How Japanese manga can land international travelers in jail

[s4mid4re]

*snip

If you break the law, you committed a crime. Not all laws broken require a victim. Thus, a crime can not be defined by having a victim.

The rest is basically just unrelated drivel minus the CP bit, which obviously one can not argue. The idea is also that people shouldn't be fapping to imagery of nude children. Animated or not, that is not considered okay. I find it really hard to believe that people are defending nude and/or erotic depictions of animated children.

Think about it. Wikipedia's lolicon page has a picture depicting a very vague form of lolicon. The law doesn't clearly state to what extent of lolicon is allowed and not allowed. True, lolicon can mean nudity and all of that, but it can also applies to that image on the wikipedia page. If I save that image to my hard drive and the police finds out that I have it in my HD, I can get arrested. Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't to me.

The argument here is not "there's a law stating that it's illegal, thus it's illegal." The argument here is that this isn't supposed to be categorized illegal because there's no harm going on due to it; if the law says it's illegal, there has to be a victim for this law to be valid. It is certainly true that there isn't a need for a victim for every law, but in this case, it does apply and it is important. All of this law thing and your "people shouldn't be fapping on imagery of nude children", whatsoever are all about morals that have nothing to do with legality or ownership of such material. If somebody likes stuff like this, leave him be, he likes it. It doesn't have anything to do with you. You just think it's a wrong thing. For them, it's not. You just have to deal with it.

 

[Apex]

I can't be the only person who finds it disturbing how many people jump at a chance to defend something that's entire purpose is to emulate child pornography. Whether or not the man should have been arrested for this was decided by people who hold the jurisdiction for a reason, and whether or not you agree with it, is beyond a moot point, considering the judgement was made by people who earned the positions they hold, over the judgement of 14-18 socially retarded shut-ins, who only defend the perverse media because they spend more time in front of a computer screen than in the real world. These fetishes develop the same was as a rapist's train of thought, being shut-off from society.

 

[smile72]

Avex there's nothing wrong with being a shut in, I'm a socially awkward person who can't stand social interaction. I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with shounen or shoujo-ai (don't read it though). I'm not fond of shotacon or lolicon, but should they be legal sure as long as no one is actually getting hurt I don't see the problem. But then again I've never read or seen any shota or lolicon.

 

[Midna]

After searching lolicon with safe search off on the image search, I fully support the decision made.

Whether there is a victim in this or not is irrelevent. CP is considered not okay because of the fact that it depicts a child in some inappropriate way, not just because there is a victim.

>2011

>Believing you can have a crime without a victim

What the fuck is wrong with you?



It's not irrelevant. CP is considered not okay because it depicts the abuse of a real life child who will be living with the abuse every moment of his life as his most horrible moments are distributed over and over again across the internet.



What then? Is it a crime because you find it gross or offensive? If so, surely I should be arrested for having pictures of a corpse on my computer.



You are the one who needs a reality check here.

Unrelated drivel, huh? That's called a copout.

The rest is basically just unrelated drivel minus the CP bit, which obviously one can not argue. The idea is also that people shouldn't be fapping to imagery of nude children. Animated or not, that is not considered okay. I find it really hard to believe that people are defending nude and/or erotic depictions of animated children.

I can and did argue it. You dismissed it as 'unrelated drivel' (read: cop out)

Your definition of crime is a little too literal here. There are an awful lot of things that are criminal offenses in various countries around the world that nobody in their right mind should consider a 'crime'. I can see you deliberately avoided the substance of that point by playing the definitions game.


I'm not even into lolitas. But other people are welcome to be. Anyone is welcome to get off to small children, trees, furries, people of their own sex, whatever they please. They aren't hurting anyone with the images alone, and should therefore not be prosecuted for them.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I'm not sure how this is "hard to imagine". I think it's hard to imagine for you because you've grown up in a culture where anything even resembling pedophilia is absolutely demonized in every way. You know in Australia they've banned women with small breasts from doing pornography, because they might look like children? It's ridiculous. It seems you've been brainwashed. Having loli manga on your computer is not pedophilia. Pedophilia isn't even child abuse. You're grasping.

Edit: Heey, 2000th post. 3 medals now. I shouldn't have wasted this arguing with that bugger Nathan Drake.

