Subject: Just found this...
Author:
Posted on: 2008-12-14 23:36:00 UTC
A link to Neil Gaiman's blog with his opinion on the issue, which is far better than anything I could say.
-
OT: But, what... by
on 2008-12-14 14:58:00 UTC
Reply
Taken from the yshare comm on LJ:
[News] Collector faces a possible 20 years in prison for possession of obscene effects...
Christopher Handley of Iowa, USA was arrested about half a year ago for buying manga. One day, he receives 7 volumes of manga from the post office because he ordered them from Japan. The authorities follow him home because they already investigated the volumes and deemed them "obscene" and "objectionable." He is arrested, and they confiscate his whole collection: DVDs, manga volumes, VHS tapes, computers, etc. And now he faces a trial and up to 20 years in prison. All for ordering manga.
Baka Updates
Iowa Collector Charged For Allegedly Obscene Manga
Lawyer indicates Manga In Iowa Obscenity Case Are Yaoi
What do you guys think of this? This is a man who has legally purchased manga, unlike many others (myself included) who download it via sites like the yshare comm on LJ, and he's been arrested for it and could face up to twenty years in prison.Why do I keep forgetting that "lj user=" is an LJ only code? -
*nods and glowers* by
on 2008-12-19 06:25:00 UTC
Reply
Anybody looks through my hard-drive and I'm screwed for my manga scan collection. I made a donation to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund recently. It's about all I can think of to do, really.
-
Well... by
on 2008-12-16 17:13:00 UTC
Reply
One thing this isn't for me is surprising. While America has its (quite large, mind you) share of good people, among which I can count the American Boarders (Thank whatever God may exist for that), there are also ignorant bigots (fools that they are) in the country; the government officials who are proposing a ban on gay marriage and the people who Didn't Do the Research regarding videogames and Real World violence (just so you know, surges in the popularity of violent videogames coincided with the drastic lowering of crime rates in the country, especially in the case of Grand Theft Auto) are just two examples. With these types of people in the country, not to mention the Just Plain Stupid people who obtained power *coughGeorgeBushagaincough*, something like this was practically bound to happen. Sad, but true. Just my two cents.
Now, it's 1 in the morning here as I post this... Just needed to get that in. -
This is ridiculous. by
on 2008-12-15 12:59:00 UTC
Reply
I mean really. They seized his entire manga collection -which I sincerely doubt was all hentai- when they were only charging him for part of it? Two adult men having sex in manga format is obscene and illegal (even though it was for private use)? Guys, I have enough stuff on my computer like that to get me arrested if that's the case. I mean, even if they thought the characters were children they only had to ask the guy to get an explanation (and God knows otaku love talking about their manga).
Anyone know what series he bought? It doesn't say in the articles, but you'd think they should at least say what titles. -
Ugh! While I may be a bit prudish... by
on 2008-12-15 11:07:00 UTC
Reply
...I would never involve myself in that kind of overreaching stupidity. *throws spork at authorities and runs away*
-
My thoughts... by
on 2008-12-15 04:04:00 UTC
Reply
Are that if the manga were illigal, they should have not been alowed to cross customs. The man should have been notified about the situation and the rest would have been sorted form there. What is leagal in one country is not alway leagal in another (eg. marajawana and Belgium). But allowing the man to accually get the manga and bring it home, that is against his rights. There is no trade embargo between Japan and the United States.
And another thing, how would the man know that the manga was `obscene`? The ones at fault here are the authorities.
But that is just my 2 yen.
Leto -
In australia recently ... by
on 2008-12-14 22:30:00 UTC
Reply
... a guy was convicted on child pornography charges for either drawing or possessing (can't remember which) Simpsons fanart.
Fanart, people.
I'll try and find the link when I get home.
-Trojie, worried for all slashers now. -
Re: In australia recently ... by
on 2008-12-14 22:49:00 UTC
Reply
That was mentioned in the comments for the yshare post that I got this from.
