Man busted for Japanese Manga (cartoons) -- cited as "child porn"

Conviction for child toon porn

May be a first for Canadian courts

By TONY BLAIS, COURT BUREAU

In what is believed to be a first in Canadian courts, an Edmonton man has been convicted of importing Japanese magazines containing cartoon child pornography.

Gordon Tshun Chin, 26, pleaded guilty yesterday in provincial court to importing child porn and was given a one-year conditional sentence to be served in the community.

Judge David Tilley told the slight, bespectacled young man he would have put him behind bars, but for the fact the images were drawn and therefore did not involve the actual exploitation of real children.

Tilley was shown an exhibit containing some of the disturbing images and he ordered it forfeited to the Crown.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2005/10/20/1270701-sun.html

This is just unbelievable. What's next, should we bust Coppertone for the old billboards with the dog tearing off the girl's swimsuit bottoms?

how many people read this then proceed to click on the hot blonde "Sunshine Girl" picture on the left to see her in a bikini? I did :spank:

it`s the sun what do you expect? at least they are nude like the london sun, hell they are running "the breast of playboy" with a nude slide show.

Although they could be considered "obscene" and therefore illegal in most states and on the federal level.

So, quasi-legal is more where they stand.

But for it to be child porn - actual children have to be harmed.

bondage fairies comics...and just whay is up with those coppertone ads. how about some of those diaper ads? better call homeland security..well wait till i get rid of my comics...

That's what some of this anime shit is, rape fantasy and child-porn.

I'm not into burning books, but these aren't books.

Who gets to decide? If you want to censor comic books, what would be next on your list? Paintings in the art museum that depict naked children? You seem to be in favor of free speech as long as it's speech that doesn't offend your sense of morality. That's a dangerous slippery slope. No one is harmed by drawings.

censorship blows

Naked children in art museums. Fine. Naked children in art museums involved in sex acts? Not fine and not censorship.

Shall we ban Lolita and the Blue Lagoon too?

then half-drowned in a blast of tentacle-cum, then yes, I'd be okay with it being banned/.

take-over of America too.

so when they ban sex-ed websites that teenagers could access, don't be suprised.

There's just no rational excuse for the promotion of this shit you hide under the label of comics.

I'm just curious....

If it is tacking on an extra penalty to a crime because of the motivation for that crime, then no.

If it is an immediate incitement to violence - then no.

But speech is speech whether you agree with it or not. So yes, I am against Canada's model of hate speech laws.

not hate crimes which are a whole other magilla.

I just wanted to see how "absolute" the free speech was and bravo to you for your consistency...it is certainly not foolish.

corporatism, what's your point?

Like I'm some huge corporation. and I don't deserve to make a living apparently, either.

And I'm sure that the people drawing these comics are part of some of Japan's largest corporations.

Geesh.

Does Bandai ring any bells?

Granted Bandai stays away from the real risque subjects, but you wanted a name, yuo got it

Yeah right. :eyes:

Good ideas, bad ideas, propaganda that suits OUR goals is OK - type of fascist.

There's simply no excuse for this filth, the only thing you've shown concern for is your pocketbook

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have to sell child porn too? What the hell?

Even if it is comics.

Is a mainstream bookstore owner supposed to have read every book that he sells?

Once you start creating abitrary "good porn" - "bad porn" catagories, and deciding the bad porn should be illegal, you create a chilling effect on ALL porn.

Which is exactly what we have today, and why I am the only full service adult retailer within 30 miles.

If you want a vibrator in this town, it's me or spencers gifts. If I didn't sell movies, it would just be spencers.

If you don't know what you are selling, then how should anyone else?

Hey I don't have a problem with porn, and folks selling it. I drop a few dollars on it occasionally myself. But if you're selling the kiddie porn, then yes you are responsible, regardless of the size of your inventory.

Geesh. It wouldn't get picked up into the adult distribution stream if it was.

Thats what I was really commenting on.

and not know it - they might be rather upset. Since that is not what normal people go to the store to buy.

If I were to buy porn - I would like to have some idea about what I was getting - and I would expect the proprietor to have some idea about what he was selling.

How can I get it through to the anti-porn anti-any-type-of-sex-I deem inappropriate crowd that CHILD PORN is not part of the ADULT industry and does not reach the distribution chain?

:rofl:

I cannot approach this topic seriously after reading your post.

a symbol and its referent are not the same thing.

I hate the idea of allowing it but also see the necessity.

A grownup wearing a diaper and having sex in a fetish video is portraying a baby by those standards. A grownup in pig tails wearing a school girl's dress and having sex is portraying a child having sex.

Confusing the symbol and the referent, even with a cartoon, is just plain STUPID. I would expect my chihuahua to confuse the symbol with the referent, not an adult.

would be more likely NOT to confuse a symbol and a referent, I bet. If, while dressed as a schoolgirl, I held up a picture of a schoolgirl, my cat would know who feeds him.

If I dressed up as a schoolgirl my chihuahua would probably call the police. :P

So what if it's a drawing of an eighteen year old that happens to look like the drawing of a fourteen-year old?

Grown women wear 'school girl outfits' for their lovers all the time. Should their lovers be arrested for simulated pedophilia?

When you support crap like this, you minimize the horror of REAL PEDOPHILIA. The reason why child pornography is a horror is because it hurts ACTUAL CHILDREN. Children are not a 'concept' or 'drawn' or a 'cartoon'. Being attracted to something that APPEARS under the age of eighteen' cannot be a crime, unless you want to jail short, flat-chested 18 year old's boyfriend.

While you focus on all this drivel, real children are being molested by people who have never heard of 'japanese manga' and would not be interested in it.

Get over it.

Grown women wear 'school girl outfits' for their lovers all the time.

should wonder why this grown man likes to get off on pretending he's fucking a school girl....

what, can't he get it up with real women?

The only appropriate sex is some new-agey healy-feely grand idea of intimate oneness. All other sexual practices should be banned immediately.

I sell a sexy nun outfit you might be interested in...

everyone who disagrees with you is a prude, or a religious fanatic. Did I say anything at all about "all sexual practices"? No I did not.

I just wonder about why some people need children or childish women to get off? If you feel you have to be imaginative and play dress up because otherwise sex is boring, then why not dress up as adults? The knight and his damsel (or two knights or two damsels) or a pirate and a wench, or cop and prisoner? There are many scenarios that involve various kinds of authority and/or dominance-submission games without having to pretend someone is a child.

