Forum

Did they ever announce what materials he had? Like what manga they felt were obscene?

Kougeru wrote:

KanjiiZ wrote:

R315r4z0r wrote:

The way I see it:

-If there is no victim, there is no crime.
-If there IS a victim, but the suspect is not connected to them via illegal or maniacal behavior, they should not be charged with any crime.

Seriously? "You're going to jail because I don't like your comic book?" What the hell is that about?!

1) Failed logic.

2) It's because I don't like your comic book with kiddie porn.

No failed logic there, except for what you said. I don't like Call of Duty but that doesn't mean it should be banned just because me and everyone else on the jury call it obscene.

I believe the failed logic is that it is either a.) An incomplete argument, missing premises that connect the two statements. I.E. it doesn't flow. If A then B, If B then C and so on. Two statements like that are not in proper form so to speak. or b.) The Two statements are separate, have no relationship to each other and may or may not be false. Let's examine them shall we?

Statement 1: If there is no victim, then therefore there is no crime.
Statement 2: If there is a victim but the act is neither criminal nor "maniacal" then therefore no punishment should be given.

We should see that there might be some problems with these statements as they stand, first let's define victim which has three definitions but for our discussion we will use the first to (religious sacrifice doesn't play into our discussion.) Which are as follows:
1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.
2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.
So we have a confusion to no victim, no crime as we can have instance of ourselves being victims, yet not being a crime. (Seeing a magician perform optical illusions for example.) So you could have a statement like this, If there is a victim then therefore no crime committed. Which sounds very odd. However key here is that victim can include oneself (a victim of my own actions) as I feel R315r4z0r was using a very limited term of victim which, as defined above might not exist, i.e. only external victims beyond the participant involved.

Seeing the second statement we can see instances where one could do something illegal where the victim involved is just the initiator of the act and no one else, and they are punished all the time. (Jaywalking, speeding, drinking and driving.....) and Maniacal is also left hanging as now the situation needs to meet two criterion as opposed to one (Illegal and "Maniacal, which as a standard hasn't really existed. A level of "maniacal-ness" may help prove intent but for legality intent doesn't matter all that much until you get to things like murder (i.e I didn't mean to kill him could be manslaughter if it was the only thing that happened.) So for Handley's case I didn't mean to break interstate commerce laws or I didn't know about x laws is not a defense, and the victim in this? Mr. Handley, simply because of his actions, we need to hold people accountable for their actions.

Now is this an important issue, perhaps not. Do people feel that court systems the world over should focus on the "real" criminals, certainly. However order has to be maintained and viewing certain acts as "normal" when they are degrading/dehumanizing is not acceptable, and there needs to be instances where the law may pursue case we feel are not important, but these things are things that keep society as we know it rolling along in it's orderly fashion.

LordRedhand wrote:

However order has to be maintained and viewing certain acts as "normal" when they are degrading/dehumanizing is not acceptable, and there needs to be instances where the law may pursue case we feel are not important, but these things are things that keep society as we know it rolling along in it's orderly fashion.

So no more violent video games then? Dang, cause Modern Warfare 2 sold a ton of copies. Those games are totally "dehumanizing" too.

Megiddo wrote:

LordRedhand wrote:

However order has to be maintained and viewing certain acts as "normal" when they are degrading/dehumanizing is not acceptable, and there needs to be instances where the law may pursue case we feel are not important, but these things are things that keep society as we know it rolling along in it's orderly fashion.

So no more violent video games then? Dang, cause Modern Warfare 2 sold a ton of copies. Those games are totally "dehumanizing" too.

One shouldn't seek pleasure from taking a life, it's unhealthy, even if it is wish fulfillment.

I'd be concerned that if you thought that running around and shooting people is something that is normal. Even in modern military terms it is not something to be taken so lightly, a necessary evil, but an evil to be avoided if it can be, not something that is glorified, nor something that should be a "jubilant" celebration.

LordRedhand wrote:

However order has to be maintained and viewing certain acts as "normal" when they are degrading/dehumanizing is not acceptable...

You can't degrade/dehumanize a drawing.

LordRedhand wrote:

One shouldn't seek pleasure from taking a life, it's unhealthy, even if it is wish fulfillment.

