…and in this instance, the obscenity is the persecution of people under child pørņ laws–laws that were designed to protect real life children being photographed, not drawings of them–simply for owning manga.
The latest case had a less than satisfying outcome as detailed in the CBLDF press release below.
According to a press release issued by the Department of Justice, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has learned that Christopher Handley, the Iowa manga collector, has pleaded guilty “to possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children and mailing obscene material.” CBLDF had served as a special consultant to Mr. Handley’s defense. The government’s press release states, “Handley faces a maximum of 15 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a three-year term of supervised release.” Additionally, he forfeits all property seized in his prosecution.
The CBLDF became special consultant to Mr. Handley’s defense team last October. In this limited role, the Fund facilitated access to First Amendment experts; recommended expert witnesses on manga; and funded expert research pursuant to an eventual jury trial. The CBLDF spent $2,400 on that research, and had allocated up to $15,000 for expert witness expenses.
“Naturally, we are very disappointed by this result, but understand that in a criminal case, every defendant must make the decision that they believe serves their best interest,” CBLDF Executive Director Charles Brownstein said. “Because the set of facts specific to this case were so unique, we hope that its importance as precedent will be minimal. However, we must also continue to be prepared for the possibility that other cases could arise in the future as a result.”
Brownstein adds, “Mr. Handley now faces the loss of his freedom and his property, all for owning a handful of comic books. It’s chilling. The Fund remains unwavering in our commitment to be prepared to manage future threats of this nature wherever they arise. This is the unfortunate conclusion of Mr. Handley’s case, but it is not the end of this sort of prosecution. For that reason, the Fund stands steadfast in our commitment to defending the First Amendment rights of the comics art form.”
• 
Unfortunately, many of the child obscenity laws are made broad enough that they can be used according to some people’s personal/political agendas rather than, y’know, protecting children from exploitation and abuse. Comic book shops are particularly vulnerable because of the perception that they’re for kids (made, apparently, by folks who’ve never read SIN CITY, MAUS, or UNDERSTANDING COMICS (which distinguished between the form of a medium and the content of the same medium)), and anime is always risky because it often has more extreme and/or bizarre sexual content than what we’re used to in America. (I was reminded of this during one I-CON panel I walked in on. Yikes!)
I feel sorry for Mr. Handley, and I hope this doesn’t set the precedent that comic book owners are more vulnerable to prosecution than ever.
So somebody managed to convince him that up to 15 years in prison and up to a quarter-million dollar fine is somehow the best option, the best choice he’s got, for his heinous crime of collecting comics? What jury, presented with these facts, would have actually found him guilty? What counsel advised this guy that throwing his life away was better than fighting this nonsense?
Now if you’ll excuse me I think I’m going to go sue an art museum for child pornography in the form of cherub pëņìšëš and baby Jesuses.
“What jury, presented with these facts, would have actually found him guilty?”
Plenty of them. I don’t disagree with you that it’s a bogus rap, but I think the bigger challenge would be finding a jury that wouldn’t convict (without pulling the pool exclusively from the attendees at Lolicon ’09).
Agreed, Michael. I would say at a guess that anything related to child pørņ is the easiest to prosecute if it gets to jury. Specifically because it’s easy for prosecutors to prey on the fears of jurors, many of whom would likely be parents.
.
It doesn’t help in the least that this was related to manga, which most people understand about as well as they understand comics – ie, “comics are for kids”.
I just don’t get it… why is everyone ignoring the fact that apparently a man was enjoying books involving children being sexually abused. To me, this is all a part of the push by child rapists to see their sickness as something “normal.” Sorry, Pete, but just because it’s a comic book doesn’t mean a person isn’t sick in the head for seeking out material like this.
I don’t care how much I like a story, if they were to bring the type of child abuse glamorization into it that manga likes to do, I’d quit reading.
Perhaps it’s being ignored because (a) most people–including, possibly, you–haven’t actually read the material in question and so are disinclined to render judgment, and (b) in this country you don’t punish someone because they find enjoyable something you consider repulsive.
.
PAD
Well Pete, you do punish people when they find something enjoyable when it’s AGAINST THE LAW.
Maybe I live in too much of a black and white world for you. Does someone like to have sex with a person dressed as an animal? Well, that indicates some bëšŧìálìŧÿ tendencies to me. Do they only get off looking at people dressed up as schoolchildren? Looks like someone’s attracted to kids.
