Read Comics, Go to Jail.

[McCamy Taylor]

In the USA, foreign corporations have a Constitutionally protected right to spend as much money as they want during elections----this, according to the SCOTUS in its now infamous 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. However, our same government has decreed that individuals do not have the right to free expression when they doodle. If you draw a picture of a someone without pubic hair----i.e. someone who might be a child---- engaged in sex for your own amusement with no intent to share it with anyone else, you had better erase it immediately and then pluck out your own eyes. Otherwise, the Obama DOJ will come knocking at your door in the middle of the night to seize your computer, get you fired from your job and, in general, destroy your life.

You thinking I’m kidding? As a writer, I never joke about censorship. Ours is the country that tried to ban Ulysses and Naked Lunch on the grounds that some people did not think the rest of us should be reading about looking up a girl’s dress or auto-erotic asphyxiation. U.S. prosecutors went after the film The Tin Drum.. A former U.S. Attorney General (Ashcroft) put curtains over partially nude statues. And now, in two separate cases, the Holder DOJ has sent people to jail for having cartoon child pornography.

Christopher Handley, a computer programmer and anime enthusiast was sent to federal prison for six months and ordered to serve three years probation, because he purchased some hentai lolicon from a Japanese publisher. For those who do not read manga, hentai means porn and lolicon means little girls (i.e. Lolita, another infamous U.S. censorship case I forgot to mention). A curious postmaster opened his mail, discovered the manga, called the feds----and now, the guy is without a job, a computer and his freedom.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga

In another case, a middle school teacher was sent to jail for downloading Simpsons pornography featuring children from the animated series. He is going to be serving 15 months with three years probation, because he did not respect Bart and Lisa’s rights not to be exploited….

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p

Which brings me to my point. The federal courts have ruled time and again that people have a right to their porn. The only exception to this right is when it collides with a child’s right not to be exploited. Virtual kiddie porn exploits no one. So why has our DOJ under Bush and now Obama wasted time and money on these cases? Time and money that could have been better spent prosecuting corporate fraud? Because U.S. corporations are the only people that count in this country. They are the only ones with Constitutional liberties. The rest of us are at best serfs who exist to do our masters’ bidding and at worst potential trouble makers who may try to use the power of the vote to oppose the will of our lords and masters. The DOJ exists to make ordinary citizens criminals. Marijuana is kept illegal. Internet poker is a crime. And possession of naughty comic books will get you jail time. Every time the long arm of the law crushes someone for doing something that everyone else does, the rest of us pause and think to ourselves Better keep a low profile. Better not draw attention to myself. Because that could be me. If they went after billionaire Gov. Eliot Spitzer for paying for dates, just think what they could do to me?

Note that some of the manga titles that got Handley six months of federal prison time are available on the internet to download for free. What do you want to bet that our own government is the one pushing the virtual porn? Because the DOJ would rather create criminals than go to the bother of prosecuting people like Bank of America or Goldman Sachs.

[Zebedeo]

1. So . . . . . .

you're defending kiddie porn? Sorry, I can't see your point at all.

[Codeine]

3. He's doing no such thing. Cartoons are not kiddie porn.

He's smart enough to recognize the difference.

[msanthrope]

37. He didn't get dinged for the images. The OP misses the point of the prosecution.

"As part of the prosecution's argument, although Handley did not have any criminal history nor did he possess any real child pornographic images, Handley admitted he searched the Internet for manga with stories involving the sexual abuse of minors. The prosecution also stated that "The works at issue do not even have arguable scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, such as Vladimir Nabokov's famed novel, Lolita, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or even Alan Moore's recent, but controversial, graphic novel, Lost Girls. By the defendant's own statements, the works for which he was convicted of receiving and possessing are clearly obscene.""


http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga

He didn't get dinged for the images, but for the accompanying stories. It was a groundbreaking prosecution--the government conceded that the images might not be obscene, but the stories were...

And he pled guilty, BTW.

ETA--as for the second 'cartoon martyr', well, this asshole ALSO pled guilty, and this is what his sentencing report had to say--

" The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p


Sure, it's easy to say these guys got dinged because of cartoons, but they didn't--they got dinged because they possessed obscene material (writings) that involved children. Still a crime.

ETA, again--the second cartoon martyr??? He's a middle school teacher.

[EOTE]

112. How can they say that he possessed this material if he used programs to wipe them?

If they had evidence, surely it would have been used. If they didn't have evidence, they're basically convicting him on a whim. And I'm very interested in knowing where, exactly, the line is drawn regarding possessing obscene writings. It's disgusting that the court can act on something so incredibly subjective.

