http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/editorial/...ndley/carl-horn
In the above editorial, we are presented with an interesting topic. a man who had ordered some manga and had it mailed to him had his package inspected, where it was found to contain "obscene" material. quotes from one of the lawyers noted that the content in question was Yaoi, and that the obscene content specifically was that it featured an "apparently" underage character, based on a lack of pubic hair.
Now, I for one do get a bit disturbed by any kind of Yaoi, let alone the shota rape stuff (which we have no indication that this specific material went that far). HOWEVER, I also believe that our freedom of speech and expression is of the utmost importance, and that no person should be held accountable for anything that does not harm others. In this case, that would be a manga which was only intended to be read in the privacy of his own home.
Thus, this begs the question, "are obscenity laws unconstitutional?" Now I by NO means argue be any type of expert of the law, but I do know what I have been taught about the amendments, and the spirit they were intended for. In this case, it is the freedom of free speech and expression granted in the first amendment. Of course there is the argument that these freedoms have their limits. But what are, or rather, SHOULD those limits be? The most commonly cited example is that it is not protected speech to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there is none, thus implying that the one yelling had malicious intent in intending to get the crowd into a situation where they may INJURE each other. So given this example, we may conclude that we have a freedom of speech and expression so long as we do not use it to harm people.
However, how does something that is obscene hurt anyone? We'll use the issue at hand, that of Virtual Child Porn. Now I'll be the first to say pornography of REAL children is horrible, and anyone who has produced said material SHOULD be thrown in jail and added to sexual offender list. For those who purchase/"enjoy" such material, I don't agree that they should be jailed simply for possession, but should definately be required to partake in psychological evaluations and treatment if deemed necessary. After all, last I checked simply being a pedophile was not a crime, but acting on those impulses was.
So what of VCP (virtual child porn), or in our case, manga/anime which features minors ("children") engaging in sex, or at least in "sexually suggestive" poses? Is this protected by the first amendment? I argue: Yes. Why? Because as of yet we do not have evidence that links the creation/possession of said material to the harm of anyone, let alone children. In fact, I recall some studies which found the opposite to be true, that this material allowed for an outlet for these impulses. Furthermore, there is the argument that the vast majority of those who enjoy this manga VCP, or "loli" manga, are not in any way pedophiles. They have absolutely NO interest in real children. Especially on this site I sure we have our fair share of loli lovers. And I'm equally sure that of those people, they are no more danger to children for their interest in lolicon.
So to ask if VCP should be illegal, we must ask why CP is illegal. The answer to that it harms the children involved in it's creation. However, as this same point CAN NOT be true for VCP as there are no persons actually harmed in it's creation, then it should seem obvious that VCP does not meet this restriction of the first amendment.
It is under this same logic that I question obscenity laws. While we may find "obscene" books, pictures, comics, music, movies etc. to be in poor taste, or even horrifying to witness (damn you guro, damn you! >_<), what gives us the right to forbid and even jail someone for not only their creation, but simple possession? These materials do not harm anyone in their production, and the argument that people who see such thisg are more likely to carry out that acts portrayed, whether they be in word, song or print, is questionable at best, and laughable more realistically. The more honest truth being that those people who do imitate such things did not do so BECAUSE of the material, they just used it as a guideline for something they were going to do anyway. And this brings up back to the idea that the law should not punish people for their thoughts, their speech, their expressions, or even their possession, unless these things directly cause harm, and thus violate the rights of others.
This goes back Evelyn Beatrice Hall's famous "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Or in our case we may modify it to "I disapprove of what you read/whack off too, but I will defend to the death your right to read/whack off to it!" XD
so, what do you all think?
In the above editorial, we are presented with an interesting topic. a man who had ordered some manga and had it mailed to him had his package inspected, where it was found to contain "obscene" material. quotes from one of the lawyers noted that the content in question was Yaoi, and that the obscene content specifically was that it featured an "apparently" underage character, based on a lack of pubic hair.
Now, I for one do get a bit disturbed by any kind of Yaoi, let alone the shota rape stuff (which we have no indication that this specific material went that far). HOWEVER, I also believe that our freedom of speech and expression is of the utmost importance, and that no person should be held accountable for anything that does not harm others. In this case, that would be a manga which was only intended to be read in the privacy of his own home.
Thus, this begs the question, "are obscenity laws unconstitutional?" Now I by NO means argue be any type of expert of the law, but I do know what I have been taught about the amendments, and the spirit they were intended for. In this case, it is the freedom of free speech and expression granted in the first amendment. Of course there is the argument that these freedoms have their limits. But what are, or rather, SHOULD those limits be? The most commonly cited example is that it is not protected speech to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there is none, thus implying that the one yelling had malicious intent in intending to get the crowd into a situation where they may INJURE each other. So given this example, we may conclude that we have a freedom of speech and expression so long as we do not use it to harm people.
However, how does something that is obscene hurt anyone? We'll use the issue at hand, that of Virtual Child Porn. Now I'll be the first to say pornography of REAL children is horrible, and anyone who has produced said material SHOULD be thrown in jail and added to sexual offender list. For those who purchase/"enjoy" such material, I don't agree that they should be jailed simply for possession, but should definately be required to partake in psychological evaluations and treatment if deemed necessary. After all, last I checked simply being a pedophile was not a crime, but acting on those impulses was.
So what of VCP (virtual child porn), or in our case, manga/anime which features minors ("children") engaging in sex, or at least in "sexually suggestive" poses? Is this protected by the first amendment? I argue: Yes. Why? Because as of yet we do not have evidence that links the creation/possession of said material to the harm of anyone, let alone children. In fact, I recall some studies which found the opposite to be true, that this material allowed for an outlet for these impulses. Furthermore, there is the argument that the vast majority of those who enjoy this manga VCP, or "loli" manga, are not in any way pedophiles. They have absolutely NO interest in real children. Especially on this site I sure we have our fair share of loli lovers. And I'm equally sure that of those people, they are no more danger to children for their interest in lolicon.
So to ask if VCP should be illegal, we must ask why CP is illegal. The answer to that it harms the children involved in it's creation. However, as this same point CAN NOT be true for VCP as there are no persons actually harmed in it's creation, then it should seem obvious that VCP does not meet this restriction of the first amendment.
It is under this same logic that I question obscenity laws. While we may find "obscene" books, pictures, comics, music, movies etc. to be in poor taste, or even horrifying to witness (damn you guro, damn you! >_<), what gives us the right to forbid and even jail someone for not only their creation, but simple possession? These materials do not harm anyone in their production, and the argument that people who see such thisg are more likely to carry out that acts portrayed, whether they be in word, song or print, is questionable at best, and laughable more realistically. The more honest truth being that those people who do imitate such things did not do so BECAUSE of the material, they just used it as a guideline for something they were going to do anyway. And this brings up back to the idea that the law should not punish people for their thoughts, their speech, their expressions, or even their possession, unless these things directly cause harm, and thus violate the rights of others.
This goes back Evelyn Beatrice Hall's famous "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Or in our case we may modify it to "I disapprove of what you read/whack off too, but I will defend to the death your right to read/whack off to it!" XD
so, what do you all think?