"In Australia, Alan John McEwen had his conviction for possessing child pornography upheld - despite the images being of cartoon characters from the Simpsons. Justice Michael Adams has ruled that cartoon characters are classed as 'a person'." was what was posted in one comment. No links, so if you have more on that one I'd be grateful. -
one of my flisters posted about it by
on 2008-12-14 22:55:00 UTC
Reply
so I'll try and find the link
*time passes*
http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html
It's worrying. It looks sort of like the only reason they were even debating it is because the Simpsons are cartoons with recognisable differences to actual humans such as four-digit-hands etc. Which means that fanart of Actual Honest-To-God humans is *definitely* Not Allowed.
Who else is starting to consider f-locking their fic posts? -
it's the libel that worries me by
on 2008-12-15 05:19:00 UTC
Reply
If the Simpsons are classed, in law, as *people*, then writing fanfic, even if it's clean, about them would be libellous, non?
-
I would suspect so, but ... by
on 2008-12-15 07:19:00 UTC
Reply
... the whole idea of classing them in law as people seems tricky, given what their *creators* have done to them in the course of their television career.
We need Pigeonarmy. He's a law student. Surely he can clear at least some of this confusion away?
Trojie, confused. -
But if that's the case, then I've given birth to nine people by
on 2008-12-15 06:41:00 UTC
Reply
Some of whom are older than I am.
All right, that's an exaggeration. But the point stands; if they're tossing around exactly where the line is drawn, just what else could people get away with? Or be blamed for? -
Exaggeration? by
on 2008-12-15 08:02:00 UTC
Reply
That actually makes sense. Heh. In any case, my opinion is that the ruling that they are considered people is, frankly, quite ridiculous. I define a person as a living being with the capacity to make rational, uncontrolled thought. A fictional character thinks what the author wants them to think, and does what the author wants them to do. Fictional characters are puppets, whether depicted in text or imagery. If the characters were people, then ventriloquist dummies are, by extension, also people. And I say that's absolutely wrong. I really have to put this down on a Big List of Law-Related Failures...
-
Exactly! So that judge is wrong - cartoons don't qualify by
on 2008-12-15 10:14:00 UTC
Reply
Not in the slightest. Would people get in trouble, I wonder, for having photographs of unclothed chimpanzees?
... Ironic-Over Power, don't you DARE take that as an invitation. -
If that happened... by
on 2008-12-15 10:18:00 UTC
Reply
Well, then, we would know why Suethors aren't held back several years for failing basic language classes - the same reason why idiots like that *coughGeorgeBushcough* get into positions of such high influence and power.
-
*sigh* How sadly true. (nm) by
on 2008-12-15 22:23:00 UTC
Reply
-
Fic as opposed to art should be fine, but ... by
on 2008-12-15 00:06:00 UTC
Reply
... this whole thing is becoming a society-wide witch-hunt, and it sickens me because they're putting effort into this rather than helping actual children. We've gotta do something, but I don't know what we could do which wouldn't make everyone assume we support real paedophiles or something because people are insanely dumb.
If you don't write or draw stuff which involves underage characters, you should be fine. I'm a little worried about my "Shadow Rapes Matthias" MSTing, though - I didn't write the fic, but the fact that it's on my website, even for the purposes of being mocked, would be enough for some stupid people. -
Seconding the witch-hunt thing - it's ridiculous by
on 2008-12-15 04:14:00 UTC
Reply
All this is doing is making it SEEM like they're dealing with the problem when in fact they're only dealing with its symbols. *sigh*
-
yep by
on 2008-12-15 05:22:00 UTC
Reply
Reminds me of a current plotline in a soap here - there's a girl who's just turned sixteen, who's been seeing her stepfather since she was twelve. The amount of people complaining that this is allowed to be aired, and that it's wrong, far outweighs the number of people saying "wow, some realism in soap at last!" But, y'know, why the hell bother fighting problems when you can attack symptoms and make it look like you're doing something?
