×
  • remind me tomorrow
  • remind me next week
  • never remind me
Subscribe to the ANN Newsletter • Wake up every Sunday to a curated list of ANN's most interesting posts of the week. read more

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Virginia Man Gets 20 Years for Anime Child Porn


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article
Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gigan22



Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:01 pm Reply with quote
I don't see how this case pertains to anything anime related. Since it doesn't give details on if the "images" in question were life like or not, we can probably assume they were. And even if they weren't, it sounds like they just tacked it onto the child porn he was already getting busted for.

I wouldn't be worried since Viz released the Saikano manga uncut, and that has very explicit sexual situations. While it doesn't give Chise's age(that I'm aware of), and even if she's a senior in high school, I'll be damned if you can convince me she's not a minor, or at least has all the traits of a loli. Also, ADV got the go ahead to release the Elfen Lied anime uncut. That without a question has minors in it. While not being explicit(though a small bit is implied) it does contain quite a bit of nudity. Even take Tartan Video's release of the Korean horror film, Face. Near the beginning it shows a young girl topless laying in a hospital bed. Again, not being explicit, but still nudity, does that not fall under one of those laws? If not, then it would be legal for someone to have a picture of an unclothed minor as long as it isn't sexually explicit? It seems the laws are a bit hypocritical to me.

Here's hoping this case doesn't get set as precedent because if so, these good titles may disappear from retailer's shelves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lothar



Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 67
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:26 pm Reply with quote
gigan22 wrote:
Even take Tartan Video's release of the Korean horror film, Face. Near the beginning it shows a young girl topless laying in a hospital bed. Again, not being explicit, but still nudity, does that not fall under one of those laws? If not, then it would be legal for someone to have a picture of an unclothed minor as long as it isn't sexually explicit? It seems the laws are a bit hypocritical to me.


Pictures of people under 18 naked is not illegal in the U.S. Otherwise, you'd have parents being busted for taking pics of their newborn getting her first bath.

There's a stark difference between nudity and sex. It's presumed that child pornography is inherently sexually exploitive of persons who lack the capacity to make judgments about their appearance in purient media, whereas simple nudity lacks an inherent exploitive component. People could read nudity as sexually exploitive, and many often do, but it's not an inherent characteristic of nudity as the law has interpreted it to be.

Now whether or not a 17-year-364-day-old lacks the mental capacity for consenting to appear in porn, that's a different thread (board?) entirely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
gigan22



Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:43 pm Reply with quote
Lothar wrote:
People could read nudity as sexually exploitive, and many often do, but it's not an inherent characteristic of nudity as the law has interpreted it to be.


Very true. That's what I was trying to get at in a round-about way. It does seem like most people think "oh my gosh, that child is naked. Why do you have that you pedophile". That's true even with lolicon. People seem to dismiss any nudity, explicit or not, child involved or not, as a bad thing. Some of the greatest art has nudity, yet omg, we have to clothe the girl on the cover of Marebito because somebody might think it obscene or offencive.

I'm saying all this out of pure example because that guy got exactly what he deserved, but I still think that lumping anime into it all isn't right or fair to the anime community or the artists(if it wasn't life-like depictions).

[Sorry if I strayed a bit from the topic at hand.]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
burzmali



Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 143
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:15 pm Reply with quote
Wouldn't this set of laws make any lolicon illegal regardless? It was part of the PROTECT act and explicitly lists drawings and cartoons identical to a photograph for the purposes of determining sentence...


Quote:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 71 - OBSCENITY
Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of
children

(b) Additional Offenses. - Any person who, in a circumstance
described in subsection (d)*, knowingly possesses a visual depiction
of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting,
that -
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor
engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or
sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same
or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the
penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties
provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

*(d) - lists situations that include, downloaded from Internet and
brought to a con.

And 2252A(b)(2), for those who are curious...

