Support NeoGAF

[Crash Station]

it's largely irrelevant what he's arguing about because child pornography, even the drawn variety, is not covered by "freedom of speech" in the US

IIRC, it's not a federal law but on a state by state basis.

Anyway, I was just responding that not everyone that's fighting for it is in it to jack off to anime kids like the quoted post. Neil and the rest of the CBLDF have made pretty good arguments for why it should be protected under free speech irrelevant to the reader's desires.

 

[ponpo]

Unless this material is correlated with child abuse or some kind of tangibly negative outcome, I would need a better reason to support its ban than "because shit is weird". I imagine this stuff is the only safe outlet that paedophile have.

A better reason to support the ban is to prevent the flood of social media posts with captions like "bruh japan is crazy af fam tbh smh 😂" during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

 

[Silver Arrows]

That's two bans in the span of five minutes.

This thread is gonna be fun.

 

[Mostmanlyman]

That's two in the span of five minutes.

This thread is gonna be fun.

.

 

[M0nochromatic]

The U.N Envoy is gonna get real pissed when they see what South Park's been up to.

 

[Crash Station]

Ok, thanks for the clear up.

I was thinking legit pornography of children was still allowed.

To expand on this, actual distribution of child porn has been illegal in Japan for years now (late 90s IIIRC). The idiots that set the law somehow thought the issue would take care of itself regarding possession. More than an intentional lack of progress, I'd put it as a lack of any kind of foresight. Still disgusting that it took that long of course.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Is this the end of third party Vita support?

lmao

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

A better reason to support the ban is to prevent the flood of social media posts with captions like "bruh japan is crazy af fam tbh smh 😂" during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

...you have a long way to go

 

[John Kowalski]

A better reason to support the ban is to prevent the flood of social media posts with captions like "bruh japan is crazy af fam tbh smh 😂" during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

it can't be helped

 

[stump sock]

I would like to make very clear here that what the article is (most likely) talking about is the fact that while photographic/video child pornography were finally made illegal, drawn/animated child pornography was not affected.

In the US, UK, and many other countries, this material has been classified as full-blown child pornography and banned.

If you are defending the right of this stuff to exist, you are either defending child pornography (which is probably illegal where you live right now), or you are misunderstanding what material is being referenced.

IIRC, it's not a federal law but on a state by state basis.

US code! (see link above), but yeah, I'll admit that I have no idea if there are any other laws that might override it in certain situations.

and yeah I can understand Neil's argument as logical, but I'll just defer to my own bias and agree with the law on this one.

 

[rjinaz]

Is this the end of third party Vita support?

Lol Jesus dude. It's already dead.

 

[Numb]

That's two bans in the span of five minutes.

This thread is gonna be fun.

We got another potential graveyard in the making.

 

[Silver Arrows]

We got another potential graveyard in the making.

Potential? Man, I'm fully expecting it to be. As I said before, why would I need to watch the World Series?

 

[besada]

Unless this material is correlated with child abuse

It is. The extent to which it is, is still in dispute, with the Mayo Clinic suggesting somewhere between 30%-80%. Part of the issue with researching pedophilia/child molestation is that the majority of subjects we have to question are/or have been in the criminal system. So selection bias is inevitable in the studies.

Here's an interesting paper, that has links to a fair amount of the research, concerning the same issue when it was dealt with in the U.S., while Ashcroft was running Justice:
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=student_scholarship

Basically, the arguments come down to 1) child pornography doesn't inhibit and may exacerbate a pedophile's need to molest and 2) child pornography(drawn and real) is used by pedophiles to draw in children for predation.

You may not agree with those, of course, but there is some available science to suggest the first, and the second is undeniable, as we have multiple records of child molestors using child pornography to attract children.

Bans like these are tricky, because you get over eager enforcement causing problems, and creatives who want to push the envelope, so court cases tend to come hot and heavy for a few years, before they settle down and people accept the new standard. It's not like Japan doesn't have a history of this, and dealing with evolving standards of obscenity. They already have laws about mosaics and what you can and can't show legally. This would be an extension of those existing laws.

 

[jvm]

Is this the end of third party Vita support?

 

[Izuna]

They have called for this for a long time, but you see, I don't think the Japanese parliament give a shit and the amount it would fuck up the industries of Akihabara is scary for so many people who make a living of this.

It has come to the point where it isn't considered bad, and there are people in Japan (and overseas) who don't think it is a problem and would be shocked when it gets banned. There are too many people who like this that this will be debated for long enough and nothing will be done.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

I doubt this changes much at all.

