Comic Book Legal Defense Fund backs traveller arrested at Canadian border for "pornographic" manga on his hard drive

Discuss

126 Responses to “Comic Book Legal Defense Fund backs traveller arrested at Canadian border for "pornographic" manga on his hard drive”

  1. Blaven says:

    Does anyone happen to know what the manga in question was? Without knowing what images were involved, it is pretty hard for me to decide whether this person really should be prosecuted, or if this is a case of ridiculous government overreach.

    And like others said, why is Canadian customs searching the contents of people’s laptops? Makes me not want to visit there.

  2. Anonymous says:

    What a depressing post and thread. I have a couple more comments:

    “Dude, this is not art. It is not the story of how someone who suffered years of abuse at the hands of a teacher or relative overcame their pain and injuries so that they could be a healthy person.” -GeekMan

    Funny, that sounds as if it could be the textbook definition of art.

    “This is ridiculous. By this logic if I were to draw a cartoonish image of a naked teenager, I’d be liable for criminal prosecution.” -IlluminatedOne

    yep. Sucks eh.

    “Is it illegal for a man to have sex with a 35 year old woman who looks 12?” -Palomino

    No, but apparently it would be illegal to record, draw or write about it. In fact, you should get yourself a lawyer.

  3. Anonymous says:

    At first I was all, “If you don’t want to be hassled, stop reading manga that’s about child-fucking.”

    But on second thought I was more like, “If you send someone to prison for reading pervy comics, you’re still sending someone to prison for READING A COMIC, man.”

    • Anonymous says:

      But on second thought I was more like, “If you send someone to prison for reading pervy comics, you’re still sending someone to prison for READING A COMIC, man.”

      “And they all moved away from me on the bench there… till I said, ‘And creating a nuisance.’ And they all came back, shook my hand,
      and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.”

  4. IlluminatedOne says:

    This is ridiculous. By this logic if I were to draw a cartoonish image of a naked teenager, I’d be liable for criminal prosecution.

    I’m glad the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund appreciates the signifigance of this case – one week the possession of artwork becomes a crime, the next we’re living on the set of Equilibrium.

  5. Unmutual says:

    I am not sure how I feel about this. I don’t personally feel there is a slippery slope here. I’ve always wondered why CP can be morally reprehensible and yet art that depicts CP can somehow have artistic merit and should be protected?

    Does anyone really think comic books with little school children being violated six ways from sunday by alien tentacle monsters should be protected art?

    Is the fact that children are being exploited really the only thing that differentiates actual CP, from art depicting CP? If you could produce photo-realistic computer generated CP, would that be totally fine?

    • Daemon says:

      One of the big reasons child pornography is illegal is because somebody actually had to harm a child in order to make it. There’s an actual victim.

      Imaginary-child pornography shouldn’t be legal for the same reasons that the Saw movie franchise isn’t illegal in spite of being graphic depictions of murder.

      • Unmutual says:

        I think there is a slippery slope there, too.

        See my first comment. If somebody could (well, its possible now, so I guess its only a matter of time) produce photo-realistic computer generated depictions of CP acts, would that be ok? To the point where computer forensics people would have to be utilized to determine if it was real footage or fake?

        The argument thus far seems to be that consuming CP “art” will somehow beget acts of sexual abuse against real children. But that is only one possible argument. In canada, such art is itself illegal, presumably not just because of the reason I just stated, but because it is considered reprehensible in its own right. It is not merely an issue of “pre-crime”, it is, actually, a crime to possess this stuff.

        • benenglish says:

          If somebody could … produce photo-realistic computer generated depictions of CP acts, would that be ok?

          Yes.

          The original justification for criminalizing child porn was that kids had to be hurt to make it. Within my memory (I’m in my 50s), you could walk into any large porn shop in any large U.S. city and buy child porn. It was legal. (Arguably, granted. It could have been but generally was not prosecuted under broader obscenity laws. Until the 1970s, obscenity laws generally didn’t specifically address content with children.)

          However, it was clearly the case, in those pre-internet days, that child porn retail sales required the buyer to give money to the retailer who gave some to the distributor who gave some to the importer who gave some to the foreign source who gave some to the actors who earned that money by raping children.

          That’s really a bad situation and fully justified banning child porn sales and imports. Possession bans came later.

          The general principle to which I hold is that the initial justification for criminalizing something shouldn’t be expanded. When it gets expanded, the true rationale is someone’s hidden agenda and not necessarily in the best interests of the population at large.

          In the instant case, if no kids were harmed in making it, it shouldn’t be considered child porn. IMO, obviously.

          Of course, that’s not the way things work, is it? It’s completely possible to take pictures of teens with clothes on where no sex (by any stretch of the imagination) occurs and still get convicted of making child porn. Google the Pierson case and the Webeweb tie-in to that case for more info or just have a look at the “No, we weren’t victims” video made by a couple of the kids that Pierson was convicted of making child porn of at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqKEybfBPAs . (Ya gotta know that child porn law enforcement in the U.S. is screwed up when the “victims” grow up to make youtube videos to tell the world that they weren’t victims.)

          My point is simply this – Any standard more broad than “Was a child hurt to make this?” takes us firmly into the realm of thoughtcrime and I think that’s really doubleplus ungood. Your statement that seems to imply that it’s OK to make something illegal just because lawmakers judge it to be “reprehensible” absolutely floors me. That’s a slippery slope to crazy-land because I guarantee you that pretty much anything you do besides eat, sleep, and breathe is considered by somebody, somewhere, to be “reprehensible”.

    • mappo says:

      Is the fact that children are being exploited really the only thing that differentiates actual CP, from art depicting CP?

      I think so, yes. I think there is a difference between thinking morally reprehensible thoughts and committing morally reprehensible acts. I’d be locked away forever if the things I imagined doing to other drivers on my morning commute carried the same penalty as actually doing those things.

      • Unmutual says:

        I think so, yes. I think there is a difference between thinking morally reprehensible thoughts and committing morally reprehensible acts. I’d be locked away forever if the things I imagined doing to other drivers on my morning commute carried the same penalty as actually doing those things.

        One the one hand, I’d disagree, because I have a hard time believing that people who enjoy this manga stuff that depicts children or at least stylized characters who resemble children, are not equally turned on by actual children.

        But on the other . . . if you were to apply this same reasoning to depictions of murder, drug use, or any other crime, in various media, you would pretty much eliminate all of pop culture.

        So I guess I get what the big deal is. But it sucks to have to take the side of a bunch of pervy weirdos in a case like this.

        • Anonymous says:

          One the one hand, I’d disagree, because I have a hard time believing that people who enjoy this manga stuff that depicts children or at least stylized characters who resemble children, are not equally turned on by actual children.

          It’s tough to say. Sometimes how horrible something is in real life ensures people wouldn’t enjoy it, but they still like fictional versions – think of murder and wars in literature and film. And most Manga characters, child or adult, don’t look that much like real people.

        • Shay Guy says:

          I have a hard time believing that people who enjoy this manga stuff that depicts children or at least stylized characters who resemble children, are not equally turned on by actual children.

          Believe it. (See especially the last paragraph under “Who Are the Otaku?”)

          Anyway.

          Somebody on another site linked to a Neil Gaiman journal entry from 2008, “Why defend freedom of icky speech?” Still seems applicable.

          Why is child pornography illegal? Because children are harmed in its production. That’s a very good reason. It’s also completely inapplicable to these comics. Therefore, there is insufficient justification for them to be illegal.

          • Anonymous says:

            Why is child pornography illegal? Because children are harmed in its production.

            This is straight outta Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 535 U.S. 234 (2002), which otherwise addresses a lot of arguments made in this thread.

            But there are other angels dancing on the heads of pins.

            When Dark Horse published an English translation of Gunsmith Cats as a series of comic books, the fine print at the bottom of the first page included a disclaimer to the effect that “all of the characters depicted within this comic book are over the age of eighteen.”

            How is this fact established in a court of law? Is the artist or publisher’s assertion merely accepted as fact? In this case, they conflict. The Japanese graphic novel collecting the same episodes identifies the character of Minnie-May as age 16. The Wikipedia entry identifies her as 17.

            Barbara “Barbie” Millicent Roberts was born a teenager on March 9, 1959, and I’m not sure she’s turned 21 yet.

            In the context of real porn, the law is concerned with the actual age of the performer, not their age as reported in cinematic dialogue. If the sexual acts in a film were performed by a 15 year old, no one would accept it as an affirmative defense that their first line in the movie was “I’m so excited, today’s my 21st birthday!”

            Proscription against virtual child porn requires that such fictional utterances become criminal facts. A character in a pornographic comic book is to be taken at the words in their talk balloon when they state that they are below the age of consent. What when that comic book is adapted into a movie and the role performed by an actress who in real life is legal age?

            And what if the comic book is set on a planet with a solar year one-fifth shorter than that of Earth?

          • Anonymous says:

            The fact of the matter is that within our culture, being attracted to children is taboo. While children may be exploited in CP, I’d wager millions that that is a secondary issue. As a culture, we don’t give two shits about exploited children. I still wear my Nike’s and my T-shirts, and so does everyone else. The primary issue is that our society doesn’t like pederasty or pedophilia and everything else is a logical construction to justify that. If that construction holds water on its own, that’s just icing on the cake.

    • Emo Pinata says:

      “completely fine” and “the dude’s a creeper, but not breaking any laws” is a pretty big distinction.