(2) Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate,
subsection (a)(5) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 10 years, or both, but, if such person has a prior
conviction under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter
117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating
to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct
involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt,
mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child
pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and
imprisoned for not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hikaru004



Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 2306
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:15 pm Reply with quote
Lothar wrote:
Pictures of people under 18 naked is not illegal in the U.S. Otherwise, you'd have parents being busted for taking pics of their newborn getting her first bath.


Since you mentioned parents getting busted, an article from 2000 actually discussed some cases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Case



Joined: 09 Apr 2002
Posts: 1016
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:51 am Reply with quote
burzmali wrote:
Wouldn't this set of laws make any lolicon illegal regardless? It was part of the PROTECT act and explicitly lists drawings and cartoons identical to a photograph for the purposes of determining sentence...


Quote:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 71 - OBSCENITY
Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of
children

(b) Additional Offenses. - Any person who, in a circumstance
described in subsection (d)*, knowingly possesses a visual depiction
of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting,
that -
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor
engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or
sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same
or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value;


Here's John Oppliger's interpretation:

Quote:
As a result of the 2002 national ruling, "lolicon," the Japanese artistic depiction of fictional children in sexual situations, does qualify for American First Amendment protection. Legal obscenity is defined as material that "does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Since lolicon anime and manga is hand drawn art, it does have "artistic value" and therefore doesn't violate the Miller vs. California statute.


Quote:
Beside the fact that the US Supreme Court has already determined this section of the PROTECT act to be unconstitutional, imported Japanese lolicon art would still have to be legally proven "obscene" and lacking in "literary, artistic" value in order to be deemed illegal. To the furthest extent of my knowledge, that has never occurred on a federal level in America.


Accurate? It would take at least one lawyer to say for sure. But I for one see some validity in this position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mohawk52



Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:15 am Reply with quote
hikaru004 wrote:
Lothar wrote:
Pictures of people under 18 naked is not illegal in the U.S. Otherwise, you'd have parents being busted for taking pics of their newborn getting her first bath.


Since you mentioned parents getting busted, an article from 2000 actually discussed some cases.
This situation happened here in the UK a while back too. The parents were well known personalities in the media which was the highlight of the story and they were interviewed by the police. But afterwords it was dropped as the police and socialworkers had come to the correct conclusion that these were just family photos of their baby and nothing sinister, or inappropreate was intended. It was someone at the photo lab who recognised the parents and thought the tabloids would like a story and of course our "tabloids" couldn't resist. Not sure if the lab was ever sued, or not, but I know I would have if it was my family.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cowpunk



Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 168
Location: Oakland - near the Newtype Lab
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:17 am Reply with quote
fxg97873 wrote:
I think I'm going to go ahead and write a letter to the ACLU and the Free Speech Coalition (probably donate some money at their websites while I'm at it)

I've already contacted the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

http://www.cbldf.org/

If nothing else I hope we can get the origin of the images clarified, specifically if they are from an anime, manga, dojinshi or original web art.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
burzmali



Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 143
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:34 pm Reply with quote
Case wrote:

Here's John Oppliger's interpretation:

Quote:
As a result of the 2002 national ruling, "lolicon," the Japanese artistic depiction of fictional children in sexual situations, does qualify for American First Amendment protection. Legal obscenity is defined as material that "does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Since lolicon anime and manga is hand drawn art, it does have "artistic value" and therefore doesn't violate the Miller vs. California statute.


Quote:
Beside the fact that the US Supreme Court has already determined this section of the PROTECT act to be unconstitutional, imported Japanese lolicon art would still have to be legally proven "obscene" and lacking in "literary, artistic" value in order to be deemed illegal. To the furthest extent of my knowledge, that has never occurred on a federal level in America.


Accurate? It would take at least one lawyer to say for sure. But I for one see some validity in this position.


Interestingly, this fellow was convicted under exactly that statute. Opposed to what this press release says, the FBI's and DOJ's websites both proudly proclaim how this is a "landmark" case that is the first to convict someone under 1466A (from above). Everything else was just gravy.