[msanthrope]

116. That's a sentencing report, not a conviction. And he admitted it--it's in the FIRST PARAGRAPH

of the linked memo.

http://reason.com/assets/db/12955634459236.pdf

People, please--click the links!!!!

[EOTE]

122. This has been addressed before.

He was convicted on his own word because he most likely would have faced far more severe trumped up charges otherwise. They obviously didn't have evidence to convict him, that's when they turned to the railroading.

[msanthrope]

127. Wow. So the search warrant affadavit, which detailed the forensic computer examination, was a lie?

It's pretty obvious you didn't read the descriptions of what this middle school teacher had on his computer. Nor did you read the description of how he was tracked and caught through one of the images he downloaded.

Try pages 5, 6, and 7 of the memo, which detail not just the cartoon images, but the real children images that are so graphic and disgusting that if I tried to explain them, I would be banned from this board.

This guy was railroaded??? No, this guy's a disgusting creep, who tried to wipe everything, got caught, and is now entering a plea deal.

And we're supposed to feel sorry for him, because scattered in with the real children images there are a couple of cartoons of the Simpsons???

Right--he was railroaded. You always have the option of being his penpal, and telling him of your support.

[EOTE]

193. Yes, I did read this. You must have merely skimmed it.

Otherwise, you would have found this: "insufficient remnants of the child pornography were found on his computer to charge him." There were no "real children images" as you suggest. He was convicted merely of having the wiping programs on his computer at one time. They wanted him to do time, so they brought trumped up charges against him so they could get him to admit to a lesser charge and they could get the blood they were looking for. They even admit in that document that they didn't have the evidence needed to convict. The plea deal is part of the railroading, that's what you don't seem to understand.

[Swagman]

197. you are disgusting. You are allowing your reasonable distaste

about child porn to completely justify the railroading of this man.

even worse-you infer anyone supporting him supports the crime of child porn posession.

[Swagman]

195. plea bargaining. The greatest disgrace of US law

[backscatter712]

4. These were cartoons. No actual child was exploited.

Sounds to me like the First Amendment should apply. It wasn't intended to protect politically-correct, inoffensive speech. It was to protect the really unpopular stuff.

[msanthrope]

41. They didn't plead guilty over cartoons. They pled guilty over writings

that are obscene and have no First Amendment protection.

Doesn't make for a attention-grabbing headline, but there it is.

FYI--I'm LOVING how this thread is defending a middle-school teacher who PLED GUILTY!!!! to possession of obscene material involving children--

"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p

[Fuddnik]

71. Pled guilty.

Prosecutors are well known to over-indict people on every trumped-up charge in the universe, up to and including pre-meditated jaywalking, and the defendent is left facing 800 years in jail.

But, plead guilty to one charge, and we'll let you off with 2 years.

Want to fight it? Weigh risk vs reward.

[Taverner]

108. Um, writings do not have First Ammendment protection?

"No such thing as an illegal idea"

--Justice William Brennan, Supreme Court, 1964

[msanthrope]

125. Obscene ones don't. Don't forget Ferber--child pornography isn't

protected. Brennan never countenanced child rape.

Child porn is different, for five reasons, clearly outlined in Ferber.

[Taverner]

126. Where was a child raped? I don't see anwhere that a human child was raped.

And no, drawing a picture of a child being raped or writing a story about a child being raped does not count.

Go back and re-read the Justice Stevens opinions on obscenity.

[msanthrope]

128. Child pornography doesn't have the protections of Miller or Stanley--

This is black-letter law. A 9-0 decision in Ferber.

Read Ferber--it is the controlling authority on why child pornography doesn't have protection. 5 reasons. You keep citing stuff that doesn't apply, and you ignore the 9-0 controlling authority.

Ferber.

[Taverner]

152. Stevens - and define 'obscene'

Look this has been argued before

When its actual pictures of naked kids, its different because there is the act of exploitation

When its a book, it is in fact protected. As another pointed out, Romeo And Juliet should be banned if that's the definition

Welcome to the First Amendment

[msanthrope]

163. You are applying an incorrect standard.

Child porn doesn't have First Amendment protection. None. It has none, because of the nature of what it is.

Really--Stanley and Miller simply do not apply. Ferber does. Read it. Read the 5 reasons why SCOTUS, 9-0, didn't give first amendment protection to child porn.

Further, under Williams (2008) obscene material that is not strictly child porn, but involves minors, is also not protected. Really. I was paying attention during the Bush Administration. 18 usc 2252A was upheld.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---A000-.html

And obscenity also has limited protection. Ask Extreme Associates.

