Japanese anime is child porn, rules appeals court
Not all anime is kiddie porn. The stuff he was looking at was, yes, but you left that out.
December 19th, 2008 11:27pm
They also ruled that reading a text email messages that describe illegal acts constitutes possession of child porn. The first amendment argument was thrown out.
Hey, read this:
Kenny, a strapping young man who had just had his 18th birthday, was walking along the beach with Clara, his 17 year old 11 month fiance. "The sand between my toes is so sexy, Kenny, I feel so hot!" said Clara. "Let's do it right here!" said Kenny. Clara readily agreed. Kenny pulled down his shorts and his 13 inch member popped out. Clara went down on Kenny right away. "Ooooh!" said Kenny. "Mgrph!" said Clara!
Ok, you all are now guilty of possession of child porn and could be facing a 20 yr prison sentence.
So, is that reasonable?
December 19th, 2008 11:28pm
"Not all anime is kiddie porn. The stuff he was looking at was, yes, but you left that out."
Have you seen the movie Kill Bill? Answer yes or no.
December 19th, 2008 11:29pm
i wonder if the kiddy porn anime is actually shown on japanese tv. i doubt it.
also, he was in possession of other child porn pictures, plus he had a prior conviction.
but i agree, this is pretty ridiculous. who exactly is being protected by making fake kiddy porn pictures illegal?
December 19th, 2008 11:30pm
How about "The Blue Lagoon"?
How about "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"?
All of these movies depict sex with minors, some very explicitly.
December 19th, 2008 11:31pm
"i wonder if the kiddy porn anime is actually shown on japanese tv. i doubt it."
You are loading the question by calling in kiddie porn.
The same movies he watched are shown on Japanese TV.
The Japanese do not consider it kiddie porn though, but you do. So "is kiddie porn shown on japanese TV" or not? The Japanese say "no", but the shows you call kiddie porn ARE shown. So now what?
December 19th, 2008 11:33pm
A Japanese person, as well as anyone who is not completely Puritanical, would observe that if there are no actual children involved, it can not really possibly be considered kiddie porn.
Jodie Foster was definitely a child when she played a child prostitute in Taxi Driver. Brooke Shields was a child when she played a child prostitute in Pretty Baby. So is that child porn or not? It was a real child and they were depicting child prostitution.
December 19th, 2008 11:35pm
>You are loading the question by calling in kiddie porn.
what, depictions of underage girls being forced to have sex?
December 19th, 2008 11:39pm
>A Japanese person, as well as anyone who is not completely
>Puritanical, would observe that if there are no actual
>children involved, it can not really possibly be considered
of course it is. just as anime porn containing no actual adults is still porn.
December 19th, 2008 11:40pm
90% of females in all japanese anime are depicted as if they are 6 years old. It is the style.
Sometimes you see the "wise old woman" as well, but in between the two there is not much. Even middle aged women with jobs are depicted in little girl outfits with big eyes.
December 19th, 2008 11:46pm
What's interesting is that the law was enacted to stop the defence that any CP could have been photo-realistically simulated.
December 20th, 2008 4:36am
Colm says this is real child porn and people who see it should be in jail:
"A Supreme Court judge has ruled that an internet cartoon, in which child characters resembling those from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts, is child pornography.
In a landmark finding, Justice Michael Adams today upheld a magistrate's decision convicting a man of possessing child pornography after the cartoons - depicting characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie engaging in sex acts - were found on his computer."
December 20th, 2008 5:15am
First, they defended their limitation of our freedom of information gathering as: "to protect the children", and we agreed because who wants to be called a pedophile and locked up?
Then, they showed their true color by criminalizing images that do not show children at all, criminalizing the interest in seeing those images itself- regardless whether you are a pedophile or not.
The next stage: Criminalizing "supporting the terrorists and harming our homeland by the seeing of resistance clips from Iraq, Afghanistan etc.".
And that was their goal all along. They want us to accept the first encroachment of our freedoms (which we accept due to the Child Porn stigma), then the road is clear to expand that accepted encroachment with more and more INFORMATION.
It was a big mistake to accept the criminalization of child porn, but people are sheep and easily (mis)led.
December 20th, 2008 5:17am
This might be the site he was looking at:
Judge for yourself - if you have the cajones to look. Prison might be the result.
Seems to be mostly links to paid sites, but there's enough screen shots there to put you in prison.
Let me know if you actually feel like you are doing something criminal looking at that page, or if you feel more like you are looking at a drawing a 13 year old boy made while doodling in english class.
December 20th, 2008 5:19am
My position: anyone who honestly thinks that that simpsons stuff is ACTUAL CHILD PORN is so fucked in the head that their opinion about anything should be disregarded.
December 20th, 2008 5:23am
I add that in London, this has actually already happened. Muslims have been convicted, mainly because they had "terrorist materials" on their computer, consisting of resistance propaganda movies.
So, what wil be the NEXT stage?
Political materials critiscising the state?
When countries get poorer and the people get more pissed off with their governments, governments react by doing like China and Iran: They criminalize whatever they think they can get away with.
December 20th, 2008 5:39am
The article says he was also convicted for having received a text-only email with imaginary child porn.
So, a 9/11 truther or anyone else can be sent an anonymous email, which makes him end up in jail for "possessing an illegal sentence or sentences".
December 20th, 2008 5:46am
He had three things. Japanese animes, ascii text describing sex, and actual porn photos.
Possibly the actual porn photos are legitimately illegal porn.
But he wasn't even contesting that. The appeal was that the text and cartoons weren't porn. And the appeals court said no, ascii text and japanese anime are "child porn" for the purposes of the extremely harsh sentencing of 20 years in prison, which is far more than most people get for murder.
December 20th, 2008 6:26am
I send you an email: "I fucked my kid" and you go to jail if you can't prove it's not your fault. This can be so easily abused it's frightening.
December 20th, 2008 6:28am
You are right that these sorts of precedents are designed to say down a foundation to eliminate any dissent that isn't contrived dissent.
Your analysis misses though that accusations of pedophilia and homosexuality have been used endemically by totalitarian states in order to eliminate criticism of the state by accusations against ordinary people.
I am sure that many of you have porn in your caches. Can you prove that all the girls are above 18? If not, it would be a trivial matter to imprison you if you become an inconvenience to those in power.
December 20th, 2008 6:32am
Well I mentioned 9/11 truthers (= critiscism of the state - at the very least, the state could have spent a tenth of what that they spent on the Levinsky scandal to research the crime of 9/11).
December 20th, 2008 7:03am