I still say if you have to imagine or play at sex with children there is something fucking wrong with you.

Because tons of women LIKE pretending to be a schoolgirl. It's pretending to be innocent and cute. It's PRETENDING. Do you know the difference between real and pretend?

Maybe you should butt the hell out of people's sexual imaginations.

and actually, I would never know what was in people's imaginations unless they made it public, fucking duh.

ETA: and I do wonder about the women who would play along with this crap...

I've been to the comic-cons, and have seen the stuff they sell behind the curtains - it's all about young schoolgirls getting violently fucked/raped. That's how far I'm willing to take this, if you get off on that shit you need your nuts cut off.

having their body parts cut off?

Censorship is censorship period - which is different than banning the actual filming of a crime.

And how far do you think the religious right would like to take this?

I was listening to some hate radio on the way in to work this morning, and they were discussing high-school car washes (you know girls in bikini's) being the same and possibly illegal in Texas as prostitution.

That's not prostitution, that's poor judgment. Teenage girls think that if they put on bikinis, they will get attention from teenage boys and guys in their early 20s. They essentially think older men's testicles drop off sometime between 25 and 35, so they have absolutely no comprehension that they are turning on men old enough to be their fathers. They'd be totally skeeved out if they understood that, and so their advisors ought to explain that little fact of life to them and make them put on a shirt. There should be a rule against schools exploiting the ignorance of children, but that rule should apply to military recruiting, too.

That's how high school carwashes work as fundraisers.

Some of the manga is appalling. The rape stuff is very borderline for me, but the child porn manga should be banned, and it is appalling that anyone on this board is arguing with you on this. This is not a censorship issue at all; it's not allowing the sexualization and exploiting of children just so some sick fuck can get off. I don't care if it's pen and ink drawings or photos. This is not a First Amendment issue.

And, the "same sex website" argument is bogus. I'm gay, and one has nothing to do with the other. There are some issues that EVERYONE can agree on -- Left, Right, etc., and protecting children is one of them.

and also a right to privacy issue.

But as long as you find it appalling, we can go ahead and ban it. Let's climb on that slippery slope and see how far not having a right to privacy can take us.

How exactly does banning this material protect "children"? Don't come back with some anecdotal evidence you are calling "data".

No children are being exploited, as you claim. These are drawings you're talking about. You're advocating censorship- at least be honest about it.

bravo!

You wrote...
There are some issues that EVERYONE can agree on -- Left, Right, etc., and protecting children is one of them.

I am a former foster parent and an adoptive parent. I'll tell you- once you see a child who has been subjected to abuse you will never forget it. It is our responsibility as sane, caring humans to keep children safe...even if it means the limitations of some of our "freedoms".

They think they're trying him for copies of a Sailor Moon book.

Since you have admitted to viewing violent cartoons, I assess that you are a threat to children. I intend to report you to the police. Yeah, yeah, you didn't 'enjoy it', that's what all the viewers say.

naked photos of children.

I agree this is a slippery slope though...

This isn't like child porn, where children are being exploited. This is just a comic book or a cartoon- it's a piece of artwork, whether you like to call it that or not.

There really is no difference between what you're advocating and what any of the book burners or "degenerate art" critics of the 30's advocated.

Talk about a victimless "crime".

to drink and vote.

It's a DRAWING, however disgusting to the rest of us.

If the drawn SYMBOL of a child involved in a graphic sexual act is enough, then likewise a grown woman dressed in a cheerleader's outfit or a school-girl's uniform or wearing a fetish diaper should also be enough.

The only saving grace is that Canada DOES regulate "decency" in porn, and actually is fairly self-consistent about it for the most part.

but wasn't some erotic STORIES website shut down here in the US recently? That is, the written word. No pictures.

There is a huge issue of child porn and child prostitution in Japan and other asian countries due to the obsession with finding sexual objects they think are "clean". Anime has a dark side, sorry to say, and that is portraying young girls sexually. Some people don't want to admit that, or are so focused on claiming censorship that they don't see it is, sadly, another form of sexually objectifying young girls for men's pleasure. As far as this being a "victimless" crime, wrong. Child porn, or cartoon child porn, feeds the appetite of sexual predators and helps them along to non-paper targets. It also grooms a generation on the sexual objectification of young girls. Tho some will claim that these are "of age" characters, that's total BS. They are portrayed in almost every way of being around 14.

I'm sorry that the good anime and manga is being sullied by the porn stuff.. but I honestly think that the porn type stuff came first for the enjoyment of Japanese businessmen.

you are denouncing internal mental ideas as a means to control uncertain future external events.

Do the ends justify the means?

when they draw it on paper and distribute it.

If it was only an internal mental idea, no one else would know about it would they?

I find its public distribution most abhorrent.

to put on paper and distribute?

I was disputing the claim that porn is an "internal mental idea" once it is put on paper and distributed.

And I got no problems with banning this, from your article:
Bilodeau said the animated child porn images seized from Chin were very disturbing.

"These images are very disgusting and very violent. There are pictures of babies in diapers being raped," he said.

It would be a record of a crime, and I would have no problem with banning it.

But once we cross over to depictions the line becomes very fuzzy indeed.

Won't be long before we're dealing with purely fictional, 100% invented imagery that's indistinguishable from the real thing. We're already mostly there. I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist, but I have no idea how we're going to handle realistic virtual kiddie porn.

I find video game images of goons shooting hookers and cops and gays on a joy ride to be disturbing too, but I don't think we should ban it.

If "disturbing" was adequate criteria then imagine a world where www.whitehouse.org was disturbing enough to be banned, or half the articles on The Onion. We'd practically have to have a whole Department of Banning with a cabinet position here in America, if "disturbing" was the criteria.

America never was Ozzie & Harrietville. Now THAT was disturbing television fiction, and should have been banned ;)

who actually enjoy or want to look at ANY kind of this:
"These images are very disgusting and very violent. There are pictures of babies in diapers being raped," he said

fantasizing about it is sick, enjoying looking at depictions of it is sick.

All those who are posting about slippery slopes and banning this or that portrayal of adult sex or adult nudity, or even just nudity of children are just getting hysterical.

Why are people so worried that there might be one less thing they can masturbate to, no matter how sick, liking baby raping? I can't believe there will ever be a shortage of "normal" adult porn for people to sell and profit from and for everyone else to use to help them masturbate and fuck.

