Forum - View topic

NEWS: Christopher Handley Pleads Guilty to Possession Charges

You do realise that makes it even more vauge than just "This is porn".

hikaru004 wrote:

Both are wrong and that's why we have attorneys.

What does 'both' refer to? (just want to clearly understand your post)

Inside the package was obscene material, including books containing visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, specifically Japanese manga drawings of minor females being sexually abused by adult males and animals...

Pursuant to his plea agreement, Handley today pleaded guilty to one count of possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children ....

minor females being sexually abused by adult males and animals...

Well in other fields you do. Munter most likely has a better social background and didn't screw up pre-trial and took the initiative with tx so he gets a lesser sentence. He was lucky in that he was prob only "grooming" and not engaging into anything yet.

Handley screwed up pre-trial. His social background is unknown for the most part.

We also have a virtual child porn law.

Both are wrong and that's why we have attorneys.

But it will be once Viz U-turns on releaseing Bokurano.

a slugboy & a snailboy going at it

redeeming social or historical value

CCSYueh wrote:

a slugboy & a snailboy going at it

CCSYueh wrote:

redeeming social or historical value

I don't know whether you meant those two utterances to relate to one another, but quoting them out of context is fun .

Okay this is weird. I have bought yaoi mangas released here in America where the boys are underaged. But if I would have imported it I would have gotten in trouble?

Child porn was never protected here. If you call this "repressive" then you need to live in a truly repressive country to understand what freedom truly is.

So where the fudge was CBLDF in all this? What's the point of asking to defend him, if he's just going to plead guilty? Or are they going to appeal his case?

ninjapet wrote:

for god sakes people, it's a drawing the person wasn't going to go and kidnap a kid and do it to them.

You don't know that, and we don't know that. Better safe than sorry.

The resolution of the case interprets this differently. It just didn't specifically say the phrase "child porn".

Actually, they are going against freedom of speech. The Miller Test came into existence in 1973, which is too long after the Constitution. Without a proper amendment, it shouldn't be used at all. Thus, everything he had was protected by Freedom Of Speech.

The Miller Test is messed up mainly because depending on where it is done at, it will give different results.

Also, why is porn protected under free speech when it is counted as obscene by most people?

BellosTheMighty wrote:

Also, IIRC, JLIST ships their stuff from a warehouse in San Diego. Which means customs should be nowhere near their shipments to customers. Their shipments TO the warehouse, maybe, but if that happens they'll hit the company.

Local post office still has a say if they suspect something. Handley was caught on an interstate shipping charge after all. The receiver (customer who ordered the merchandise) still gets into trouble.

Officials with the U.S. attorney's office say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement intercepted a package coming into the U.S. from Japan that was addressed to Handley. Inside the package were books containing Japanese manga drawings of minor females being sexually abused.

You wouldn't know that the obscenity case in and of itself is overwhelmingly focused on the fact that the characters were "minors" because you never were there in the court, you never saw the material for yourself, they never released any documentation identifying the material in question, and all the press has ever spat out was loli this and loli that--All we know is he was arrested for several books, some of which containing material involving "minors" in sexual situations. But remember, from what they've been saying, there are multiple titles involved. That raises the question--To what extent did the "minors" come into play? How exactly did we come to the conclusion that all of the "obscene" material had children getting raped, as opposed to say, 2 out of 7 of the books in question had lolis and the other 5 had violent rape between 40 year olds? The only thing we've ever heard from news sources was the loli-based content because that's what brings peoples' attention: It doesn't give us a clear picture of the situation in any way, shape or form.

The superseding indictment describes the images at issue in counts one through four
as follows:
one or more drawings or cartoons, that depict a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct, and is obscene, and 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, oralgenital,
anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between person of the same or
opposite sex, which lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value.

Not to mention it doesn't change the fact that the PROTECT Act was thrown out and that it says he was specifically charged for possessing "obscene materials", rather than "virtual child porn". The wording of his "crime" is very important. If they were one and the same, why would they need to even bother going through the lengths to prove that it was in fact obscene?

(...)

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"

mk2000

That may be true if freedom of speech was considered absolute in practical terms, however, in the United States as well as in Britain and other countries this is not the case. Freedom of speech carries with it limitations set by the nation. In actuality, when applied, not all types of content are protected.

Before the Miller Test there was the Roth Test which determined obscenity, and several cases (Rosen vs US - 1890s, Roth vs US - 1950s) prior to the Miller case upheld convictions on obscenities and reaffirming that such that were defined were not protected under the First Amendment.

It should also be noted that it is the Supreme Court that administers the Miller Test and has the only say as to whether or not a material is considered obscene and prosecutable.

Pornography is also not protected under the First Amendment. Despite the prevalence of adult pornography across the nation on both the state and federal level there has been a crack down on viewing and distribution of pornographic material.

One example case: Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton - 1970s. The US Supreme Court upheld a Georgia ruling to prosecute a theater that showed hardcore pornographic movies to consenting adults who were also warned by the theater that what they were watching contained hardcore material.

This case reflects attempts to counter commercialized obscene material.

This will require further digging, but based on the the Lawrence Stanley article, section 1466 was created as a result of the protect act. I suppose this is where the whole "don't expect law top add up" thing comes into play. I don't really understand the difference between the protect act and 1466a. On the one hand we have the fairly specific language put forth in the protect act itself (1) and then on the other we have the broad language put forth in section 1466a (2). Until I have the history of 1466a outside of the Stanley article, and why it exists, I can't comment further on that aspect alone..

EDIT: Re-read the article, that answer all but one question. By what rational is the government allowing itself to regulate obscenity?

ArthurFrDent wrote:

Federal law prohibits the possession of any visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct, including drawings, cartoons, sculptures or painting.

Leave it to the AP to misquote this law out of context. The law is based on realistic children, not those clearly distinguishable as a cartoon character.

Graphic design tools are so powerful, rendering a life-like child in a sexual manner is also prohibited, especially if one can not distinguish the difference between an actual photo and a made up one.

The law was based on the notion an actual child would be used as the model. Never did it occur to the lawmakers the imagination doesn't require an actual model.

Josh7289 wrote:

Honestly, I'm getting a bit scared of what's going down in this country. Serious question here... Is there any place in the world that enjoys similarly high standards of living as the US but also is free of the bullshit kind of thinking that makes lolicon just as illegal as real child porn?

We did have this ruling last year. The one that sets up Handley's demise probably.

You might want to try countries that haven't ratified this document yet. A more detailed version can be found here with a later addition found here.

Japantor's discussion on this case has comments from someone who claims to be a close friend of Chris Handley's (posting under the handle "AnimeFriend"); the gist seems to be that Handley's lawyer didn't put up much of a fight and even half-assed the plea bargain.

And finally, this is disappointing: http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000390.shtml

Personally, I wish the CBLDF had been running the case, and not Mr Handley's lawyers. I am sure they feel they did the right thing, keeping him out of prison for owning manga and not allowing it to go to trial, but it's a bad outcome all around: bad for him, bad for comics and bad for the First Amendment.