Do they enjoy reading material involving sex with underage kids? Pretty self-explanatory there.
Scott, I’d never have sex with an animal. Would I have sex with a woman who was dressed as a leopard? Hot dámņ skippy I would!
In theory maybe you are right.. Where do you draw the line Peter or do you even draw one?
It’s possible indeed he’s “sick in the head”. Same as it’s possible indeed that people who enjoy movies filled with violent killings are “sick in the head”.
But why draw the line at fictional depictions of child-rape, and not go after fictional depiction of adult-rape as well (there’s lots of pørņ that are fictional rapes), and indeed fictional depiction of every other crime (including murders, thefts, etc)?
It’s also illegal to torture someone to death, but no one was arrested after seeing The Passion of the Christ.
While I find it extremely creepy and disturbing that someone would want to see even simulated child sex, there’s a difference between a fictional depiction and performing the actual act.
This is only part of the story. The man had a huge collection of Manga. He didn’t have any child pornography at all in his home. From what I’ve read the rest of his Manga didn’t depict child sex or bëšŧìálìŧÿ. This was an order he had received from Japan that was detained before he accepted it.
I don’t know if you’ve read much Manga but in most of it every one is 14 years old. Sailor Moon is 14 and during her transformation she is nude. That can now be considered child pornography. This can turn into a very slippery slope. If you are a parent and your child enjoys Sailor Moon and you order them an actual Japanese Manga of Sailor Moon you just purchased child pornography and provided it to a minor.
I for one would like to know what comics are in question before I judge whether this guy is a monster for liking comics or for liking child pørņ.
Reminds me of the case of a 14/15 yo girl getting accused for child pørņ because she posted pictures of herself on the net. (My facts might be off but i didn’t want to give my government the pleasure of finding me google for “child pørņ”)
I do feel bad for the guy, but i don’t like the idea of simulated or drawn child pørņ as much as I don’t like the idea of real child pørņ.
I don’t think it helps society to have this material out there and if I had my way it wouldn’t exist. Now before I get ragged on child pørņ and pørņ in general has been defined as
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)
If the comics fit the three criteria above then it makes sense that he plead guilty — if not then he’s a darn fool
Actually, the LAPS test applies to obscenity and not merely ‘pørņ’. And, yes, there is a difference.
Sorry, one of my pet peeves in cases like this is people muddying the terms.
I can’t judge until I see what exactly the plea entailed. For example, if he was offered a penalty that was extremely light in comparison to the potential, he might have been best served by doing so.
It would not surprise me for some prosecutor to seek a limited sentence to make the claim he put a ‘sex offender’ away.
Note the press release indicates ‘maximum’ fines, not actual. If the penalty was less than the cost of trial, well…
Ah, so it’s alright for the prosecutor to essentially blackmail this guy by telling him that going to trial will be way more costly than a plea. And it’s also OK that this prosecutor is going after a case like this, instead of violent criminals. It’s nice that he has this kind of time. Maybe we should all move there since there is so little crime he can go after this poor guy. I get so tired of hearing about our justice system being used against people instead of used to protect them.
“Ah, so it’s alright for the prosecutor to…”
Jeff didn’t say that any of those things were alright. He said that he needs more information.
I wasn’t faulting Jeff. I was blaming the prosecutor and our current justice system.
As someone who can personally say “been there,” I can comprehend some of the shock any case like this deals to you in your work, and social life. I am a very staunch believer in our constitution and it is that faith that took me through three years of hëll. Only Christopher Handley can explain his reasoning on his actions. I hope that whatever reasoning he has, it is for his best.
Jason wrote, “child pørņ and pørņ in general has been defined as 1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law, 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.”
Um, how exactly is this helpful? “The prurient interest” is a factor in just about everything, from advertising (the Vicotria Secret specials and commercials) to tv programs (just watched a YouTube clip of Julianne Hough doing the cha cha on DANCING WITH THE STARS — pretty dámņ sexy) to magazines (what sports are in the SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT ISSUE, exactly?). Depiction of sex is a monthly feature in COSMOPOLITAN, and “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” is extremely subjective. (You can argue that the cinematography in Andrew Blake’s pørņø HOUSE OF DREAMS is artistic, while the t&a in MISS MARCH lacks any artistic value.)