Get a damn grip on yourselves people.

I'm sorry if not being able to sell or look at baby raping means someone loses business or goes out of business. That happens all the time, whether your business is porn or typesetting or book manufacturing. Things that are beyond your control change all the time and maybe suddenly know one wants your product, or someone comes up with a better way to manufacture it. Adapt or die.

Play by the rules in America or leave, or stop calling it America.

Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. Get the fuck out of my bedroom and stay there. If that means I have to inadvertantly support a freak who jerks off to cartoons about babies, then so be it. I'd rather take the bad with the good than throw the cartoon baby out with the cartoon bathwater, and quite frankly, I don't want people like some of the loonbirds here on this very website to set the standard for decency for anyone else.

Get a grip yourself. Once again, people are confusing a symbol with a referent. Cartoon baby raping is sick, yes, but in the end no real humans were harmed that THAT is the legal standard. Period.

MY goodness, maybe we should also start making women wear burkas just in case us manly men are driven into uncontrollable fits of cartoon Booby McNipple lust just by being exposed to a bare ankle or nostril.

Glad you're on my side.

NT!

Of works that become illegal when depictions are illegal.

When you make an idea taboo it only increases its appeal. Would you like adult entertainment to become more women-friendly, better produced, better acting, better storylines, etc? Then work to make it LEGAL.

And it is a slippery slope. The first Obscenity law (the Comstock law), which was passed because people were all upset about "French postcards" was used against Margeret Sanger and her pamplet on Birth Control.

So don't tell me there is no slippery slope. And nudity of children is already illegal. Just go try taking some bathtub pictures of your kid to your local Walmart and wait for the cops to show up at your door.

I grew up in Germany with American Dad, and nobody thought ANYTHING of nudity in my family, and not in a defiant nudist sort of way; casual nudity and sex are not the same thing in Europe.

It's just meaningless - everybody has one of those and they're all more or less (I make funny) the same.

Why do we always have to accommodate the lowest common denominator?

By American so-called "decency" standards, my parents would have been locked away for life, and although I turned out to be demonically possessed and can't eat onions without farting uncontrollably, other than that, I'm pretty much okay.

:P

If Americans weren't so damn repressed and uptight about EVERYTHING we probably wouldn't have as many child molesters and people who would rather die than show their doctor a lump on their boobs or nuts.

I feel that I should be arrested for owning (and reading!) a copy of Ovid's Metamorphosis. Greek and Roman literature portrays a bunch of so-called 'male gods' violently raping women and changing them into strange animals.

This is INDECENT. I want it OUT OF MY CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS and OUT OF MY HOME. I was just reading it and I demand to be arrested immediately!

Was I reading it for its creativity or was I reading it because I am a rape-loving pervert? Apparently, the jury will decide.

In the book, Marquez's characters falls in love with a nine year old girl. Literary prizes be damned, I want this filth banned from my home.

Child pornography is made into a JOKE in this tasteless movie! Last time I checked, there was no right to LAUGH at child pornography written in the first amendment. And to back me up, many people were offended by the movie, which proves that director Todd Solondz should be arrested for this filth. Equally, anyone who attended the movie and was aroused should be arrested. Since we don't know who was aroused, let's check video rental records and see how many perverts we can jail.

These arguments hold NO WATER with this issue.

This is a case of people creating and distributing depictions of illegal and violent acts for PROFIT.

If you want to sit around and fantasize about children being raped, than one cannot very well stop that. But when you are in the business of distributing materials to aid pedophiles in their fantasies, than one very well can and should stop that.

This is an inarguable issue for me. As a parent and as a molestation survivor.

Didn't you just describe every action movie cranked out by Hollywood? It's what they do: create and distribute depictions of illegal and violent acts.

I think that most people do recognize that the glorification of child porn is on a different plateau.

For the record, I'm very much against censorship in general. But on issues such as these, I cannot waver.

When you can't make a distinction between a cartoon and the real thing.

You know the purpose, I know the purpose, everyone knows the purpose.

And yes, I AM very much against censorship. I do draw the line at depictions of child pornography. For me, personally, that will always be an issue that I can't see as simply a freedom of expression.

What is the purpose of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

Are certain hollywood movies training materials for serial killers, bank robbers, terrorists, etc.?

Why is it that in most cases people can look at something and say "it's only a movie", but once you include sex it becomes something different?

Especially these works that probably have more art, more story, more litterary value than the average 4 hour vanilla sex tape that is my bread and butter?

You know, when you make something taboo, you only increase its appeal. Once the obscenity laws are overturned in this country and porn becomes legal, the quality of the product is going to go way up - because a large body of it won't be about shock value and it will be more about the entertainment value.

soem of it is very sexual... soem titles are down right disturbing

I work in popular culture and trust me, that is an issue

So I wonder what exactly was he importing?

(and I have a good idea)

contributes to sexual crimes. At least not from real academic studies.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9504659/

I love how when it comes to porn, the Religious Right's talking points flow so freely on DU :sarcasm:

that manga is not all cute and cudly... there is some that is quite disturbing

you can't lump child porn into the general "porn" category.

typed too fast - edited typo

it is a drawing.

So, should a porno with a woman in a cheer-leader outfit be banned too?

How about a story consisting of only words?

Where do we draw the line? Personally, I like to draw the line at the actual filming of a crime.

getting raped and torn to pieces only to be consumed by chopstick-weilding parents? Is that still just a drawing?

Absolutism leads to totalitarianism. Isn't relative moral opinion one of the defining characteristics of liberalism?

Does that also lead to totalitarianism? I'm talking about the idea that NO idea, no matter how it's depicted, must ever be censored. That's absolute.

Not banning ideas leads to more diversity of ideas.

Disturbed, creepy, product of a deranged mind maybe, but yes - a DRAWING.

How about the movie "the Texas Chainsaw Massacre"? Is it a film or an incitement to violence?

based on RL events... even you could argue a documentary

Point is NOT ALL MANGA Is nice and cudly and innocent... and some of those pieces belong in NC 17 settings

and in most places you could be arrested for disseminating material harmful to juveniles if you sold it to a minor.

But the incitement to violence is just a religious right talking point. See my post above.