Isn't the world a fun place? -
The thing with the rulings, I thinkÂ… by
on 2008-12-15 04:31:00 UTC
Reply
…is that they're not distinguishing fictional characters from actual people. But fictional characters aren't exactly affected that much, right? I mean, in real terms.
And art… art is tricky. But again, that's intended to have a different context, so… I don't know. I think this whole thing is way messed up, though. -
I feel your pain .... by
on 2008-12-15 00:13:00 UTC
Reply
... after all, I have sporkings of Narnia actorslash on my LJ. That's ... not going to look good, even if I didn't write the stuff. It's just not.
Ficcers are going to be easier to catch than actual pornographers/paedophiles, because we're not generally actively trying to hide. Of course they're going to go for easy targets. Sigh. -
I'm sure there's some way we can deal with this stuff ... by
on 2008-12-15 00:20:00 UTC
Reply
Does anyone know how to peacefully protest something like this without making us look like child molestors? I'm sure there's gotta be a petition or something we could start.
I know the problem. I'd saved some badfics for potential sporking, but they featured graphic depiction of shota (any sane person would have classed it as "depiction of child molestation" but the ficcer wrote the brats as somehow being capable of informed consent, as they do. Sigh) and I'd have cut that out in the sporking because it's gross, but I deleted them because I didn't want the things on my computer any more. And of course my computer history shows I've read the sporkings of "Little Miss Mary" and the MST of "Brightheart the Cub Sitter" which did cut out most of the squicky bits but there's still enough there for it to be clear what was going on ... It's harder to get away from than you'd think in sporking comms. -
well, I dunno if we need to start panicking just yet by
on 2008-12-15 00:24:00 UTC
Reply
...at least the interwub police aren't kicking down our doors yet.
Problem is, though, what if the first case to hit a court is one of us? Dilemma. Draw attention to it or keep schtum and hope it's not you that gets nicked ... I dunno.
-Trojie, the mildly paranoid and easily confused by own arguments. -
*looks at own fic* by
on 2008-12-15 00:33:00 UTC
Reply
Hm, any one of us could be targeted. Technically several of the characters I've written about in the past are underaged by American law, which is what is important when you consider that LJ is hosted in California.
-
whoops by
on 2008-12-15 05:26:00 UTC
Reply
What was that authors' note we have in S/D, Trojie? "Characters aged up to UK age of consent"?
Gah. I'm going to stop reading this thread, because I'm going to start ranting like nobody's business, and Trojie's not online to calm me down. And, for the record, next time we have a thread involving child molestation, can we start putting trigger warnings on it? -
Given 'they' haven't gone after ficcers .... by
on 2008-12-15 00:37:00 UTC
Reply
... for copyright violations, are they likely to go after us for perceived paedophilia?
-Trojie, worried and not sure if she's getting it all out of proportion -
Unlikely. by
on 2008-12-15 00:41:00 UTC
Reply
Textual depictions of underage sex occur in plenty of published books and nobody's gone after Stephen King for that scene in It. Of course Stephen King has more money than us ... but I'd like to think we'll be fine, touch wood. I do know a lawyer I can ask for advice if necessary, but I doubt it will be.
-
*begins to breathe again* by
on 2008-12-15 00:54:00 UTC
Reply
I'm just paranoid about my Narnia stuff, which is sort of in a grey area regarding ages/ages of consent because of the whole growing-up-twice, and is actually the *reason* that it's interesting to write about ... but of course the witch-hunters won't be interested in the delicate power balance between two kings and their changes in age and in station through the series and how you can play with that in fic ... they'll just be interested in the fact that Smut Occured.