[ZombieHorde]

187. How was the term, "child porn" defined? nt

[Xithras]

110. Prosecution over writings is even more offensive than cartoons.

It's fiction. Nobody was hurt or exploited in it's creation. It's a work of fantasy created by one persons mind, to be read and enjoyed by another persons mind.

The idea that reading literary works of any sort can lead to prosecution is abhorrent. While the term tends to get thrown around rather loosely, in this instance we're talking about the very definition of "thought crime".

[msanthrope]

117. So, then you agree that the OP's characterization was completely incorrect?

It's not about cartoons?

I get what you are saying, but the First Amendment has never been an absolute right. Currently, depictions of child rape meant to sexually arouse are going to land you in jail.

[Xithras]

121. Yes, and I do happen to agree with you on that.

As for the First Amendment not being an absolute right, I'm afraid that we differ on that. I believe that the founders did in fact intend it to be absolute, but I don't disagree with certain fundamental limitations being placed on it. Shouting fire in a theater is a classic example, because it directly puts lives at risk.

But, in this case, we're talking about a work of fiction. Yelling "fire" in a theater is rightly banned, but should that same prohibition be extended to movies that merely portray fires in theaters? How about books telling fictional stories about people stuck in theater fires? It's obvious that few people would want to extend the prohibitions that far, and yet that's exactly what laws criminalizing "obscene" works of fiction do.

If that's the law, the law needs to change.

[msanthrope]

129. Actually, you can yell 'fire' in a theater. That's a misquote of Holmes in Schenk.

You just can't fail the Brandenburg Test.

The controlling case on child porn is Ferber. There's 5 reasons why child porn doesn't get protection, and I've yet to see a single poster here tell me why Ferber is wrong.

If you are telling me that they were convicted of possession of any work of literary merit that isn't child porn, then I'd say name the work.

[The Doctor.]

134. 'Literary Merit' by whose standards?

Yours?

The point xithras made stands; If you agree that a person can be prosecuted for fantasizing in text, then you are pretty much for the prosecution of 'thought crime'.

[msanthrope]

137. Hey, I don't make the rules.

If you disagree with how the law handles child porn, advocate for change, and explain why it should be so.

[The Doctor.]

139. I asked a fair question.

'What is the standard for 'literary merit'?'

Whose rules?

That's the point that appears to be orbiting over your head; Who decides what is 'inappropriate' fiction?

It is obvious, at this point, that you have no problem with censorship so long as the content is objectionable enough for you.

[msanthrope]

148. Look, I can't make you read the controlling law and decisions.

I can only cite them. If you think current law on child porn or obscenity is incorrect, tell us which work you think is being illegally suppressed.

If you think that the defendants shouldn't have pled guilty, take it up with them.

But I really don't think you don't know the answers to the questions you ask--so if you have a point to make, why not just write it?

[The Doctor.]

151. Ummm... I have, several times. Really...

Do you have problems with reading comprehension?

There's a clue in some of the following excerpts that I was making a 'point'... which I wrote... and you somehow missed. See if you can find the key word that indicates I'm 'stating a point';

"The point xithras made stands; If you agree that a person can be prosecuted for fantasizing in text, then you are pretty much for the prosecution of 'thought crime'."

"It appears that the bright shiny point you are missing is that cartoon porn
or literary porn is treated as illegal."

"The point here is that we're treating works of fiction as illegal."

"It is obvious, at this point, that you have no problem with censorship so long as the content is objectionable enough for you."

I'll let you work on that for a bit. In the meanwhile, I think I asked you a couple questions;

-Are you saying that possession of the cartoons was not somehow illegal?

-The point here is that we're treating works of fiction as illegal. Do you agree this should be the case?

[msanthrope]

157. And I've replied, again--

-The point here is that we're treating works of fiction as illegal. Do you agree this should be the case?

Works of fiction that meet the definitions of child pornography and/or obscenity simply aren't protected under the First Amendment. I don't have a problem with that.

In the first instant case, if you think that descriptions of children being raped by adult males and animals produced for consumers to whack off to are worthy of First Amendment protection, then make your case. But right now, those are illegal.

[The Doctor.]

174. Thank you for finally answering.

You are in favor of censorship provided the content is sufficiently 'obscene', regardless of the form of production.

That's all I needed to know about you. What others have said here is true; this sort of censorship by a 'moral authority' is anathema to the freedom of expression. Where no one is harmed, yet the state can determine what is 'appropriate' for the public, it is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.

You might like that because your ideals of 'decency' are upheld, but how you would change your tune when they were not.

[msanthrope]

179. Yes. Child pornography isn't protected.

If you can point to a single work that you think what unfairly prosecuted, then tell us about it.