 

[sputnix]

After searching lolicon with safe search off on the image search, I fully support the decision made.

Whether there is a victim in this or not is irrelevent. CP is considered not okay because of the fact that it depicts a child in some inappropriate way, not just because there is a victim.

>2011

>Believing you can have a crime without a victim

What the fuck is wrong with you?



It's not irrelevant. CP is considered not okay because it depicts the abuse of a real life child who will be living with the abuse every moment of his life as his most horrible moments are distributed over and over again across the internet.



What then? Is it a crime because you find it gross or offensive? If so, surely I should be arrested for having pictures of a corpse on my computer.



You are the one who needs a reality check here.

If you break the law, you committed a crime. Not all laws broken require a victim. Thus, a crime can not be defined by having a victim.

The rest is basically just unrelated drivel minus the CP bit, which obviously one can not argue. The idea is also that people shouldn't be fapping to imagery of nude children. Animated or not, that is not considered okay. I find it really hard to believe that people are defending nude and/or erotic depictions of animated children.

I can and did argue it. You dismissed it as 'unrelated drivel' (read: cop out)

Your definition of crime is a little too literal here. There are an awful lot of things that are criminal offenses in various countries around the world that nobody in their right mind should consider a 'crime'. I can see you deliberately avoided the substance of that point by playing the definitions game.


I'm not even into lolitas. But other people are welcome to be. Anyone is welcome to get off to small children, trees, furries, people of their own sex, whatever they please. They aren't hurting anyone with the images alone, and should therefore not be prosecuted for them.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I'm not sure how this is "hard to imagine". I think it's hard to imagine for you because you've grown up in a culture where anything even resembling pedophilia is absolutely demonized in every way. You know in Australia they've banned women with small breasts from doing pornography, because they might look like children? It's ridiculous. It seems you've been brainwashed. Having loli manga on your computer is not pedophilia. Pedophilia isn't even child abuse. You're grasping.

In my opinion the law for imaginary images of child pornography is in place as it is an easy entry point for possible pedophiles, they start off with it, and for some over time they find it isn't enough and unfortunately may move on to the real thing.

What I would like to know is their any substance to graphic loli manga, in general do most have an actual story or point to it, does it try to prove something [think a time to kill that starts with a [censored] of a 10 year old girl but because of the graphic nature of the scene the audience becomes more attached to the father of the girl and are more likely to agree with his choice to kill the two men accused of doing it] or is it graphic for the sake of being graphic. If it's graphic for the sake of being graphic then it's illegal as their is no artistic merit to make it ok.

 

[Midna]

There's manga and hentai of every sort imaginable. That's a bit of a broad question. It's like asking if action movies have good plots.

Aaand, I think someone hooked on hentai has the opposite problem to potentially moving on to the real thing. Some of these perverts end up abandoning traditional pornography altogether.

 

[KingVamp]

Why do you keep pushing CP to = loli?

I didn't even like loli like that. The first thing that came to mind when it was mention was Etna which has nothing to do with porn.

In my opinion the law for imaginary images of child pornography is in place as it is an easy entry point for possible pedophiles, they start off with it, and for some over time they find it isn't enough and unfortunately may move on to the real thing.

Which is kinda the same argument with violent video games. That games with violence would lead you to do violence.
Which I didn't believe. I believe most(if not all) people were violent before they even touch games.

I'll just leave at that 'cause I'm not even trying to defend CP.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

Not defending lolicon, or any kind of depiction of simulated underage pornography, but the issue of lolicon is purely a moral one. Until the time that it is shown that lolicon or other similar media raises the odds for people to commit a sexual offense, I'll say go ahead and do what you want with it. I think you're a sick fuck, and you won't be invited to my Superbowl parties, but I will defend your right to do what you want behind closed doors as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

lolicon or not, if you restrict freedoms because it's morally wrong, or it's the general consensus that it's unacceptable behavior, you start treading a very slippery slope.

 

[Thesolcity]

I don't get it. Does lolicon actually say the girl is underage? Or does it just imply/"look like" it?

 

[s4mid4re]

I don't get it. Does lolicon actually say the girl is underage? Or does it just imply/"look like" it?

Usually imply, as it looks way too young to be considered an adult. But there are times that it just looks like they are younger than average, despite actually being set as an adult.