      • Anonymous says:

        Legally, no.

        And that’s what matters in this case. This isn’t an issue of letting your children around someone, this is a question of an action performed by a LEO. The only justification for any action is legal.

  6. GeekMan says:

    To all of those who have railed against us “silly Canadians” and that Canada is somehow draconian compared to the U.S. or Britain (what a joke)…

    Sexual freedom is important to a lot of Canadians. That’s why we let gay people get married here (unlike some nearby countries). But even in a democracy, every freedom has limitations, that’s the nature of laws.

    Illustrated or written pornographic material that involves children IS child pornography. And Canadian law has deemed that the risk of encouraging pedophilia in any form is unacceptable.

    Here’s the problem – a society, no matter how open or democratic, will always have a built-in population or marginalized citizens: children. Children have little to no democratic voice in our society. They have no power, and generally they lack the experience to engage in rigorous discourse or debate. Yes, there are fabulous exceptions. But generally speaking, children are disenfranchised by nature, and it’s not anything we can change.

    So, when we’re debating whether or not it’s worth risking their health and safety so someone can get their jollies off watching 12-year-old anime girls be ravished, we have no way to gauge whether that minority group feels the risk at their expense is justified. So yes, we do have to be overly cautious for this particular group; they’re our kids.

    • RikF says:

      Should the same exemption apply to all acts depicted from the imagination which involve any disenfranchised minority? Do we ban any TV program or movie that shows a child being murdered? How about any program that shows an elderly person as infirm? Or being abused by a carer? A racial minority being taunted? A gay person being assaulted?

      How, in any of these examples, is the ‘health and safety’ of these people being affected? And how so does it affect the health and safety of the children in yours?

      • GeekMan says:

        Really? REALLY?

        Dude, this is not art. It is not the story of how someone who suffered years of abuse at the hands of a teacher or relative overcame their pain and injuries so that they could be a healthy person. This is pornography, it has one purpose; wanking.

        You’re trying to port the principles at play here to another situation. And yes, generally that’s a good measuring stick for morality. But this is sexuality and kids; they’re two very particular items, and the situation is NOT portable.

        • RikF says:

          Really? What makes sexuality and kids different from sexuality and the infirm elderly? Or the physically disabled? Or non-sexual violence against kids? We all here find such things abhorrent, and rightly so, but we aren’t seeking to make *fictional* representations of such illegal.

          So I ask you, what makes it different? What makes it so different that producing or owning something which, with not a single child involved, and perhaps without any sexual intent at all, warrants the destruction of a person’s life?

    • Blaven says:

      “And Canadian law has deemed that the risk of encouraging pedophilia in any form is unacceptable.”

      So, where should the line be drawn as to what should be banned in order to discourage pedophilia? Should ban minors from wearing tight and revealing clothing? Should we require all girls under 18 to wear burkas, just because one perverted dude might get turned on by seeing a 17 year old girl in a short skirt walking down the street? Should Nabokov’s Lolita be banned forever for the same reason?

      As a society we need to draw the line in a sensible place. Without even knowing which manga caused this incident, we can’t properly address this question.

      • GeekMan says:

        I’m very amused here, because you guys are painting me as irrational and allowing sentimentality to cloud my ethics, while you’re the ones getting angry and making slippery slope arguments. :-)

        No, I don’t think girls should wear burkas. No, I don’t think our government has the right to monitor our internet traffic because it will “help prevent child pornography”.

        Yes, “think of the children” is used as an excuse to do stupid and irrational things which infringe our civil liberties; I’ll totally agree with that. However, I can’t condone the distribution of child pornography, fictional or otherwise. Sorry if that makes me a bad civil libertarian. :-P

    • Anonymous says:

      The demand for porn is very inelastic. Over the last 5 years, the supply of mainstream porn on the internet and its convenience has increased dramatically. The drop in price is an effect of that, and the loss of revenue for porn studios is a further effect.

      I could just as easily argue that legalizing CP would reduce child abuse as increase it. I certainly have as much evidence as you do.

    • Seraphim_72 says:

      “Illustrated or written pornographic material that involves children IS child pornography.”

      I just killed my cat by stabbing it to death with a Case knife.

      I will note that I haven’t had a cat in ages and wouldn’t own a Case knife if you gave me one.

      In your eyes have I harmed an animal or not? It seems to me that you think I have.

      • GeekMan says:

        pornography |pôrˈnägrəfē|
        noun
        printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

        • Seraphim_72 says:

          |3
          |
          \ V /
          —-@

          There a picture of me killing my cat. Now is it murder?

        • Pag says:

          The question is not whether it’s pornography (it certainly is), it’s whether it involves children (it certainly doesn’t, it only involves drawing of fictional children). It can’t be child porn if it doesn’t include an actual child.

    • bombjack says:

      [...]Illustrated or written pornographic material that involves children IS child pornography. And Canadian law has deemed that the risk of encouraging pedophilia in any form is unacceptable.
      [...]

      Sorry, that is no argument…

      Question one: Where is the Canadian Burka ( like the Afghan chadri) Law? Because children in public may encourage pedophilia?

      Question two: Where are the cameras in your private living, bath, toilet rooms? Because it´s fact that most of the sexual assaults to children are happening at home and from people that have a close relationship to the children e.g. parents.

      You see with this “argument” “…encouraging pedophilia in any form is unacceptable.” you can justify everything….even the worst.

      At the other hand….are there hard facts that dawn pictures did encouraging pedophilia? And if yes how is it with other pictures and not only reduced to pedophilia? What´s with legal pornography? With crime movies or stories or other fictional stuff?

      This slope is very, very slippery and it will go in the direction of “thought crime”…..if it is not stopped, even in the wort case with bullets.

      bombjack

    • Brainspore says:

      Real child pornography is rightfully illegal because the act of producing it directly results in the victimization of a child. I’ll even go so far as to tentatively support a ban on photo-realistic simulations of child pornography because otherwise it would be nearly impossible to control the real kind since dealers could claim they thought it was fake. But drawings? They might be sickening, but they don’t victimize anyone.

      “Please, think of the children” doesn’t hold much water when the children in question are cartoon characters.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Such a risky turn to make, and so many self entitled moralists/new-age internet pseudo psychologists here.

    There are videogames made by triple a enterprises which depict with extreme detail decapitations, a panoply of murders, and in no time a simulation of a private military merc contractor.

    Nobody is getting up in arms about that, is there?

    These depictions, both loli, military shooters, gore magazines and whatnot, whether you like them or not, have every right to exist and should be protected.

    A man CANNOT be prosecuted for its fantasies, vices or whatever product of his imagination that doesnt directly harm another being. Its a very, very, slippery slope.

    BRB, i’ll go kill some hookers at gta.

  8. Jake0748 says:

    Why are border guards even looking at the contents of people’s hard drives? What gives them the right? I mean yeah, if they had a reasonable cause, maybe. But are they just allowed to go through the contents of your computer?

    • madamecp says:

      They can search your computer for no good reason. When my family (husband, daughter, and I) crossed the border into Ontario a few years ago EVERYTHING got searched. The car, my laptop, my digital camera. They also pulled my daughter and I aside for individual questioning. It took hours and pretty well ruined our day.

      They asked why I have a different last name than my husband. The basis SEEMS to have been that women always change their last names when they get married (obviously not true), therefore my daughter and I must have been kidnapped.

      Going to Mexico is easier than going to Canada, though we did make it into Victoria safely last year. I’ve learned to look like as much of a harmless doofy tourist as possible while crossing borders. Wear a zoo t-shirt or something.

    • Anonymous says:

      Basically at the border of a country, they are allowed to search everything. You aren’t technically in the country, so you don’t really have the rights afforded by that country yet

  9. Anonymous says:

    So, a question for you. Do you believe people who have these fantasies are monsters, or people who have traveled down a bad moral path? If the latter, do you believe that at any moment, you could make a wrong decision and “become” a pedophile?

    So lets say these people are actually ill in their head and are going to have these urges. Is it best for them to act on these urges in a fantasy world, or in the real world where a child is hurt? If you penalize both, why would these monsters choose fantasy over reality?

    I don’t have the answers, and ideally “pedophiles” would be cured, but I think a reactionary “lock them up and throw away the key” isn’t helping.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The images at issue are all comics in the manga style. No photographic evidence of criminal behavior is at issue.

    I am legitimately curious as to what _is_ depicted before I wholeheartedly leap to his defense. (Not that I’m a fan of prosecuting FICTIONAL CP like real CP, but regardless.) There’s a lot of wiggle room in between Doraemon and Urotsukidoji, so to speak. Is this lolichan stuff, is this tentacle-fu, is this gratuitous fanservice, is this some kind of “it’s one o’ dem filthy Jap books with a little girl on the cover” snap decision on the part of a customs agent?

  11. benenglish says:

    Do they think it’s real?

    Sometimes.

    I was at an signing event at an adult book store once. There was a guy there drooling over the small rack of Japanese anime. I really hate to confirm the stereotype, but he was unkempt, smelly, and a tad manic in his demeanor.

    He proceeded to tell anybody he could collar about how great they were. I was mildly familiar with the medium (and always on the lookout for a good story) so I let him chat me up. Big mistake. After a couple of minutes of listening to him gleefully describe the wonderful acting of the characters and their self-sacrifice in allowing themselves to be violated for our viewing pleasure it dawned on me that, in his mind, those anime characters were real people.