Don't really have a problem with child porn being censored.

[The Doctor.]

184. That's where you fail.

There aren't any children in fictional porn. If you choose to see harm in imaginary depictions of porn, then why can't there be harm in any imaginary depiction?

Children seeing people murdered in comic books must be illegal. Why? Because murder is illegal.

If imaginary child porn is illegal, then so is imaginary murder.

The basic rule of civilization is reason. Reason is based on if=>then logic. You won't agree with me here because you won't see reason; You are pro-authoritarian, otherwise you would oppose the principle that the government can determine what sorts of expression are allowed.

[Swagman]

196. I'm loving how you keep implying that because he was a teacher

that means there is a more sinister motive. There are witch-hunts within witch-hunts and you cannot even see how this garbage has led to teens becoming 'sex offenders' for life for 'sexting' each other. Blinding yourself to the subtle ways in which 'kiddie porn' is abused as a process to jail people and cow a populace is frightening.

The great 'pedo hunt' is a rallying cry that sweeps up normally sensible people.

[Taverner]

10. It's cartoons! Not kiddie porn!

GAH!

[seabeyond]

12. it is cartoons of kiddie porn. so men can get off on kids.... nt

[Taverner]

13. So? Is a child being exploited? No

Is a child being harmed? No

Will this cause a child to get harmed? No

Will this desensitize the world to child porn? No

I'm having trouble finding exactly what harm took place?

[msanthrope]

51. Yes--the middle school teacher had plenty of real-child porn, too.

"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."



http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p


These guys didn't plead guilty because of cartoons...

[DutchLiberal]

60. Taverner was talking about the cartoons, and you know it.

Thus, Taverner was 100% right.

[msanthrope]

63. One should bother to read the link, and know precisely what one is defending.

They weren't charged for cartoons, and pretending that they were suggests a lack of reading comprehension.

[DutchLiberal]

65. One shouldn't change the subject in the middle of a discussion, to smear one's opponents...

[msanthrope]

69. The subject is 2 guilty pleas for possession of obscene material involving children. Not 'cartoons,'

I'm betting you've learned a lesson here, though--

always read the actual links and the information provided before defending guys accused of sex crimes....

[DutchLiberal]

72. The thread's title is: "Read Comics. Go To Jail." I'm pretty sure that's the topic.

I *have* read all the material. I'm not defending them possessing real kiddie porn. I defend them possessing cartoon porn.

[msanthrope]

74. They weren't charged for the cartoon porn. That the OP is misleading,

and you failed to note that, is not my problem.

[DutchLiberal]

76. You're the one who keeps hammering on the one part of the charges that's not being discussed.

Not my problem.

[msanthrope]

80. Right--because discussing the actual charges should never be part of a discussion of why people are

going to jail---

particularly when they show that you didn't read the article.....

[Silent3]

99. Who cares if it's the writing or the drawing?

Reading a comic involves reading the words that go with the pictures.

Besides, I think it's just as ridiculous that reading words, any words, can lead to jail time as it is that looking at pictures can lead to jail time. Going on about how the charges are more about the stories than the pictures seems entirely beside the point to me.

[msanthrope]

131. Because child porn doesn't get protection. At all.

I don't care if it is writing or drawing myself, but I think the OP was completely disingenuous to suggest that these criminals got arrested for naughty cartoons....

No, they got arrested for child porn.

[The Doctor.]

136. It appears that the bright shiny point you are missing is that cartoon porn

or literary porn is treated as illegal.

It kind of makes the point of their being charged with other stuff moot because that is the issue under discussion. You can be prosecuted for possession of materials that harm no one at all, regardless of how despicable that material may be.

[msanthrope]

140. They weren't charged for the cartoon porn.

If they had material that harmed no one, and wasn't obscene, they should not have pled guilty.

[The Doctor.]

142. I'm asking this seriously; 'Do you have reading comprehension issues?'

It doesn't look like you do, but I just made a point and you totally ignored it.


Let me try again; The point here is that we're treating works of fiction as illegal. Do you agree this should be the case?

[msanthrope]

147. What works of fiction?

Specifically, kindly cite which works of fiction you are talking about--which works do you find neither child porn nor obscene, but are being treated as illegal?

[The Doctor.]

150. Very nice attempt to conflate and twist. I never said I didn't find the material to be 'child porn'

or 'obscene'.

I can always tell when someone's run out of turf when they have to start making shit up. You should be embarrassed.

As for the material;

pleaded guilty in October to "possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children," was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison, followed by three years of post-release supervision. The Kutzner case attracted attention because the children in those visual representations were cartoon characters, including Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson.

Links above.

