Forum - View topicFrenchy Lunning Comments on Obscene Manga Case
Goto page Previous 1, 2 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
vanfokerdumplestein
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||||
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.
|
||||||||
enurtsol
Posts: 14871 |
|
|||||||
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. |
||||||||
NGK
Posts: 244 |
|
|||||||
no It's I.C.E. doing its job of keeping illegals (border crossers and harmful substances) out of this country! |
||||||||
vanfokerdumplestein
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||||
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. |
||||||||
Gilles Poitras
Posts: 477 Location: Oakland California |
|
|||||||
I want to second Frenchy's suggestion that people donate to the CBLDF.
Their web site is at: http://www.cbldf.org/ And they do attend many conventions, I expect they will again be at WonderCon 2010 in San Francisco in early April. http://www.comic-con.org/wc/ |
||||||||
Kikaioh
Posts: 1205 Location: Antarctica |
|
|||||||
Laws are meant to protect individuals from breaking one another's fundamental rights. It's an important point that I think undermines everyone's frustration with this case. U.S. law should never have formed in such a way as to allow a moral majority to regulate expression. It undermines the very foundations of the nation's history, when many pilgrims came to America seeking respite from religious persecution.
As no one's rights were broken in Handley's case, the whole idea of obscenity laws confounds me, as I'm sure it confounds everyone else. What other people do, say, read or believe shouldn't be of concern to me, so long as it doesn't break my rights or the rights of someone else. I am glad so many people have shown concern for this case. As an artist myself, I believe that freedom of expression is important, regardless of how distasteful or taboo that expression may be. When expression that harms no one results in the imprisonment of a person, we should rightfully be very concerned. |
||||||||
Takeyo
Posts: 736 |
|
|||||||
Um, isn't Madison the cat who introduced the amendments in the Bill of Rights, included the bit about freedom of speech? |
||||||||
enurtsol
Posts: 14871 |
|
|||||||
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. |
||||||||
Kikaioh
Posts: 1205 Location: Antarctica |
|
|||||||
I don't know if you were meaning that a number of notable modern-day popular creators weren't on that list of names attached to the statement opposing the proposed legislation, but a good number of the manga artists on the list are actually quite prominent, in Japan at least. Fujiko Fujio (Doraemon), Rumiko Takahashi (Maison Ikkoku, Ranma 1/2, Inu Yasha), Gosho Aoyama (Detective Conan), Mitsuru Adachi (Touch), Moto Hagio (considered a founder of modern shōjo manga) and Tetsuya Chiba (Ashita no Joe) are all considerable heavyweights when it comes to manga in Japan. Although they're not as well known here in the United States, many of their works have been huge mainstays in Japan, and each has produced manga that can arguably be considered classics, or at least heavily influential in the manga industry. Also on the list were pretty much the biggest companies in publishing in Japan ~ Kadokawa Shoten (Newtype Magazine, Sgt. Frog, Tenchi Muyo!, Lucky Star), Kodansha (Weekly Shonen Magazine, Air Gear, Fairy Tail, Negima, Eightman, Kamen Rider), Shueisha (Weekly Shonen Jump, V Jump, Super Jump, Ribon, Dragonball, One Piece, Naruto, Kochikame, Bleach and Gintama) and Shogakukan (Shonen Sunday, Monster, Ranma 1/2, etc.). I wonder that these companies may have lent their voice collectively in their author's place, possibly so as not to draw any potential negative press to the artist's and author's themselves as they're currently running serials in their magazines. Keisuke Itagaki (Baki the Grappler), Yasuhiro Imagawa (Anime Director for G Gundam and the Giant Robo OVA) and Yoshikazu Yasuhiko (character designer for Dirty Pair and Mobile Suit Gundam) created some relatively popular works for their time. Ken Akamatsu (Love Hina, Negima!), Kaworu Watashiya (Kodomo no Jikan) and Tooru Fujisawa (Great Teacher Onizuka) are also notable modern manga artists. |
||||||||
vanfokerdumplestein
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||||
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.
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. |
||||||||
enurtsol
Posts: 14871 |
|
|||||||
Exactly. America is governed by people. It would need more than just you. You need people. If America is tyrannical, then only one person's opinion matters. So it would take more than just your opinion to matter. Common sense, as in common people. If people's opinions differ from your opinion however, then you need even a greater number of people. But you would need more than your own - just because you say so does not make it so (unless it's a tyranny, then it would be easy).
The forefathers gave the people of the United States the power to interpret and change the Constitution. They knew they didn't have the answers to everything and didn't have the hubris that they were the be-all end-all. And yes, even the "original meaning." If the people of the US wanted to change the original meaning, then the people of the US has that power. For instance, in the Constitution, the states and the Federal Government were supposed to be originally equal, roughly for all intents and purposes. But through time and necessity, the Federal Government has superceded the states. The founding fathers did not originally intend that - they were more proudly identifying themselves with their states than of USofA (kinda like how the European states in the European Union right now - the French/Germans/Italians/etc identify themselves more with their "states" than being "Europeans"). But times change; people's feelings change. The American people changed the original meaning of their own Constitution (even if it took a Civil War to do it). |
||||||||
tyciol
Posts: 134 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||
Her commentary sounds sensible enough, but I wish that she had made an attempt at arguing the artisticness of this. She had reservations, and certainly nobody`s saying she has to put it on a pedestal above other works, however acknowledging even a slight bit of merit in artistry, even if the merit of other works outweigh it, could be enough to help protect people.
|
||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group