I have seen the studies, and I really don't know

Treated a kid once who was stabbed by his brother 15 times, after he watched a 20 hour marathon of a very violent movie... was it the movie, the kid has issues or the movie triggered it, I don't know

The victim survived, and the older brother ended in the system...

but after seeing that, I no longer know, regardless of how many studies you show me. It has something to do with the kid on two large bore IVs, Oxygen and a code 3 run to the trauma unit that makes me wonder about that...

Drawing, video, film, photo.... sorry, it may legally make a difference to some, but not a REAL difference. A depiction of a child being raped by an adult is child porn, and a sexual exploitation of a minor. There si really no way to justify this, imo.

Under your standards, Lolita and I'm sure many other classical works would be illegal.

And if you don't think pedophiles aren't buying this stuff, you're completely mistaken. I've SEEN some of this stuff -- skeevy.

:eyes:

as there is linking porn to pedophilia.

So yes, it is a good comparison.

..guess what gets carried out of their house by the boxload? There is no place in society, (and I don't care what some of the censorhip police here cry), for sexually brutal "entertainment" that demoralizes and dehumanizes children, women, or anyone. That is not entertainment, that is an illness.. enjoying the pain, torture, or submission of another human being.

degrading or dehumanizing. But I doubt if your local evangelical prosecutor can tell the difference.

Just keep telling yourself that... and hope for the best. And why, exactly, do they end up carting boxloads of violent or pedophole porn out of perpetrators homes when they are aressted for sexual assualt or murder?

We're not talking plain old porn. We're talking porn that depicts violence or children. BIG difference. Glad to see that you're a defender of objectifying women and kids. That type of pseudo-intellectual babble is what makes 99% of women and girls feel unsafe walking alone on any street.

In that case, we can ban all sorts of things.

Rock music
violence in Hollywood movies
The lifetime TV network

Once you start dividing DEPICTIONS into good -which should be legal, and bad - which should be illegal, where do we draw the line? Am I supposed to watch all 1700 movies in my ever changing inventory to see if I am offended?

This is exactly the chilling effect on Free Speech that I have to deal with on a daily basis.

And yes, there are some companies which I don't personally carry, because I find their product distasteful. But I don't think they should be illegal.

And it is your type of pseudo-intellectual babble that makes me afraid to open my store in the morning. Fact is, you have no proof of any causal relationship between porn and violence, and the only researchers who come to that kind of conclusion are people like Dr. Judith Reisman who claims that porn releases "erototoxins" directly into the brain and is highly addicting.

Do you want to ban all depictions of violence, or just in porn?

frightened by the fact that there are people in this world who get off on the idea of bruttally fucking children, even babies in diapers, do you? Real, cartoon, CGI - it's not even necessarily the makers who frighten us, it's the users. There are people in this world who get off on seeing babies brutally raped. That doesn't bother you at all, does it?

The slippery slope is the issue.

And when you make a cartoon illegal for a "bad idea" then where does it end? When you say that this idea or that idea should be banned, you provide fuel for the religious right to take that further and further.

Don't forget that the first obscenity laws in this country were used against Margeret Sanger and her birth control pamphlet - at a time when nude postcards were all the rage.

And as far as ideas go, Hollywood comes out with all kinds of disturbing ideas - should we ban them too?

I've never been a fan of anime much less any depicting child porn but I can see where you're coming from.

I went through a period when I just got tired of formula films and wanted to go through a period when I saw saw out of the mainstream. I started with a recommendation from a friend to watch Audition by Miike and then I went through his whole catalog. To put it mildly, there are some highly disturbing images and themes running through his films. Then I got turned on to a film called Irreversible which was a pretty thought provoking film but featured probably the most brutal and realisitc rape scene I've ever seen. Just harrowing. So are we saying these films shouldn't be made because the depict brutality against women?

So I agree with you. At what point do we draw the line? I happen to think that Bill Bennet's book on Virtue is obscence especially since he thinks aborting all Black babies is ok to ponder.

that guys like Bill O'Reilly do when they condemn the ACLU for defending the KKK? You make the insulting suggestion that anyone who would dare stand up against the idea of burning porn that offends you must also get off on that porn, or at least be indifferent to child rape.

It's a thuggish tactic I don't expect to find around here- but porn certainly brings it out.

You say it's not the porn that bothers you, but the existence of people who want to buy it. What do you want to do to them? Lock them up for thinking about things you don't like? Kill them, castrate them, something like that? You're talking about drawings.

I get called all sorts of nasty things on DU....

And I know what you mean. :P

NT!

won't change those people one bit.

I'm with Mongo on this one.

by Robert Jensen

"..So, we live in a world in which men sell women to other men directly. And men also sell women to other men through mass media. These days, women are sometimes the buyers. And on rare occasions in recent years, women are the sellers. That is, there are women who consume pornography and a few women who make it. In this society, that's called progress. Feminism is advanced, we are told, when women can join the ranks of those who buy and sell other human beings.

All this is happening as a predictable result of the collaboration of capitalism and patriarchy. Take a system that values profit over everything, and combine it with a system of male supremacy: You get pimps and johns, and pornography that is increasingly normalized and mainstreamed, made into everyday experience. Because it's profitable in a capitalist world. And because men take it as their right to consume women's sexuality in a patriarchal world.....

When one asks such questions, one of the first things one will hear is: These are important issues, but we shouldn't make men feel guilty about this. Why not? I agree that much of the guilt people feel--rooted in attempts to repress human sexuality that unfortunately are part of the cultural and theological history of our society--is destructive. But guilt also can be a healthy emotional and intellectual response to the world and one's actions in it.

Johns should feel guilty when they buy women. Guilt is a proper response to an act that is unjust. When we do things that are unjust, we should feel guilty. Guilt can be a sign that we have violated our own norms. It can be a part of a process of ending the injustice. Guilt can be healthy, if it is understood in political, not merely religious or psychological, terms.

Buying women is wrong not because of a society's repressive moral code or its effects on an individual's psychological process. It is wrong because it hurts people. It creates a world in which people get hurt. And the people who get hurt the most are women and children, the people with the least amount of power. When you create a class that can be bought and sold, the people in that group will inevitably be treated as lesser, as available to be controlled and abused...."


http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/jensonjohns.html


"If empathy is part of what makes us human, and pornography requires that men repress empathy, then we have to ask a rather difficult question. While men watch pornography, are men human? "

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&masculinity.htm


This is a liberal viewpoint. It is perfectly liberal to care about people.