Are you saying that possession of the cartoons was not somehow illegal?

Meanwhile, stop dodging the question;

The point here is that we're treating works of fiction as illegal. Do you agree this should be the case?

If these works are not illegal, then why are we even talking about this? The whole OP was moot from the start if that's the case, but no one's made that point yet.

Two questions to you now;

-Are you saying that possession of the cartoons was not somehow illegal?

-The point here is that we're treating works of fiction as illegal. Do you agree this should be the case?

Please stop dodging them, it's embarrassing.

[msanthrope]

169. Kutzner had real children photos, not just cartoons--

This is the link to the plea deal--and I warn, it is graphic and disgusting.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzK8_alXwC-6NGQwMzRhYmEtZWVjZS00YTA0LWIwODEtODVkOWY4YWY4MTdh&hl=en

Now, I've answered you, repeatedly. If there's a 'work of fiction' that you think needs protecting, please name it, specifically. Tell us what is should be given 1st amendment protection.


Otherwise, I really don't have a problem with this squirrely fuck going to prison.

[The Doctor.]

177. You call this an answer?

The questions I asked were 'yes/no', not, "Look over here at something irrelevant!".

Glad you finally go to it upthread though.

[msanthrope]

180. I don't think there's a problem with censoring child porn. In fact, can you point to a

single work that's been censored here, unjustly????

[The Doctor.]

189. I know you can't understand this, but I'll try anyway...

You can't seem to tell the difference between 'child porn' and 'fictional depictions of child porn'.

That's pretty much the same as not being able to differentiate between 'murder' and 'fictional depictions of murder'.

We both hate child porn.
We both (presumably) hate murder.

That means that we cannot have fictional depictions of either?

It's a yes or no question... I know it'll take you a while.

[Silent3]

168. Why are you so hung up on technicalities that have so little...

...to do with what bothers the people who are bothered by the idea of jail time for imaginary creations, be they drawn, spoken, written, or played on a banjo for that matter?

Even on the technicality side of this, the OP says COMICS not CARTOONS. COMICS are typically a combination of BOTH pictures AND words. Constantly harping on the fact that the charges ultimately revolved around words rather than images is pointless. How many people reacting negatively to the incidents described in the OP, saying they think throwing someone in jail for looking at cartoons, is going to suddenly have a materially different reaction upon finding out that fictional and imaginary words were the damning legal issue, not fictional and imaginary drawings?

Words you say, not drawings? Well, that's different! I can't abide jail time for drawings, but obscene words!? Skin 'em alive and boil 'em in oil for that! :eyes:

[msanthrope]

171. 'Technicalities' is what makes up the law.

The problem here, though, is that you have two guilty pleas, and those always tend to be more difficult to parse than straight convictions.

[Silent3]

178. Technicalities, however, have very little to do with which laws...

...people think are ridiculous laws, and which legal consequences are ridiculous legal consequences.

[msanthrope]

182. You think child porn laws are ridiculous??? Awesome. Make your case.

Tell us which work was illegally suppressed.

[Silent3]

183. Any laws that involve crimes against purely imaginary children, yes...

...I think those laws are ridiculous. And I never said anything here was "illegally suppressed". All suppression here was likely, by the letter of the law, perfectly legal suppression.

[The Doctor.]

175. Because he has been unwilling, this whole time, to admit what he really feels.

Which is that he is pro-censorship so long as the material, fictional or otherwise, meets his standards of 'obscenity'.
Well... so long as the 'law' says it's 'bad'.

[msanthrope]

181. She. She does think that child porn can and should be censored.

And guess what??? The law agrees.

Now come on, Doctor--you tell us which work mentioned was illegally suppressed???

[The Doctor.]

186. Funny... I had that sense from the name.

That's the problem, misanthrope... you believe that laws- are a higher authority than the principles of civilization. This is the epitome of 'thought crime', and you're for it.

You're an authoritarian. If the law says it's wrong, then you're all on board... right up until that law applies to you.

[Taverner]

103. Then that's different

Convict him on that - not cartoons

I mean, should there be such thing as an illegal drawing???

[msanthrope]

120. It formed part of his plea agreement--he wasn't convicted for cartoons.

http://reason.com/assets/db/12955634459236.pdf

You could read the provided memo--and then decide if this squirrely fuck got prison for a cartoon....

[EOTE]

113. Real child porn that there is zero evidence of.

If they have records of him downloading this material from his ISP, that is evidence in the court of law. All I see there is the suggestion that he downloaded this illegal material and then wiped it while providing absolutely no evidence of such. What a ridiculous report.