 

[collige]

I would like to make very clear here that what the article is (most likely) talking about is the fact that while photographic/video child pornography were finally made illegal, drawn/animated child pornography was not affected.

In the US, UK, and many other countries, this material has been classified as full-blown child pornography and banned.

If you are defending the right of this stuff to exist, you are either defending child pornography (which is probably illegal where you live right now), or you are misunderstanding what material is being referenced.

The law is not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the law you mentioned, which leaves the legality of loli up to the bullshit subjective nature of US obscenity laws.

 

[JimJamJones]

Is this the end of third party Vita support?

 

[-COOLIO-]

It is. The extent to which it is, is still in dispute, with the Mayo Clinic suggesting somewhere between 30|%-80%. Part of the issue with researching pedophilia/child molestation is that the majority of subjects we have to question are/or have been in the criminal system. So selection bias is inevitable in the studies.

Here's an interesting paper, that has links to a fair amount of the research, concerning the same issue when it was dealt with in the U.S., while Ashcroft was running Justice:
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=student_scholarship

Basically, the arguments come down to 1) child pornography doesn't inhibit and may exacerbate a pedophile's need to molest and 2) child pornography(drawn and real) is used by pedophiles to draw in children for predation.

You may not agree with those, of course, but there is some available science to suggest the first, and the second is undeniable, as we have multiple records of child molestors using child pornography to attract children.

Bans like these are tricky, because you get over eager enforcement causing problems, and creatives who want to push the envelope, so court cases tend to come hot and heavy for a few years, before they settle down and people accept the new standard. It's not like Japan doesn't have a history of this, and dealing with evolving standards of obscenity. They already have laws about mosaics and what you can and can't show legally. This would be an extension of those existing laws.

Nicely laid out. Thanks for the insight.

 

[mdubs]

I wonder If something like Inio Asano's "A Girl on the Shore" would fall under the auspices of something like this

 

[The Adder]

I ask the following:

Should we also outlaw the drawn depiction of non-sexual violence against children?

Should we also outlaw the drawn depiction of sexual violence, such as rape, against women?

What I'm saying is not that "this is perfectly fine and normal and should be freely allowed."

Nor am I making a slippery slope argument "well if we ban this, eventually we'll ban this other thing and before you know it, pandemonium."

I'm asking is the reasoning for this based on anything beyond wholly justified disgust.

And if not, why do we allow for this other equally disgusting thing, and this not-quite as disgusting thing?

 

[ponpo]

It is. The extent to which it is, is still in dispute, with the Mayo Clinic suggesting somewhere between 30%-80%. Part of the issue with researching pedophilia/child molestation is that the majority of subjects we have to question are/or have been in the criminal system. So selection bias is inevitable in the studies.

Here's an interesting paper, that has links to a fair amount of the research, concerning the same issue when it was dealt with in the U.S., while Ashcroft was running Justice:
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=student_scholarship

Basically, the arguments come down to 1) child pornography doesn't inhibit and may exacerbate a pedophile's need to molest and 2) child pornography(drawn and real) is used by pedophiles to draw in children for predation.

You may not agree with those, of course, but there is some available science to suggest the first, and the second is undeniable, as we have multiple records of child molestors using child pornography to attract children.

Bans like these are tricky, because you get over eager enforcement causing problems, and creatives who want to push the envelope, so court cases tend to come hot and heavy for a few years, before they settle down and people accept the new standard. It's not like Japan doesn't have a history of this, and dealing with evolving standards of obscenity. They already have laws about mosaics and what you can and can't show legally. This would be an extension of those existing laws.

I'm confused by this point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but how do you attract children using child pornography?

I wonder If something like Inio Asano's "A Girl on the Shore" would fall under the auspices of something like this

No pls.

 

[John Kowalski]

I wonder If something like Inio Asano's "A Girl on the Shore" would fall under the auspices of something like this

Hmm... weren't they high schoolers? I remember them looking as much.

 

[Two Words]

Putting people in jail over drawings of any kind is absurd.

 

[mdubs]

Hmm... weren't they high schoolers? I remember them looking as much.

I think they were in the final year of middle school iirc. Definitely not 18.

 

[SenorArdilla]

The law is not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the law you mentioned, which leaves the legality of loli up to the bullshit subjective nature of US obscenity laws.

The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever."

Huh...

 

[stump sock]

The Supreme Court struck down parts of the law you mentioned, which leaves the legality of loli up to the bullshit subjective nature of US obscenity laws.

Interesting, wasn't aware of that case. I didn't mean it to sound as B&W as I did because it literally says in the law that exceptions are made for things with "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" and fuck knows how you define that one.

