‘Obscene’ U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 Months

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/

by sailormoon • 16 years ago

91 62 16 years ago

wired.com

garply3• 16 years ago

Does it stop being porn when it's old?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_...

jrockway15• 16 years ago

Unrelated, because the girl in that painting is not obviously under 18. No, I don't think the legal system makes sense here.

garply3• 16 years ago

Not unrelated, Wired implies that part of the problem with the manga was that they depicted bestiality. Although it seems that he wasn't convicted for the bestiality part?

I don't totally understand the law - maybe the bestiality helped further classify it as 'obscene'?

basugasubaku• 16 years ago

I just googled the probable original Japanese titles of the first four listed seized items. I found they are all available on Amazon.co.jp (3 available as used from third-party vendors, 1 as new directly from Amazon). From the covers it's clear these are the items in question.

It's not like you need to go underground to buy them; Amazon is selling them, though obviously Japanese standards of what counts as obscene are different than those of the U.S.

iamaleksey• 16 years ago

Is there even a word in japanese for "obscene"?

c00ki3s• 16 years ago

hiwai

anabis• 16 years ago

"hiwai" works, but the "waisetsu" is used more in the legal context. Japan did a trial regarding a publisher few years back, called "Matsubunkan trial". Some details in the middle of page: http://comipress.com/article/2007/07/17/2307

jrockway15• 16 years ago

This showcases several major problems with our legal system. The first is obvious; cartoons are not children, nor can they be abused. So there is no point in going after people who possess said representations. Not really my thing, but definitely not a federal crime. (How long until any document the Ruling Party doesn't like becomes "obscene"?)

The second problem is more subtle; and something I see as a major threat to the rights afforded to the accused -- ridiculous trumped-up charges, and minimal pleas in exchange for not going to trial. 15 years in prison for owning certain books? Who would risk a fair trial if that's a possible outcome? Much better than submit to the will of the system and take your six months.

Fifteen years should not even be an option on the state's table. 1 year max. Fifteen years is what murderers and rapists get, if they have a really bad lawyer. Is owning books worse than taking someone's life?

Not going to trial means that the legal system never has a chance to strike down these blatantly unconstitutional laws, leaving anyone who owns books open to potential criminal charges. Are you sure the government likes every book on your shelf? With this kind of precedent, you should probably quit reading and just watch CSPAN -- It's What's Best.

Edit: I just realized that many actual child rapists face fewer than fifteen years in prison. So rather than reading a book showing someone who might be underage, it's better for you to just rape children instead. A fine message our lawmakers are sending us.

A few more cases like this, and I'm quitting programming and going to law school. This stuff needs to stop.

garply3• 16 years ago

I find myself inherently suspicious of US legal attempts to crack down on porn because 'cracking down on obscene content' is the justification that the CCP uses in China to censor many things that are clearly not porn.

jrockway15• 16 years ago

I am especially confused on how arbitrarily the censorship is applied. I could maybe understand (but not be in favor of, of course) a law that made depicting any crime illegal. But this will obviously never happen; fantasizing about murder and terrorism and depicting it in great detail is a recipe for a blockbuster film. As soon as it's having sex with someone below a certain age, though... then you can't even read a book about it!

I'd like to write some sarcastic reason for this, but I can't even think of one. I have a feeling that "one nation under God" has something to do with it, though.

rms2• 16 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement

jrockway15• 16 years ago

I'm in favor of this, but I think it's unrelated. "Prison" should not even be in the same line of thought as "possessing books".

cduan• 16 years ago

Little bit of legal background for you, hopefully it adds something to your thoughts:

The standard for "obscenity" is defined in the leading Supreme Court case Miller v. California, which held that obscene material was not protected free speech. I won't go through the whole test (Wikipedia explains it well), but it generally says that obscene material has to "appeal to the prurient interest" to an average person in the local community, and it has to have no redeeming social values.