[msanthrope]

119. Sigh--he admitted to it.

You might try reading the links provided. Try the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH of the judge's memo.

http://reason.com/assets/db/12955634459236.pdf

[EOTE]

123. He admitted to something they had zero evidence for.

Which tells me all I need to know about how this case went down. He pled guilty to this to avoid being further railroaded. And I'd very much like to know at what point fucking text becomes illegal. This is a travesty of justice.

[Swagman]

198. yuo said everything we need to know about you : "these guys"

what bloody guys ?

[cleanhippie]

33. Riiight.

[msanthrope]

42. Not cartoons--writings. They pled guilty for their possession of

obscene writings....

and I love this thread, where people are defending a middle school teacher who pled guilty to possession of obscene material involving children---


"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p

[Puregonzo1188]

92. And if what you're saying is true--I'm more disturbed--prosecuted for written stories?

Really?

[Taverner]

107. I misread it then - no, NOT for written stories

Not for 18 year old porn stars posing as kids

Not for drawings and cartoons of children

This is verging on the 'illegal idea' concept faught over in the 1960s

[Taverner]

106. "I love this thread, where people are defending a middle school teacher who pled guilty"

No we are defending the right to free speech - and calling it anything other SCREAMS of authoritarianism.

The minute there is an illegal 'idea' we no long have freedom of speech

Learn the difference and you won't sound like such a harpy

[DutchLiberal]

46. Which, as we all know, is much worse than actual kids being exploited in real pornography...

:eyes:

[msanthrope]

49. Oh, the middle school teacher who pled guilty had plenty of real child porn, too....

"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."


http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p


People gotta click the links....

[DutchLiberal]

59. I knew that, but that's not the part that was being discussed...

Obviously, people who posses real child pornography should be prosecuted. But what else he has on his pc, like cartoons/comics/drawings, I couldn't care less.

[msanthrope]

73. I'm betting you never again neglect to clink through the links provided

and investigate what you are defending, huh?

right--let's just all pretend this was about 'cartoons' and ignore inconvenient facts like sentencing reports and actual charges pled to.....

[DutchLiberal]

75. I'll never again neglect to see if it's your name above the reply before I bother typing a reply...

Because defending myself from smears and lies is not something I'm interested in.

Have fun making a fool out of yourself.

[msanthrope]

82. In a thread about why people are going to jail, I find it foolish to not discuss the actual charges.

But, if you want to keep pretending these guys are going to jail over cartoons, you go right ahead.

[Zebedeo]

124. exactly nt

nt

[The Doctor.]

138. Yes, of course... because only men ever get off on that stuff.

All women are, of course, angels sent from heaven to teach men the errors of their ways. :eyes:

Do you ever sing a different tune?

[seabeyond]

143. i would say a very very strong majority of users are males, yes.

but yes, i often "sing a different tune" on many issues. take your little ole self to the thread on men getting stuck with a bill from a wife that cheated and had baby from a different man. i was one of the first to cry foul. there are often subjects that i will side on the male issue. it is not about gender with me. it is about right and wrong

how about you? not quite seeing that flexibility on your part

[Name removed]

149. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bandit]

27. Just because they look like children does not mean they are not of age.

The Simpson's has been on the air for over twenty years so Bart and Lisa could not possibly be under that age..

[cleanhippie]

32. No, he is not. Perhaps you should re-read the OP and try to see the point.

[msanthrope]

40. Well, the OP is missing the actual kiddie porn--the obscene writings with the pictures.

Both these assholes pled guilty--not because of the cartoons, but because of the kiddie porn contained in the writings.

Which doesn't make for an attention-grabbing OP, mind you...


"As part of the prosecution's argument, although Handley did not have any criminal history nor did he possess any real child pornographic images, Handley admitted he searched the Internet for manga with stories involving the sexual abuse of minors. The prosecution also stated that "The works at issue do not even have arguable scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, such as Vladimir Nabokov's famed novel, Lolita, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or even Alan Moore's recent, but controversial, graphic novel, Lost Girls. By the defendant's own statements, the works for which he was convicted of receiving and possessing are clearly obscene.""

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga

Oh, yeah--and the second cartoon martyr????


"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p

[MedicalAdmin]

43. Thought crime...

The guys a bit of a sleaze and he admitted (dumbass - the only thing you ever tell a cop is "I want a lawyer.") to having possessed what he claims was child porn.

I guess that you can't even write now. Nabokov should be dug up a strung up, I guess.

