Politics

[fabio de lunatico]

A "child" is defined as a person under the age of 18.

Given that a large proportion of all adult anime, manga, and doujinshi feature characters of high school age, this presents something of a problem.

But they don't depict them involved in acts of a graphic sexual nature or sexual abuse. Therefor not a problem.

Do you see genitals? Do you see penetration? If the answer is no then you're very likely to be safe as its not 'porn'.

Er, yes. Adult anime/manga/dojinshi = porn. Do pay attention.

Let's say (er, hypothetically, you understand) that an anime fan owned a DVD called Sexfriend, an innocuous adult anime about two high school kids messing around. While naked. Would they suddenly face prosecution because the characters are wearing high school uniforms and might therefore be under 18, even though they're not actually real and don't look that young anyway? I -- er, I mean they -- would hope not.

 

[Zin5ki]

Let's say (er, hypothetically, you understand) that an anime fan owned a DVD called Sexfriend, an innocuous adult anime about two high school kids messing around. While naked. Would they suddenly face prosecution because the characters are wearing high school uniforms and might therefore be under 18, even though they're not actually real and don't look that young anyway?

That's the thing. A large amount of hentai -hitherto fully legal and even occasionally licenced in this country- would fall foul of the proposed laws, solely in virtue of the fact the characters contained within can be considered under 18.
It would be as if said characters are being bestowed with the same rights as a real person, despite not existing.

 

[Project-2501]

If it was classed as 'porn' it would be given an 18R rating in this country. Any hentai given an 18 or below rating is not truly 'porn'.

'Adult' does not always mean 'porn'.

And just because you crank one out to it doesn't make it porn either (and if you're doing that to the likes of Karekano or saikano you probably need to seek help)

But basically if a film/series has gone through the BBFC without getting a restricted rating or a book has been sold outside the 'top shelf' in the UK then you will be safe.

If you download stuff (apart from being in breach of lots of copyright) you could already be falling foul of the existing obscene publications act so you'd be in trouble no matter. And I'd say a lot of stuff on certain sections of a certain image sharing board could also fall foul.

And if you're already a suspected paedophile or on the sex offenders register, it might be a wise idea to watch what you download.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 52270.html

The Ministry of Justice has denied suggestions that Britain's comic industry would suffer from the law. A spokesperson said: "The clauses in the Bill are to tackle pornographic and obscene images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society. It is not our intention to criminalise the possession of material that does not fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act or to criminalise the legal entertainment industry, the art industry or pornographic cartoons.â€

 

[chaos]

Seriously people, find something to worry about that actually will affect you or spend more time researching things

Problem is, I have very little faith on politicians common sense. But I lived through a small period of censorship, so I believe I'm extra paranoid.

 

[fabio de lunatico]

'Adult' does not always mean 'porn'.

I meant porn, which I thought would be clear by the context. My point is this. The bill defines a "child" as "a person under the age of 18". So who, when assessing a pornographic image or animation or comic that otherwise doesn't fall foul of the Obscene Publication Act, is going to decide whether a cartoon character is 18 or only 17 1/2? However you look at it, this relies on a subjective judgement.

And The Obscene Publications Act is notoriously open to interpretation. What, exactly, consitutes "obscene"? Nobody knows.

 

[Otaku-san]

Well this is all fine buy me, since mechaphilia seems a lot healther

HMMMM Look At Them Rims, in more ways then one

 

[Otaku-san]

plus i tend to make sure that most of my girls have bawbs

and anything that i would consider a loli i don't "grab" anything sexual

but this could be a little problem, say if the characters are above consented age but look younger i.e. doujinshi of Lucky Star

 

[Project-2501]

fabricatedlunatic, its always been the case for porn that the age limit is 18.

I recommend you read section 52 and 53.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ml#j3_100a

So basically if you're watching an under 18 person involved in graphic sex you could well be in trouble. But this isn't new, the only new bit is it now can include drawings, although even in the 1978 protection of children act they refer to 'pseudo-photographs'. (and the obvious question is why are you watching it in the first place?) However if you're watching non-graphic imagery, ie not 'porn', its still fine.

Like I said, if its passed the OPA or BBFC its fine and will continue to be fine. If you're downloading you always have been and always will continue to be taking a risk. Fan art, doujinshi etc.. again has always been a risk, no matter the country.

And lets face it, do we really want the popular image of anime to return to the dark days when the masses assumed all anime was purely about tenticle sex and underage girls?

 

[fabio de lunatico]

Why does nobody here ever read what I write? It's frustrating, I tell you. All those words and you had nothing to say about the one simple question I raised:

So who is going to decide whether a cartoon character [engaged in graphic acts] is 18 or only 17 1/2?

 

[Project-2501]

Its in the act. Section 55 subsection 6 parts a and b. You omitted the part saying 'subject to subsection 6' from your original quote.

And its down to the police to convince a court that the image falls foul of the act and that you should get into trouble. Of course first you have to get caught. And to be caught they need to have reasonable grounds to suspect you and then convince a court to issue a warrant.

 

[CitizenGeek]

I think that the difference between a character who is 17 and 18 is a non-issue. The difference between pre-pubescent children and those who are not pre-pubescent is significant and noticeable. If you hold in your possession pornographic cartoons involving infants, then I really have very little sympathy for your freedom of speech rights.