So I wouldn't be worried that the "Ruling Party" deems something obscene or not. Instead, I would be worried about what the "average person" thinks. Isn't that a little odd--that your constitutional rights depend on what your neighbors think?

(That was an argument that one of my law professors made, and I think it's pretty compelling.)

jrockway15• 16 years ago

Isn't that a little odd--that your constitutional rights depend on what your neighbors think?

In my opinion, that decision was unprecedented and unconstitutional. Traditionally, your neighbors have the ability to give you more rights (jury nullification), but they don't have the right to take rights away. The Miller Test completely reversed that; now your neighbors can take your rights away for no reason at all. (Would a black defendant be given the same rights as a white defendant? That's why we elect representatives to make laws, rather than letting the neighborhood lynchmob decide what the laws are.)

Having to worry about what your neighbors will think discourages valuable work, acting as a prior restraint on speech. It's too bad you can't appeal Supreme Court rulings, because that one was totally wrong in many, many ways.

xcombinator2• 16 years ago

And you think the average people think it is OK to destroy the life of one person just because he downloaded-imported cartoons?

I don't think so.

I consider this material "obscene", I don't like it, but this man has the right to have it. This man has no made a huge painting in a public, then law can be used because it affects the society.

jrwoodruff• 16 years ago

This test is greatly complicated by the internet, where 'community' takes on a whole new meaning.

sabat2• 16 years ago

I wouldn't be worried that the "Ruling Party" deems something obscene or not. Instead, I would be worried about what the "average person" thinks.

It's easy enough for the ruling party to create opinions among average people. There's not much of a difference here if the ruling party is compelled enough.

xcombinator2• 16 years ago

That's right, something I admire about British people is that they created a lot of sports like boxing and football in witch they put rules over something people were already doing so they could control it.

If people want to fight,or compete let them and they will calm, repress them and it will grow and grow. It is in our instinct to fight and compete, so better to do it in a walled garden.

I prefer a person that feels the sexual urge to masturbate with cartoons than with pictures of kids, and with pictures of kids than with real kids, in fact I don't care what a man does in his house with things, I care if they affect real people.

olliesaunders2• 16 years ago

There's a word for such things: catharsis.

sabat2• 16 years ago

ThoughtCrime.

ghshephard• 16 years ago

And yet, somehow 4chan continues on... The irony is overwhelming.

baby• 16 years ago

is it really relevant ?

radu_floricica2• 16 years ago

Well, it makes it even more obvious that local standards for obscenity are meaningless. Also that if you must find a common denominator it should probably be the most permissible. All things said and done, I very much like the old principle: "You do not have a right not to be offended".

jrockway15• 16 years ago

Sorry for two top-level comments, but I did some more reading on the case. It started when the postal service seized a box containing the books. So if there's someone you don't like, just order a few books from amazon.co.jp for them, and then they'll be facing 15 years in prison.

"Land of the free," indeed.

philh2• 16 years ago

Now you're getting slightly hysterical. They would just claim that they didn't order the books themselves, the evidence would back them up, and they probably wouldn't even be prosecuted.

jrockway15• 16 years ago

Or maybe they'd just take the plea agreement, because they actually do have a few comic books on their bookshelf.

metamemetics2• 16 years ago

wire article from 2009 with more details: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

''' Chase says he recommended the plea agreement (.pdf) to his client because he didn’t think he could convince a jury to acquit him once they’d seen the images in question. The lawyer declined to describe the details. “If they can imagine it, they drew it,” he says. “Use your imagination. It was there.” '''

moral of the story: GET A BETTER LAWYER

jrockway15• 16 years ago

I don't think the jury should even matter. They determine the facts of the case, not the law. The fact is, he has what the law disallows. But the reality is, the law is totally illegal.

I would be shocked if he didn't win his first appeal.