As for child pornography, shouldn’t this be with ACTUAL children? Juliet was very underage in ROMEO AND JULIET, yet that’s not banned or altered. There’s are graphic sex scenes with children in works from NAKED LUNCH to Stephen King’s IT, yet they seem to have passed the “taken as a whole” test. I don’t know the anime that brought on this case, but I’m skeptical it was nothing but little kids having sex. And I hope these laws will be modified to apply to the real dangers of child pørņ — actual children being abused — not a “dirty” comic book or part of a story.
You seem to miss the point that to fit the criteria for obscenity and child pornography the participants most be children (whatever the age range is as defined by the law) and CONTAIN ALL THREE CRITERIA.
Which I’ll admit its pretty easy to hit one of the items listed, but to hit all three is extremely difficult.
Now some have said the three criteria I have put out are the criteria for obscenity — and that is true. But to give you a better understanding for something to be pornography it must be both obscene and involve the participation of children (or in this case depictions of children).
Naked Lunch actually went to trial as an obscenity case. IIRC, guys like Norman Mailer and Alan Ginsberg were actually put on the witness stand to testify to its literary value.
But that sort of trick is easier to pull when you’re William Burroughs. The average Joe doesn’t have those kind of big guns backing him up, which makes the whole thing a lot scarier when you’re not uberfamous.
So does this mean anyone who has a copy of Lost girls will go to jail for 15 years?
Can’t help feeling that to plead guilty with such a high level of punishment there’s more to the case than just manga. Obviously if he had actual child pørņ he would be prosecuted for that so I don’t think that’s the case.
Maybe I’m just being paranoid, and it’s simply he’s in an area where the Jury wouldn’t accept the defense.
The maximum is 15 years. As Jeff pointed out, we don’t know what they’ll actually give him. He might serve 5 years or he might not serve any time at all, these things go don’t always go the same way.
So does this mean anyone who has a copy of Lost girls will go to jail for 15 years?
.
Considering there are already places in this country where the simple act of having “Watchmen” in your comic book store could get you arrested because technically Dr. Manhattan’s nudity violates local laws, I certainly wouldn’t rule out the possibility.
.
PAD
Where? and just because the law is in place doesn’t mean its being enforce. if you can point me to someone arrested for selling watchmen I will believe this otherwise I high doubt of this.
Matt,
PAD’s post said ‘could’, not did.
.
But he is right. In some neighborhoods, displaying nudity could get you arrested. Hëll, in some neighborhoods, showing the cover of Playboy can get you arrested.
Where? and just because the law is in place doesn’t mean its being enforce. if you can point me to someone arrested for selling watchmen I will believe this otherwise I high doubt of this.
.
Off the top of my head? Rome, Georgia. Gordon Lee, who posted above, was the victim of laws written so broadly that he indeed could have been prosecuted simply for displaying “Watchmen.” Instead he was prosecuted over a comic called “The Salon” which featured no more nudity–and indeed less sex, i.e., none–than “Watchmen.”
.
PAD
The problem – if there is a problem – with articles like these is that we get a handful of (alleged) facts and then we all do the human thing of making up a story around the facts, and the story we each make up tends to depend on what we each believe to begin with. The general story tendency seems to be defendant=good guy, prosecutor=bad guy, state/government=forces of darkness…
.
Personally, it looks to me like this guy had some items in a large collection that are at odds with the letter of the law. I don’t know why he’d choose to plead guilty, unless it is a case of taking a figurative slap on the wrist rather than go through a lot of hassle and stress to get an uncertain result, but – end of the day – it’s his choice for his fate. What I would be interested in knowing is why the package was intercepted/opened/inspected in the first place, and – showing my ignorance of your legal system – how much leeway a prosecutor actually has once the case file is passed to him. Can a District Attorney say ‘this is a stupid waste of time, throw the charges out’, or are there processes they are obliged to follow through to completion once the ball is in play?
–
Cheers.
The fact that the CBLDF was involved leads me to believe the defendant WAS the good guy. This is based on cases they’ve taken in the past and everything I know about them until this point. And that there are many prosecutors out there that would rather make political points with good PR for themselves, than go after the more difficult to win, but better for society cases.