[msanthrope]

47. Nabakov is quite safe, per the prosecution--

"As part of the prosecution's argument, although Handley did not have any criminal history nor did he possess any real child pornographic images, Handley admitted he searched the Internet for manga with stories involving the sexual abuse of minors. The prosecution also stated that "The works at issue do not even have arguable scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, such as Vladimir Nabokov's famed novel, Lolita, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or even Alan Moore's recent, but controversial, graphic novel, Lost Girls. By the defendant's own statements, the works for which he was convicted of receiving and possessing are clearly obscene.""
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga


Bit of a sleaze?? Would you apply that to the second defendant, the middle school teacher who downloaded thousands of images of actual children?

[MedicalAdmin]

89. Nope - actual photos are made with actual harm.

Drawing or writings are not (necessarily). There is a distinction.

[DutchLiberal]

50. "Obscene writings" you say?! Oh my, won't somebody think of the children!!

:eyes:

[msanthrope]

52. Awesome. Defend the middle school teacher with the cache of real child porn---

really--you gotta click the links--

"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p

[DutchLiberal]

61. Nobody is defending real child pornography. You attempt to make it about that...

.. so you can falsely paint us as defenders of kiddie porn. But the smear won't work. You're just trying to distract attention away from the fact that there is zero harm in "obscene writings", as you put it.

[msanthrope]

66. So you agree it wasn't about 'cartoons' now? But obscene writings?

Talk about distractions--

[DutchLiberal]

68. Huh? It was about cartoons all the time. Check the OP. You brought in the "obscene writings"...

Then, when everybody mocked you for being upset at mere writings, you started to smear everybody by claiming they defend real child porn.

[msanthrope]

78. No--they were never charged for the cartoons. I got that on the first read.

I'm sorry it took you longer.

[DutchLiberal]

79. Fine, keep changing the subject if that's what you have to do to "win" the debate...

But do it without me.

[msanthrope]

85. Funny how the 'actual charges' that got these assholes to jail isn't seemingly relevant?

I mean, I get the irony of pretending that pretend cartoon porn is why these guys are going to jail, but I'm unsure what debate there is to be had over charges that simply don't exist....

These guys aren't going to jail on metaphysical charges, you know.

[Taverner]

155. "Depicting" is the devil in the details

By going on its true definition, The Aristocrats, Romeo and Juliet, Lolita and man other tomes would be banned.

Since you are so hard up to ban books, may I suggest the Republican Party? They have a site, much like ours, but coded horribly, called Free Republic. They love banning books over there.

[DutchLiberal]

158. I believe you replied to the wrong person. I'm on the same page as you are.

;)

[Taverner]

161. Yes, sorry. Friendly Fire...

[Puregonzo1188]

94. Obscene writings? You're right we were all overreacting.

[Swagman]

194. it's disgraceful you should imply that- thought crime will be next

[Hugabear]

2. Hmmmm

:popcorn:

[cliffordu]

6. Scoot over, will ya??

:popcorn:

[LoZoccolo]

15. I am thinking that this one will break a thousand replies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q5eIrbV_Kk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[cliffordu]

28. Yep. Kerblooey.

[madrchsod]

48. never seen these clips...thanks

[LoZoccolo]

98. I like to use this one for "popcorn" threads too.

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuhOj2dQTrk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[madrchsod]

132. we still have a drive in out here ...opening up in a couple of weeks

[Swagman]

199. that clip just got censored !

[Keith Bee]

20. Make room for me too

:popcorn: :beer:

[AsahinaKimi]

5. Wasn't there a time when

The "Tijuana bible" was banned in this country? People who had it only shared it quietly with friends? Seems to me I remember reading this.

[Taverner]

14. Yes. There is a long history of legislating personal taste

Goes back as far as the racism in this country

[astral]

7. Don't you guys get what he said?

He said COMIC BOOK porn! CARTOON DRAWINGS porn! Not "Kiddie porn," like real-life children.

The topic of us being turned into accidental criminals is a very real issue.

Do you think any laws they make against anything are just fine as long as they're not against anything YOU like to do?

The attitude of the general DU populations scares the shit out of me.

I suppose I just broke the law here with that last sentence, too, and offended somebody.

[fishwax]

9. who is it that you're talking about?

There was one poster who seemed to agree this was a good thing, but multiple posters who share your objections. So I'm just curious about what the "you guys" and the "attitude of the general DU populations" refers to.

Or is this just a preemptive strike?

[astral]

191. Sorry, i didn't see that it wasn't clear in my post.

I was sharing the viewpoint of the OP. While I may think getting off on cartoon characters of children is revolting, I have a serious problem with people getting in trouble with the law over it. And I have not studied this topic to be certain of what the law really says, or if this was just some over-zealous interpretation of the law.