    That was the scariest guy I’ve ever run into in a porn shop. And that’s saying a lot.

  12. turn_self_off says:

    One thing to ponder in all this is the gray zone between age of consent and the biological process known as puberty.

  13. David D. says:

    The slippery slope is that the definition of CP will continue to expand past those things that are clearly evidence of a crime (photographic images, film and video) to ‘marginal’ materials that no one cares to defend (manga, anime, slash and fanfic, other content not recognized in the mainstream as ‘art’) and then to mainstream materials that depict or discuss child or youth sexuality in any context–artistic, medical (for example STI prevention and sex education), academic, etc. Unchecked, the net grows larger and larger…

  14. Sakipooh says:

    If these comics involved sailor moon looking characters that could be anything from 16 years of age or older, then I really don’t see what the big deal is. I haven’t seen much of this type of manga but from what I’ve witnessed these females usually have adult features which could in no way been interpreted as those of children.

    I’m just wondering if this is a case of an elderly customs official misinterpreting the content at hand.

    But if the comics truly do involve children…that’s another story.

  15. turn_self_off says:

    This is why “think of the children” is the ultimate appeal to emotion…

  16. Raita says:

    Guys, just ignore noen. He’s just saying whatever will irk people the most, in as insulting yet calm and articulate way as possible. “Obvious troll is obvious”, one might say.

    But honestly, it makes me sad that countries like Canada and Sweden have laws like these. This is another example of a victimless crime. So many assumptions with no definitive proof (as was established in Free Speech Coaliton v. Reno).

    Another assumption is that everyone who reads/watches simulated CP imagines themselves in the position of the abuser. What about us others, who like the exact opposite? I’m an 18 year old female, and although I prefer comics depicting rape (especially tentacle rape), I’ve read the occasional CP manga as well. Does that make me a potential child abuser? Am I just a ticking time bomb who should be locked away?
    Some people might think of my fetishes as weird, sick or even an “illness”, but I fail to see the crime when I’m not hurting anyone. I simply fantasize about it and sometimes roleplay such situations with my fiancé.

    I’m not saying women should be treated differently – no, certainly not. I’m just pointing out that people can have various reasons for enjoying such material and assuming that simply possessing it automatically means you also enjoy looking at real little boys or girls (Have people actually seen those mangas? Most of them look nothing like actual children) is a very black and white way of viewing things.

    I also think that Shotaro might be right – fake child porn could work as an outlet for the actual pedophiles out there. I’d love to see more studies on this before making any hasty conclusions, though.

    All the strenght to you, Shotaro – I believe you can resist your urges and keep your fantasies as only fantasies.

    • turn_self_off says:

      I am reminded of a claim, perhaps made during the dawn of sexual research (around the 70s if i am correct), that said most women fantasize about being raped at one time or another.

      And yes, there was a recent paper saying that a increase of virtual violence have coincided with a drop in the real kind. Now why this was, they could not specify.

    • Shotaro says:

      Thank you, Raita, I’m always glad to hear that people aren’t writing me off as a monster. It’s difficult to build up the courage to do the right thing sometimes. And sometimes when I do there’s some silly obstacle, like how I can’t access Hotmail securely now, or I get errors while posting here.

      One thing I find striking about “normal” pornography, illustrated or otherwise, versus pornography involving children, is that men are often advised to stop using regular porn and stop masturbating to gain a confidence boost and incentive in finding a partner, but when it involves children, using it makes them more likely to seek a victim… Well, which is it? If nothing else, a man’s ability to orgasm can be temporarily exhausted, and any man can tell you that blue balls can somewhat impair his rationality. Repress and suppressing desires does not work, the only options are to either redirect them, or to satisfy them in a safe way. Illustrated child pornography can be that safe method, and possession of it at least deserves to be protected when a person is seeking treatment.

      About imagining oneself as the child/victim rather than the abuser, that’s very common. In fact, most straight shota stories(young boy with older woman) are written for young men revisiting schoolboy fantasies about a hot teacher taking advantage of them. For normal shota, it’s typical for the boy to be the one doing the seducing, or at least being enthusiastic once he starts, and often it’s two boys exploring their sexuality together without adult intervention. This ties in to what I mentioned about safer fantasies. If my fantasies have to depend on the boy taking the lead and wanting sex, and that’s what gets me off, why would I force myself on a boy? Why would I risk his happiness, my friends and family’s safety and my freedom on second best? On the other hand, I know that if a boy knows enough about sex to ask me for it, he’s probably being abused and the best way to show my affection for him is to save him from that.

      • turn_self_off says:

        Hmm, your last bit there made me think about “wounded birds”. And how they seem able to get onto the topic of sex at the drop of a hat (or at least that has been my experience). Could it be some attempt at getting a outlet for bad experiences?

        • Shotaro says:

          I’m not sure what you mean. I know that I was sexually precocious, having sexual fantasies from around age eight in what I believe was a response to my father’s violence towards me- it wasn’t deliberately sexual on his part, but I recognise some of the feelings from then in the feelings I get being dominated sexually. I don’t think it’s an outlet for bad experiences, so much as it is the bad experience awakening someone to physical and emotional aspects of sex. If this happens before someone is socially conditioned to keep sex private, they’re less likely to not talk about sex if it happens to cross their mind.
          There might also be the PTSD aspect. The main reason for PTSD to exist is for the mind to replay and rehearse dangerous situations until it can keep its shit together if they happen again. This forms a loop with situations that the mind cannot handle and cannot solve. If someone is abused and has to relive violent sexual experiences regularly, it keeps it at the forefront of their mind.

          • turn_self_off says:

            It was mostly a observation based on people i have bumped into in the past. They all had some kind of bad experience in their past (and at times dealing with it still), and all of them seemed almost overly fixated on sex. Or at least had the ability to bring up the topic with little hesitation or self-consciousness.

          • turn_self_off says:

            Btw, your description of PTSD sounds a bit like what i keep doing with social situations that are some 10-20 years old. All part of that aspie thing i guess.

  17. pAULbOWEN says:

    If I knew that someone got his jollies from sexual depictions of children (however ‘artistic’) I wouldn’t have him in the house so I don’t blame them for not wanting him in the country. A year in prison is a bit OTT though.

  18. Jackasimov says:

    I don’t care for the loli stuff, personally, but I will defend with my life your right to fap to it.

    Vices are not crimes.

    • noen says:

      “I don’t care for the loli stuff, personally, but I will defend with my life your right to fap to it.”

      I won’t, there are and ought to be limits. Child porn is a pretty good candidate for a limit to acceptable images. The human brain operates on a reward system. If you choose to reward yourself by masturbating to sexualized images of children then you stand a risk of actualizing those fantasies.

      People use to say that when you get angry you should just “let it all out” and that violent media (play, movies and TV) provide a catharsis, a way of exorcising our rage. But there are no demon rage spirits to expunge and in fact Aristotle was wrong, catharsis does not serve a useful function.

      When you act out on your angry feelings you are rehearsing and reinforcing aggressive behavior. By behaving angrily you increase the likelihood that you will eventually act on those feelings.

      When you masturbate to images of children (photos or cartoons) you are rehearsing to be a pedophile and you increase the likelihood that you will act on those impulses.

      “He faces a minimum of one year in prison if convicted.”

      Good for Canadians. Someone still has some sense in this world.

      • Seraphim_72 says:

        “If you choose to reward yourself by masturbating to sexualized images of children then you stand a risk of actualizing those fantasies.”

        What utter hogwash.

        If that line of thinking were true the streets would be running red with blood daily. In fact the opposite is true.

        Violent crime has been falling in the US for decades and no one can say why. It is even falling during the economic meltdown which is really odd. My pet theory is that people are getting their violence out by playing violent games. Who wants all the baggage of mugging someone when you can do it virtually and get your jollies that way? Catharsis works, just not in the primal scream therapy way from the 70′s that everyone (you included) thinks it does.

        Reading Superman isn’t going to turn you into a Hero, looking at a Dali painting won’t melt clocks and looking at drawings of females of indeterminate age in plaid skirts won’t turn you into a child molester.

        • noen says:

          Seraphim_72 said
          “If you choose to reward yourself by masturbating to sexualized images of children then you stand a risk of actualizing those fantasies.”

          What utter hogwash.

          If that line of thinking were true the streets would be running red with blood daily. In fact the opposite is true.

          American has the largest prison population per capita in the world. America just loves torturing people. We love it so much we had a TV program devoted to showing how and when we should torture people and what rationalizations we can use to soothe any shreds of guilt we might have.

          Do you believe we live in a world of cause and effect or not? If we do then it stands to reason that the things I do today will have a causal effect on me tomorrow. How do people get to be sex offenders? The same way they get to Carnegie Hall, practice practice practice.

          Is there some “essence” that separates me from the killer or any other social minority? No, there are no essences, I do not need “god given talent” to be a violinist. All I need is the motivation to practice. If there is nothing that separates me from becoming *anything* I desire then there is likewise nothing separating me from any crime or criminal behavior.

          Do you know how easy it is to turn ordinary people into prison guards willing to torture their prisoners? It’s ridiculously easy. All you do, and believe me despotic regimes know this, is set up a system of rewards and you gradually introduce them. Bit by bit, little by little, until they *become* that guard willing to shove a cattle prod up someone’s…. and enjoy it.

