I came across an interesting article titled "Manga Collection Ruled 'Child Pornography' by US Court." This case is interesting because it draws on the conflict between free speech and protecting children. The article tells of a man who was found to have manga depicting minors in sexual acts. The manga were found because customs officials seized it (article doesn't say why it was seized). The author of the article also wonders how the court decides whether a drawn, fictional character is a minor or not. The man who had the manga plead guilty because his lawyer didn't think the jury would acquit him. The Protection Law of 2003 relies on the local community standards of what is "obscene." The lawyer thought that a jury from Southern Iowa would find the pictures obscene.
The intent behind anti-child pornography laws is to protect children from performing the sex acts depicted. In manga, as far as I am aware, the artist does not use live models.
I am no expert on manga, but I know that there are various subject matters covered. There are manga for children and for adults. Some are quite tame, while others have a variety of explicit material.
I personally do not have any interest in sexually explicit manga. I do not, however, feel that it should be treated as illegal child pornography. I have not viewed such manga, but if it is as explicit as pornography, then it can be regulated as such. Children will not be harmed because they cannot buy it and they will not be involved in the making of the manga.
The man from this article faces up to 15 years in prison. The laws need to be more clear on definitions of pornography and child pornography. There is no reason for this man to be sent to prison for 15 years because of possession of manga. Also, his fate is up to a jury in Southern Iowa. If this man was on trial in a different part of the US it might be different. This all seems so arbitrary! He should be free or know that he is not and face the consequences.
http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=1287BB78196075C0&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0ED5223F5C1C57DF
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was just as shocked by this case as you are. I commented on it on Lettie's blog. I think the mistake might have been that the defendent pleaded guilty. Otherwise, couldn't the defense argue that the charges were bogus? I have a friend who worked for a Manga company, and they also had an instance where a shipment was examined and lolicon manga was found. But no actions were taken. Maybe they are making an example of this man, but this case needs to go to the Supreme Court. The Protect Act is too strict in defining child pornography, as it is not trying to protect children but just make criminals out of citizens.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I would like to see the Supreme Court judge this case, but I worry that because he plead guilty, that won't happen.
ReplyDeleteI am still torn, however. I back his free speech rights but if this stuff is essentially kiddie porn covered as manga, would I want to protect that? I understand that this is a whole subculture genre in Japan. We are not in Japan, but in global world, does that cultural context apply here?
I still think I need to see the stuff to understand - not that I particularly want to see it.
It crushes me that his attorney backed off because he didn't think he could do it. Why not call for some ACLU assistance? I wonder if it would be too extreme to ask the trial to be moved?
Pleading guilty might have been a mistake in terms of furthering/protecting INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM, but this man was probably trying to do what was best for himself,not worying about how it would affect intellectual freedom. He probably knows exactly how a jury of his peers would view the material, and was not willing to sacrifice himself for "the cause"--we can't forget that these issues involve real people with real lives and are not merely issues for us to discuss in the abstract. I agree with Lettie in that it's hard to know if it's pornography without seeing it, and even then it's unlikely that we would all agree. Abby's right: it all seems so "arbitrary": who you are, where you live, whose opinion decides your fate.
ReplyDeleteThis is an example of protecting children gone overboard. When no actual children are depicted or harmed, then the "offense" begins to enter the realm of thought crime.
ReplyDeleteFor a similar example of someone being persecuted for drawings, look up the case of Mike Diana, whose Boiled Angel zine got him convicted of obscenity in the early 90's. For simply drawing pictures, Diana got 3 years probation, was forbidden any contact with minors, ordered to see a shrink, had to take a class in journalistic ethics, hit with a $3,000 fine, and ordered to perform 1,248 hours of community service.
I'm from Southern Iowa, so he might be OK, Abby! ;)
ReplyDelete