Thanks for the reply KAren, but, without looking for a fight:
–
I’m not instantly convinced that CBLDF involvement guarantees goodness… Have CBLDF ever refused to defend someone and said or implied “you’re a pervy scumbag, go directly to jail”? Part of the (small) problem I have with CBLDF is that their charter pretty much says that anyone anywhere should be free to see anything… or am I misrepresenting?
–
I’ll certainly grant that there are some ‘prosecutors out there who would etc, etc’, but I think you’d need to cite numbers and sources before that ‘some’ becomes automatically synonymous with ‘many’…
–
Cheers.
Peter J Poole said:
“What I would be interested in knowing is why the package was intercepted/opened/inspected in the first place…”
.
My uninformed guess would be that somebody informed on him.
.
As to why he made a plea agreement, it’s probably out of fear. Fear of the social impact of being convicted, and fear of what might happen if he were imprisoned. If he goes to prison, he will be labeled as a pedophile, and his life would then be in danger in prison. He will still be likely to get labeled if he remains free, which will be a horrible life to live, but he likely would be safer if free.
I think we have enough facts to arrive at some reasonable conclusions. Mr. Handley was arrested for possessing material allegedly depicting minors engaged in sexual activity. Not photographs of actual minors, but depictions – drawings – of minors. He was threatened with prosecution not because of anything he did, but because of ideas expressed within certain publications in his possession.
When it comes to obscenity law in the U.S., “the letter of the law” is as clear as mud. The last significant SCOTUS ruling on obscenity allows individual localities to decide what is or isn’t obscene. The problem? “Community standards” often don’t become apparent until after someone complains, which means you have no way of knowing whether you’ve broken the law until it’s too late.
The idea of looking at drawings of children having sex repulses me. Still, I’d prefer to make decisions about such material myself, rather than having the government do it for me.
I am really wondering what brought this case to light.
PAD’s blurb called him the “Iowa collector” but does not mention how the police became invovled.
In Mr. Lee’s case, IIRC, a parent complained. Who complained about Mr. Handley? Was his collection on display somewhere? Did a housekeeper get wigged out? Did he show a neighbor child?
Are the police trying to get him for something because they can’t nail him for what they *really* want to nail him for? (Please note, I am not trying to imply anything about Mr. Handley – -I spouting off the random thoughts that come to my mind.)
As I remember it, a postal inspection found the material in question.
.
I don’t seem to recall ever hearing about a postal inspection here in the United States, but I suppose it does happen.
What probably happened is customs knew about the company that was supplying this man with comic books and knew that this company produced comics depicting child characters performing sex acts. They would be able to figure this out simply by looking at the return address on the box as well as the description on the customs forms.
They open the box and confirm the contents, find the comics and send the package on its way.
As soon as he accepts the package they jump in and arrest him. By accepting the package he confirms that the box is his — and since he ordered it — confirms that he knows the contents.
I didn’t know much about the case before reading about it here. Then, I tracked down the CBLDF’s press release about it, which is here:
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000372.shtml
As I understand things, Handley was just ordering some manga from overseas. As far as I know, the manga was NOT “hentai,” which is aimed at adults (or people who think of themselves as same). And, since I don’t know which manga were ordered, I can’t comment on their content. But I got the feeling he was buying it for the story, NOT any “underage” sex acts that might take place.
I do follow a manga that, basically, answers the question “What if Harry Potter graduated Hogwarts at age 10 and then taught English in Japan at an all-girls’ high school?” I read it because I like fantasy in general and Harry Potter in particular. And, on occassion, this manga has shown some of the girls in the shower, under a waterfall, etc. A very few drawings do not have the girls’ hair covering their “naughty bits.” And, you know what? They’re as anatomically correct as average Barbie doll, but a LOT less well-developed and with half the appeal Barbie has for me, which is zero.
It kills me that some of the same people who feel Handley’s bust was right are that same people who would usually scream “Big Government!” if they found out postal “inspectors” were deciding, without benefit of drug-or-chemcial-sniffing dogs, to just open someone’s mail.
I can only think that someday, the Patriot Act will come back and allow the Feds to look at people’s library records so they can go after anyone who’s every checked out a copy of “Lolita.”
I don’t know. I just. Don’t. Know.
