Thoughts on the Christopher Handley case

I find it all quite strange what is considered acceptable and what is not. I must admit I don't find the though of people reading material which is clearly demonstrating Pedophilia very pleasant.

But to me that is no worse than millions of people around the world acting out there fantasy of shooting sprees on-line against other humans in something like a Call of Duty. It not like DOOM where you fighting against NPC demon, instead you are actually re-enacting famous wars where people actual died and making profit on their sacrifices. In a way it worse Pedophilia comic as the victim there is imaginary while the person you are aiming to kill for pleasure is very real.

I would rather nether be banned as it never solves anything and people should have the right to do anything when its not hurting anyone else. It too bad why can't forget all this bad stuff and play we love katamari instead, the world would be better place :D
 
I remember a thread about this a while back, but in a nutshell I think it's all bollocks. Laws should protect real people from real crimes. Fictional characters don't need the protection of the law. People who are offended by one thing should have no more right to force their idea of what is and is not acceptable on anyone else. The very idea that anyone can define what constitutes "obscenity" is itself bollocks, as it's entirely subjective. Some people find Ann Summers window displays offensive. Some people find cartoons of the prophet Muhammad offensive. Some people find 'Tintin in the Congo' offensive. Should we ban these? Of course not. Personally, I find censorship and obscenity laws themselves offensive as they belong to a time when it was acceptable for a small elite to decide what was best for everyone. In a modern society where we are told by our leaders that freedom of the individual is valued we should have the right to cause offence, just as we have the right to choose not to be offended.
 
Unlike real child porn there was no victim (i.e. the child) only fictional characters. With the laws being so vague many anime could be considered bordering on paedophilia in a way. In his particular case 7 manga out of thousands of manga and magazines found were charged. This is a tiny amount, he is obviously not a paedophile, just a collector of manga. He is innocent, being prosecuted for other peoples opinions and will be labelled paedophile.
 
K, so i think i read this on Sankaku a while ago and really it's a load of **** imo. Like Ayase says the law should protect real people not some drawing. I want to know though, why were the cops there searching his home in the first place and why didn't he hide those magazines which he knew had loli in them. ( i didn't read the whole article, 3 am. assed)
 
ilmaestro said:
Mutsumi said:
ilmaestro said:
I'm sure most of you are aware of at least the rough details of this case.
Click to expand...

I've not hard any mention of it on BBC News, so a link would be much appreciated. :)
Click to expand...
There are a couple of links to ANN's various updates on it under "case history" on this page:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/editorial/2010-02-24
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, it is that case from a few years ago. Thought that case was done with, but I guess it took a while. Thankyou very much for the link. :)
 
He pleaded guilty, nuff said. Both him and his lawyer knew perfectly well he would have been hung out to dry at a trial. And this all in the country Ayase thinks is the best ever ;)

This is nowt to do with an elite few oppressing the masses. This is the masses going after the few with blazing torches and pitch forks. Good God fearing middle class white Americans. The ones who vote. They like laws that protect them from imaginary harm. They like censorship as it means they can take even less interest in the upbringing of their children. And they just love a boogieman then can pin all the blame on. All aided by the mass media. Governments have very little to do with it. They just sign the bits of paper that they think will make the most people vote for them.

And people really should read the Ts&Cs when sending packages overseas.
 
Mutsumi said:
ilmaestro said:
Mutsumi said:
ilmaestro said:
I'm sure most of you are aware of at least the rough details of this case.
Click to expand...

I've not hard any mention of it on BBC News, so a link would be much appreciated. :)
Click to expand...
There are a couple of links to ANN's various updates on it under "case history" on this page:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/editorial/2010-02-24
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, it is that case from a few years ago. Thought that case was done with, but I guess it took a while. Thankyou very much for the link. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, couldn't believe how long it had been myself, must have been hell for the guy to go through, you can understand why after all this time he is "happy" to plead guilty.
 
