actually has any legal knowledge of the topic in Australia I would love to hear from you, as Australia is currently planning to filter all CP online, I’ve been curious as to where this sits since eechi/hentai as far as I can tell is legal. Since reading above article I'm too scared to venture on to 4chan since the government is probably logging every IP on it. P.P.S – if you used any references in your reply please post them. |
|||
|
|||
Keonyn
 Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
||
|
Well Asho, I'm going to start out by saying this one is a bit of a can of worms. While bringing up the loli debate isn't against any rules, I do have to warn you that it's very likely this will quickly degenerate in to a flamefest. So I'm going to open here with a warning to people who choose to post; do so in a respectful and civil manner and discuss the topic and the article, don't turn it in to a thread of personal attacks and name calling and accusations or it'll quickly be put under lock.
As for the question (since I'm not one to go completely OT), I personally don't find anything wrong with some of it, but it really does depend. If it's an obvious case of sexuality involving an obvious minor, especially if it's very descriptive, then I still think that crosses the line. It does still cater to the same personality and attitude of the people who would go for the real thing. If it's just something like Eiken though, where it could be considered distasteful but is obviously done for comedy or is so over the top it's obviously not meant to be serious, then to each their own I guess. So really, it's a case by case basis for me. I understand some people just have different tastes, but there is still a point I would consider the line is crossed. As for how the law deals with it, I'm not entirely certain. We've all read the news reports of people being arrested for child pornography with loli hentai or pornographic manga being part of their collection, and we've all seen the resulting arguments. However, one thing worth noting is that in pretty much every case I can remember, there was always real child pornography in the persons collection as well. There might be some out there, but I can't actually recall a case where someone was charged with only manga or hentai cited and nothing else. It seems it could be viewed as proof that enforces the persons behavior, but not necessarily as the primary offense. Then again, I could be wrong as I only really encounter these cases when they're discussed here. |
|||
|
|||
Mushi-Man
 Posts: 1537 Location: KCMO |
|
||
|
As an individualist it's hard for me to draw a line of what is moral and what isn't. My stance is that there is nothing wrong with "loli" or hentai in general as long as no actual person is being harmed. There have been some attempts to try and make all fictional accounts of child pornography illegal, but all have failed. This has happened simply because there is no link between hentai and an actual violation of the law. The only accounts of some one being incarcerated for having manga of a pornographic nature have all been at state level, I'm sure that if they took it to the Supreme Court the ruling would be over turned. Of course there are cases in which the accused not only has fictional accounts but also real underage pornography which is in violation of the law and would just go to jail regardless. The point that I'm getting at here is that hentai of any form can not be seen as illegal or immoral. This is simply my view on the matter.
To directly answer your first question: No, as I stated before these are not real accounts of CP and therefor should not be viewed as such. To directly answer your second question: No, once again these aren't real accounts. I have no knowledge of the legal stance in Australia as it stands, only the U.S. |
|||
|
|||
|
Asho
Posts: 8 |
|
||
|
Thank you for your replies.
Keonyn: I apologise for opening the can of worms, it was never my intention or hope that this topic should become a flame war. I hope it doesnt get that bad however. In the case I mentioned I don't believe there was any other CP in the individuals collection. Mushi-Man: I don't know if you read the linkI provided, but the judge did rule that even though the art (The Simpsons) was not human, the people displayed could be counted as 'people' and the images would further encourage CP. He obviously doesn't buy your actual person argument (which I agree with, within reason). I'm not a lawyer, but if graphic art character are classed as 'people' doesn't that mean any art featuring a crime could make the viewer/purchaser liable? Any Australian's on board care to comment? |
|||
|
|||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
||
|
For a few months now, lolicon (along with other drawings depicting illegal acts) has been seemingly legal in my country, which one hopes should answer your second question within such a jurisdiction.
As for your first, I won't hesitate to deem loli (etc.) pornography, as opposed to a strictly non-pornographic subcategory of adult entertainment. Since my own views on the ontology of 'art' are sketchy at best, I'm reluctant to give consideration to notions that pornography could or could not be an art form. That said, I can name one or two Hentai artists whose bizarre adult works have made it into Japanese art exhibitions, so seemingly there exist those who deem some of the material in question suitable to fall under the categories of both art and porn. |
|||
|
|||
Dorcas_Aurelia
 Posts: 5344 Location: Philly |
|
||
|
If you want, you could try looking through some of the old Kodomo no Jikan talkback threads. Some of them have relevant comments, but beware that you'll have to wade through lolicon flame wars to find the pertinent posts, and the percentage of useful information you might find will be pretty low.
Also, there was the case in Iowa about the guy who was facing charges of obscenity because of some manga. There may be something there you can use. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group