If you’re interested in hearing more about this case, there is some good information and links here: http://matt-thorn.com/wordpress/?p=318
This link especially is very informative (Warning: There are inappropriate images surrounding the text, even though most of them aren’t even mentioned in the text): http://comipress.com/special/miscellaneous/down-the-slippery-slope-the-crime-of-viewing-manga . It discusses this case and a different one, which did involve child pornography.
I read manga, but not lolicon, yaoi or other mature manga. It is very likely that the manga he got in trouble for I would find sickening. Although I think it would be better if people didn’t read such manga, there is a huge difference between drawings and child pørņ. He was also a collector of manga in general. I’m not sure if and where I think the line should be drawn with manga and other drawings, but a lot of what I have heard about this case sounds so ridiculous. There are a lot of worried people in the manga/anime community.
If it had gone to trial, he would have had a lot of problems, because most people just don’t understand manga. For example characters are often drawn androgynously or without pubic hair, which makes them look younger than they are.
Can I be convicted for reading “Lolita” or watching one of the movies based on that book? Why is that different?
I cannot see how you can prosecuted some one for the possession of drawings of fictional characters. This is thought police. He is convicted because the prosecutors say he is thinking about children having sex. No real children were involved!
I’m reminded of a conversation about the differences between erotica and pornography. The best answer I heard was the one that said if you could mášŧûrbáŧë to it, it was pornography.
–
I think someone with a collection of hundreds or thousands of sketches of kids having sex doesn’t leave much doubt for which they can claim benefits, but this doesn’t seem like anything even remotely resembling such a scenario, so the blunt instrument of a well intentioned law slams down on another innocent thumb.
–
(For some bizarre reason, I’ also reminded of an apocryphal tale I was told about the Italian – or possibly Spanish – legal system whereby male public nudity was allowed on the beaches unless the man had an erection, in which case it was illegal because he was obviously having bad thoughts… Wierd world, innit?)
–
Cheers.
But what if he fell asleep and awoke with what is known as “morning wood”?
Also, can we have erotic pictures of fictional characters once they turn 18. (Wasn’t there a lot of fan pørņ about Kitty Pride when she was still “underage”?).
The absurdity of it all makes my head spin.
I’d suspect falling asleep on the beach would have greater danger of waking up with the world’s most painful ever sunburn…
–
Absurd doesn’t begin to cover it (The topic, that is, not the sunburn)
–
In the UK pørņ is illegal under 18 but the age of consent is 16… Go figure!
–
Then again, given Kitty, Jubilee and now Armour, surely someone evntually has to ask Wolverine what exactly is this thing he has for teenage girls… Maybe at 120-odd everyone looks young to him?
–
Seriously – OK, more seriously – either as a society we do opt for ‘anyone can see anything’, or we have to put some rules in place. And the minute you choose rules, the cans get opened on what rules, how do you enforce them, and in an imperfect world how accurately and sensibly will those rules get applied and enforced… My take has always been that you try for rules that make the most amount of sense in the largest number of cases, but you moderate them with common sense as an iterative process of constant improvement…
–
Cheers.
Seriously – OK, more seriously – either as a society we do opt for ‘anyone can see anything’, or we have to put some rules in place.
–
And we have them. The SCOTUS has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect libel or slander. Commercial speech is not afforded the same protections as other forms of speech. We can be prosecuted for inciting someone else to commit a crime.
–
In each of the above examples, the law requires the application of strict tests to determine when speech falls outside of the protection of the First Amendment. To prove libel, for instance, the burden is on the defendant to prove that statements published about him or her were demonstrably false and damaging to his or her reputation.
–
Case law regulating obscenity is different. The test for judging obscenity laid out by the SCOTUS in deciding Miller v. California relies on “contemporary community standards.” The ruling fails to provide a definition of “community,” unfortunately. As it stands today, you can be prosecuted for “obscene” speech in Peoria that wouldn’t cause someone to bat an eye in New York City, or vice versa.
–
Moreover, “community standards” aren’t codified. Often they don’t become entirely apparent until after someone complains. In effect, when it comes to obscenity you can’t know whether you’ve violated the law until it’s too late.
–
Laws regulating obscenity place an unreasonable burden on speech in a way that prohibitions against libel and inciting criminal behavior do not. This is why so many, including myself, are up in arms over the Handley case.
I think the Handley case is one that people should be (figuratively) up in arms about.
–
For the rest, “you are perfectly correct, but so what?”.