(Some other details seem shady. Is receiving books in the mail grounds for the warrant used to search his house? Were the obscene pictures in "plain view"? If this is what I can think of, having never studied law, you'd think someone's whose job it is to think of stuff like this would do better.)

pmccool• 16 years ago

Can he appeal, having pleaded guilty? Shouldn't the invalidity of the law have been raised At the trial he elected not to have?

igorhvr• 16 years ago

This is utterly absurd. You cannot limit in any way fiction that people read or write - not if you claim to be a free country.

Seriously - why is this happening? I am not talking about "protecting the children" or other such nonsense - the question is what actually is happening here? What is the reason? What possible advantage can anyone have from destroying the life of this man like this?

EDIT: Improved wording.

jrockway15• 16 years ago

What possible advantage can anyone have from destroying the life of this man like this?

"God" will like them more. Pleasure is evil, sex is even more evil, and sex involving people who look like they're under 18 is so evil that you shouldn't even be allowed to think about it.

olefoo2• 16 years ago

Not to mention that it establishes a precedent. Your library, your viewing habits, your browser history are all potentially criminal now. Can you declare with certainty that you possess nothing incriminating?

What if the definition of obscene materials were expanded to include depictions of abortion or of darwinism...?

fauigerzigerk• 16 years ago

It seems the legal system as well as our society as a whole is pretty schizophrenic about that relationship between fantasy and reality.

Do we believe that representations of violent fantasies generally cause crime? And secondly, if something does indeed cause a tiny group of people to commit a crime is that a good enough reason to prevent everybody from using it?

Depending on the answers the consequences of applying it consistently are very far reaching.

Clearly, if comic books depicting child porn are prohibited, any depiction of rape and murder for entertainment purposes must be prohibited as well. That includes mainstream movies, TV programs and video games.

I suspect the real purpose of laws like the one applied here is not preventing crime or protecting anyone.

So the meta question is whether laws should be consistent and effective at preventing crime, or whether it is sufficient if they allow some kind of collective emotional identification.

I'm concerned that if we put up with the latter the law will become a mere pretence for mob rule, which is easily exploited by fanatics and populists.

jrockway15• 16 years ago

It is interesting how many arbitrary lines this creates. Soldiers killing the enemy would be legal to depict, but the enemy soldiers killing us would be illegal. Depicting someone having sex at 23:59:59 on the day before her 18th (or whatever) birthday would be a crime, whereas at 24:00:00 it would be legal.

Extending this to cartoons is even more arbitrary. How do you know which side is the good guys (where killing is legal) and which side is the bad guys (where killing is a crime)? How do you know the age of someone being depicted? (I've seen 14-year-old girls that could pass as 25, and 25-year-old girls that could pass as 14. If you depict someone who is 25 but looks 14, is that a crime? If you depict someone who is 14 but looks 25, is that a crime?)

All I can come up with is that any fantasy should always be permitted, unconditionally.

gnosis• 16 years ago

"Handley was the nation’s first to be convicted under that law for possessing cartoon art, without any evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine child pornography."

Mike Diana was first to receive a conviction for publishing, distributing, and advertising "obscene" comics (in 1996). See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_diana

And Diana's website to see the comics he was jailed for:

http://www.mikedianacomix.com/mikediana/mikediana.html

cousin_it• 16 years ago

The whole article was pretty horrifying, but this sentence in particular stood out for me:

The high court ruled that the ban was too broad, and could cover legitimate speech, including Hollywood productions.

So Hollywood's business interests matter and regular people don't?

Methos• 16 years ago

That sounds absurd. What about South Park creators? Shouldn't they be jailed by same laws?

jongraehl• 16 years ago

“I’d say the anime community’s reaction to this, since day one, has been almost exclusively one of support for Handley and disgust with the U.S. courts and legal system,”

I'd say the reaction of any intelligent, decent person would be the same. Which, I guess, is why his lawyer told him he'd better not face a jury.

‘Obscene’ U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 Months

Related Stories