          There is no such thing as human nature, there is no “essence” to who I am. “Pedophile” does not name a separate species from me. It’s just behavior and if you behave like a concert violinist then you *are* a concert violinist. That’s all it takes, nothing more.

          Behaviors that are repeated and rewarded literally re-wire your brain. That is the whole point of practicing a musical instrument. You are not born a musician. You can’t just will yourself to be a musician. You practice to strengthen neural pathways that will enable you to behave as if you were a musician and then lo and behold, once you behave as if, then you are.

          People who suffer from depression or in recovery from addiction are taught that they should act “as if”. You learn to act as if you are happy, then, ta da! You *are* happy. That’s just how we humans work.

          And if it works for things we think are good, then it works for things we think are bad. So, if you get into Lolichan pr0n “for the art”, I guess that’s ok, then maybe you masturbate to it once. still good, then a bit more, then… not so good.

          I am not in favor of legalizing drugs, but I do favor medicalizing drug use. I’m not in favor of zero restrictions on porn, but I do favor treatment, not punishment, for sex offenses. I reject the Libertarian argument for absolute freedom for everything as I think that will do exactly for our society what it did for our economy. I am for the middle path, for moderation and balance. That means there should be limits to many things. But I understand that people don’t want to accept that there are our ought to be any limits to their behavior at all. I beg to differ.

          • Pag says:

            “How do people get to be sex offenders? The same way they get to Carnegie Hall, practice practice practice.”

            Hmm, no. They become sex offenders because they commit a crime. They don’t actually need practice. I’m at a loss for words because of how ridiculous it is to compare the process of becoming a sex offender and becoming a skillful musician. It’s a terrible analogy any way you look at it.

            “I am for the middle path, for moderation and balance.”

            No you’re not. Your entire argument insists on the importance of limiting what people can do, see, say, or think so society can be safer. It’s the most anti-freedom argument I’ve read in a very long time. Face it: you’re pro-safety and anti-freedom.

          • Seraphim_72 says:

            “American has the largest prison population per capita in the world.”

            Which has more to do with garbage drug law and puritanism than anything else.

            “America just loves torturing people.”

            I can find you millions that disagree.

            “Do you believe we live in a world of cause and effect or not? If we do then it stands to reason that the things I do today will have a causal effect on me tomorrow.”

            Are you one of Pavlov’s dogs? Can you overcome your base nature?

            “How do people get to be sex offenders? The same way they get to Carnegie Hall, practice practice practice.”

            But if I practice drawn images (violin) it doesn’t mean they let me in to Carnegie to play Trombone (actual molestation)

            “Is there some “essence” that separates me from the killer or any other social minority? No, there are no essences, I do not need “god given talent” to be a violinist. All I need is the motivation to practice. If there is nothing that separates me from becoming *anything* I desire then there is likewise nothing separating me from any crime or criminal behavior.”

            I guess you have never met a real artist or prodigy then. If you think you can practice your way to being whatever, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, some people are born ‘that way’

            “Do you know how easy it is to turn ordinary people into prison guards willing to torture their prisoners?”

            Yes, I knew this was coming. ‘Given the opportunity people are assholes’ != ‘given the opportunity people will rape children’

            “You are not born a musician.”

            Yes, they are. Go look up this dude named Mozart. Awesome.

            “I am for the middle path, for moderation and balance.”

            And ThoughtCrime apperently.

          • noen says:

            Seraphim_72
            “Are you one of Pavlov’s dogs? Can you overcome your base nature?”

            There is no free will. None. For us to have free will implies that there is an uncaused cause, how can that be? The best you can hope for is indeterminate randomness.

            You should *wish* you were one of pavlov’s dogs, today we know that the signal to move your arm was already on it’s way long before you decided to move that arm. “You” are informed of your decision *after* that decision has been made.

            Pag said:
            “They become sex offenders because they commit a crime. They don’t actually need practice”

            Sex offenders are not born to be what they are. Mozart was not born to be who he was. We are all born with a set of background abilities it’s true but those capabilities that Mozart was born with could have been redirected or suppressed depending on his environment. Had he not been born into a wealthy aristocratic family he’d have never become the Mozart we know. Had he been a feral child he would have never even learned to speak.

            Contrary to what Chomsky might say we are not born with a language engine in our head. We are born with the capacity to acquire language but if you miss the window of opportunity it’s gone forever.

            Sex offenders are made not born. Drug addicts are also made not born. Alcoholism is a disease that some people more readily acquire than others. Not because they are born that way, but because they are born with a certain susceptibility. As a consequence society has decided that access to alcohol should be restricted. Sex offenders are more like alcoholics and so also in that instance society has decided that easy access to sexualized images should not be permitted. With special emphasis on images of children. Some things, certain content and certain substances, are completely off the table as to availability for use.

            It seems reasonable to me that we should restrict access to drugs, alcohol, certain images etc. and that there should be penalties for breaking those laws. I also think that habitual users of such “vices” should be medicalized; they should receive treatment for simple possession, jail for criminal acts. But manufacturers or distributers of drugs or certain media content should go to jail.

            People on the internet, especially young males, have a naive belief that everything should be free. There should never be any consequences for anything, we should all be able to just do anything we want and no one should ever interfere in our activities. This is a typical outlook that children have. Part of growing up is learning just how misguided that belief is.

            But there are always consequences and those consequences are not arbitrary, they are facts of the world. That those consequences exist independent of our desire to do as we please frustrates and angers people. So when I tell people that these consequences exist they direct that anger to me. That’s ok.

            It is not my opinion that drugs and certain behaviors are bad, it is an objective fact, given who we are as a species and what we desire for our communities, that some things will be off limits. This stands to reason because we live in a causally determinate world. So if we have as a goal a certain kind of society then it follows there must be some things, some behaviors, that will *necessarily* be “bad” (prevent us achieving said goal).

            It is impossible to build a society without rules. Once there are rules there are things you cannot do. But the internet tends to foster the illusion that it is possible or even desirable to exist without rules. This belief is mistaken.

          • Shotaro says:

            I probably wasn’t born the way I am, but so what? My first fantasies about boys started at the age of eight, and I’m as sure as I can be that they’re a result of how my father treated me. Does the fact that I wasn’t born this way mean the damage isn’t permanent, and that I can just pray it out? There is no evidence that people like me can change orientation. I recognise three distinct orientations in me, attraction towards men in and around the 25-50 bracket, women between 25-40, and boys between 8-14. None of them feel tacked on or separate, and none of them have the “take it or leave it” feeling I get with fetishes. Sometimes I really want a man, sometimes a woman, and sometimes a boy. I’ve never had a compelling interest in girls, though the interweb has given me plenty of access to lolicon, so if I could be reorientated, I’d surely be obsessed with little girls by now, wouldn’t I? But, no, they’re just women with less, less fun stuff, less emotional maturity, less experience, they don’t interest me, they’re not a distinct focus for me like boys are.

            And my basic point remains, making this illegal just means I’m told that I’m dangerous, that it’s inevitable that I’ll harm a child and that treatment isn’t available even if I want to man up and do what’s right. It seems all I’ll do by coming forward is put everyone around me in danger.

          • Seraphim_72 says:

            “There is no free will. None.”

            I honestly pity you.

            “today we know that the signal to move your arm was already on it’s way long before you decided to move that arm.”

            Uh?

            “Contrary to what Chomsky might say we are not born with a language engine in our head.”

            Never herd Twin Talk then have you? I have. It is very weird, but it is real language. Raised in isolation (ie wolf kid) sure they wont develop language.

          • noen says:

            Seraphim_72 said
            “Uh?”

            You heard that right. Experiments have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the signal to your muscles to move you arm is already underway *before* you have any conscious awareness of a desire to move that arm. The implication is clear, “you” are a construct which has the illusions of being in control when in fact it is not you who is running the show. Low level processes are in charge and send you a sort of executive summary and like all CEOs we take all the credit.

            “Never herd Twin Talk then have you?”

            There is no such thing as a private language. Wittgenstein proved it impossible long ago. All such children were exposed to language speaking adults.

            Any mouse spoke
            “The ‘species’ doesn’t share desires for communities.”

            All social institutions represent the collective intentionality of those involved. If I am a member of a band then I share in common with all other members of the band the collective intent that we are playing together for a common purpose. Societies are also like that, there is a common purpose or project in which we all participate to one degree or another. Behaviors that deviate from our agreed values are deemed “immoral” because they indicate a break from the social contract.

            “The ‘species’ does not have a homogeneous culture, though it certainly is becoming more so.”

            I would expect that at some distant future humanity will consist of only one genetic individual female and her clones. It seems like the logical end point.

            “We don’t all want some authoritarian Daddy to tell us what’s right and wrong”

            There is a real world independent of our desires. If that is true then statements about that world are true regardless of our desire that they be otherwise. Given that there is an objective reality that operates according to objective laws then if a society wishes to indulge in X behavior *and* achieve Y goals the real world has something to say about if that is possible or not. You will not have a wealthy industrious society if everyone is tripped out on LSD. The gay community of the 70′s wanted to believe it could have wildly promiscuous unprotected sex, the world said no.

            People interpret that no, the reality of limits and boundaries on what we can do, as a fatherly voice. The No of the Father. The Judeo/Christian god is a personification of causality after all. But it’s just impersonal reality at work. It doesn’t tell us what is right or wrong, just that such and such goal in conflict with one’s desire. People really don’t like to hear that because they are deeply involved in their own narcissistic fantasies. Like thinking they can just do anything they want free of consequence.