You might be confusing libertarianism - the kind that says people can do whatever they want - no matter what the consequences to others - with liberalism.

So who gives a fuck what Jensen says. I like his books on war, on this subject he speaks of what he does not know.

One academic book means nothing! Please!

I think he makes a lot of sense. And if you read the links - he describes his research.

How much sense is there to the argument that people must support the rights of crazy, anti-social people to see rapes of children so that their right to "freedom of speech" is upheld?

Nobody will admit to wanting to see rapes of children, everyone seems to agree that it is perverted and disgusting. Reasonable people should be able to set limits.

I think the Canadian law makes a lot of sense. The Canadians also seem to do a better job with feminism from what I have heard. I suspect it's related.


------

DEFINITION OF "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY"

... / Making child pornography / distribution or sale of child pornography / Possession of child pornography / Defence / Defences / Other provisions apply.
163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or
(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.163.1.html

It shut down a lesbian bookstore. A bookstore for women who are trying to express their sexuality to other women.

Jensen is no expert. He's a communications professor that saw a porn once and was 'horrified.' He's just a well-spoken man with an opinion.

People like you would jail the whole S&M community. Your ideas would lead to further abuses and silencing of gays and lesbians, the banning of our books and literature.

Sometimes you have to learn to live with concepts that you don't like. Pornography is a concept. It is actresses. If you care about the real people behind the photograph, then ask them about their working conditions. Your are lost in symbols and images of womanhood.

wants to replace one set of oppressive values with its own.

And your 2nd link takes the worst examples and tries to pawn it off as mainstream. It also characterizes the industry as "using children" which we all know is not true. So what a great example you site of a credible source.

And which is the more liberal viewpoint?

Telling consenting adults what kind of entertainment they can produce and controlling what consenting adults view in the privacy of their own homes

or

MINDING YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS AND KEEPING OUT OF THE PRIVATE LIVES AND BEDROOMS OF OTHER CONSENTING ADULTS?

vs.

the Strict Father figure?

I see the restriction of child porn as being part of the Nurturing Parent model (liberal).

While the porn industry itself seems to encourage the Strict Father (who can do whatever the hell he wants - including watch child porn) as the conservative model.

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

The Nation-as-Family Metaphor

The Nurturant Parent Model.

"The family is of either one or two parents. Two are generally preferable, but not always possible.

The primal experience behind this model is one of being cared for and cared about, having one's desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from one's community and from caring for and about others.

People are realized in and through their "secure attachments": through their positive relationships to others, through their contribution to their community, and through the ways in which they develop their potential and find joy in life. Work is a means toward these ends, and it is through work that these forms of meaning are realized. All of this requires strength and self-discipline, which are fostered by the constant support of, and attachment to, those who love and care about you.

Protection is a form of caring, and protection from external dangers takes up a significant part of the nurturant parent's attention. The world is filled with evils that can harm a child, and it is the nurturant parent's duty to be ward them off. Crime and drugs are, of course, significant, but so are less obvious dangers: cigarettes, cars without seat belts, dangerous toys, inflammable clothing, pollution, asbestos, lead paint, pesticides in food, diseases, unscrupulous businessmen, and so on. Protection of innocent and helpless children from such evils is a major part of a nurturant parent's job."

Moral Pathologies

"But Strict Father morality does not have empathy as its highest principle. Instead, Moral Strength is its highest principle and Moral Empathy is relatively far down on the list. But the metaphor that Morality is Strength allows experiential morality to be overridden regularly. Strict Father morality allows one to impose experiential harm on others in the name of the abstract metaphorical principle that Morality is Strength. In short, Strict Father morality allows you to hurt people in the name of morality. That violates experiential morality, which is the foundation of every abstract moral system.

It is the Strict Father model of the family that, under the ubiquitous Nation-as-Family metaphor, gives rise to the resentment of government "meddling" and the conservative hatred of government, and it is the application of discipline and denial in child rearing that produces conservative rage. When tens of millions of people are daily told that Strict Father morality is the only morality and that their rage is justified, the result is bound to be not just right-wing militias with automatic weapons and bomb-making capacity, but eventually action upon that rage...."

-------

I think Jensen's argument follows the liberal ideal better than yours - no matter how loud you try shout.

They cart REAL CHILD PORN out of these folks' houses. That's why REAL CHILD PORN should be banned. You can't prove the age of a drawn character.

That you can find in households with no one arrested, or no pedophiles in residence?

I studied up on this in regards to a criminal case I was interested in. I went to the websites - I would say a good 80% were teenage or collage age boys, some girls too. It's very shocking. Have the crimes against children vs 16-25 y/o adults gone up? Are there any studies? These also get passed via email... I have some that were sent for shock value to me. Am I suddenly a pedophile? Has that happened because that image existed?

I think it's BS - These are drawings, just as music is music, plays are plays and movies are movies. How bout the Toadies? They have a song about a serial killer of women from the killers POV. I like the song, I like the creativeness, I like the lyrics, I like how it works. There was also a movie about the south with Jennifer ... blah can't remember her name SWF, she's a really good actress. She was a single mother with a daughter who they depicted being raped by the step father. I guess that was KP.

Again, this is a BS charge. I am an incest survivor and I don't think my father EVER saw Manga, Hentai, or Anime. What was his excuse?

Maybe we should ban it. Or food altogether. No more sexual predators at all.

I know I'm arguing into absurdity, but your claim is absurd. You're talking about drawings. Government has abolsutely no place censoring it's citizens' drawings, writing, painting, etc.- none.

There are plenty of religious zealots out there who would like to ban or destroy every painting that doesn't look like a Thomas Kinkade. If you get to do it, why shouldn't they?

and to certain "progressives" here on DU.

If I'm not breaking the law or causing harm to someone, stay the fuck out of

1. my bedroom
2. my house
3. my head

At all times.

Seriously. Nobody is in denial - it's gross nasty stuff that guy has. The person who collects it is very probably a child predator risk. But I'm not willing to let the government tell me what is art, or what I can or can't depict in an illustration or drawing or painting or sculpture AT ALL, because someone is disturbed by A FUCKING CARTOON!!!!

A cartoon. Really.

There is no slippery slope - nobody is being harmed. It's disgusting, and I gravely disapprove, but nobody is being harmed, whether I like it or not.

and I wish the Dems would adopt the culture of mind your own business.