No one's life is taken in a video game. Nobody's wish to kill someone is being fulfilled.

GATSU wrote:

Gonna open up a whole can of worms with porn in general in that case.

I still would like the titles of what he got busted for. It would help me to understand the crime or lack of one.

Nemo_N wrote:

LordRedhand wrote:

However order has to be maintained and viewing certain acts as "normal" when they are degrading/dehumanizing is not acceptable...

You can't degrade/dehumanize a drawing.

LordRedhand wrote:

One shouldn't seek pleasure from taking a life, it's unhealthy, even if it is wish fulfillment.

No one's life is taken in a video game. Nobody's wish to kill someone is being fulfilled.

You dehumanize yourself if you were actually reading what I typed which is just as bad. And your suffering from a delusion if there isn't some sort of fulfillment involved in playing or reading a fantasy, the hope is that something is gleaned from it to make your life better and improve yourself, not isolate and draw you away from yourself or your humanity.

LordRedhand wrote:

CMB wrote:

Nobody's wish to kill someone is being fulfilled.

And your suffering from a delusion if there isn't some sort of fulfillment ...

There is a kind of "fulfillment," yes -- the pleasure you get from imagining an act of violence -- but this isn't the fulfilling of the desire to kill someone. To do that, you would actually have to kill them.

Quote:

the hope is that something is gleaned from it to make your life better and improve yourself

Does every little thing I do, including my recreation, have to reinforce morality?

CMB wrote:

GATSU wrote:

Gonna open up a whole can of worms with porn in general in that case.

I still would like the titles of what he got busted for. It would help me to understand the crime or lack of one.

How would it help? Your personal view of what is a crime or what?

A play toward "normality", which seems to be offered up by a few posts, as an end unto itself seems rather asinine.

LordRedhand wrote:

I'd be concerned that if you thought that running around and shooting people is something that is normal. Even in modern military terms it is not something to be taken so lightly, a necessary evil, but an evil to be avoided if it can be, not something that is glorified, nor something that should be a "jubilant" celebration.

Care to provide your argument about why shooting people, and by shooting I'm assuming you killing people, is a necessary evil? Does that include murders?

I wonder because it seems like you're taking a very functionalist approach, and a moderate amount of "unlawful" killing also serves a purpose. I also wonder if you would accept as correct and necessary your own status of the unwilling lamb on that altar for the collective.

What would Judge Dredd do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6cyDsuNx_U

Anyway on a more serious note, another thing that makes the sentencing for this guy worse is the fact that murderers and actual rapists get lesser sentences than this guy is getting. For example, some murderers get a five to seven year sentence and a child molester recieved a six month sentence.

Just to clear up some stuff here about what it was that Chris Handley had in his possession here ya go: manga and artworks that contained lolicon ( we all pretty much know what that is) and shotacon (need I explain) and possibly REAL child porn ( this one I'm not to sure of because there are other websites that refute this claim and others that confirm it). Some of the manga he had came from a Japanese lolicon magazine called Comic LO.

P.S. There is no such thing as "normal". The definition of "normal" is completely relative.

LordRedhand wrote:

Megiddo wrote:

LordRedhand wrote:

However order has to be maintained and viewing certain acts as "normal" when they are degrading/dehumanizing is not acceptable, and there needs to be instances where the law may pursue case we feel are not important, but these things are things that keep society as we know it rolling along in it's orderly fashion.

So no more violent video games then? Dang, cause Modern Warfare 2 sold a ton of copies. Those games are totally "dehumanizing" too.

One shouldn't seek pleasure from taking a life, it's unhealthy, even if it is wish fulfillment.

I'd be concerned that if you thought that running around and shooting people is something that is normal. Even in modern military terms it is not something to be taken so lightly, a necessary evil, but an evil to be avoided if it can be, not something that is glorified, nor something that should be a "jubilant" celebration.

Then you might as well ban 90% of all action films and games out there. I totally agree with the violent video game and movie comparison. If we have to make drawn pornography depicting minors illegal because it depicts a moral act, then I don't see how that's any different than showing violent and equally imitateable acts in media as well.

