Forum - View topic

NEWS: Japan Delays Decision on Manga/Anime in Child Porn Law

'Kay, so pretty much every doujinshi in existence will become illegal?

They aren't putting the whole thing on hold.

Quote:

This year's proposed bill will outlaw the possession of child pornography with up to one year in prison and up to 1,000,000 yen (about US$10,000), but not include virtual depictions in the enforcement.

They are only putting the part concerning virtual pornography on hold. Real CP is being outlawed.

If I draw two stick figures having sex, and say one is an underage girl, then have I created child pornography? Of course not. Drawings are just that- drawings. No child is being victimized by a drawing. It's absurd to consider drawings as child pornography. Putting a pen to paper does not a human life create.

There are a lot of legal things that I dislike and find disgusting. But I don't try to make them illegal just because they don't appeal to me.

If anything, it provides an outlet for would-be child rapists (http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Burns, John et al. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22(1): 1-22. 1999)

There is a "Child Welfare Law" in Japan which prohibits child prostitution. However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed.

Doc Zone (http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/huntingthepredators/) did a documentary on paedophiles and they found those who watch child porn are more likely to engage in sex crimes against children than those who don't.

I seriously believe there are a lot of people out there including some people on these forums who will say one thing yet do another. I think we live in a totally closed-minded society. I'm not condoning child porn but why is it that a naked photo of a child not performing a sexual act considered to be upsetting. It's just a naked photo. I know people will immediately accuse me of being a pervert but I'm seriously trying to have an honest discussion here. Tell me why is that people can't look at the human body in all it's stages. (Again, I am not condoning Sexual acts by children)

penguintruth wrote:

If I draw two stick figures having sex, and say one is an underage girl, then have I created child pornography? Of course not. Drawings are just that- drawings. No child is being victimized by a drawing. It's absurd to consider drawings as child pornography. Putting a pen to paper does not a human life create. There are a lot of legal things that I dislike and find disgusting. But I don't try to make them illegal just because they don't appeal to me.

Obviously, it would be drawings that look like children not a drawing with an age at the side.

So what about all those photographs that Lewis Carroll took of young girls that were often nude? Granted, he is occasionally accused of being a pedophile, but the girls really loved him and didn't feel exploited at all.

Monster in a box wrote:

Sticks wrote: This should be a no-brainer, passing the law will make alot of people happy. But studying the "virtual" law, well, it shouldn't have to be studied for 3 years. I mean, what's the point?? It still depicts the same thing, it doesn't matter if it's a pic or drawn out. And just how many of these "virtual" pics are they going to "study" before a decision is made??? Kinda makes you wonder?? Says the person with the Sky Girls avatar. Passing that law could get a lot of harmless people arrested.

Cute or sexy is one thing, virtual child-porn is another.

If people want to look at porn it's up to them, but anything involving children is sick and wrong, even if it's animated or drawn out. I don't believe it's art, it's just a way to substitute a twisted fetish.

If I draw two stick figures having sex, and say one is an underage girl, then have I created child pornography? Of course not. Drawings are just that- drawings. No child is being victimized by a drawing. It's absurd to consider drawings as child pornography. Putting a pen to paper does not a human life create.

There are a lot of legal things that I dislike and find disgusting. But I don't try to make them illegal just because they don't appeal to me.

You can stop pushing your opinion on people Sticks.


Anyway, Japan should just follow the US congress's rule on it. Which the last 4 times they tried to ban it, it was ruled unconstitutional because it didn't actually harm anyone. So at least us in the US don't have to worry about losing our fan-made loli . That's one thing I like about the US, if it doesn't harm anyone then it's fine.

I hope their study comes up with the same results and they keep it legal in Japan. I mean, the age of consent in Japan is 13 (except in certian areas) and most "loli" is around that age...todderlcon is gross.

There's so much craziness that extra censorship could start. Ooh, wait I know! Combine menstruation fetish with loli! After all, menstruation is a biologically mature activity. You can even use maxi-pads to attract the diaper-loli fetishists. You'll have loli-looking women menstruating into maxi-pad diapers to prove that they're not underage!

All this is just with a few minutes of random thinking. There's no saying how far the craziness could go if censorship actually happened... wait a minute, you mentioned vampires. Do vampires menstruate? How about 500-year old loli vampires menstruating into diapers or tampons and then sucking out the menstrual blood (they are vampires, after all...)?

Ow ow yuck yuck yuck. I don't even like that stuff, so what kind of even crazier things would the guys that actually do like that stuff invent? No more censorship, for the sake of human sanity.

DrizzlingEnthalpy wrote:

So what about all those photographs that Lewis Carroll took of young girls that were often nude? Granted, he is occasionally accused of being a pedophile, but the girls really loved him and didn't feel exploited at all.

I'm pretty sure under US law they would be CP. I'm not sure what views on stuff like that were back then, but just because views in the past are different, doesn't make illegal content legal. People would say that the girl's choice doesn't matter due to their age. Its the same way that you can get screwed over if you have nudes of your 17 year old girlfriend, even though its legal for you to have sex with her anytime if you are under 19 or 20.

Rika-chama wrote:

Monster in a box wrote: Sticks wrote: This should be a no-brainer, passing the law will make alot of people happy. But studying the "virtual" law, well, it shouldn't have to be studied for 3 years. I mean, what's the point?? It still depicts the same thing, it doesn't matter if it's a pic or drawn out. And just how many of these "virtual" pics are they going to "study" before a decision is made??? Kinda makes you wonder?? Says the person with the Sky Girls avatar. Passing that law could get a lot of harmless people arrested. The thing is most people I know who look at loli and/or shota know the difference between reality and fantasy. I'll admit I love loli but I would never have real CP. That's disgusting. If the pictures aren't real then no one is getting hurt. In fact I think you can find that most people who enjoy loli/shota are against real CP.

Who would admit to enjoying CP? How is watching drawn children being raped different from watching real children being rape? People are still jerking off seeing children being raped. They may be drawings but it gives the viewer the same reaction.

vincent iii wrote:

DrizzlingEnthalpy wrote: So what about all those photographs that Lewis Carroll took of young girls that were often nude? Granted, he is occasionally accused of being a pedophile, but the girls really loved him and didn't feel exploited at all. I'm pretty sure under US law they would be CP. I'm not sure what views on stuff like that were back then, but just because views in the past are different, doesn't make illegal content legal. People would say that the girl's choice doesn't matter due to their age. Its the same way that you can get screwed over if you have nudes of your 17 year old girlfriend, even though its legal for you to have sex with her anytime if you are under 19 or 20.

Nude pictures of underage people does not automatically equal child porn in the US. There needs to be sexual acts, suggestive poses, unnatural focusing on gentials, or some other factors to be considered pornography. You could have a picture of a naked child that's not considered child pornography and one of a clothed child that's considered child pornography. Look up the court cases United States v. Dost and United States v. Knox or read that New York Times article someone linked to earlier.