But they aren't actually rape. Just as cartoon depictions of murder aren't actually murder. In both cases, creating and possessing such material may be grounds for putting someone under observation and insisting on therapy (and I'm not so sure about that), but they shouldn't be treated as crimes. It seems to me that criminalizing drawings or ownership of drawings (even drawings that move!) is a sort of thought-policing. What if you draw your own disgusting images, and someone finds them? Would Canadian courts find that also to be a sex crime? But all you've done, that you hadn't already done inside your brain, is abuse an unfortunate sheet of paper.

I wonder how graphic these things really were. In Japan, all sorts of acts are portrayed in anime, but the law is that sex organs can not be depicted. So, usually there are tentacles or glowing things or an ambiguous empty spot. And anime porn addicts frequently have no interest in sex acts involving real people--they are entirely focused on cartoon representations. If only we could get all child sex perverts to entirely focus their desires on cartoons and be turned off by real children!

the themes are horrible - especially the rapey vines and abuse of underage girls (and/or boys).


however - it is still "art" and since no live models are used, it can't really be considered a violation of anyone's rights.


decency laws could apply - but i would see it as a violation of first amendment rights. and like it or not, we all have those.

Pedophilia is the witchcraft of this century, the response has been hysteria and the erosion of criminal law and civil rights.

meet a minor you chatted with online, but really it was an adult FBI person. You did not commit a crime, yet you are going to jail. Similarly, I recall a story of a child molester who was caught drawing naughty pictures (he was on parole I think) and they bounced his ass back into jail. Weird.

Bilodeau said the animated child porn images seized from Chin were very disturbing.

"These images are very disgusting and very violent. There are pictures of babies in diapers being raped," he said.

they need a really good therapist.

trust me, they don't... the manga they have is pretty mild compared to what the judge was looking at

The stuff that was seized is not being sold at your local barnes and nobles.

aisle installed nex to Sci Fi, with the lables of Manga - rows and rows

Thought it was the same thing, but, since I do not read it, it very well could be Manga - other.

Manga is just a lable for comics out of Japan

:)

If you ever watched Robotech, that is manga... now some of what is produced (just like in the US) is pornographic and quite violent... as I said I work in popular culture and I have to balance what I put out with my target market...

Oh other examples of it, Yu Gi Oh and Pokemon, them are manga too

Manga are Japanese comics, but just like American comics there are tons of different genres.

Your statement would be akin to saying every movie in the DVD section at Best Buy is hardcore porn. First of all, there's no way in hell you'd see porn movies in a mainstream store like that. Secondly, just like movies, manga runs the spectrum of genres: comedy, kid-oriented stuff, science-fiction/fantasy, horror, romance, action, and yes even porn.

Not trying to come down on you, just trying to educate you a little. Seems to be lacking on this thread.

It's not the Fruits Basket and Sailor Moon stuff.. .this is hard core depictions of sexual violence against childlike characters. This is NOT what (hopefully) middle school children love to "read". That would be like comparing an R rated or PG13 rated movie to a snuff film.

Please see my post downthread.

however (despite, or maybe because of, posting from a country with pretty strict censorship where hantai anime gets censored pretty harshly) I don't think this should be illegal. Skinner has said it best, so I won't begin to compete.

I'm into yaoi, and have some pretty hard manga and OVAs. While I am mightily squicked by shota I have downloaded it by accident on occasion Not to mention the fact that most of the yaoi fanfiction I write is about a clear statutory situation (Sephiroth x Cloud, if you know what I'm talking about).

This is getting ridiculous. I don't agree with the view that says shota/loli stuff is the same as real child porn though I am sure there are some sickos who read/watch it and abuse real kids. I just get very nervous whenever people use things like this to justify censorship, because sooner or later the mob justice mentality takes hold, the hysteria grows and people want to go after everything.

Edit: There seems to be an awful lot of ignorance about manga in general on this thread and sexually explicit manga in particular, so let me state some facts. Almost none of the US manga companies will even license explicit hentai and yaoi manga, when they do it ends up heavily censored and shrinkwrapped, and you sure as hell won't see it in the Manga section at Borders/Barnes and Noble/etc. It's only very recently that explicit yaoi manga in general has been licensed and uncensored, the only real company doing it is Central Park Media under the Be Beautiful imprint. Even then, it is shrinkwrapped, covered with all kinds of 18+ labels. I've never been able to buy them outside of anime cons and online shops and I've always been carded. And this is sexually explicit situations between grown men. If anything they go out of their way to make sure everything is on the up and up, I've seen yaoi manga where I knew one of the characters was 17/18, technically of legal age and in the English translations they were made to be 19 or 20.

I have yet to see a loli or shota title that has been licensed over here. US companies simply won't touch the stuff (and I don't blame them, I hate the crap myself). Most loli and shota that I've seen sold over here has been doujinshis (Japanese fan-made comics featuring characters from various anime and manga series, not all of them are sexually oriented, it's like fanfiction and spans the spectrum of themes). I have never in all my years of fandom seen a doujinshi sold anywhere except online and anime cons, and while there is shota available it is always in the distinct minority of titles.

Out of laziness brought about by a long midterm today, I'm going to sum up my view by saying I agree totally. :hi:

We fandom types need to educate folks before the hysteria takes hold.

Good luck on your midterms. :hi:

and reasoned post Chovexani. I bow to your voice of reason.

I reallly know very little about the genre. A company called Nutech has been dubbing some titles into English (usually with porn star voices), and releasing them into the US.

I never watched any of them, most of them are serials, with 4 or 6 titles in a series. Judging by the box covers, they do have some shocking content. They started hitting the adult market about 9 months ago.

Just another thing for me to worry about. Oh well.

I don't know too much about hentai (I have some yaoi anime but that is legal and purchased at cons and I don't watch hentai), but I've never seen stuff like that in mainstream channels. I'm guessing these are smaller non-anime oriented companies that have licensed that the really shocking stuff (ie adult video companies branching out into animated stuff, as opposed to companies who license nothing but anime). I only know of one really shocking hentai title that was licensed by a US anime company, but it wasn't lolicon, it was just some really uh, hardcore fetish stuff that is illegal in a couple of states, and the illegal content was censored out of it.

The point I was trying to make is "anime child porn" is just not the epidemic people are making it out to be, at least outside of Japan. Really shocking stuff is extremely difficult to come by. The article said that the guy who was arrested imported that manga from Japan, which is really the only way to get the uber nasty stuff. I frequent several Japanese bookstores here in the NYC area and you simply can't get that stuff here.