But I still think it's a pretty risky proposition to just say "fuck it, art!" especially with that pretty fantastic post Besada made

 

[Foffy]

Putting people in jail over drawings of any kind is absurd.

Do you think human beings think and act rationally? Look at the fact we depend on a concept called an economy and see how bonkers we are.

We crazy, fam.

 

[Wyndstryker]

Is this the end of third party Vita support?

This would've been glorious if it was the first post

 

[King Tubby]

Good.

Is this the end of third party Vita support?

oh fuck

 

[Two Words]

Do you think human beings think and act rationally? Look at the fact we depend on a concept called an economy and see how bonkers we are.

We crazy, fam.

The fact that humans can be very irrational doesn't move me to act irrationally.

 

[besada]

I'm confused by this point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but how do you attract children using child pornography?

As part of the grooming process, pedophiles have been known to start children on child pornography, to show them that other children do this and attempt to convince them it's okay. It's not an issue of winging a book at a kid from your pedo van, since that's not usually how child molestation occurs, instead think of your creepy uncle, showing you cartoons of kids having sex, and then suggesting you do likewise.

 

[esms]

Is this the end of third party Vita support?

Motherfucking

 

[Foffy]

The fact that humans can be very irrational doesn't move me to act irrationally.

True, but per George Carlin, we're in a freak show. Look at the crazy.

Look at it.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Is this the end of third party Vita support?

 

[The Adder]

It's not an issue of winging a book at a kid from your pedo van

Don't make me laugh while reading this topic, Besada. I'll feel incredibly guilty.

 

[stump sock]

As part of the grooming process, pedophiles have been known to start children on child pornography, to show them that other children do this and attempt to convince them it's okay. It's not an issue of winging a book at a kid from your pedo van, since that's not usually how child molestation occurs, instead think of your creepy uncle, showing you cartoons of kids having sex, and then suggesting you do likewise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capturing_the_Friedmans

for one example.

Definitely worth watching, though you'll probably want like 5 showers after

 

[Mostmanlyman]

I'm confused by this point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but how do you attract children using child pornography?

I'm guessing if they go online they can inpersonate a kid, and use those pics to act as child and try to get more picture of kids.
That's just my thought.

 

[John Kowalski]

I think they were in the final year of middle school iirc. Definitely not 18.

Hmm. I don't think it was pornographic though. Also who knows how they would define a child in that context, especially with the body dysmorphism that's common in manga.

 

[Dai101]

Oh boy!

Thread been delivering

 

[Deleted member 1159]

As part of the grooming process, pedophiles have been known to start children on child pornography, to show them that other children do this and attempt to convince them it's okay. It's not an issue of winging a book at a kid from your pedo van, since that's not usually how child molestation occurs, instead think of your creepy uncle, showing you cartoons of kids having sex, and then suggesting you do likewise.

Like...I was fuckin laughing at the responses to the Vita burn post, then I saw this and it broke something inside me...

fuck.

Pieces of shit.

 

[Violet_0]

not that I really want to defend this stuff, but that's kind of a slippery slope there - by the same logic they might as well ban Lolita or Salò next

 

[Crash Station]

I'm confused by this point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but how do you attract children using child pornography?



No pls.

I've definitely heard a case a while ago of a guy in Japan using some loli mag to do just that. Don't know how prevalent it is there though.

 

[LouisaFerre]

To me, it's really just a drawing. I really don't agree with making this shit illegal.

 

[Kusagari]

The law is not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the law you mentioned, which leaves the legality of loli up to the bullshit subjective nature of US obscenity laws.

It largely comes down to the local and state laws because of the Supreme Court ruling.

For example in 2012 someone with only animated child pornography was found guilty in Missouri because it lacked any value under obscenity laws. Meanwhile in 2011 someone in the exact same scenario was quickly dismissed of all charges under Maine law.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

not that I really want to defend this stuff, but that's kind of a slippery slope there - by the same logic they might as well ban Lolita or Salò next

Neither of those are meant to be sexually stimulating. A better example would be banning live action pornography where the actresses are deliberately trying to appear like young girls.

 

[Angry Grimace]

How is "extreme child porn manga" defined in this?

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Is this the end of third party Vita support?

Shiiiiit

 

[collige]

Interesting, wasn't aware of that case. I didn't mean it to sound as B&W as I did because it literally says in the law that exceptions are made for things with "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" and fuck knows how you define that one.

No one does. Hence, facefucking porn being declared illegal as recently as 2006.