            The answer is no.

          • Anonymous says:

            I hate to say, but structuralism is bollocks. Slavery represents the internationalism of all those involved, huh? I guess it’s not a far jump to your final conclusion, which is that we all want to be slaves and can’t help but be slaves. People have no freedom seems to be your trip. It sounds depressing.

            Gotta love your homophobic slur, too. That’s icing.

            “I would expect that at some distant future humanity will consist of only one genetic individual female and her clones. It seems like the logical end point.”

            Well, you had me before, but you gave it away, man. Don’t try so hard.
            0/10
            too obvious.

          • noen says:

            a little mouse
            “I hate to say, but structuralism is bollocks.”

            If I were a structuralist then I would argue that there are no objective facts of the matter about whether or not drug use or pedophilia are good or bad things for a society. I’ve been making the exact opposite argument.

            “Gotta love your homophobic slur, too. That’s icing.”

            I get to do that as I was around at the time. The environment was completely different than today where people (for the most part) engage in responsible sex. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being gay, that would be… silly of me. I don’t even think there is anything wrong with having highly promiscuous unprotected sex, gay or straight. What is wrong (incorrect) is to believe there can be no consequences from that behavior.

            If in the 70′s or even the 80′s you had said that unprotected anonymous gay sex was wrong you would have been met with vicious hate and anger “How dare you tell ME what to do!”. But in fact those behaviors *were* wrong. Wrong in the sense of being out of tune with reality.

            Notice how the gay community has now adjusted it’s attitudes about sex to be more in line with reality (reality being that unprotected sex has consequences) and as a result is healthier and happier. That’s my whole argument in a nutshell. Just as promiscuous unprotected sex was destructive of the gay community’s values (like wanting to survive) so also are promiscuous drug use or promiscuous expressions of pedophilia destructive to society’s values.

            If we as humans wish to survive and thrive there are things we should not do.


            “I suppose Noen and folks like him get to thump their chests – and Bibles/Koran/Torah – in righteous pride, eh? “

            I think you’ll find that playing the victim has diminishing rewards. It feels good at first because, after all, believing the universe revolves around you feels really good. But in the long run sublimating one’s desires in order to serve a higher cultural or socially useful purpose is the way to go.

          • Anonymous says:

            “It is not my opinion that drugs and certain behaviors are bad, it is an objective fact, given who we are as a species and what we desire for our communities”

            Did you even think about this before you said it? Even if you reject every bit of cultural relativity, which I don’t think anyone does, then this is still absurdist. The ‘species’ doesn’t share desires for communities. The ‘species’ does not have a homogeneous culture, though it certainly is becoming more so. We don’t all want some authoritarian Daddy to tell us what’s right and wrong, to tell us how to be the individual society needs us to be. I’d say it’s clear there are some pretty big cultural differences between the two of us.

            10/10
            would rage again.

          • Anonymous says:

            I don’t want to live in a society where someone like you made the rules…

            Wait..in fact..I live in one like that now
            and guess what?

            It fucking sucks. Everything about it sucks. Meanwhile the people at the top of your rule-based utopia get to live in total, anarchic freedom while keeping the boots on the necks of the “little people” that are just too fucking stupid (or naive – your words) to be trusted with liberty.

      • Hools Verne says:

        Lobotomies for everybody!

      • Ugly Canuck says:

        I won’t, there are and ought to be limits. Porn is a pretty good candidate for a limit to acceptable images. The human brain operates on a reward system. If you choose to reward yourself by masturbating to sexualized images then you stand a risk of actualizing those fantasies.

        People use to say that when you get angry you should just “let it all out” and that violent media (play, movies and TV) provide a catharsis, a way of exorcising our rage. But there are no demon rage spirits to expunge and in fact Aristotle was wrong, catharsis does not serve a useful function.

        When you act out on your angry feelings you are rehearsing and reinforcing aggressive behavior. By behaving angrily you increase the likelihood that you will eventually act on those feelings.

        When you masturbate to images (photos or cartoons) you are rehearsing to be sexual and you increase the likelihood that you will act on those impulses.

        “He faces a minimum of one year in prison if convicted.”

        Good for Canadians. Someone still has some sense in this world.

        Where do the “minimum sentences” come from, God’s forehead?

        Oh. wait:

        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/matt-stoller-who-wants-keep-the-war-on-drugs-going-and-put-you-in-debtors-prison.html

        Oh and of course there’s no art to drawn images, no sireee.

        • Nelson.C says:

          You’re assuming a lot of stuff which we simply don’t know. All we know from the post is that the Canadian Customs objected to manga images on the guy’s computer on the basis that they might be interpreted as child-porn.

          The pictures might be no more than panty shots or nudes in a public bath context in the middle of a manga farce which otherwise doesn’t touch on sexual themes, and which the customs officer objected to in order to retroactively justify his intrusive search. Or it might be more than that.

          In either case, we have no evidence that the accused masturbated to them. That’s just a lurid detail that your imagination has added. It is not a fact.

        • noen says:

          Ugly Canuck said some stuff —- was that an argument? I’m not seeing one but thanks for repeating everything I said.

          Naked Capitalism? Really? Have they been right about *anything*? And still with the drug thing?

          “there’s no art to drawn images”

          How about photographs? How about a photo of a man urinating into the mouth of a child? Is that art? How about an actually pornographic photo of a child with some ironic title attached, does that make it art? Suppose I take real child porn and put it in a frame and show it in a gallery, does that act make it art?

          Do the things we do affect who we are?

          • Ugly Canuck says:

            Ah, it is the mandatory minimum prison time as a just punishment – which seems the usurpation of the judicial function by the legislature – which imho is really in question in both these porno possession cases, and the marijuana cases.

            The more civilized the society, the more severe the penalties?

            Really?

            The punishment for a crime ought to reflect the severity of the harm caused by the conduct which is prohibited.

            Do you have a problem with that principle?

          • AnthonyC says:

            “Do you have a problem with that principle?”

            No, but your comment reminds me of Harrison Bergeron (the TV version not the original). Paraphrased quote when the main character finds out the death penalty has been extended to non-moving violations: “They weren’t smart enough to fight crime, so they decided to fight criminals.”

      • Anonymous says:

        “When you masturbate to images of children (photos or cartoons) you are rehearsing to be a pedophile and you increase the likelihood that you will act on those impulses.”

        I hope you are against fps games too, because every kid nowadays is “rehearsing to be a killer”.
        Thoughcrime is not (yet) against the law.

      • SamSam says:

        Noen: Just to know, do you place the same limits on watching violence or murder in films? How about if someone were jerking off to the violence depicted in a regular film? Should that be illegal? It seems as if you could say the same thing: “The human brain operates on a reward system. If you choose to reward yourself by masturbating to [violence] then you stand a risk of actualizing those fantasies.

        • noen says:

          SamSam said
          “Just to know, do you place the same limits on watching violence or murder in films?”

          Yes, I think that adolescents should not be permitted to watch snuff porn. we have known for a very long time that children who watch violent images act out on that violence. Americans watch a lot of violence and guess what?

          America is ok with torture.

          And by the way, if you’re masturbating to images of children, even if it is sanitized under the rubric of “lolichan”, even if they are drawings, you’re already a pedophile.

          • Ugly Canuck says:

            Ah, just like you label drug users ‘addicts’ before giving them lengthy jail time, eh?

            Again, Noen, you seem to lack compassion for the sick – and pedophiles ARE sick, just like drug addicts.

            Rehab and treatment, not retribution and punishment, is what is required; doctors and nurses and shrinks, and not cops and prison guards and priests, if you really want a better place/space for everybody to live in securely.

            That the law has a role to play to compel treatment for those who would harm others – or themselves – goes without saying.

          • Anonymous says:

            THERE IS NO MENTION OF SEX IN THIS POST.

            So everyone who has ever seen a gangster film is a murderer, yes? Including you?

            Hey, by that argument, you watching the reality show with the addict was you “enabling” the addict, since your watching raised the ratings, which kept it on the air, which kept her in blow.

            Good to know you’re OK with torture, since you don’t specifically exclude yourself from that either.

            But your argument doesn’t allow exclusions or exceptions, or academic study for that matter.

      • Jackasimov says:

        “Child porn is a pretty good candidate for a limit to acceptable images. The human brain operates on a reward system. If you choose to reward yourself by masturbating to sexualized images of children then you stand a risk of actualizing those fantasies. When you masturbate to images of children (photos or cartoons) you are rehearsing to be a pedophile and you increase the likelihood
        that you will act on those impulses.”

        Child porn, pornographic images of children, is something that apparently Candian officials are having a real hard time defining. I have no love for child-abusers or even pedos, quite the opposite, but handcrafted imagery is something entirely different. Whether someone’s brain is rewarding them for imagining something (aided by imagery or not) really shouldn’t be any more of society’s business than imagining murder, theft, rape or genocide. It’s my brain and it isn’t anyone’s right to decide what I do with it. I’d have a hard time arguing that in public of course but the fact remains thoughts are not crimes. Yet.

      • RikF says:

        ” If you choose to reward yourself by masturbating to sexualized images then you stand a risk of actualizing those fantasies.”