I'm a visual artist. To me, this is a problem. Yes, I have seen the worst of manga/hentai and I completely understand how this is repulsive to people and is probably used by pedophiles. The issue here is whether or not a child has been harmed by the creation of an image. That, to me, is what constitutes child pornography, since photos of kids in bathing suits in a Sears catalog are also used by pedophiles and no one is going to be arrested for having a catalog.

My fear is that this sort of reasoning, that an artists rendering can be viewed as sexually exciting by a pedophile or anyone else we don't want to "encourage" can become a dangerous game of reading intentions and motivations into any art, regardless of the artist's purpose. I can create images that people would find disturbing or violent or dark, but it is not my intention to encourage others to act out violent or anti-social behavior, it is self-expression. Who is going to judge what is legitimate self-expression and what is not?

not itself a violation of another's rights, and THAT, IMO is the crux of child porn: its production necessarily violates another's rights.

A drawing doesn't do that, any more than drawing a person being beheaded or shot actually harms another.

are all about freedoms until you get to icky stuff (almost always involving sex or naughty words) and then we're as hard haired fiery righteous bastards as any freeptard ever was.

I don't LIKE flag burning. I don't LIKE videos that show fuckers shooting prostitutes and policemen and queers and on the mean streets while pretending to be a badass übercriminal, but I don't think we should ban it.

I especially don't like this pure shit of a cartoon depiction of a sex act with a child, and I would keep a very careful watch on someone who through misfortune demonstrated probable cause to do so, but banning that in general terms is MORE wrong than allowing a freak to get his jollies by owning a cartoon.

I agree with you.

When I read all of these post by people who don't know the difference between symbols and reality, I get very afraid for my freedom. I'm a writer, a lesbian, and a sex worker. Eventually, I'm sure I'll write something 'too indecent' to be in the public eye.

That's when half of DU rallies puts me in prison. Scary stuff. When even the most intelligent and reasonable people let their emotions get in the way of freedom of speech.

There's all kinds of speech and depictions that I hate. But I deal with it.

And people are obviously having very emotional reactions to this. It's natural, since we are talking about child pornography/pedophilia here. I just have a couple of observations.

1) What happens when CGI characters become so real that we cannot distinguish between real and animated characters? CGI is already so realistic that it would be VERY distrubing to see CGI child porn.

2) Maybe we should be glad that Joe Pervert is getting his rox off on FAKE kiddie porn instead of the real stuff? (counterargument: who cares, he's a sick fuck who needs extermination anyway).

3) There was a case a few years back in which a man was arrested & charged for having EROTIC FICTION INVOLVING CHILDREN in his possession. {I googled but could not find a link.}
Stuff he wrote himself.
Not pictures.
Stories.
Not that he distributed or downloaded, but that he wrote for his own private, ah, "use".
That is a 100% thought crime.
(counterargument: who cares, he's a sick fuck who needs extermination anyway.)

Damn that slope's slippery.

...one could also make the same argument about drawings of murder, or cannibalism, or any number of equally vile acts. All are prohibited activities in real life. All *might* be enjoyed by 'preverts' of various kinds. Shall we prohibit drawings of ANY illegal act? What if Jeffery Dahmer had drawings of cannibalism in his house? Is that proof that the drawings enticed him to eat people?

You can't really make the argument on the 'sexual interest' factor. Try this: Google ANY word in the dictionary followed by the word 'fetish' and I'll bet you find something, if not entire websites devoted to it.

And THAT is why our conservative Supreme Court threw out the law against it -- not because they enjoyed that sort of thing (except for maybe Justice Thomas...) -- it's because they simply couldn't make a legal argument for it (which considering all the other crap this court has done, has to say something).

Yes, it is a very slippery slope.

Very dangerous precedent.

If it becomes illegal to create or possess fictional depictions, graphic or written (see Boiled Angel), of criminal sexual behavior for the purposes of titillation, will it also become impossible to create or possess such depictions for instruction? Would a person writing a novel about the damage done by sexual abuse be in violation of the same laws? Would "The Prince of Tides" then become illegal for showing a rape scene?

I don't like the lolita stuff, either. The blurring of lines between child and adult in most anime, whether the sexualization of childlike characters or the depiction of children as curiously parentless and responsible for the fate of the world, disturbs me greatly. However, the idea of a badly written or easily bent law that could remove any depiction of sexual violence against children from fiction disturbs me more. A person who's been a victim of such violence, who sees a fictional depiction of it, at least then knows that "it happens to other people". With no fiction available at all, the isolation of a victim just increases. No, the hentai tentacle porn doesn't help anybody, but in order to preserve the helpful fiction that is out there we might need to keep the dreck, too.

I gotta say that if this had happened in the United States, this would and should be protected by the First Amendment.

I think we all agree that child molesters and child pornographers are the lowest of the low, as are consumers of child pornography. So let's not confuse the issue here and act like protecting speech is the same as agreeing with what is being said. To offer a common example -- we can defend the right of Klan members to engage in bigoted speech without agreeing with that speech.

The purpose of laws against child pornography is to protect children -- and that is as it should be. But this is not pornography involving children; it's drawings. If it can be demonstrated that obscene drawings of children do in fact put real children in danger, then maybe there would be a constitutionally sound justification for banning these drawings. But lacking such evidence, we cannot know if it is dangerous. In fact, it is arguable that this type of thing might actually give pedophiles an alternative outlet for their fucked-up appetites. I, for one, would prefer that a pedophile molest a book rather than a child.

The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that the majority finds repugnant. If the First Amendment only protected speech that everyone agreed with, there would be no point in having a First Amendment at all.

In fact, the principle of freedom of speech, and the First Amendment in particular, are what make this website possible. Freedom is a good thing. I am a big fan.

(I know, it's an ironic viewpoint coming from a guy who spends all day censoring people. But I'm not the government.)

The mob mentality in this thread is scary. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

I'm not sure I would call this thread scary. People are rightly disgusted by child porn, or anything like it. But I must admit that I was expecting freedom of speech to get a little more support on a progressive website.

BTW: I think I may have killed the thread. I do that sometimes just by showing my face.

