×
  • 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: Oregon Laws to Limit Adult Content from Minors Rejected


Goto page Previous  1, 2

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
immortalrite



Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Posts: 56
Location: Yonkers, NY
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:55 pm Reply with quote
I am actually surprised to learn that these laws existed in the first place, considering how liberal Oregon is as a whole. Anyway, good thing they got overturned. Powell's demonstrates their awesomeness once again; after all, if they are willing to stand up for their Holocaust Denial section, I would be seriously concerned if they didn't oppose this. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
littlegreenwolf



Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 4796
Location: Seattle, WA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:06 pm Reply with quote
"fantastical sex scene between Charlotte and Lord Griffin"

That has to be the nicest description of that scene I have ever heard. I think that particular bit of the manga left me a bit disturbed for a while, but it didn't make me love Berserk any less, and it by no means is for children.

Score one for the comic books! Way to go judges who actually think logically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
configspace



Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 3717
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:26 pm Reply with quote
Complete info at http://mediacoalition.org/PowellsBooksInc.v.Kroger

Amicus Brief for some rationale on plaintiff's behalf:
Quote:
However, the Oregon statutes apply to materials which would “arouse normal sexual responses” because their terms contain no requirement that the materials go beyond that in creating a “shameful or morbid interest” in sex.

To find sufficient a mere requirement that the materials may arouse a minor implies that sexual excitement in minors is always unhealthy, shameful, or lascivious. Since the works as a whole must, under Miller, be judged according to contemporary community standards, and since community standards are ever-changing and vary by location, it would be problematic to set in stone a standard by which it is always unacceptable for material to arouse minors.

This is particularly true of older teenagers, who may legally (and with acceptance of the community) view scenes with sexually explicit content in films rated R. For this reason, the requirement that materials have the purpose of “titillating” a minor is not legally adequate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Greboruri



Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 373
Location: QBN, NSW, Australia
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:32 pm Reply with quote
Rukiia wrote:
I can understand it being hard to constantly monitor what your kid is reading, especially in this day and age, but to blame the stores who sell the books? Give me a break. Its their job as a parent to educate their children on what they can and cannot read at their age. Throwing temper tantrums at the book stores solves nothing.
Those more cynical such as myself think that laws like this are just handy way to restrict material that is legally available to adults (and older teens in this case) so much that it becomes unprofitable. Proxy ban really. I've seen it tried many times before. It's almost never really about "Someone please think of the children!". The reality is always "I want this item that can be legally sold banned because it conflicts with my personal morals".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rukiia



Joined: 30 Aug 2010
Posts: 1897
Location: British Columbia, Canada
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:41 pm Reply with quote
Greboruri wrote:
The reality is always "I want this item that can be legally sold banned because it conflicts with my personal morals".


Oh, most definitely. Like with some parents wanting to have Harry Potter banned because they assume it is a book on how to use witchcraft. Laughing

Yet there still are parents who are overly protective of their children that they blame others for when their kids get their hands on "inappropriate material". Like my Love Hina story. That lady went nuts on the retailer when she should have sat down with her kid and educate him on how he shouldn't be reading things like Love Hina until he is a bit older.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
bayoab



Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 831
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:40 pm Reply with quote
einhorn303 wrote:
I'm kind of confused about the laws were, exactly. The "furnishing of obscenity to minors"...wouldn't that be giving books like Berserk to minors? Or is it a law about publishing fiction with minors in obscene situations, or a law about obscenity in comic books?

Just the title description of laws which "Limit Adult Content to Minors" is very hard for me to get my head around.

Either way, this sounds like a victory for free speech.
The law is regarding an older person giving material to a minor, through any means, with the intent being to "brain wash" them. The idea behind the law is that pedophiles will give children content to convince them that they are doing nothing wrong.

The problem is that it was written in such a way that, for example, an older teen giving their sibling a book with some mature content (ex. Beserk) could be classified as violating this law with the only guarantee being the state saying they won't prosecute.

More details here, here, and here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
prime_pm



Joined: 06 Feb 2004
Posts: 2333
Location: Your Mother's Bedroom
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:49 pm Reply with quote
Looks like I won't be making this trail anytime soon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuna49



Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 3804
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:10 pm Reply with quote
Greed1914 wrote:
The trick, as usual, comes down to interpretation of what is obscene. Basically, they're saying that Berserk isn't obscene because it doesn't have hardcore porn. So I guess they're saying Berserk would be more like an R movie?

I will say that I like that the court told lawmakers that they need to come up with something more specific if they want it to avoid court rejection. Considering how the definition of obscenity varies from person to person and area to area, I think it's important that any law regarding obscenity be as specific as possible.


The law is fairly clear on the requirements that something be judged "obscene." The ruling precedent is still, I believe, Miller v California, which applies a three-prong test for obscenity:

1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Most of the jurisprudence since Miller concerns works that clearly meet the description in (2), but might be exempted because of (1) or (3). Works like Berserk can generally be defended as having "serious literary" value and cannot be characterized as obscene under (3). Read the citation from configspace's posting above to see how (1) came into play as well.