        Or, if we accept your unproven suggestion that watching (enjoying) a particular medium leads you to adopt it as your chosen fetish (sexual or otherwise), then the individual (who we have no evidence was using the comic for sexual gratification) might as easily be conditioning themselves to only be aroused by drawings (of any nature), this reducing the chance of them ever committing an act of sexual violence against a real human. Hell, in a world of population explosion, we should be encouraging this! In fact, perhaps it should be compulsory!

        Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go and defend my house against the hordes of car-jacking 12 year olds hopped out of their minds on GTA-4…

      • duncan says:

        I wonder what comic it was?

        It seems to me that the people who get the most upset at this kind of artwork are the ones we should be keeping an eye on. They get very disturbed by ideas. Do they think it’s real? Are they unable to see that it’s only an illustration? Or is it that an illustration is the same as a real live person? Hmm, you’re over-reaction is interesting. Me thinks though dost object too much.

        “But it sucks to have to take the side of a bunch of pervy weirdos in a case like this.” -UnMutual.

        Yeah, but as Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote “I may not agree with your views but I’ll fight to the death to defend them.”

        “When you masturbate to images of children (photos or cartoons) you are rehearsing to be a pedophile and you increase the likelihood that you will act on those impulses.” -noen

        Orly? To paraphrase Magritte; “Ce n’est pas un enfant”.

        I would say that if noen is masturbating to cartoons of children, s/he is rehearsing to be a cartoonophile, not a pedophile as no children are actually involved in cartoons. (But all you into CosPlay should prolly keep your eyes peeled.)

        We all learn as children to differentiate between the imagined and reality. If you find yourself thinking of some actual child in situations where you see only an illustrated depiction of a child, then you yourself might be blurring the lines between reality and fantasy and maybe it’s you who aught to check in someplace so you don’t hurt others.

        I take faith that if anyone actually is a pedophile that each and every one of us here (or anywhere) would be for appropriate punishment. But we can’t and shouldn’t persecute people for their illustrated reading material because of some vague uneasiness that it *might* lead to a crime. Until it does -lead to an actual crime – you shouldn’t do anything. Otherwise you risk ruining someone’s life over a suspicion. Why would you do that?

        • RikF says:

          “I take faith that if anyone actually is a pedophile* that each and every one of us here (or anywhere) would be for appropriate punishment”

          * and acted upon those impulses. Otherwise you’re back on the road to thought crime again.

  19. yclept says:

    I don’t understand. How did they get past the security on his laptop? Did he give up his passwords?

    If you have some sort of questionable material on your computer and you allow law enforcement to search it, you may have some ‘splaining to do.

    On the other hand, Canada is now off the table for me. Screw you, eh.

  20. Shotaro says:

    If you were sexually abused as a child, this post could trigger memories for you. Please don’t read it if you have any worries. There are two possible reasons why what happened to you did, either a mentally ill person convinced themselves it was the right way to show their affection for a beautiful and wonderful child, or some arsehole woke up hating the world and decided to destroy something beautiful and wonderful, to destroy you. Don’t be ashamed of yourself, you are wonderful, be the amazing person you have every right to be and can be. Don’t let the monster win, don’t let yourself be destroyed.

    I’m a paedophile living in the UK, and we have a similar law(The Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009, sections 62 to 69). It outlaws illustrated pornography, and legal pictures or excerpts of legal media(e.g. catalogues and cartoons) that the prosecution can convince a jury were fapped to.

    I have a masochistic nature. I enjoy punishment, I enjoy the feeling of being controlled. When my father began beating me when I was eight years old, I felt a certain exhilaration I couldn’t explain until I started to experiment with BDSM over a decade later. As I grew up through my teens, trying to suppress the gay side of my bisexuality, I didn’t concern myself with why I was having fantasies about boys a couple of years younger than I was. This was also under Section 28. Nobody ever told me that being attracted to men was OK, I didn’t have a way to separate attraction to men and attraction to boys in my mind.
    At around 17, I met a girl who I’d watch anime with, and I let slip that I was attracted to Shinji from Evangeleon. Her reaction was basically “huh” and she hooked me up with yaoi, and I got hooked on Gundam Wing yaoi, which is essentially shota, and I didn’t go through an “eww” stage of practicing or acclimatising, it just felt right. As I explored I realised that my attraction to men was more towards older men, preferably muscular and/or hairy, “real” men. But there was still an attraction to younger men, and those Gundam stories and pictures.
    A while later, I started watching Ben 10 with a younger relative(blood relative, no interest). I became infatuated with Ben, he was so handsome and so beautiful. I realised I was fantasising about boys I saw in the street. I was crushed that, after promising myself I’d be a good father and show my shit of a dad how it’s done, I couldn’t risk having a family. After being the eldest of a whole swarm, I would have to avoid any situation that would leave me alone with or in control of children. But my most pressing concern was keeping these urges under control. I found that what helped me clear my mind of the compulsive urge for sex was a really good orgasm every couple of days. If it was to women or men, I’d involuntarily fantasise to boys I knew or had seen recently, but boys, appealing to both sides of me, would clear my mind of sex for days, and still do.
    When I look at real boys, an urge runs through me, an urge to express my affection physically, to show them the wondrous things I can do with their bodies and make them happy. But I know that if I do that to a real boy, it won’t make him happy, or at least, I can’t tell, nobody can, which boys will love it and will boys will be destroyed by it. That jolt of shame keeps me away from them.
    Shota, illustrated pornography of young boys, doesn’t trigger this. I know the boys is a fantasy, and in the fantasy he can be willing, and I avoid and don’t enjoy fantasies that are rape based(apart from a dream I sometimes have where I’m giving a boy a massage, and he tells me to give him a happy ending, or he’ll say I did). I can direct myself into safer fantasies, fantasies that require the boy to be willing, to be active, and to have power over me, fantasies that couldn’t be realised. I know that if a boy made those kinds of moves on me in real life, the likeliest explanation is that he’s being abused and needs help, not sex.
    Illustrated pornography allows me to preserve the shame I feel about being sexually attracted to boys, and to keep that urge contained. I’ve recently contacted Stop It Now after encouragement from talking about my condition here, and they confirmed my worst fears: possessing shota is illegal and would justify breaching confidentiality, and there’s naff all help available for people who aren’t convicted of a child sex crime to deal with those urges anyway. I should have written back to them at least a month ago, follow up on some things they said about coping strategies, but I’m overcome with fear about endangering my friends and family if I’m discovered. The adviser asked me to phone for a more fluid and useful chat, but accepted that with my fears, I probably wouldn’t.
    I can’t give up shota, because doing so puts boys at risk from my unchecked urges. So I need professional help, which I can’t get until I give it up. This law and others like it have a chilling effect on people like me seeking treatment, it puts children in danger. I’m left trying to jerry-rig suitable coping mechanisms with only arms-length contact with specialists. I’m enormously stressed by all this, by this existential threat, by living in hostile territory. This affects my decision making, and I can’t afford to make bad decisions. This affects my ability to have a strong, “cleansing” orgasm to anything other than shota, making the very sensible advice to substitute acceptable fantasies in place of my current ones almost impossible to carry out.

  21. OldBrownSquirrel says:

    One of the things I find odd is that there’s such a significant legal distinction, at least in the US, between written descriptions of minors engaged in sex acts and drawings of minors engaged in sex acts. “Romeo and Juliet” as a play is clear, but possession of a stick figure rendering of some of the actions that take place between scenes would be a felony.

    Setting tentacles aside, we’ve outlawed a class of depictions of reality, which seems absurd and archaic. Minors quite willingly and happily do things that it’s illegal to draw, and the penalties are utterly draconian.

  22. gwailo_joe says:

    I remember some years ago my friend loaned me a couple of books. . .award winning, literary type books.

    And in both unrelated tomes, somebody swung an infant by the heels and dashed their brains out on the rocks. So I said to my friend ‘what’s up with all the baby-brain bashing?’

    He had no answer. . .hell, he never even noticed until I reminded him. (for those that care: Blood Meridian and Book of Fishes)

    What should be done about such horrible (written) crimes? Nothing of course. It’s called freedom of etc etc.

    This lolicon stuff does walk that fine line for a lot of people: some of the images depicted might turn ones stomach (and in real life would be totally foul and unconscionable)

    But: no actual children were harmed in the making of these drawings. They are not photographs.

    It is not the same thing.

  23. Anonymous says:

    I think it might be best if we arrest all Americans at the Canadian border. What this incident has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Americans are at risk of being involved in CP. I don’t think we can allow them to just cross the border into Canada willy nilly.

    It’s very likely that Americans are involved in ordinary pornography too, which as we now know, was something Bin Laden was involved in. That means all Americans are potential terrorists.

    I recommend arresting all Americans on suspicion on CP and terrorism until further notice. I would also regard them as highly dangerous individuals. Approach with caution.

  24. Shotaro says:

    I often get a few “Invalide request” errors when I try to post. I assume that’s something to do with the ninja magic I use to post these messages. I’m obviously going to be cagey about my setup, but I just wanted to mention it.

  25. IronEdithKidd says:

    It might be helpful if a Canadian commenter could produce a link to the statute that makes manga illegal. GeekMan and Unmutual have asserted that this is the case, perhaps one of them could provide the language of the legislation making is so. Ugly Canuck, you’re pretty handy with the links, aren’t you?