Child porn is disgusting, but what is scary to me was how many people are eager to ditch the First Amendment. Especially when it's something they know little if anything about. It's just a sore point for me to see a legitimate artform being painted with such a broad brush, even going so far as to suggest the minority of disgusting stuff was the very reason it was invented.

I'm just tired of constantly having to defend my hobby.

bringing to mind the threads regarding the Klan rally gone bad in Toledo last week.

I was amazed at how many people here were more than eager to strip free speech away from others with highly unpopular views.

Just like freeps and fundies would like to do to us....

That was probably the most well-argued, concise response to this issue that I've ever read, and I for one am AGAINST that diseased "hentai" garbage.

But I must admit that you are right. Law enforcement efforts need to be concentrated on the exploitation of REAL children, and desperately so.

Maybe if Miers goes down in flames I might get a shot at the big time. I've been sending Bush cards every day telling him that he's the "Best President EVER!!!!" I'm hoping that might do it for me.

As things stand now, in most states and under federal law, any explicit work can be charged with obscenity.

Certainly, a zealous prosecutor could get a conviction on the works in question in most jurisdictions.

And, of course, the First Amendment is open to the whims of 9 people, not all of whom are big fans of freedom.

I'm not constitutional scholar, and I don't know where the law currently stands. But I do know that the court did rule on a very similar case, and found that "virtual child porn" is protected by the First Amendment (Check out the name of the case):

It doesn't exempt them from obscenity law - yet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x3574

you make an exceptional arugument, as repulsive as the subject matter is. Being a survivor of molestation makes this an especially hot button issue for me.

I certainly understand why many people find this to be a very difficult issue, and I imagine it is much more difficult for survivors of abuse. We are talking about truly repulsive stuff. People should find it extremely offensive.

I was raped and there was no KP or Anime in my house. There wasn't even dirty magazines - Just a drunk father.

Nevertheless, I am vehemently for the first amendment. These are drawings, not depictions of real crimes, no matter how disturbing.

You've pretty much nailed it.

In the words of Justice Kennedy...

"Virtual child pornography is not "intrinsically related" to the sexual abuse of children. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts....

That the evil in question depends upon the actor's unlawful conduct, defined as criminal quite apart from any link to the speech in question, establishes that the speech ban is not narrowly drawn. The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles' appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it...

Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited." (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 2002)

the porn industry, I find this stuff not just repulsive, but it negates anything the porn industry is trying to achieve. I am ok with porn. I believe many women that are involved are not victims. They use their bodies and their sexuality to make them money. It is empowering for them. Some do it for ten years and then retire. IT sure as hell beats whoring at corporations and getting your pensions stolen in the final inning. I don't knock it. More power to them.

But this kind of predatory psychopathical bullshit (pedophilia, rape, killing sex, etc. I don't know the correct terminology for some of this stuff) rides on those coattails and tries to hide behind it.

Now, I realize that no REAL live kids were harmed in these cartoon books. But it is no longer JUST a thought. It is concrete on paper. And that is how it works. After paper, it becomes speech or acts and then repetition. I believe these presumed "no harm" cartoon books are just the fodder a pedophile or run of the mill sex nutbag needs to commit the very crimes on those pages.

But when it comes to stuff so pathological and predatory, I have no problems with a zero tolerance approach. The banner of free speech should not be ABUSED by psychopaths trying to justify or manipulate to appeal to their pathology or soulless opportunists dipping into the dregs of society.

Considering that you are in this industry and make money off of it, I find it odd that you would support something that risks your business interests. The interest and money the industry stands to make off of this deeply underground stuff is miniscule compared to stuff like Girls Gone Wild and Debbie Does Dallas.

Supporting this nonsense gives your opponents fuel to claim the illegitimacy of what you do in the porn industry.

Because Larry Flint said nearly the same thing about the extreme associates case.

My position is that it is a freaking cartoon! It is fantasy, not fodder for a child rapist. If you start going that route, then doesn't the Texas Chainsaw Massacre become fodder for serial killers?

What is the difference between the two?

I may find it distasteful, disgusting and not my cup of tea, but I still defend the right for it to be sold.

I have my personal opinions on horror flicks with gruesome violence.

But the difference between the two is that the killer is portrayed as a killer. He's the psychotic BAD guy. Predatory killing is NEVER ok.

The guy screwing the child is just another guy with a "special" kind of fetish. But NOT all sex is bad.

unless it's Rambo killing towelheads.

How about the game grand theft auto? Your role is to be the bad guy in the game.

So, if there is a cartoon depiction of child rape, is it OK if the rapist is portrayed as a bad guy?

mind. That is why he is on a killing spree. But the essence of that movie was not about the thrill of taking a life. It was about a war hero who was dumped by his government after using and spitting him out. So, he wasn't actually a bad guy as he was a victim of war and government exploitation.

I'm not sure how to respond to the grand auto theft game as I don't know anything about it. But I guess from the name and your comment it is about the player stealing cars? While that is stupid and wrong, this isn't an analygous comparison. I'm talking about protecting people. Not property. And that is a different discussion.

To answer your last question, I'm not entirely sure if it would be okay or not if the rapist is portrayed as a bad guy. It would depend on how it was done. Was it graphic? Were there gratuitous pedophilic sex scenes? Was the message that pedophiles are sick and need to be reported and put away?

Because if it was focused on just the act of penetration and someone getting their rocks off while inflicting violence on a child, or if it glamorizes the power a pedophile or anyone gets from rape, then I have to wonder why it was made and who are they pandering to.

And if they are pandering to pedophiles and rapists, then NO, it is not ok. They would be ENABLERS in my book.

:applause:
:toast:

I love Japanese cartoons! They are always sexual!! ALWAYS...


varying degrees of graphic...

Two kinds basically ... .
Homoerotic ones meant for little girls (Boys in love appeals to japanese girls, its just cultural and very inocent)

Boobs for boys. Also tons of muscles. Boobs and muscles and Batman and Robin stories. My favorite is a one about a milk maid. Hilarious...


shit this is WHACK!! Robert Smeigal watch out!


to the FBI: no I don't possess any of this stuff!

What do we do about the artists who create greusome violent images? Charge them with murder or assault? Look out Stephen King... you're next!

Don't you care about the drawn children? The velveteen rabbit became real, maybe these children will become real, too!

Let's ban horror movies, books, comics, war movies, anything that features women in a negative light-- including porn produced by women for women and lesbian images of their own sexuality.

Support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

http://www.cbldf.com/


Chris