Forum - View topicFrenchy Lunning Comments on Obscene Manga Case
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
CCSYueh
 Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||
|
Homeland Security's to blame for this one also?
Another thing to thank former President Bush for-keeping our shores safe from the menace of foreign artwork. Wiretaps, torture, why not? |
||||
|
||||
Blood-
 Bargain Hunter Posts: 23769 |
|
|||
|
I have absolutely nothing to add to this discussion beyond the observation that "Professor Frenchy Lunning" sounds like a anime character name.
|
||||
|
||||
enurtsol
 Posts: 14761 |
|
|||
|
Frenchy Lunning - what a name. Reminded me of a college summer roomie once, who was Swiss but we all called Frenchie because he speaks it.
|
||||
|
||||
littlegreenwolf
 Posts: 4796 Location: Seattle, WA |
|
|||
God I loved that description. Had me laugh because I'll be damned if I can even try to describe hentai from an artisitc viewpoint with a straight face, and I'm an art major. Ah well, maybe in a couple years I'll mature more. I didn't even think about all the ukiyo-e books in my collection (a particular Yoshitaka Amano art book can fall in this category too), and some of those are... naughty. Gah. Screw the government. Let them come and arrest me for owning naughty pictures. I'll fight to the death for my collection! Thankfully I think those books/prints can easilly be seen as having artistic merit. |
||||
|
||||
|
Wetall
Posts: 70 |
|
|||
|
Goddammit, not this bullshit "possibility-over-probability" crap again... If this case is really that sweeping, how about we get some third-party legal experts and have them give an independent, level-headed analysis on this issue, as opposed to publishing opinions of some fearmongering activist, or some paranoid industry representative, or that of someone who's actively participated on one side of the case?
I mean, I can agree that this guy was fighting for the right side, but constantly hammering overtly biased opinions towards any particular side of a case like this is only going to make everyone more paranoid, it's going increase the chances of everything being overblown by the fans, and it's going to make the R1 companies (who actually do happen to be wary of what fans have to say) more prone to unnecessarily editing their titles. Has anyone actually heard of the phrase "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"? Our own fears about the possibility of future legal cases pose a far greater danger to the R1 industry than the likelihood of an actual legal conviction. Last edited by Wetall on Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:02 pm; edited 2 times in total |
||||
|
||||
|
littlegreenwolf
Posts: 4796 Location: Seattle, WA |
|
|||
Seeing as Lunning was an expert witness for the case I found their opinion on it interesting and informative. They also put, in simple terms, why Handley was arrested and what we in the anime community can do to avoid a similar case. You seem to have read too much into it and are making a panic over nothing. He wasn't hammering biased opinions, but stating them from a professional scholarly view. |
||||
|
||||
|
Wetall
Posts: 70 |
|
|||
Panic? Are you kidding me? I'm trying to encourage not engaging in panic. Have you seen how worked up fans can get over things like this in the other threads? Professional & Scholarly opinion =/= Unbiased opinion Witness for one side of the case =/= Independent in appearance and in fact in this case I could care less about the guy's credentials--I've seen lots of professional sociologists and economists with PhDs both giving heavily biased opinions with "scholarly" claims that could be up to debate. What I'm talking about is the fact that we need someone who was completely uninvolved in the case and has no prior signs of leaning towards either side of the issue to comment for once. Otherwise, if we get someone who was involved in the prosecution, or someone has a track record in any sort of anti-porn activism, he's going to overblow this case in an overtly positive light. If we get someone who was involved in the defence or has a track record of engaging in anti-censorship activism, he's going to issue an opinion that disproportionally leans towards the "sky-is-falling" mentality. |
||||
|
||||
Joe Mello
 Posts: 2260 Location: Online Terminal |
|
|||
|
Your problem is that you're asking for a human being knowledgeable about art to be completely objective. Do you know how impossible that is?
I found it interesting that he considered fellow Iowans to not be a jury of his peers. It sounds a little counter-productive to the case, though. |
||||
|
||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10420 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
We've tried to get the other side to comment. I'm aware of the grossly unbalanced exposure that we're giving this, and it's not to my liking. I am considering an open call for commentary from the other side. In hindsight, I should have done just that a long time ago. But right now I kinda feel like its time to put this story to rest. -t |
||||
|
||||
|
The_Q
Posts: 57 |
|
|||
I think this is one of the most level-headed statements I heard in regards to this case. Just reading the whole Bund thing on this very forums is a testament to this statement (especially considering how many times Handley was mentioned during it, even though said mentioners seem to forgetthat far more explicit series have been released here in the US, ala Elfen Lied...and Rin, but this is another story). Still, I found this topic to be a very interesting read. Especially the fact that fellow Iowans weren't really his peers (a group of anime fans would be more appropriate!  )
Finally, I'll end my statement with a quote from one of the most powerful and influential person in history: Captain Picard. "The road from legit suspicious to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think" Last edited by The_Q on Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
|
Paploo
Posts: 1875 |
|
|||
|
I wouldn't mind seeing more views on this story from the other side [a lot of it has seemed onesided, and I'm glad to hear that's not what ANN aimed for], and I wonder why many prominent mangaka weren't on that list..... I recall one shojo manga artist taking this sort of stuff really to task a few years ago, but forget her name.