In no uncertain terms, this man was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for downloading images that WOULD NOT be confused with real children. Go, justice...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Devilen



Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:30 pm Reply with quote
that the guy gets his ass wiped for real child porn is only fair

but that they use Lolicon as a reason (only part of it yes but thats not the point) it just plain idiotic ...

i mean ... Child Porn is illegalised because of that it damages the Child in questions psyche ... but matter how you turn or twist it lolicon doesn't damage anyones psyche that aren't allready geezing old men (generalization but who cares)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CorneredAngel



Joined: 17 Jun 2002
Posts: 854
Location: New York, NY
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:11 pm Reply with quote
Cowpunk wrote:

I've already contacted the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

http://www.cbldf.org/

If nothing else I hope we can get the origin of the images clarified, specifically if they are from an anime, manga, dojinshi or original web art.


Giles,

Looks like they're on top of it already - "The most directly related case that I'm gathering information on is the recent conviction of Richmond, VA resident Dwight Whorley, who was convicted of 74 counts of child pornography charges for downloading obscene anime. This conviction is the first of its kind. It comes from provisions of the 2003 PROTECT act, which has troubled me since its enactment because the law makes it a federal crime to produce, distribute, receive, or possess "obscene drawings, cartoons, sculptures, paintings, or any other obscene visual representation of the sexual abuse of children." While I recognize that the First Amendment does not protect obscene material, any law that criminalizes what R. Crumb characterized as "lines on paper" runs the risk of creating serious problems for the creators, retailers, publishers, and even owners of graphic novels that seriously address such topics." - from a 12.10 interview with CBLDF executive director Charles Brownstein.

...although it's somewhat troubling to see that he is not going to dispute this particular case, but only the implications of the PROTECT Act for other future situations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Pleroma



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 443
Location: Eromanga island
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:29 pm Reply with quote
I really don't see how they are getting away with something as ridiculous as criminalizing any form of art. Real kiddy porn is illegal because it inevitably involves the crime of child abuse. The only thing a drawing abuses is the paper. Since this is someone anyone can create without any outside imput, it is ultimately equivalent to banning actual speech.

These laws are ridiculous and ironicly "protect" ablsolutely nothing, its sickening that some of today's lawmakers would fail to see this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fxg97873



Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 211
Location: Houston, TX
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:56 pm Reply with quote
Cowpunk wrote:
fxg97873 wrote:
I think I'm going to go ahead and write a letter to the ACLU and the Free Speech Coalition (probably donate some money at their websites while I'm at it)

I've already contacted the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

http://www.cbldf.org/

If nothing else I hope we can get the origin of the images clarified, specifically if they are from an anime, manga, dojinshi or original web art.


I just donated some money. Smile I'm sure every bit helps.
mk2000
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
hentai4me



Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 1313
Location: England. Robin is so Cute!
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:57 pm Reply with quote
so if I were to sit down and draw a naked child character for whatever reason I would be breaking the law?

or would I have to draw this child character in a sexual situation?

would I merely have had to draw this character with the intent of sexual desire?

is there any point in me asking as I cant draw even a straight line with a ruler? ( Very Happy )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
burzmali



Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 143
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:27 pm Reply with quote
hentai4me wrote:
(1) so if I were to sit down and draw a naked child character for whatever reason I would be breaking the law?

(2) or would I have to draw this child character in a sexual situation?

(3) would I merely have had to draw this character with the intent of sexual desire?

(4) is there any point in me asking as I can't draw even a straight line with a ruler? ( Very Happy )


Per 1466A

(1) No
(2) Yes
(3) No
(4) Technically speaking, according to 1466A, if you draw two nude stick figures a performing a "sexually explicit conduct", label them as under 18, and take said drawing over state lines, you have commited a crime...

Last edited by burzmali on Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group