-
One thing worrying me: Webcomics. by
on 2008-12-15 01:38:00 UTC
Reply
I read a couple of webcomics which have, on occasion, featured underage nudity. Not graphic underage sex, but definitely hints. Is this likely to cause a problem? (The ones in question are Jack - the arc "Suffer" was about child abuse and showed a naked kid, nothing had happened but it was clear what would have happened if the main character hadn't burst in - Gorgeous Princess Creamy Beamy - the heroine's fifteen and there was a storyline set at the Japanese hot springs where she and a bunch of her classmates spent most of the arc nude, but not actually *doing* anything other than standing around - and Concession - the incident with Artie and Chelsie, again it was non-graphic but obvious what happened.) I wasn't aware of the law against drawn depictions of underage sexual conduct when I first read them, and it may not have been in force. I'm also pretty sure the law is only against stuff designed specifically to be porn and "lacking artistic merit" - which is silly because how do you judge it? - and I just won't look at them again if it's a problem. They're all hosted in the US, so not subject to UK law.
-
it's certainly something to think about, I reckon. by
on 2008-12-15 01:40:00 UTC
Reply
Constant vigilance, everyone!
-
Does anyone know the specifics of the UK law in question? (nm) by
on 2008-12-15 01:45:00 UTC
Reply
-
They'd have the same problem with Kit's agent Drake. by
on 2008-12-15 01:10:00 UTC
Reply
Biologically and looks-wise he's an adult, probably about the equivalent of his early twenties. Chronologically, he's only been alive for a year. Emotionally, he varies between early-twenties and twelve, and occasionally "outright non-sapient". And he has the memories of growing up as a non-anthro non-sapient fox, which may or may not have bred. I would love to see the lawmakers' faces as they attempt to puzzle that out, but not so much that I'm willing to be prosecuted over it. (One of the reasons Drake probably won't be scoring with Stormsong any time soon, though the main reason is "if we remove the UST, it's no longer funny".)
Speaking of Narnia, I always felt sorry for Lucy. Having two first periods in a lifetime can't have been fun at all. -
hopefully they'd only try and do people for fic underageness by
on 2008-12-15 01:13:00 UTC
Reply
if they try and do you for original work ... yeesh.
UST is always comical. I vote for keeping it :)
Yes, poor Lucy. And Susan. In fact, I'm pretty sure they would all have been pretty bloody confused and annoyed by having to have their teens aaaall over again. -
It's also helpful to remember... by
on 2008-12-15 00:52:00 UTC
Reply
that not everyone who writes fic is subject to US law. I'm not, and neither are you, Trojie and Laburnum. The worst they can do to us is delete the journals/FF/AFF accounts where the fics are stored.
Given that when you upload to AFF you can select shouta and/or minor from the warnings list and some of the larger categories *cough*Naruto*cough* have Shouta subcategories, there'd be a lot of outcry if they did anything to online fanficcers. Hell, they'd have to get rid of most of the Harry Potter section if they decided to clear out all shouta/loli/minor fics. -
this is a comforting point. (nm) by
on 2008-12-15 00:56:00 UTC
Reply
-
Seconded. (nm) by
on 2008-12-15 04:12:00 UTC
Reply
-
Quietly and anonymously donate to free-speech organisations? by
on 2008-12-15 00:30:00 UTC
Reply
If all else fails, I'm related to a lawyer.
Don't know if SRM would count because the characters involved are not human, or whether that would make it worse ... Fic should be okay for now because, since it isn't pictorial, I'm pretty sure it's not covered by the current law, and I've seen worse in published novels. -
Just found this... by
on 2008-12-14 23:36:00 UTC
Reply
A link to Neil Gaiman's blog with his opinion on the issue, which is far better than anything I could say.
-
Well said. by
on 2008-12-15 08:02:00 UTC
Reply
He's quite right about that. Go Neil Gaiman! *waves pennant*
-
I would, but... by
on 2008-12-14 23:18:00 UTC
Reply
they're x-posted to several communities where not everyone is on my flist. I do lock them at the community level though, mostly because the comm rules usually specify that explicit material is to be locked.
-
Hold on, what?! by
on 2008-12-14 19:18:00 UTC
Reply
My "ILLEGAL ILLEGAL" senses are going off.
This is probably really megaly against this guys' constitutional rights.