As much as I hate pedofiles...

[Lemur]

Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.

I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.

So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.

[Kadagar_AV]

I thought this case would be BR worthy :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.

I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.

So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.

My instinct is that an attraction to a juvanile looking woman cannot be a crime - and that what we are talking about here is appearence rather that child exploitation.

It might be distasteful but it can't be a crime. I mean, I know a guy who prefers his women slim and elfin to the extreme (me, I go for your traditional Celtic beauty) - I found it wierd at 17 and I still find it wierd today but the guy only dates within his age bracket so far as I know.

[Kadagar_AV]

My instinct is that an attraction to a juvanile looking woman cannot be a crime - and that what we are talking about here is appearence rather that child exploitation.

It might be distasteful but it can't be a crime. I mean, I know a guy who prefers his women slim and elfin to the extreme (me, I go for your traditional Celtic beauty) - I found it wierd at 17 and I still find it wierd today but the guy only dates within his age bracket so far as I know.

How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?

[Lemur]

How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?

Okay, but as I said, it is fiction. To me this is an important distinction. In Lord of the Flies we see children go through every horror except rape; should it be illegal to own or read Lord of the Flies?

All I'm saying is that putting people in jail for fictive depictions has a long and ignoble history. I don't believe that we should criminalize made-up stories. Even horrific, loathsome made-up stories.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?

You mean, she is evidenced as having a mental age of 13?

Then I suppose the comic is a gateway drug to actual child porn, but it still isn't really child porn, and it's considerably less twisted than some of the other stuff that comes out of Japan - or anywhere else.

[Greyblades]

I really dont care, the perversions of the internet as wide and wierd and wonderful and horrible as they are as long as it stays fictional I dont give a damn about drawings and I dont think the courts should.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The article I can find says he was fined. I don't think any of us have gone through and looked at what he was charged for so it's kind of theoretical, but that seems appropriate if the content merits it. The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.

[Greyblades]

The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.

Why?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Convicting would mean a dangerous precedent: who is to judge when a female is underage or not, even when (and especially when) depicted fictionally or in the form of (pornographic) art. I remember this case in Australia where porn with small-breasted women is banned simply because they'd appear child-like. Which should be laughable, but is actually quite offensive.

Who is to judge whether something is pornographic or not? Same problem. Who is to judge? Answer: a judge.

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some questionably-underage porn being banned as "dangerous".

Why?

Why not? It's only a peculiarly broad interpretation of the "doesn't harm anyone directly" principle that leads to the other conclusion. What about photo realistic computer drawings? You want those sold by street vendors next to playboy etc? That would be a funny world, minor swear words bleeped on tv and child porn on the street. I don't get people going into contortions to protect pedophiles "right" to pornography.

We constantly use the legal system in an attempt to keep bad things out, and then argue for libertarian ideals with wild inconsistency. It's bizarre.

It should. It's *ahem* art. The man should have the freedom to draw an imaginary scene of child rape, same as drawing mohammed cartoons. It's offensive, but it is art.

No it's not art

[rvg]

The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.

It should. It's *ahem* art. The man should have the freedom to draw an imaginary scene of child rape, same as drawing mohammed cartoons. It's offensive, but it is art.

[Vuk]

Child porn is child porn. The danger with something like this is that if he spreads it around and gets people interested in it, then we have more budding pedos out there who are eventually going to go after the real thing.
I kind of have two sides of me fighting here (my American freedom side and my Christian morality side), but in the end you have to ask yourself, were laws designed to give people the freedom to fantasize about and depict children being molested? I bet that if law makers had thought about that when writing the laws, they would have made exceptions. I cannot see letting people get away with this as being in the spirit of the law, even if it is technically legal.

[Hax]

Convicting would mean a dangerous precedent: who is to judge when a female is underage or not, even when (and especially when) depicted fictionally or in the form of (pornographic) art. I remember this case in Australia where porn with small-breasted women is banned simply because they'd appear child-like. Which should be laughable, but is actually quite offensive.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.

I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.

So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.

I agree, it is creepy but there is no crime in wanking it to cartoons. Horrific images of children come from someone else forcing children to do horrific things and this is why it is illegal. This case sounds stupid. They could make the case that the girls in the photos just look really young but are, in fact, adults with growth problems. It's fantasy so I challenge the court to prove otherwise.

EDIT - my opinions expressed are not evidence that I am interested in manga sex. I find it weird and pointless.