Coroners and Justice Bill.....Threat to anime??

unellmay said:
chaos said:
unellmay said:
I heard somewhere that a 14 year old girl in america took took naked pictures of herself and sent them to her boyfriend and now they are both on the sex offenders list :roll:
Click to expand...
http://us.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/07/sext ... index.html

In this case there is a "victim".

But in the coroners bill, the "victim" is an imagined "being".
Click to expand...


What do you mean?
I'm a little confused by what you said
Click to expand...

I mean that in that sexting case, there is a girl who is the 'victim".
The coroners bill is making drawings illegal. Considering a drawing is not a human being, there is no victim.
It would be the same as arresting the creators of the Killing joke for murdering Robin (a fictional character).
 
I think the point that Mohawk52 was trying to make (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that this law won't really change anything in a practical sense if it goes through.

I'd certainly say that it's a bad idea putting vague restrictive laws through on principle, but it may well be the case that this will only be an issue of principle. Like Mohawk52 said, even if you did have a stash of material that became illegal, you wouldn't get busted for it unless you either showed it to people or were being searched for a different reason - and in either case, you'd have screwed up somewhere else already.

Of course, we already have more than our fair share of vague, restrictive laws in the UK - "anti-terrorism", "breach of the peace", anyone? So it's not that I can't see where this "1984 alarmism" is coming from. But... people having been saying that since the book was written. And were almost certainly having similar thoughts beforehand without such an obvious way to vocalise them. I guess I'm of the opinion that if society ever turned out the way people thought it would at the time, we would all have died out long ago. We seem to muddle through.
 
chaos said:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-06-18/u.s-appeals-court-declines-to-hear-dwight-whorley-case
Click to expand...
That's a hard one to comment on. It looks to be a lot more complicated, given that the convicted party had real CP as well. If drawings or writing formed part of the case against him then that's bad, but it's hard to defend the guy if, as appears to be the case, he had been involved in some way in the abuse of real children.
 
ayase said:
chaos said:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-06-18/u.s-appeals-court-declines-to-hear-dwight-whorley-case
Click to expand...
That's a hard one to comment on. It looks to be a lot more complicated, given that the convicted party had real CP as well. If drawings or writing formed part of the case against him then that's bad, but it's hard to defend the guy if, as appears to be the case, he had been involved in some way in the abuse of real children.
Click to expand...
I could have got it wrong, but my understanding is that he had no real children pictures, just drawn stuff... Which is exactly the discussion here.

"One, Judge Roger L. Gregory, who also cast the earlier dissenting vote and wrote an opinion in support of Whorley's right to possess pornographic images depicting minors (but not actual children) as long as he did it in the privacy of his home, cast the lone vote to accept.

In his six-page dissenting opinion from the ruling, Gregory primarily focuses on the portion of Whorley's conviction that arose from him sending obscene e-mail messages about sex with children to other consenting adults. He argues that a conviction for this "restricts the use of today's dominant medium for exercising freedom of speech." However, Gregory also addresses the portion of the conviction that arose out of the prohibition on possessing obscene images (such as comics or pictures) of minors that do not involve actual real children, and urges Whorley's attorney to petition the Supreme Court to hear the case and decide on the legality of both points."
 
chaos said:
I could have got it wrong, but my understanding is that he had no real children pictures, just drawn stuff... Which is exactly the discussion here.
Click to expand...
The ANN article mentions the possession of "child pornography, including anime images, and sending obscene e-mail messages that included textual descriptions of sexual conduct involving children." It should be concluded that Whorley did indeed possess 'victimful' images, as well as the victimless ones relevant to the manga scene.
 
I stand corrected:

From wiki:
In Richmond, Virginia, on December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[41][42][43] He was also convicted of possessing child pornography involving real children. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_stat ... ing_minors
 
Ryo Chan said:
cause everything on wiki is 100% correct ;)
Click to expand...
I don't see how it's any less reliable or more fallible than any other human source. It's the collective intelligence (or non-intelligence) of everyone on the internet. If there's something obviously wrong you just disregard it / revert the page. Eventually, Wikipedia will be what they upload into our cyberbrains instead of education. That or it will just be stored in a massive server (cube?) which we'll use implants to download and upload new information as we need / receive it.

Resistance is futile.
 
What is means is that if there is a link between people who are sexually attracted to children and people who like lolicon, those people may think "we may as well look at the real stuff if we're going to prison either way". Yay for badly thought out laws.

It also means that I should delete my Danbooru bookmark, as viewing a piece of erotic Haruhi Suzumiya fan art could land me in hot water. I'd have to practice holding wet soap.
 
Back
Top