http://www.animevice.com/news/life-after-handley-will-manga-and-anime-in-the-us-change/4010/ AnimeVice just posted an interesting industry round up, and stuff from DMP and Icarus make it clear that kind of material will never be published here, and adult manga publishers are very careful of what they bring over. It would be interesting to hear a psychologists view, or someone from the prosecution... there's another side to this that a lot of fandom sites are overlooking. |
||||
|
||||
TarsTarkas
 Posts: 5825 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||
|
Why do we need to hear from the other side. We already know
what they are going to say. - That the manga did not have artistic merit, thus was considered obscence. I am sure the prosecution thought a lot of other negative things about Handley based on his reading material. The prosecution couldn't nail him on what they originally accused him of, so they got him on community standards. The bottom line is that almost anything can be considered without artisitic merit and thus be labeled obscene, depending on who is judging you or who is on a mission. Not that I am doomsaying, but people should be aware. |
||||
|
||||
Bored_Ming
 Posts: 242 Location: The Edge of ...... |
|
|||
First, I'm not a Psychologist or a Lawyer (or a writer) but I've looked for answers to some of the questions brought up by this and other cases. The current legal definition of peer is that the jury needs to be from the local judicial district (I.E. county). So at this time I can see no consideration given on an online peer group argument. Psychologists have found no "clear cut" connection between the act of viewing pornography/loli/whatever fetish and the act of committing a sexual crime. The Federal Bureau of Prisons did a study and found 100% of sexual crime inmates viewed or possessed some type of pornography. However the study was found be rife with issues and has been retracted. The Center for Missing and Exploited Children came out with a study that said 20%. Then you have study by Chapman University that showed a reverse relationship to viewing porn and committing a sex crime. So at this point no agreed upon causal link has been found it's only been assumed. Anthony D’Amato, a consultant to President Nixon’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Wrote an article stating that in 1970 they found no causal relationship between exposure to porn or criminal behavior. It wasn't until Reagan that the Commission on Pornography found a link. But then Reagan had stacked the deck in his favor and hand picked the commissioners. Something that Nixon did not do. Another interesting point is that there has been an 85% decline in rape in the last 25 years (Source: U.S. Department of Justice • Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey. The National Crime Victimization Survey. Includes both attempted and completed rapes.) While the availability of pornography increased over that time period. Again, causality does not lead to causation but its a very interesting statistic in the biased assumption that a DRAWN manga/loli viewer is going to become a pedophile and attack children. I will draw the line at the 'real' child pornography as that is obviously creating an 'actual' victim. I may not personally like DRAWN lolicon. But I also don't want someone to have their freedom taken away by the Government just because I don't 'like' something that has no real victim. That is the trap in creating a law that just states that 'community standards' rule the day. |
||||
|
||||
Cryssoberyl
 Posts: 240 |
|
|||
Please read more carefully. |
||||
|
||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||
|
^ The point about inverse correlation between the 85% drop in rape with the same increase in pornography, thus heavily disproving Reagan administrations own claims is certainly an important one to make, to at least defend against any claims otherwise.
BUT unfortunately, the whole intent of judging something obscene by "community standards" is nowhere near objective. It's based purely on what a group of people like and dislike, as simple as that. It's the same thinking that leads to certain states banning sex toys still to this day, and previously even certain sex acts like sodomy and oral sex. Of course, most proponents don't see it that way, they see it as something for the greater moral good of society. I'd personally have no problems the any kind of community standard IF and only if they did not criminalize any behavior (which is really the worse part of this whole thing) and were only applied to limit public exposure. e.g. applied to commercials, billboards, stuff on your front lawn, etc. I think there is a valid cause for concern, but not paranoia about it. With regards to this kind of ruling being sweeping -- it is NOT by the nature of obscenity laws in general. They don't ban the material. You'd be in trouble only if someone complains, then the judge, DA and jury all agree. But at the same time, for the exact same material if you happen to get a jury or judge (or an appeals judge) who doesn't agree, then you're off the hook. (.. well, until someone decides to press further; see Max Hardcore case, allowing FL ruling to overrule CA ruling)
Heh. It's interesting how much more prevalent erotic art and what we consider sexual deviancy were in Japan before the Meiji period, before Western trade and influence. Most of the modern ero themes and fetishes trace back up to 1000 years. Ironically it was also a time women actually had more social standing in many ways than later times (up until very recently).
Ms. Frenchie Lunning is a woman btw lol Last edited by configspace on Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group