'Kay, I just won't read the specific pages again.

Been worrying since the "guy arrested for manga" story here. by Laburnum on 2009-01-03 05:29:00 UTC Reply

Mostly because I heard only recently that UK law prohibits illustrations that could constitute dubious pictures of children as well as photos of it, and a couple of webcomics I read could be borderline - nothing graphic, I hasten to add, but if you ever read "Jack" or "Gorgeous Princess Creamy Beamy" you'll know what I mean. The former has an arc or two focusing on child abuse, and has a couple of pictures of unclothed children, posed in such a manner that you can't see anything, and they're nonhuman and covered up by fur or feathers anyway. Nothing is actually happening, though it's made clear what was about to happen, if you see what I mean, but the abuse is treated as a serious issue and a Bad Thing within the comic's context. The latter comic has an arc involving underage teens standing around naked but not really doing anything dubious.

I did not know that such material was potentially iffy when I read the pages in question, and I don't know when the law passed so it may not have been so at the time. As far as I know, all material in the comics is legal in the US, where it was created.

I want to know exactly what UK law says about such material so I know what to avoid. I know in practice the likelihood of this causing problems is low, but I want to make certain. If it could be a problem I just won't look at those particular comic pages again, and if necessary I'll stop reading the comics in question altogether.

In other news, I'm considering treatment for paranoia :) Really, I just want to know exactly what's what and don't know where to find out.

I think only photographs count by Purplefluffychainsaw on 2009-01-03 12:57:00 UTC Reply

I got that impression from an article I was reading in the Independent about the law against extreme pornography. From what I remember, it was something like "photograph and film, or anything which is indistinguishable from photograph or film".

They were making a fuss about manga, which is neither by Sedri on 2009-01-03 21:01:00 UTC Reply

neither a photograph nor resembling one. That's why everyone's worried.

I got the impression he was in America by Purplefluffychainsaw on 2009-01-03 22:30:00 UTC Reply

And therefore for people out of the USA there was no need to worry. (Mind you, I thought the whole thing was a bit stupid and that there's no way they can actually do anything). I haven't actually looked anything up though so all my info is second hand at best.

I remember hearing that they'd changed it here ... by Laburnum on 2009-01-03 23:36:00 UTC Reply

... so artwork counted, but I don't think anything in the comics is detailed enough to count, so it's not really a problem.

I may not know anything, living in America and all... by Zotz on 2009-01-04 01:30:00 UTC Reply

But if you want to prosecute every case of this, how about prosecuting the child who draws a (admittedly badly drawn) picture of his dream girl on the inside of his math notebook? Or the person who took those photos of Miley Cyrus with her shirt off? Or... The list goes ever on and on, down from the door where it began. (Sorry, Tolkien! Couldn't resist!)

I know the risk is effectively nil. by Laburnum on 2009-01-04 01:59:00 UTC Reply

I just want to not give anyone any excuse.

But yeah, far be it from me to protect the rights of people who would actually harm children, but this particular law would be pretty much unenforceable. Technically it would be illegal for me to draw a stick figure with its "hand" level with the groinal area of a much shorter stick figure, not that that would ever reach a conviction (mostly because nobody could tell that was what it was supposed to be, what with the stick-figure limbs all lumped together). And anime characters all look like very lanky ten-year-olds anyway ...

I guess the best thing to do... by Purplefluffychainsaw on 2009-01-04 11:22:00 UTC Reply

... is to just find a copy of the laws in question. Then you don't have to worry about the ifs and buts (unless you already have and it's obscure, which would just be a royal pain). I think you should be able to find such things online. ^^

In all honestly, though, I would find no reason to worry at all unless they actually manage to jail/punish him for it. If they accuse him and don't get anything out of it then they're not going to try it again.

Wish I could help, but I don't know anything about all this by Sedri on 2009-01-03 06:14:00 UTC Reply

Best just to keep a low profile, I guess.

Asked my dad and he says it's not a problem ... by Laburnum on 2009-01-03 12:02:00 UTC Reply

... because I saw them ages ago and didn't go back when I realised there may be a problem, and it's clear I wasn't specifically looking for the squick.

Phew. Just me being panicky again. Bad habit of mine.
'Kay, I just won't read the specific pages again. by Laburnum on 2009-01-03 10:50:00 UTC Reply

If anyone checks my internet time log it'll be clear that I wasn't looking specifically for them in the whole archives, anyway, and now I'm making a conscious effort to avoid them it'll be okay. It'd probably be perfectly okay anyway, I just wanna be on the safe side. 'Snot like I was LOOKING for potentially illegal material, and I'm sure that'd be clear too because my log would be full of perfectly harmless webcomics and not other dubious material (except some badfic, but I'm pretty certain writing is okay here, and I could point to my sporkings).