    Also, if anyone can come up with the actual title of the material the American has been arrested for possessing, and a description of the contents (don’t want to have to go look it up, you know, just in case), it would help us all better debate whether or not the material could be construed as child porn by a reasonable person. At this stage, for all we know, the arresting border patrol officer is neurotically fearful of human sexuality.

  26. Unmutual says:

    As an aside, can’t you store encrypted data on cloud services?

    I mean is there really any reason to be carrying contraband stuff or even legally fuzzy material around on a physical drive these days?

  27. Anonymous says:

    The argument is always that it is art. The challenge is that we do not know if the slope is in fact slippery. Could reading, watching this form of child related rape and sex, lead to watching or doing the actual event? The answer is, unfortunately, we don’t know. Personally, I would rather the courts try to figure this out, I just hope that wisdom and sense is used in redering a decision. I will be watching with interest. No one, who is not into this kind of action, wants to see child pornography made okay, but is this in fact child pornography? I am glad I don’t have to determine this.

  28. Anonymous says:

    GeekManI think it’s extremely safe to say that the opinions of those people rallying against the Canadians here would be among the minority of Americans.

  29. djfatsostupid says:

    This definitely falls under the definition of Child Pornography in the criminal code. Even fiction presented entirely in text can be child pornography, and photos can be child pornography even if no crime was committed in taking them if the subject is *depicted* as being under 18.

    Since this is clearly not for educational, scientific or medical purposes (unless he is doing a thesis on manga, I guess), the only defense is that it has artistic merit. Unfortunately that’s pretty vague, and this guy might be in real trouble.

  30. Gutierrez says:

    Would they define furry porn on a laptop drive as beastiality and prosecute or would that require documented evidence of actual sexual contact with an animal as opposed to depictions of nonexistent creatures that technically aren’t exactly animals?

    And for the record, no, I don’t think those who have the penchant for anthropomorphic sexual media are zoophiles.

  31. OrcOnTheEndOfMyFork says:

    Freedom of speech is not as strong in Canada as it is in the States. The U.S. Constitution has the First Amendment which makes it extremely difficult for the government to ban any kind of speech.

    The Canadian Charter of Rights grants free speech but only if it doesn’t interfere with “good governance.” And this, of course, leads to absurdities like a certain Olympic committee making it illegal to use the number 2010.

  32. demophon says:

    This has been an ongoing problem for comics distribution. It doesn’t only sensor child images. These laws have screwed Canadian, US & international creators & readers for years. I would support a Canadian revolution.

  33. Pag says:

    It’s frightening to think that you could browse a random web page with some thumbnail of a larger hand drawn picture in the corner and have it downloaded to your browser’s cache. Right that instant, you would have, on your hard drive, an image that’s a crime to possess. You could have committed a crime serious enough to send you in prison for a year without even noticing it. And even if you saw the picture, there would be no way to know if it was illegal or not without asking a judge whether it’s artistic or not. Guess wrong and you go to jail.

    My question to people who support sending this man in prison: do you also support free speech? If you do, how do you make those two ideas coexist in your mind? You only support free speech if you don’t disagree with the speech too strongly? (But then, is that really freedom?) You don’t support speech if it depicts a crime? (Are you also opposed to movies depicting other criminal activities?) I don’t get it.

    “If somebody could produce photo-realistic computer generated depictions of CP acts, would that be ok?”

    I would have no interest in it personally and I would find it tasteless and offensive, but I don’t see why that should be illegal. If no child was hurt, why should it be banned? Because you find it icky?

  34. Ugly Canuck says:

    Hmmm.
    The law as it stands is un-objectionable – provided that those who are responsible for its enforcement wield it with a due regard for the aim of the section: to prevent harm to children from their sexual exploitation by adults.

    If there are people unknown to the police who are downloading material which is clearly and unquestionably child porn, I for one would want the constabulary to know about him or her; a predilection for this material to me is logically related to the possibility that such a person might harm children by his own direct action, rather than second-hand.

    OTOH, it would be absurd to arrest and jail somebody for downloading pictures of an obviously adult woman acting sexy while dressed up in a schoolgirl outfit.

    As is usually the case, it is less the black letter of the law, and more the spirit in which it is wielded, which is the true concern here.

    The goal of the lawis not really to punisjh, although it does do that, but to protect a uniquely vulnerable section of our society. Children (but not woman – for that goes right back to controlling the “poor dears”).

    Speaking of using laws intended to protect the vulnerable as the instruments for the infliction of cruel and unfeeling injustice, what the hell is with the US practice of charging pregnant ladies who suffer mis-carriages with MURDER charges?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

    Two more points: this is a Customs case, and the border complicates things; I’ve yet to hear of a domestic prosecution for the possession of Manga alone, which is alleged to be “child porn” under the law.

    Second, Noen’s views are simply fascist, might makes right, stuff: the law does not subscribe to fancy theories of morality: we are seeking to reduce actual harm by our laws, not seeking to s exercise nor demonstrate State authority for its own sake, or for the sake of the a mere assertion symbolic values, that “people cannot do simply what they want” – like the fascists demand.

    We don’t need the civil war you’ve got going Stateside.
    That ain’t good governance, from our point of view.

  35. SB-129 says:

    It could have been worse. Someone in the UK got put on the sex offenders register for posessing Simpsons rule 34 images.

  36. Dmitri says:

    I wish there had been a CBLDF in Sweden, only recently a profesional Manga translator was tried and convicted for posession of Manga depicting child porn. Child porn also if depicted in drawings, has recently become illegal here in Sweden. The way to thoughtcrime is wide open now.

  37. Anonymous says:

    under the constitution, “esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority.”

  38. benenglish says:

    My apologies for conflating U.S. and Canadian concerns and laws.

    I’d be grateful, as another poster above me has also asked, for more Canadian background – text of the law, legislative history, and the title of the particular manga involved here.

    With those things, perhaps I could manage to sound a bit less like an ugly American.

  39. Ugly Canuck says:

    Oh one other point: I guess that 1-year-minimum sentence would be for the importation of this material, eh? – as the section I laid out above gives minimum sentences in terms of 45 or 90 days.

    Well, if that’s the mandatory minimum, I suppose this must be defended.

    That’s always one predictable effect of mandatory minimum prison time: the costs of justice rise sharply, for the entire society.

    And are people and society any better off, any happier, as a result of them?

    I suppose Noen and folks like him get to thump their chests – and Bibles/Koran/Torah – in righteous pride, eh?

    “See? You just can’t do what you want, we say so!” (thump thump thump)

  40. Cliph says:

    “a customs officer conducted a search of the American and his personal belongings, including his laptop, iPad, and iPhone.”

    This surely is the scariest part. Why were they doing this?

  41. Anonymous says:

    If he might be going to jail then what about the comic book publisher? Wouldn’t they technically be publishing child pornography?

    • rrh says:

      It is true that if this is found to be child pornography, then the publishers would be publishers of child pornography. But
      1) This case hasn’t yet been ruled on. It is possible the judge will rule that it’s not child pornography.
      2) The publishers are probably safely in Japan and unlikely to be prosecuted under Canadian law.

  42. Mister44 says:

    Late to the party – did they ever say what book it was?

    I have to say some of the Hentai out there is FUCKED – UP. I don’t know what is wrong with some people in Japan, but if more than 2 people get off on it, they will make drawings or a comic of it, leading to some really, really bizarre stuff.

    I’m conflicted with (I think it’s called) ‘lolli’ hentai. On one hand some of it is pretty disturbing and it’s hard to say that it is much different than real child porn. BUT – on the other hand – your more mainstream hentai still has women who look like they could be too young – not within the letter of the law.

    I guess the big difference is one is a picture, the other is real abuse. But you could say that about snuff porn, torture porn, rape porn, etc etc – I don’t think a lot of it is a sign of a healthy mind. Then again I’m not a psychiatrist.

    I guess in the end, I don’t think it should be illegal.

    • turn_self_off says:

      from Wikipedia “The national age of consent in Japan is 13 as specified by the Japanese Penal Code Articles 176 and 177. However, prefectures can have ordinances that prohibit sexual activities with any minor under 18.”

      Hell, until a activist group threw a public hissy fit there where magazines of girls as young as 14 partially or fully nude. So yes, Japan is “weird”.

  43. rrh says:

    Here is the CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY’S POLICY ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF OBSCENE MATERIAL:
    http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d9/d9-1-1-eng.pdf

    Though under normal operation, falling under that just requires the importer of the material to promptly return the material to the country of origin or destroy it, rather than have it result in jail time.

    Possibly what’s got him is under here, Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals:
    http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#_Offences_Tending_to_Corrupt_Morals_923676

  44. Ugly Canuck says:

    Canadian Crin minal code definition of “Child pornography” in full(Section 163.1):

    “163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means

    (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

    (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

    (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

    (b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;

    (c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or

    (d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

    Making child pornography

    (2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of ninety days.

    Distribution, etc. of child pornography

    (3) Every person who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells, advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation any child pornography is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of ninety days.

    Possession of child pornography

    (4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

    Accessing child pornography

    (4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

    Interpretation

    (4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.

    Aggravating factor

    (4.3) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the person committed the offence with intent to make a profit.

    Defence

    (5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.

    Defence

    (6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence

    (a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and

    (b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

    Question of law

    (7) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether any written material, visual representation or audio recording advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

    1993, c. 46, s. 2;
    2002, c. 13, s. 5;
    2005, c. 32, s. 7.”

