| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
luisedgarf
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 657
Location: Guadalajara, Mexico
|
 Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:21 pm
|
 |
|
[quote="tempest"]
| icepick314 wrote: | |
A behavioral search is when they keep records of how often material is sent to you from a particular country, and if it occurs often enough, you're flagged as "suspicious." I don't know if the United States does this, but based on my personal dealings with your CBP, I would guess they do.
|
Maybe because it came from Japan, a country defeated by the U.S. during WW2.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
therealssjlink
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 118
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:24 pm
|
|
|
|
Well, we are all going under thanks to ANN's Shinchan ad of Shin standing nude with a [very bad] censor spot over his "private" area.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Josh7289
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 1252
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:27 pm
|
|
|
| hikaru004 wrote: |
| Josh7289 wrote: | |
And with this, US citizens lose another facet of freedom.
What a repressive, Puritan society we are. =/ |
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. |
This isn't child porn.
And I understand that US citizens enjoy relatively expansive freedom, but it could still be (so much) better.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Hon'ya-chan
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 973
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:28 pm
|
|
|
| Mune wrote: | | There are few problems with this case:
1. Postal Office(USPS) is not allowed to search any package, nor tell anyone about items being shipped and to whom.(I know this because I applied for a PO job. Customs, maybe. |
See related video from Homeland Security USA TV show that aired on ABC (Go about 5:45 in): Homeland Security USA s01e04
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
ninjapet
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 1517
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:29 pm
|
|
|
|
for god sakes people, it's a drawing
the person wasn't going to go and kidnap a kid and do it to them.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
KN_guro
Joined: 02 Oct 2008
Posts: 59
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:32 pm
|
|
|
| ArthurFrDent wrote: |
| KN_guro wrote: | | 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? |
um, read up, you could get in trouble NOW for possessing such things, it just happened that his was imported, and hence got searched. That doesn't mean this wont apply to you. |
Well shouldn't it be the companies who are publishing them get in trouble? I just bought what was on the shelves at borders! I shouldn't get it trouble for this.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Hon'ya-chan
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 973
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:34 pm
|
|
|
| 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.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
ArthurFrDent
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Posts: 466
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:35 pm
|
|
|
|
Hikaru004, depends on what you think losing is. It is likely that had they put each of those images into an individual indictment they could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. Pleading guilty to one count is max 15.
"Child porn was never protected here." Is true. But when the definition is expansive, and constantly being ramped up, you are talking a different thing, aren't you? ALSO? These weren't children they were fictitious DRAWINGS of beings that don't exist. Whatever you believe the good or bad in the mind of the beholder, the Law should see a distinction there, and used to. Apparently it doesn't anymore.
ETA: "Well shouldn't it be the companies who are publishing them get in trouble? I just bought what was on the shelves at borders! I shouldn't get it trouble for this" KN
they may well get in trouble, that doesn't change your culpability for possessing them.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
inquis122
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 4
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:40 pm
|
|
|
|
so wait, I just ordered 4 hentai magazines from JLIST, do you think I am in any sort of danger? Their website says everybody is 18 or over, but if the post office sees it and doesnt see it that way, I could be screwed right?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
hikaru004
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 2306
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:42 pm
|
|
|
| Josh7289 wrote: |
| hikaru004 wrote: |
| Josh7289 wrote: | |
And with this, US citizens lose another facet of freedom.
What a repressive, Puritan society we are. =/ |
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. |
This isn't child porn.
And I understand that US citizens enjoy relatively expansive freedom, but it could still be (so much) better. |
The resolution of the case interprets this differently. It just didn't specifically say the phrase "child porn".
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
hikaru004
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 2306
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:44 pm
|
|
|
| KN_guro wrote: |
| ArthurFrDent wrote: |
| KN_guro wrote: | | 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? |
um, read up, you could get in trouble NOW for possessing such things, it just happened that his was imported, and hence got searched. That doesn't mean this wont apply to you. |
Well shouldn't it be the companies who are publishing them get in trouble? I just bought what was on the shelves at borders! I shouldn't get it trouble for this. |
True but in the end it's your responsibility to know the law.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Cait
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 503
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:44 pm
|
|
|
| Hon'ya-chan wrote: | |
You don't know that, and we don't know that. Better safe than sorry. |
That kind of thinking is the very problem here. Saying, "well, it's okay because he might have done something to someone at some point in the future," is not why "depictions" of minors of this sort are illegal. There is only one reason "virtual" depictions are illegal and it is to lessen the burden of proving actual cases of actual child pornography. The law was made vague so that putting actual child predators behind bars was easier. It was never meant to be used in this way and the fact that it now has been, when it is utterly clear that Handley had no actual child pornography in his posession has set a very dangerous precedent that could affect every single person here who has ever so much as looked at a drawing of an unclothed minor.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
VORTIA
 Subscriber
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 941
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:47 pm
|
|
|
| hikaru004 wrote: | | Pleading guilty = losing. |
He pled guilty to two charges, not all of them. That's called "plea bargaining". Yes, for him, he effectively lost in the case of those two charges, but beat all the other charges in the process. As far as legal precedent is concerned, the outcome is irrelevent, at least in court. What the public & law enforcement decides based on this is a different matter.
| Quote: | |
Child porn was never protected here. |
This from the kid with the lolicon avatar. There's a big difference between child porn, which, you know, has a child in it, and a drawing. When they break down your door and decide that Becky MIyamoto strikes far to suggestive a pose, I wonder if you'll plead guilty too.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Wetall
Joined: 20 May 2009
Posts: 70
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:50 pm
|
|
|
| Cait wrote: |
| Hon'ya-chan wrote: | |
You don't know that, and we don't know that. Better safe than sorry. |
That kind of thinking is the very problem here. Saying, "well, it's okay because he might have done something to someone at some point in the future," is not why "depictions" of minors of this sort are illegal. There is only one reason "virtual" depictions are illegal and it is to lessen the burden of proving actual cases of actual child pornography. The law was made vague so that putting actual child predators behind bars was easier. It was never meant to be used in this way and the fact that it now has been, when it is utterly clear that Handley had no actual child pornography in his posession has set a very dangerous precedent that could affect every single person here who has ever so much as looked at a drawing of an unclothed minor. |
Wait a second, wasn't this technically a conviction based purely on obscenity charges rather than the sex involving "minors"?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Lemoncookies23
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 355
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:01 pm
|
|
|
|
This is stupid. Why doesn't the government try and tackle the growing problem of sex in middle school (that occurs between actual people) if they're such "protect them innocent chillen" mongers?
But no, they lock up some hermit who probably never ventures outside for possessing some lewd drawings. And what did they do exactly? Bust down his door and start flipping through his manga collection looking for drawings of underage children? "Hey, Chief, you better come look at this." "Oh yes, I see. She definitely looks underage. Good work, son. Let's bag this sicko."
Last edited by Lemoncookies23 on Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