–
Because all you’re saying – by my reading – is that it’s a complicated issue. Which it is – even more so than usual in this case, because manga is representative of a wildly different community concensus to begin with.
–
My point – such as it was – is that the only easy and simple option is ‘let anyone see anything anywhere anytime’. Is that what you’re advocating? If you are, that’s fine, it is a valid opinion and some people do espouse that.
–
But every other option opens the door to Mr Complicated and Ms Debatable, even down to your comment that it places an ‘unreasonable’ burden on speech. Who gets to decide what’s reasonable or unreasonable?
–
Cheers.
“Because all you’re saying – by my reading – is that it’s a complicated issue.”
No. What I’m saying is that the right to free speech is not absolute, but laws prohibiting obscenity are clearly in violation of the First Amendment.
Laws prohibiting “obscenity” essentially allow juries to veto the First Amendment because someone somewhere was offended by something. But the very purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular and potentially offensive speech.
“So what,” you ask? Here’s what: obscenity laws are slippery and vague. If we allow people to be prosecuted under those laws, we’ll be forfeiting our right to free speech to the whims of the easily offended.
Try asking Gordon Lee “so what?” The D.A. in Rome, GA, tried to use anti-obscenity laws to deprive him of his livelihood and possibly his very freedom. (I hope things are going well for you, by the way, Gordon.)
Bill, we’re discussing apples and oranges here – you’re talking about obscenity laws where some people are offended, and an amendment that allows people to say – and by extension write, read, draw, etc, etc, pretty much whatever they want to, with relatively few exceptions, said exceptions being pretty easy to define.
–
That doesn’t have a lot to do with the production, dissemination and ownership of pictures of children being abused, which is what the child pørņ laws are supposed to address. The case in point is that when those laws are extended to imagery which did not involve the harming of any real children, things get blurred. (Even more so, since in this case, no individual seems to have been offended and Handley was – AFAIK – charged with shipping the material across state lines rather than his actual possession of the material)
–
Thus, again, my point that legislation brought in with good intentions proves to be clumsy when applied to certain circumstances in the real world, possibly – note, possibly, not automatically – due to an over zealous prosecution. (As per earlier question, how much discretion does a prosecutor have?)
–
Also, again, my assertation that once you do have laws, those laws get tested and refined during the rest of the legal process, which is what happened with Gordon Lee – incidentally, a banana among the apples and oranges if we’re still trying to discuss the same things, since his problems were down to a child getting hold of an adult book. And while that may be unpleasant in the extreme for innocent individuals, it is a sensible part of a much larger and somewhat complicated process.
–
Cheers
Can I help seperate the oranges, apples, bananas etc.?
In the exceptions to free speech Bill gave (libel, slander, false advertising), you have an actual victim (consumers in the third case. This is the reason, supposedly, why it is OK to restrict free speech in thhose cases.
Obscenity laws work or worked under the assumption that the public is harmed by being exposed in public to materials which are considered offensive (on TV for example). So there is a victim, although, as Bill pointed out, this issue is very problematic.
In the gordon Lee case there was an alleged victim, a minor. The argument was that minors exposed to certain material in a store are victims whereas adults are not. This case, as we discussed before, was very questionable, but its justification was that there was a victim. (apparently there was a victim, Gordon Lee, but that’s a different story).
Opponents of pornography argue that actual women involved in it are in fact victims.
Yet, in this case, we have a situation where there is no actual victim. Unless we assume that Christopher Handley himself is a victim in the same sense that somebody who possess narcotics is a victim (another complicated issue). So the situation here has its own quite distinct complication. In a way, it is like Minority Report. The (very alleged in this case) possession of child pørņ is presumed to be an indication that somebody is a potential, if not an actual, pedophile, who might go on to harm actual children.
To this you also have the complication Bill rightly pointed out, that is similar to the one involving obscenity — how do you judge art? In this case it was Manga, which is part of a different culture.
I recently saw a movie fro 1992 called l’Amant, in which a 15 year old girl has an affair (graphically depicted) with a Chinese man in colonial Vietnam. I haven’t decided if this is a good movie that is also very sexy, or a sexy movie that pretends to be good. In any case, the actress was not a minor, but portrayed a minor. Aesthetically, I did not find the images offensive although I am not, to the best of my knowledge, a pedophile. To my rather mundane hetrosexual eyes watching a naked 18 year old acting the role of a 15 year old is not repugnant. I would find a 10 year old girl having sex in art or in real to be very repugnant. However, I do not find homosexual (male) sex to be aestheticaly appealing either.