    From:

    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html

    I only wish to add that Noen (up-thread above) might, if he came to Canada, need to rely on one of the exceptions set out by the general Statute to himself avoid mandatory jail time for the written descriptions of child porn he created and distributed/posted above.

    I had hoped that we could discuss the wisdom of these laws, without stooping to violating those same laws. Sigh.

    • Palomino says:

      There’s your answer!

      “(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity”

      Just write a disclaimer, like in porn, that all “models” are at least 18 years of age; how can anyone argue that? Or “All female character that look young actually have a genetic disorder that makes them look young or “All male figures are actually young boys that suffer from Progeria”. The comic can even list the characters and their Bio’s can include this information.

      I’ve done some searching but can’t find the genetic disorder where some women don’t mature physically, they still look like 12 year old girls. Is it illegal for a man to have sex with a 35 year old woman who looks 12? There is a great Law and Order episode about this. The couple are only a few years apart in age but the man gets arrested. I know some of the women on “To catch a predator” have this disorder. I worked with a waitress who made ton’s of extra cash fulfilling men’s fantasies, she looked 15/16 but was 31.

      Would it also be illegal for a couple to fantasize if the woman were to dress as a little girl and the man a T.S.A. agent going in for a grope?

      I worked at a clinic and we had a 50ish guy who could be Lurch’s (Adam’s Family) twin. He always dressed in little girl clothes he made for himself out of Hello Kitty material and such. One day he had on a really cute pink tank top that said “Daddy’s little girl” and hand on a Dora knapsack.

      If Canada is so against child porn, then they should make it illegal to allow parent to dress (or allow their little girls to dress themselves) in porn wear. My brother has two girls and is disgusted when takes them shopping, he told me there is so much slut-ware.

      As a side note and a little about me: I’m gay and look at gay porn (mostly free). However, I can’t stand any image of a man w/o any body hair, it’s repulsive, they look like little boys; Child Porn? I dated a professional swimmer and he shaved everything, I couldn’t have sex with him.

      Finally, what about mindset? What if a man, who was underdeveloped mentally, lets say 12, was attracted to other 12 year old girls?

      Damn; I have to take a human sexuality class, this stuff is fascinating!

    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks. Not that you would argue, but for the moralists:

      I think the part that will get referenced the most in court is 6b — (It must) pose an undue risk of harm to persons under 18.

      This will be used to eliminate the nuisance cases. (this discussion, consenting sexting, Nabakov’s Lolita in a college library, song lyrics, and most probably manga, even loli) The last few would also be excused by the art exemption in 6a.

      I would certainly argue it if I were his lawyer. Obligatory IANAL.

      Without that, you’d have to arrest DJs for playing “Sexy and 17″, high school coaches for having gymnastics teams and cheerleaders, and of course every librarian ever. Not to mention children’s clothing companies that put out fliers or catalogues.

  45. Anonymous says:

    I don’t read manga, but I’ve seen enough hentai and ecchi posted online to have an idea of what the government is up-in-arms about.

    On one hand, the whole schoolgirl thing as roleplay is pretty hot. I’m all in favor of adult women putting on short plaid skirts, button-down shirts, knee socks and putting their hair into pigtails. That is A-fucking-OK in my book. Kink is good.

    However, depicting schoolgirls as actual little kids, who then engage in a variety of sexual acts, is wrong on many levels. The most important thing about such material is that it very clearly is not sexual; rather, it is a particularly torturous form of child abuse. It is usually about a subordinate male getting to experience absolute dominance over the gender which has rejected him.

    If the idea of holding down a ten year old girl and banging her is what it takes to get you horny, you should be cogent enough to realize there’s something legitimately wrong with you, and this problem really could put you in some very bad, possibly mortally dangerous situations. You would do well to seek professional guidance on the matter in the form of a sexual therapist. Otherwise, I suppose it’s just a matter of time before you’re caught and either jailed or beaten to death.

  46. rrh says:

    It may also be of interest to the CBLDF that 163 appears to state it is an offense to publish, distribute, or circulate a “crime comic.”

    • Ugly Canuck says:

      Some laws on our books are only there because there have been no charges brought under them since we adopted our “new” Constitution in 1982, which guaranteed individual Canadians certain rights and freedoms that they had NOT fully had before; as I stated above, it was not until 1986 or 1987 that simple adult porn became unquestionably legal in Canada.

      I could be wrong, but I suspect that there has been no occasion for the Courts to yet rule on the Constitutionality of the sections outlawing “crime comics”. They might indeed disappear at the first touch of a Judge!

  47. gwailo_joe says:

    heh heh +1 U.C.!

  48. Anonymous says:

    just as an fyi to you all the “slippery slope” argument is an argument against something that hasn’t happened yet *because* it hasn’t happened yet

  49. benher says:

    Don’t worry North America – there’s always the Bible!

    Now if you’ll excuse me, before this thread goes nuclear-think-of-Godwins-children I’m off to fantasize about 2 dimensional depictions of female humans that may or may not quite be 18!!

    We’ll toast with Khemical Kastration Kocktails later!

  50. Yaruki Zero says:

    If you’re going to lock someone away for something, you ought to have some pretty convincing evidence that it causes harm. So far I don’t know of anyone who’s done that for lolicon manga, and some of the people pressing for a ban in Japan have actually had the temerity to balk at the idea that they might need to provide some concrete justification for limiting freedom of speech and bending the entire justice system to prosecute and incarcerate people who are otherwise doing nothing wrong.

    If some legitimate evidence of real harm comes to light, I will be in favor of legal penalties, but so far no one has deigned to produce any such thing. Could we please base policy on reality rather than irrational outrage?

    • Ugly Canuck says:

      These sections have been litigated to our Supreme court, iirc; and there was sufficient evidence adduced too that Court of that connection to convince the Judges that the law is a reasonable limit on our rights and freedoms; so the law stands.

      In truth, I was more outraged by the mandatory one-year minimum prison sentence stated to be applicable; but my outrage is moderated somewhat, now that I read the statute itself, as I found it above; for it seems to contemplate much more moderate mandatory prison terms, which imho are compatible with getting the offenders some psych assessment, while they are being so incarcerated.

      No, these comix will have to fit under an exemption, if they are to be considered at all fit to be on the menu of things fit to look at, in the eyes of the law.

      Now, if only people wouldn’t throw a fit whenever these laws are being discussed, we’d all be better off!

      • IronEdithKidd says:

        There are a lot of references to “persons” in the statute. Is a fictional comic book character a “person” under Canadian law? Or is that a question yet to be answered by your judiciary?

        • rrh says:

          Supreme Court of Canada ruling on R vs. Sharpe:
          http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html

          If I’m reading it correctly, the Supreme Court did interpret it to include “persons” who aren’t real.

          “Notwithstanding the fact that “person” in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that “person” in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.”

  51. Ugly Canuck says:

    i was responding to the comment above mine: the prohibitions against the possession of child porn were introduced in Canada in the dying days of the Tory g majority Government of The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney in 1989 or so, and thus are a recent innovation in Canadian law.
    Not so recent as the Tory innovation in our law, that of “mandatory minimum prison sentences”, though.

    In fact, the possession of ANY sort of porn could get you in trouble with the law in Canada prior to 1986 or so, but that is another story.

    My wi view is that it is unco cionable that any person should face a mandatory custodial sentence for the mere possession of ANY kind of information – without the Gov needing to show a whole lot more cause as to why this particular citizen ought to be so incarcerated for such offense, AND as to why our free and democratic society ought to be subjected to the considerable costs connected to and with this “jail ‘em all” policy – for holding and looking at information.

    Defining which particular pieces of info are so sancrosanct, so dangerous, as to deserve mandatory imprisonment for just holding and beholding it…that is not an exercise I’m eager for my legislators to be engaging in!
    I just don’t see the need.
    IMHO we ought to limit the imposition of that punishment to only those deserving of it.

    But overall this particular situation seems one which may come under the “artistic” defense provided by the Statute, is it not?

    If not, why not?

  52. Anonymous says:

    >victim-less ‘crime’
    >sh!t yourself in moral righteousness

    Sounds like pretty normal operating procedure for humans.

  53. overground says:

    Assuming that the comics do actually depict child porn, and not just suggested, then presumably it is illegal in Canada. But we have to ask where we stop calling something child porn and when it is just an image. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLyLGrbKokI&t=16m50s (17 minutes in) for this argument ad absurdum. Equally, what is special about child pornography or sexual violence as a crime that we can’t allow people to see fictionalised/eroticised depictions of it. As has been said, if we banned every depiction of a crime we’d have no pop culture left. Is it because the people who watch it and perpetrate these crimes are more likely to be influenced, or is it just because we can imagine ourselves getting angry and punching somebody, but we find sexual crime, especially against children especially repulsive. Not that it isn’t, or that we shouldn’t, but it shouldn’t be the basis for our moral judgement of what is acceptable media and what isn’t.

  54. Ugly Canuck says:

    Oh. My earlier parroting, with minor modifications, of Noen’s comment, was merely to illustrate that the argument Noen used can easily be expanded to cover other sets of State-defined information as well.

    Why not?

  55. Anonymous says:

    Ha, I actually remember being nervous coming back to the west from Japan because I had a copy of GITS in my carry-on luggage, which has some pretty graphic depictions of Major Kusanagi getting it on with other women..

Leave a Reply