You're probably uncomfortable with the "community standards" test as am I. The Max Hardcore case, for instance, raises the possibility that anything transmitted over the Internet might need to conform to the tastes of the citizens living in the most conservative jurisdictions. I'm hoping cooler judicial minds will overturn this verdict upon appeal. Handley might well have been cleared in more liberal jurisdictions like New York or Los Angeles; unfortunately for him, he was living in Iowa.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Xenos



Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Boston
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:02 am Reply with quote
Good to see Dark Horse standing up for itself and free speech in the medium of comics. Though really I think Berserk can be quite pornographic, with both sex and violence, but I still don't see any reason to ban it. Then again I agree with the saying that most television ads are technically pornographic because they don't have any artistic value. And really when you get down to arguing what has artist merit and what doesn't, that's a damn minefield.
yuna49 wrote:
You're probably uncomfortable with the "community standards" test as am I. The Max Hardcore case, for instance, raises the possibility that anything transmitted over the Internet might need to conform to the tastes of the citizens living in the most conservative jurisdictions. I'm hoping cooler judicial minds will overturn this verdict upon appeal. Handley might well have been cleared in more liberal jurisdictions like New York or Los Angeles; unfortunately for him, he was living in Iowa.
Funny. I think the bastard belongs in jail, but not for that and not under that atrocious ruling. With the digital age upon us, such a ruling is very disturbing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the-antihero



Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 726
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:15 am Reply with quote
So kids can learn Sex Ed in school but can't see a infrequent pictures in comics and whatnot.

I wish people who didn't know anything about stuff wouldn't talk about things as if they did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Greed1914



Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 4410
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:34 am Reply with quote
yuna49 wrote:
Greed1914 wrote:
The trick, as usual, comes down to interpretation of what is obscene. Basically, they're saying that Berserk isn't obscene because it doesn't have hardcore porn. So I guess they're saying Berserk would be more like an R movie?

I will say that I like that the court told lawmakers that they need to come up with something more specific if they want it to avoid court rejection. Considering how the definition of obscenity varies from person to person and area to area, I think it's important that any law regarding obscenity be as specific as possible.


The law is fairly clear on the requirements that something be judged "obscene." The ruling precedent is still, I believe, Miller v California, which applies a three-prong test for obscenity:

1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Most of the jurisprudence since Miller concerns works that clearly meet the description in (2), but might be exempted because of (1) or (3). Works like Berserk can generally be defended as having "serious literary" value and cannot be characterized as obscene under (3). Read the citation from configspace's posting above to see how (1) came into play as well.

You're probably uncomfortable with the "community standards" test as am I. The Max Hardcore case, for instance, raises the possibility that anything transmitted over the Internet might need to conform to the tastes of the citizens living in the most conservative jurisdictions. I'm hoping cooler judicial minds will overturn this verdict upon appeal. Handley might well have been cleared in more liberal jurisdictions like New York or Los Angeles; unfortunately for him, he was living in Iowa.


I'm fully aware of the Miller test, but it still isn't very specific. Part two is the only one that is clear. If the act depicted is illegal where you are, then it fits. However, the other two are very open for debate. What defines the community? And what defines having serious value? It plays too loose with definitions for my taste, which is why I like that the court denied this for being overly broad. What gets considered obscene ultimately ends up being a case by case basis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
javeska



Joined: 21 Apr 2010
Posts: 16
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:02 am Reply with quote
This is great news. It's time parents start taking responsibility for what their kids do.

I had an aunt who refused to let her kids even watch Disney. Did she go all psycho when they actually started buying those movies? No.

Parents need to start getting actively involved in their children's lives. Don't blame others because your kid is reading something you don't approve of.

If laws like this aren't rejected then we might as well start going after teachers who teach Lolita in schools. There's arguably rape, incest, and prostitution (if you put your blinders on) in that book. Yet, there are scholars who proclaim it's a great critique on American materialism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GloriousMaximus



Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 138
Location: North America
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:40 am Reply with quote
If parents can't bother to learn about the things their children are interested in... well... those parents need to rethink their priorities.

But I don't see why these big stores couldn't have some of this manga on a list and when they scan the SKU on the computer thing, that the computer could tell them that its a mature title and in some instances, should ask for ID. Since most manga has an age rating on the back the stores could just go by that rating and ask for ID for the 16+/18+ manga. Seems like a simple thing to do, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
prime_pm



Joined: 06 Feb 2004
Posts: 2333
Location: Your Mother's Bedroom
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:58 am Reply with quote
Still, this looks like a good source of customers for Ebay...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tygerchickchibi



Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 1448
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:24 pm Reply with quote
GloriousMaximus wrote:
If parents can't bother to learn about the things their children are interested in... well... those parents need to rethink their priorities.

But I don't see why these big stores couldn't have some of this manga on a list and when they scan the SKU on the computer thing, that the computer could tell them that its a mature title and in some instances, should ask for ID. Since most manga has an age rating on the back the stores could just go by that rating and ask for ID for the 16+/18+ manga. Seems like a simple thing to do, IMO.


Stores have shrinkwraps on 18+manga and even some 16+ titles. Ironically, adult/relationship books are much easier to access. They wouldn't need to scan the SKU for it....

I just find this really odd in itself because series like Twilight are read by 12-13 year olds and have more suggestive themes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group