 

[fabio de lunatico]

I read subsection 6 and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

My view is that, as CG says, the authorties will be concerning themselves with the strongest material and youngest looking characters. But where the line is drawn between illegal and legal, and who will make that judgement and on what basis, remains unclear.

While lolicon and shouta make me distinctly uncomfortable -- something I'd like to make abundantly clear -- I'm similarly uncomfortable with the idea of banning it. As ayase says, I'd much rather people view that material than images of real children. I suppose the question is whether loli and shouta can lead into that (and as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that it does) or act as a subsitute for it. If the latter, then this law would be counter-productive.

 

[Otaku-san]

And its down to the police to convince a court that the image falls foul of the act and that you should get into trouble. Of course first you have to get caught. And to be caught they need to have reasonable grounds to suspect you and then convince a court to issue a warrant.

Yes fabricatedlunatic

just give use your name, number and address

i'll make sure your in safe hands :3

anyhow i can't agree with it, but neither can i disagree with it as the subject makes me feel uneasy

 

[Project-2501]

While lolicon and shouta make me distinctly uncomfortable -- something I'd like to make abundantly clear -- I'm similarly uncomfortable with the idea of banning it.

But loli/shouta porn has been illegal in Japan since the late 90's. We're just a little late on the uptake. But again if there are no genitals on show and no penetration its not affected, but then thats not porn.

And section 55 sub 6 is pretty specific. If the story/clothing/setting implies the image is of someone below 18 then it doesn't matter about the actual age of the person in the image. (which could cause a lot of top-shelf mags problems... no more naughty schoolgirls!)

 

[Otaku-san]

But again if there are no genitals on show and no penetration its not affected, but then thats not porn.

Thank God for for Japanese censoring then, else it could've been offensive

 

[fabio de lunatico]

But loli/shouta porn has been illegal in Japan since the late 90's. We're just a little late on the uptake.

We are talking about drawings here, right? Pornographic anime, manga, games, doujinshi? Because that certainly is not illegal in Japan.

(which could cause a lot of top-shelf mags problems... no more naughty schoolgirls!)

Only this bill doesn't apply to live action images or film, just drawings. Your naughty schoolgirls are safe, it seems, unless they're cartoon schoolgirls.

 

[Amray]

I stopped with Lolicon anyway. There are good arguments that are raised to making it seem fine to have, but there are also good points raised as to why it should be banned (every argument has this though).

There is nothing that I hate more than child abuse in this world. It makes my heart feel cold and makes me shiver with horror..the same for child exploitation...it makes me feel sick. No offense to cute youths though. Underaged animated girls do not give me this effect although it can apparently "advertise" child exploitation, if you will. ...I do not like that point.

To be honest though, I would rather they try and do better preventing real life child abuse and (dare I say it) pornography (AGH, I hate putting those two words together...hence the brackets) as opposed to putting a lot of efforts to banning drawings of them. Anyone can make anything out of art remember.

But as long as I get to keep images of Konata on my PSP and PC then I don't care. Plus I only have official art on the anime so that is not a problem as they are shown on wallscrolls and such. She is 18 too..haha hopefully that could work in court if I bring in her character profile.

 

[Otaku-san]

well its inevitable that i stop with it shortly enough, else i'll end up more like Ryo

then this thread won't be approved by CG

 

[Zin5ki]

Finally, lets carefully look at the wording of the proposed new law:
(note this is taken from the actual government website, not a re-interpreted/twisted/sensationalised version someone else has written http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease280508a.htm)

All images of child sexual abuse, including drawings and computer-generated images of child abuse will be illegal

....

'These new proposals will help close a loophole that we believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.

'This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society.'

Its seems fairly specific that this is intended to cover imagery of child sexual abuse.

Storm + teacup.

The actual bill doesn't use such terminology. It mentions 'pornographic images of children' (viz. people under 18), which one assumes does not exclusively mean images depicting the abuse thereof:

52


Possession of prohibited images of children


(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child.

(2) A prohibited image is an image which—

(a) is pornographic,

(b) falls within subsection (6), and

(c) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

One can only question how a work is deemed to fulfil (2)(c). Perhaps this sort of thing may lead to the Lords failing to reach a decision before the end of this year's Parliament, which would send the bill back to the drawing board.

I don't know about the Obscene Publications Act, but the Extreme Pornography Bill lets hentai off the hook.

I think that the difference between a character who is 17 and 18 is a non-issue. The difference between pre-pubescent children and those who are not pre-pubescent is significant and noticeable.

Just like the difference between 17 and 18, grey areas can exist. A Lucky Star hentai parody may depict a character who is in fact 18 years of age, but who arguably appears prepubescent. Since fictional characters have no birth certificate, arguments can be made both ways. Perhaps issues like this may prevent the bill from reaching the point of Royal ascent, but my trust for the government branches involved has somewhat diminished of late.

 

[Amray]

I dread to think what would become of this if that petition, to be able to marry fictional characters, were to be approved in Japan.

But just for awareness reasons: Nobue Itou has already been reserved by myself (joke, joke).