Project-2501 said:
This is nowt to do with an elite few oppressing the masses. This is the masses going after the few with blazing torches and pitch forks. Good God fearing middle class white Americans. The ones who vote. They like laws that protect them from imaginary harm. They like censorship as it means they can take even less interest in the upbringing of their children. And they just love a boogieman then can pin all the blame on. All aided by the mass media. Governments have very little to do with it. They just sign the bits of paper that they think will make the most people vote for them.
Click to expand...
The media eh? Well then that's still a small elite shaping public opinion, isn't it? Would anyone have cared about this if the media hadn't created a fire-storm over it? (Incidentally, here we go again). Anyone with their eyes even half open knows that politics and the media are heavily intertwined. Scapegoats are always useful to the people in power, and to that end those very opinions themselves have been shaped by the media and by governments.

There is no perfect country, (even less so if we're talking legal systems) but I will say that the power of private media corporations is probably the worst thing about both the US and UK.
 
The media has always been fueled by mass outrage like this. But if the government kept the media under control there would be outrage over freedom of the press, speech and other such liberal hoo-har.

Just like with this latest drug thing. The news chap was asking the government drugs advisor why it hadn't been banned earlier. Maybe cos they didn't think it was that dangerous?

And remember the riots in Portsmouth where they smashes in a pediatrician's front door?

You can't win. You want freedom of speech, the media get it too. The downside is they can yell louder than you and people seem to trust them.
 
Project-2501 said:
The media has always been fueled by mass outrage like this.
Click to expand...
But aren't the media more to blame for the outrage than the masses? If people weren't bombarded with things to the extent that they are forced to form an opinion about them through peer pressure (people discussing it passing conversation and such) they might ignore it or at least take the time to come to their own informed opinions.

Project-2501 said:
You can't win. You want freedom of speech, the media get it too. The downside is they can yell louder than you and people seem to trust them.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why any idealogical organisations are dangerous, be they media outlets, political parties or religions. The problem is the gullibility of individuals through lack of education promoting independent thought.
 
ayase said:
Project-2501 said:
The media has always been fueled by mass outrage like this.
Click to expand...
But aren't the media more to blame for the outrage than the masses? If people weren't bombarded with things to the extent that they are forced to form an opinion about them through peer pressure (people discussing it passing conversation and such) they might ignore it or at least take the time to come to their own informed opinions.
Click to expand...

Now now Ayase, you can't call a small factor such as "discussing" something as peer pressure, really. If we were discussing, for example, whether it was "Right or Wrong to smoke", do you think one of us would be pressured to/not to smoke? I highly doubt it.

It is the media's job to report about cases like these (as opposed to cases of "Victoria Beckhams' dress falling down!" or something equally as ridiculous). What I say is, when they do report on what we want them to, don't shoot them down so quickly. Surely it is but common knowledge to take everything in the media, "with a pinch of salt", as one might say.

Sure, the media are going to be biased, but that's because they have a target audience. If they're a right wing paper, they're hardly gonna talk about how great left wing ideals are, are they? The point of this is, just be thankful we're getting the information, and do not start trying to blame people "discussing" things as a relevant factor with regard to conformity! I can assure you (and cite case studies if required) that there are so many factors that affect conformity (because this is what you're saying. People are being pressured to conform via compliance, internalisation or identification, to follow this one belief - a "group norm" as one could describe it) and mere discussion is one that plays a very small part.

Let us remember, discussion is often between 2-3 people, not a board of 12 people meeting up to discuss a newspaper article ;)


ayase said:
Which is exactly why any idealogical organisations are dangerous, be they media outlets, political parties or religions. The problem is the gullibility of individuals through lack of education promoting independent thought.
Click to expand...

Then I question why you believe world government could ever be a good idea. World government involves one (or a select few) individual(s) working towards their ideal.


With regard to the topic at hand, i'm hard pressed to comment. The American legal system has many down sides to it, of which many are illustrated here - However I would be hard pressed to be able to predict the outcome of such a case in the UK. The bottom line of it all is, when there's a Jury involved, and there is lolicon involved, you're very likely to get guilty, no matter what. Judges also tend to lack empathy in situations such as these... Alas, this could be one of the disadvantage of a Jury, could it not? That they would not necessarily pass judgment objectively, but subjectively and irrationally based upon their disgust. I wonder though - how would you really react if you were sat on the Jury for this case? ...
 
ilmaestro said:
For this case? I don't see how any intelligent person could think that he should be put in prison.
Click to expand...