Also, the term 'lolicon' is just way too broad. Wikipedia and most sources specifically states as 'young girls in sexual activities' but I also consider just 'cute and little' as loli (meaning there's no sexual interest here).

 

[kupo3000]

More akin to the art style instead of age.

 

[Evo.lve]

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire is right.

 

[Mantis41]

In my opinion the law for imaginary images of child pornography is in place as it is an easy entry point for possible pedophiles, they start off with it, and for some over time they find it isn't enough and unfortunately may move on to the real thing.

You could argue this material is giving the pedeophile what he needs not causing it. If you remove all of this material then the person that needs this sort of fix is going to go after kids to get it. This would also explaing the low cases of this sort of crime in JP compared to others as mentioned by @s4mid4re.

 

[tomrev]

This Leonardo's picture is definitely lolicon. He should be banned!

 

[YayMii]

FFS, the article's suggesting that the guy had ecchi, not loli. There's a difference.
That's like keeping pics of people (not neccessarily kids) at a swimming pool and getting arrested for CP. That's not right.

The article says something about some comic book legal group trying to stand up for this guy. Suggestive manga =/= loli.

 

[Thesolcity]

FFS, the article's suggesting that the guy had ecchi, not loli. There's a difference.
That's like keeping pics of people (not neccessarily kids) at a swimming pool and getting arrested for CP. That's not right.

The article says something about some comic book legal group trying to stand up for this guy. Suggestive manga =/= loli.

You're really going to make me Google ecchi, huh?

...I'll risk it.

 

[YayMii]

ecchi=suggestive, but not quite hentai. Could simply be an anime/manga character in a bikini.

 

[mameks]

I lol'd hard, seriously I did
I CBA to get into a discussion about the difference between loli and RLCP, but this is kinda stoopid :3
I don't approve of loli, but is it worth arresting someone over?
Pfft, if it was genuinely a mainstream manga then this is all bollocks, but if it was some random doujin then whatever really.
Lolicon's are kinda creepy, and TBH this was more likely to be pettanko
Which is a hell of a lot less unusual than having pics of cartoon horses, let's be honest.

Spoiler

And no, I don't have anything against the bronies or furries, I'm just saying that it's an unusual orientation, let's be honest.

This made my morning

 

[exangel]

To those that say this type of "art" is distributed more heavily in Japan than anywhere else, where they have some of the lowest violent/sex crime rates known to the world; may I ask if you've actually physically been to Japan and understand the "more relaxed regulation" regarding it?

Am I not mistaken to say that ALL forms of Japanese pornography MUST ALWAYS censor genitals? (to be considered legal in Japan. I don't care if you own some genuine uncensored stuff to prove a point.)
I was under the impression this was the case, as my first exposure to Japanese culture and products was actually through the online catalog of "J-list". Through which my father bought me Hello Kitty Toilet Paper as a birthday gift. They also sold other things but were bound by Japanese law as they exported from within their borders from what I understand.

If I'm right, then, for an artist to depict whatever they want is legal so long as genitals are obscured, this is a different ethical situation on the side of government.

I'm just really reluctant to agree with the correlation of "More Loli Manga = Less Sex Crime" that defenders of the "right to own/distribute it" tend to push. I sincerely disagree with the idea that the broader availability of this type of graphic image, in whatever highly offensive or cute and cuddly form, actually decreases crime in comparison to other countries. There are so many other factors to statistical data with crimes that it disturbs me that anyone genuinely believes it's that simple.

 

[stinkoman]

These fetishes develop the same was as a rapist's train of thought, being shut-off from society.

While lolicons and pedophiles are insanely creepy, being attracted to someone isn't quite the same thing as, you know, raping them. As long as none of them decide to go out on a [censored] spree or anything, I'm fine with it. Not my thing, but I don't feel like I'm in any position to judge other people and say what they can and can't do. Also, what you're saying here isn't really valid. I hate to lump the more horrifying portion of the furry fandom in with pedophiles, but there's a bit of a gap between drawing anthropomorphic horses screwing and going out and screwing a horse.
Seriously though, I'd like to see one non-moral reason to ban loli. Is it creepy as hell? Yeah. Is it my thing? Hell no, but I'm not into yaoi either. Doesn't mean we should ban it, it just means I don't like it.