Forum - View topicCommentaries on Handley's Sentencing for Obscene Manga
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
animalia555
Posts: 467 |
|
|||||||||
|
I think the following image sums it up nicely:
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
TarsTarkas
 Posts: 5867 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||||||||
|
Personally, I think the postal inspector cried child pornography, and the police filed lock step. But when they couldn't find any actual child pornography and not wanting to look stupid, they looked for any way to keep the case going. Really a train wreck from the very beginning.
They cry child pornography first, and use that to justify the search warrants. When they can't find any actual child pornography they will nail you for any violation they can find, so that they appear justified in prosecuting you in the first place. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10429 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||||||||
1) Legally, he did something wrong when he broke the law. 2) His case did not set a precedent, he plead guilty. Guilty pleas do not set precedents. -t |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Tempest
I Run this place. ANN Publisher Posts: 10429 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||||||||
Actually, you've got it backwards. The customs agents (not the postal agents) know the difference between Child Porn and virtual child porn. The reason they searched his house is that, based on the virtual child porn in the mail, they had probable cause to believe they'd find either 1) more virtual child porn and/or 2) real child porn. They could have prosecuted Handley based on just the material found in the mail, but finding more material at his house strengthened their case significantly. -t |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
animalia555
Posts: 467 |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Tuor_of_Gondolin
 Posts: 3524 Location: Bellevue, WA |
|
|||||||||
|
animalia555,
For the US Supreme Court to rule on something, a case has to be brought before it. No case, no ruling. So, first there needs to be a case, then the Supreme Court has to *agree* to hear the case. Only then will it make a ruling. If they don't want to make a ruling on something, they don't agree to hear it. If that happens, the case is returned to the lower court that it came from. Since Handley pleaded guilty, the case is closed. The US Supreme Court wont hear it and wont issue any sort of finding on it. Plus, as tempest said, there's no precedent set for future cases of this type (which are bound to happen, IMO). |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
animalia555
Posts: 467 |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Tuor_of_Gondolin
Posts: 3524 Location: Bellevue, WA |
|
|||||||||
|
animalia555,
Ah. I think tempest commented on that earlier in this thread. At any rate, I misunderstood what you meant earlier. My bad. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
littlegreenwolf
 Posts: 4796 Location: Seattle, WA |
|
|||||||||
|
Ah, boredom.
Say it isn't so, Caravaggio! Say it isn't so! Now I'm going to spend the rest of the evening wondering what else, outside of my doujinshi collection, could get me arrested. Why hello there fine art books. You're now something that may get me arrested depending on how much of a prude the judge is. And I'm sorry to inform you comic by the name of Lost Girls, created by Alan Moore, but if my house is raided you shall be ripped up and flushed down the toilet. If I'm ever arrested for this stupidity I shall spend my time in my jail cel drawing the most disgusting, perverse things I can imagine. And when I have access to the internet I shall post digital drawings done with a mouse to share with the world. Oh nos. That Caravaggio painting is now saved in your computers. But it's censored, so it can't be thought of as pornography! ... or can it? 
But wait, Cupid is a god, so he's not under-aged! It's all ok! |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
egoist
 Posts: 7762 |
|
|||||||||
|
Damn you, littlegreenwolf! You trying to get us arrested or whut?
If I go to jail I wouldn't bother with limiters anymore. Ohh, don't do that, just don't. If they try to rape me in jail, thanks to my very sexy appearance, I'll be forced to kill them, their family, their dogs, and their gladiator mice. Then I'll become something truly dangerous to society, and stray dogs, and gladiator mice, and above all, a danger to talking parrots and cats named after famous people; like my neighbour's Angelina Jolie. What the?? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
BitShifter
 Posts: 23 |
|
|||||||||
I remember when the PROTECT act and similar laws were first proposed, prosecutors said they needed a ban on "Virtual Child Porn" in order to successfully prosecute cases. They defined "Virtual Child Porn" as something created using computer technology to render an image so photorealistic that an average person could not distinguish it from an actual photo of a child being abused. Their thought was that the baddies would "beat the rap" by claiming that their photographs were artificial photoshop creations, and that no actual minors were used, and the prosecution would have to prove the genuineness of the photographic images in order to get a conviction, much harder to do. Still, I could have sworn that the Supremes were not sympathetic to even that argument, saying an actual real child was required. I guess time and tide has already started slippery-sloping the term "Virtual Child Porn" from meaning "computer-generated photorealistic images that an average person couldn't distinguish from a photographic record of an actual crime" towards "something that can be sketched on a cocktail napkin with an inkpen." (How good does the drawing have to be to qualify as "virtual", one wonders?) In that case, surely the US should be seeking extradition of the artist for our most severe punishment. If the simple act of transporting and possessing these drawings could have gotten one man up to 15 years in prison if all charges had been applied, surely the creator would be considered an international arch-fiend worthy of life imprisonment. Last edited by BitShifter on Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
njprogfan
 Collector Extraordinaire Posts: 1171 Location: A River Named Toms |
|
|||||||||
So customs randomly opened a package from Japan? or do they open every package from Japan? Seems to me they'd have to be suspicious from the get-go, or do they not ever get packages coming thru their building from Japan. 
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
DPX
 Posts: 118 |
|
|||||||||
Customs randomly opens packages from anywhere. Personal packages have a much smaller chance of actually being searched than, say, giant freight packages. Handley was just a victim of really bad luck, couples by an overzealous legal system (ex/ average age for a sex offender in the US is 14.) it's not like customs just opens stuff from Japan, if that's what you are thinking. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||||||
The problem is, such "laws" for obscenity cases are arbitrary, highly subjective, and arguably unconstitutional (just like the judge ruled the PROTECT act was in this case as well). The shop owner in Texas who went to jail for selling Urutsukidoji -- I can legally purchase the same elsewhere in the US. The Max Hardcore case, well, that's definitely a worrisome sign, especially the rational the Florida appeals court made, but likewise, I can legally purchase it elsewhere in the US. The same type of material cited against Handley? I can legally purchase the same stuff through JList.com -- just like Handley did. And strangely enough, hentai material that would be very likely be classified as "criminally obscene" depictions of minors, etc. in Iowa by the same prosecutors is sold by Rightstuf ... which happens to be in Iowa. And what about 4chan and the rest of the *chans? The FBI is certainly aware of them -- remember the Sarah Palin yahoo account hacking case that was done by 4chan user (who ended up being the son of a politician)? While not in the mainstream public eye, 4chan has certainly made into the news often enough.
reminds me of this passage brought up here about the case:
And apparently, from wikipedia: "Many retailers have stated that they will not stock the book out of fear of possible obscenity prosecution," Others also worried about child porn charges as well. Interestingly since it had debuted and endured relatively quietly, Moore aptly summed up the situation:
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Bored_Ming
 Posts: 242 Location: The Edge of ...... |
|
|||||||||
|
I've seen a few comments on how Hadley should not have plead guilty. I think they are a bit unfair.
Standing before the power of the US Government would be quite daunting. The US attorneys office : A statewide procecution rate of 80%-90%. Nearly limitless funds, provided by US taxpayers, when compared to the average citizen. They also have lots of manpower to prepare a case. Average citizen : Gets the justice they can afford. Hadley did not come across as a Bill Gates. If I was under that kind of spotlight I think I would take the guilty plea and pray. Last edited by Bored_Ming on Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group