Forum - View topicNEWS: U.K. Man Sentenced for Prohibited Images of 'Manga' Children
|
Goto page Previous Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Daemonblue
 Posts: 701 |
|
|||
|
I really hate to Godwin a thread, but I think in this case it's appropriate to see how ironic this whole situation has become.
How is that ironic? The same people that push the narrative that any form of child porn, real or not, are those that have pushed to censor Anne Frank's diary. They've pushed to remove the references of her touching herself because she's a minor and other minor's shouldn't read about it. If you don't see the irony in this then I don't know what to say. All I can say is, whenever someone pushes the "think of the children" line, you should be wary, and that is essentially what's happening here. |
||||
|
||||
Juno016
 Posts: 2386 |
|
|||
Because there are perfectly normal people who have a positive coexistence with society and don't intend to harm anyone, including minors, who enjoy the stuff. Some of whom cannot control where their sexual impulses are directed. Others of whom are not even that interested in real minors, but like the artistic representation of things that cannot/should not happen in real life, including sexual illustrations of minors. And even others who might feel attracted to real minors, but are mature enough to recognize the fault in that line of thought and, instead, decide to take their impulses out on fictional material. There are human impulses behind these things, too, you know. You don't have to agree with their personal hobbies, but fearing these people as some sort of sexual predator does society no justice at all. It's ignorant of nature, life, and reality. Unless, of course, you want to have YOUR Psycho-Pass evaluated every time you walk/drive through any public checkpoint. |
||||
|
||||
tuxedocat
 Posts: 2183 |
|
|||
|
My big question is: Why is everyone so surprised this happened? The law has been in effect for a while now.
Where was everyone when this law passed? I don't suppose there will be a ton of otaku filing the British version of a class action to challenge this law in the near future (or far future, for that matter...) 
|
||||
|
||||
Touma
 Posts: 2651 Location: Colorado, USA |
|
|||
I was in Colorado, USA, North America, west side of the pond. |
||||
|
||||
|
Greboruri
Posts: 376 Location: QBN, NSW, Australia |
|
|||
Just because you were unaware that people did not support the law (relates to Extreme Pornography Bill and Dangerous Cartoons Act) doesn't mean others weren't fighting against the law. I thought this commentary from Backlash was interesting;
|
||||
|
||||
Deadwing
 Posts: 174 Location: North Augusta, SC |
|
|||
|
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." - Thomas Jefferson
"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." - The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, France, 1789 "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." - John Stuart Mill That the man who was convicted in this case broke the law is irrelevant. The law itself is unjust and thus should not exist. For something to be illegal it must inflict harm upon others or otherwise place an undue burden on society. Suffice it to say that, to throw out an example, an Eva doujin depicting Shinji, Asuka, and Rei in a three-way (they're all 14, you know) inflicts no harm to anyone. No one was hurt by the creation or consumption of the product. The individuals depicted in the work are mere products of someone's imagination and exist only as lines on a paper and an idea in someone's head. Just because some portion of society, even an overwhelming majority, finds it offensive and disgusting does not give them the right to ban products and activities that do not harm others. |
||||
|
||||
Wrathful
 Posts: 372 |
|
|||
|
Rather than arresting the guy collecting the pictures of imaginary children, they should arrest the actual molesters. Or are they going to turn the blind eye until they are dead like Jimmy Saville? Either way I don't think I can look at BBC like I used to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy8oLVOvi4 Last edited by Wrathful on Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
|
tuxedocat
Posts: 2183 |
|
|||
I was aware that the law existed, though it seemed to be passed with very little outrage from the public. Where were the protests? The link you provided above suggests that there were some questions proposed as the law was being passed, but did nothing to stop its passage. I have always thought that the laws overseeing adult media in the U.K. (and AU, for that matter) are way too draconian. These type of laws would be immediately challenged here in the U.S. as constitutional violations (1st amendment), and would be (vocally) protested. |
||||
|
||||
|
818941
|
|
|||
|
I wonder if the European Union can force the UK, as a member of the union, to repel that law since it's a blatant violation of human rights. Would be one of those few times the EU does something good.
|
||||
Polycell
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||
|
@ tuxedocat: The problem with that is, though the Supreme Court struck down CPPA, the only case tried under the PROTECT Act to conclusion was successful - meaning that bar for "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" is high enough in these cases that a great deal of material probably counts as illegal. What we really need is a court ready to call bullshit on the imaginary obscenity exception.
|
||||
|
||||
jl07045
 Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
|||
It does not violate any EU regulations otherwise it wouldn't come into effect. European Convention of Human Rights acknowledges possible restrictions to the freedom of expression, so the guy would have to sue UK to determine if that law conforms to the Convention. |
||||
|
||||
|
revolutionotaku
Posts: 886 |
|
|||
|
Here's a YouTube video that explains this law in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDjtMgsBuvE |
||||
|
||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11352 |
|
|||
I'm not so sure. Part of the problem with this type of legislation is that people fear that defending such works from censorship implies that they approve of them and/or consume them (we've seen that right here in this thread). Nobody wants to be publicly labeled a pervert or a pedophile, especially for something they're disgusted by themselves. This becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy then, where only the people who have something at stake are willing to speak up on the record. It's the same for other things - if you're not a Communist why would you oppose blacklisting Communists? If you're not gay, why are you fighting for gay rights? People eventually saw the absurdity in that, but we're not there yet on this issue, since as someone else pointed out, anything goes when it's done in the name of protecting the children!. |
||||
|
||||
mdo7
 Posts: 6253 Location: Katy, Texas, USA |
|
|||
|
Mangaska Ken Akamatsu speak out against this case.
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group