You must remember it isn't the Juries decision to decide what the Law is, merely to decide if it has been broken.

To give but a simple example - If there were a law saying it's illegal to posses a Tuna Sandwich, and during a house raid the Police found a Tuna Sandwich in your bedroom, the Jury would merely decide whether you're guilty of possessing a tuna sandwich, not whether you 'deserve' to go to Jail or not. (In practise, this isn't always the case, but that majority of the time this is how it will work).

The Law (as mentioned by his Attorney) does not allow lolicon, but nor does it ban it. It comes under obscenity law, so the Jury will be deciding "Is this man guilty of possessing obscene material".

(Sorry if the Tuna Sandwich thing seemed patronising, i'm low on ideas though).
 
I might not agree with them, but I can visualise the types of 'soccer moms' that would protest against this type of case. To these people a lot of fandom and comics in general, are probably far away from their lifestyles...

Oh dear. I'm actually just picturing Sarah Palin.
 
Exactly, Godot, and the obscenity laws basically come down to opinion. And my opinion is that no intelligent person should think that this man deserves to go to prison.

And, as you mentioned over the page, the big worry for him was that the jury *wouldn't* just do it's job (since they're human, not some sort of jury machine), so in that case it doesn't matter what they are "supposed" to do.

edit: in fact, the biggest thing that I don't understand about this case is why they wanted to prosecute him in the first place, unless you just file it under "in order to gain public support in the area".
 
ilmaestro said:
Exactly, Godot, and the obscenity laws basically come down to opinion. And my opinion is that no intelligent person should think that this man deserves to go to prison.
Click to expand...

Ah... This argument has weight to it, but at the same point, you need to define intelligent. The man is guilty of possessing obscene material (albeit subjective, it would not be an exaggeration to say that lolicon would be considered obscene by many. Especially the 7 books that he's being charged on). Now, whether obscenity law is right or wrong, that is the law. Now you said "no intelligent man should think that this man deserves to go to prison", however, the Juries job isn't to decide that as such. It's to decide whether he is guilty, it's down to the judge to sentance him.

ilmaestro said:
And, as you mentioned over the page, the big worry for him was that the jury *wouldn't* just do it's job (since they're human, not some sort of jury machine), so in that case it doesn't matter what they are "supposed" to do.
Click to expand...

Ah but you forget what the reason for a Jury is. In Britain, we have a Jury to comply with the underlying principle that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. This is assured by being judged by ones peers, thus, the essence of the Jury is to be subjective!.

For example, in the case of R v Owen, the Defendant was guilty of firing a sawn-off shotgun at a man who'd killed his son 12 months ago. Despite overwhelming evidence and a confession from the Defendant, the Jury declared him not guilty. Reports on it can be found here (Albeit on a sixth form Law website... Only one I could find sorry).

Many people agree with the Juries decision here - but clearly the Law was not served. The point of the Jury here is to punish on behalf of the society and the state - They though what he done was reasonable, so they let him off not guilty. With this case, it's unlikely a randomly selected Jury will consider him innocent. Whether this is right or wrong though, again is on your morals. Should the law be stuck to by the letter? In which case we only have purely objective, literal judges? Or should a (hopefully) accurate representation of the majority decide with more Purposive judges?
 
I thought this was why you asked the question over the page? As in, what would we have *actually* done on the jury, rather than what we think the "right" thing was for them to do (had there been a case). I don't think anyone *sane* (I'll change it from intelligent) should think someone deserves to go to jail for owning a comic, so I would have said not guilty *even if someone had provided me 100% undeniable evidence* that he had, technically, broken the law, just like the jury in the case you cited there.

I'm also surprised that you think the point of the law is to punish people, rather than disuade people from doing things, and protect people who might have things done to them.

Do you think this man should be punished for owning comic books?
 
Back
Top