Another argument that could be applied is the 2nd one used by opponents of pornography. They argue that (aside from the will of the actual women involved) pørņ is harmful to women in general by promoting the discrimination and subjugation of women or even rape. Could it be argued that even animated child pørņ promotes actual pedophila? And how does this apply to the movie l’Amant? (assuming you accept the aforementioned assumption about regular pørņ which is itself problematic).
Bill, we’re discussing apples and oranges here
No, we’re not. According to a USDOJ press release, Handley “pleaded guilty to one count of possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1466A(b)(1), which prohibits the possession of any type of visual depiction, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene.” (Emphasis mine.) How do the courts define obscenity? Using the “Miller Test” from the SCOTUS verdict in Miller v. California.
“In a deal made with the Department of Justice, Handley pled guilty to one count of ‘Possession of Obscene Visual Representation of the Sexual Abuse of Children’ and one count of ‘Mailing Obscene Matter’ for receiving manga that he imported from Japan.”
–
Mea culpa. I knew about the mailing charge, I didn’t realise they were also charging for possession.
–
So, how should that which is obscene be defined for legal purposes?
–
Cheers
“So, how should that which is obscene be defined for legal purposes?”
I think the question Bill is asking is whether or not onscenity should be defined at all by the law.
Another question is when it should be defined? In this case it was possession, not publication or the distribution of obscene material?
I’m not entirely sure what Bil is asking or saying. Or why I seem to be arguing with him when I agree with 99% of what I think he’s said/asked/argued.
–
I am old, and easily confuzed though. I shall go lie down now.
–
Cheers.
Does anyone know what title Mr. Handley bought? I’m interested to see what triggered the government’s prosecution of this case, and none of the articles I’ve referenced state the title.
I was curious about that, too, but…
.
If I try to look at it to see if it truly was obscene, will I also get charged? If it is actually obscene, why have not the postal inspectors, the judge, the person from the USDOJ also been charged for reading obscene materials?
.
Is making the charge of obscenity actually a form of censorship, in that many people will be (mentally) forced not to look at it for fear of being charged with obscenity?
.
And would it be a valid ploy by a politician to claim an opponent owned obscene materials?
I’m curious to know the specific titles too and what they’re about. I haven’t seen the titles referenced anywhere either.
This site: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-pørņ/ has some more details about titles and links to a pdf of a document for the plea agreement: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-plea-agreement.pdf. It says the manga in the package contained cartoon drawings of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct and goes into a little bit of detail about an incident of bëšŧìálìŧÿ with a minor human female. It also mention that they found other obscene books and materials at his house. You can read the plea agreement for some more information anyway. It’s at the bottom of the pdf under “Attachment a Stipulation of Facts”.
Is there a list of rules somewhere about what you’re allowed to say here and what not? I’m normally a lurker and I’m not sure what’s appropriate to say.
Federal law is pretty clear on this point. The First Amendment protects “child pørņ” that does not use or exploit actual children. Virtual images of such things is protected. The case is Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition. Maybe this state has its own laws on the issue but my position is no matter how distasteful the material is, if no actual people were harmed in the making of it, it shouldn’t be criminal.
In addition, it’s problematic to go after materials depicting fictional characters who technically have no age. If somebody draws a sexually explicit Buffy Summers comic, can they be arrested for drawing images about a ‘minor’? If that was the case, pretty much any romantic manga or comics depicting high school characters or teenage superheroes would have to be banned.
Another interesting question is this:
When is a minor being persecuted for owning mangas?
And…
all these laws seem to be completely useless when it comes to actually protecting children from pedophiles. If that is so, why do we have them?
I mean, how many cops, prosecuters and judges’ time is wasted while children are still being abused?
That’s part of the plan, Ralph…keep the cops, prosecutors, and judges busy so it LOOKS LIKE something is being accomplished. It’s not needed to have enforceable convictions, just that the public knows something is being done.
False premise guys.
–
A case like this gets publicity because it is an instance of well intentioned laws having silly/stupid/bad effects. There is no indication of how often these laws are effective in ruining the day of people who are peddling stuff that does harm real victims.
–
Cheers.