You might as well arrest someone for owning Silence for the Lambs in fear they're gonna chop someone up and serve them for dinner. Arrest someone who owns Gran Theft Auto for being a danger to women and police officers. Hell, ten to one there are some areas of the country that would ban buying Glee or Queer as Folk in fear that those DVDs would spread homosexuality and sodomy.

Haterater wrote:

What gets me in general is that these are just imaginary stuff. Waste of many people's time, money, etc going after him when we could be going after people actually harming real people.

I'll second that. I keep arguing the same thing myself. Even if this stuff disgusts you and you never want to hear about it, you have to at least agree that chasing imaginary crimes depicted on paper takes away from time and resources that could go towards going after actual crimes by the real life bastards that prey on real children.

Last edited by jr240483 on Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:58 am; edited 1 time in total

egoist wrote:

And here we go, another 10 pages with people condemning the man.

No kidding.Really stupid in my view.

HOWEVER if it was real, then he deserves the bashing,but if it's just plain old lolicon hentai or hentai in general that most otakus my myself saved on CDs then I dont see whats the hub bub about.
It aint the real thing so the govt should really start to butt the hell out of it. if it was real i have so sympathy for him but if it's just plain hentai then it's stupid to do that crap and waste taxpayers money on this. Same with baning loli hentai and hentai in general.

R315r4z0r wrote:

The way I see it:

-If there is no victim, there is no crime.
-If there IS a victim, but the suspect is not connected to them via illegal or maniacal behavior, they should not be charged with any crime.

Basically, no one has the right to tell someone else what is considered "obscene." It's like a court evolved form of playground arguments! Fully grown men and women, acting like toddlers, complaining they don't like what that other kid has.

It's not criminal justice. It's not even logical.
What it is is immaturity, a waste of tax payers money, and an excruciating amount of embarrassment for this poor man.

Seriously? "You're going to jail because I don't like your comic book?" What the hell is that about?!

Precisely. This is the kind of Gov't crap that makes co like media blasters and it's 18+ sister site Kitty Media (can't remember his name but i thinks it's the CEO) scared to license really contervisal fanservice series like Kodomo no Jikan and others like it cause in a IGN.com article of the the acquirements for Kitty Media he said that "I'm a real chicken-@$$ when it comes to going to prision."

So let me get this straight:
I got like tons of doujins of Kodomo no Jikan as well as as yuri dojins of Nanoha, and i'm gonna be in jail for child pornography for it?

Or lets say that I'm a head of a co like MB and decide to acquire the license for really conterversial series cause the girls are young and I'm gonna head to jail for that and my CO fined by the FTC?? Really braindead stupid if you ask me.

Thus the reason why I'll NEVER be a Politician.

I'll agree the dood participated in Nonsense and hence fair game, but the legal system wasn't exactly keeping a fair distance away from the House of Nonsense ether.

I mean, dood got re-busted for reading a GaoGaiGar advert for goodness sake.

When it comes to laws, our glorious lawmakers pass law after law in order to show the masses that (1) they are working ever so hard and (2) they care. In the meantime, they never once consider the fallout and unintentional consequences of the numerous laws they pass, mainly because they are all too busy taking bribes and otherwise getting money for the next election.

I buy most of my Japanese manga from Sasuga. They actually pulled the shounen manga "Negima!" off their website out of concern over this legal case (as I documented on my blog). Thankfully, after a couple of weeks, they decided they would be OK but still, I can foresee a time when the corrupt fools we elect and put into government office do things that end up making a manga like "Negima!" illegal unintentionally.

Regardless, while I find absolutely no value in any hentai materials, I don't think they should be illegal.

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Handley's Sentencing for 'Obscene' Manga Delayed

Interview: Voice Actors Rika Hayashi and Hiroki Tōchi Talk About Their New Golf Anime, Tonbo!

Japanese TV Special Ranks Top Anime Songs, as Chosen by Foreign Fans

This Week in Anime - So, Is Sound Euphonium Queerbaiting or Not?

Wonderful Precure! Episodes 1-12 Anime Review

That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime: The Ways of Monster Nation Manga Ends Due to Artist's Health

Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction Part 1 Anime Film Review

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes Game Review

Forum - View topicNEWS: Handley's Sentencing for 'Obscene' Manga Delayed

Forum

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Handley's Sentencing for 'Obscene' Manga Delayed