I felt alarmed that people would take sides that this IS the law, or SHOULD BE the law, and that they do not see the erosion of our freedoms in this manner something to stand up to. Where do people draw their lines in the sand anymore?

[yodermon]

8. CGI child porn could involve ultra-realistic depictions of real kids (e.g. celebs)

Far cry from hand-drawn comic books, but there's your slippery slope.

Child porn lit will be banned next (if not already).

[seabeyond]

11. bummer, even in comics pedophiles cannot feed their kiddie porn appetite.

the world is surely coming to an end.

[themadstork]

17. Nabokov is farting in your direction from his grave.

[EOTE]

29. Pretty sick, huh?

I'm quite sure that this is going to cause them to satiate their appetite in other ways. Because now they're afraid of owning some drawings.

[Johonny]

30. I truly don't know the right answer on this one

Should we arrest any man walking around with a women dressing younger. what your wife is forty. Sorry her Halloween costume sexy school girl simulates an under age girl. Off to jail you go, you sick bastard :)


Seriously one can't possible tell the age of a cartoon character. The idea borders on the crazy. On the other hand, some of it certainly borders on the extremely uncomfortable pedophile area. Do normal non-pedophiles like Japanese Anime. Yeah. Do pedophiles. Probably. Are some of the cartoons more vile than others. Probably. So what's the answer... IDK. Seems like a grey area where I'm uncomfortable passing this off totally as ok (all depictions are ok by law) and saying that some sure seems like child porn. But then what test can you use? You can't I.D. a cartoon character? Some aren't even clearly human, so age is meaningless anyways. Man I really don't know.

[DutchLiberal]

70. You should've stopped after "arrest any man" and she would've agreed.

[MedicalAdmin]

44. While I agree with your stance vis a vis the material,

you are advocating a rule of man and not a rule of law.

[DutchLiberal]

53. Yep, militant anti-all-kinds-of-sex persons keep surpressing free speech...

because they don't like sex, nobody else can enjoy it. Everything has to resolve around *their* tastes. And of course, men are evil.

[msanthrope]

56. Yes. I am anti-sex because I support prosecuting a middle school teacher who downloads real kiddie

porn--not just cartoons...

You realize the guy did plead guilty, right?

"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."


http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p

[DutchLiberal]

64. I was talking to seabeyond about fictional, cartoon porn. And you know it.

But, you're zealous repetition of those charges, that were not and are not the point of discussion, makes it seem like you're indeed a militant.

[seabeyond]

83. i know nothing about this issue. i know nothing about the laws. the digusting creeps that are into

this shit matter nothing to me one way or another. i have never given it any time for thought or consideration, and i dont plan on doing it now.

i just really dont give a shit about these people one way or another. trash

but it appears from a poster they were not arrested for kiddie porn comics which makes this whole thread beyond dishonest....

but i dont care. none of it matters to me

[DutchLiberal]

96. "None of it matters to me." That's why you're being all over it?

Yeah, I usually do that, too, when something doesn't matter to me.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

156. since deleted i will repeat.... two nothing posts without much thought or interest in the subject..

is not all over the place. then a couple responses to you. and a couple just now to another poster. would you like to clarify in your post how it makes any kind of sense, but an inaccurate attack......

[The Doctor.]

141. The point that you are missing is that certain types of fiction are illegal.

Do you agree that certain types of 'objectionable' fiction should be illegal?

[msanthrope]

87. Which isn't why these assholes are going to jail. And now, you know it. n/t

[Speck Tater]

16. Next reading comic books about bank robbers will get you arrested for virtual robbery.

And I don't even want to think about what will happen to anyone who reads a comic book about terrorists!

Even kids know the difference between fantasy and reality. It's a wonder that adult lawyers have yet to grasp that difference. Are American adults REALLY that stupid? Oh wait, why do I even ask that question in a country where people are sent to jail for smoking a joint. Insanity has finally prevailed and the inmates are running the asylum.

[blogslut]

18. Drawn depictions are currently illegal

As of this time, even drawn or computer-generated images of underage characters in sexually explicit scenarios is a crime:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html

[MedicalAdmin]

57. Yes, depictions of actual children.

Not of fantasy or cartoon depictions, even of fantasy characters from TV shows. That is a key difference. That law was put into place to deal with "drawing clubs" much like "photo clubs" ala Betty Page.

It seems unfortunate that we are now jailing people for reading literature, not matter our personal feelings on the subject matter. This is what repressive and totalitarian governments do - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn

[msanthrope]

58. Oh, no--the middle school teacher had plenty of real kid porn, too....

He pled guilty to possession of writings, not cartoons, but he had plenty of 'real' porn.

"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p

Solzhenitsyn? You sully his name by comparing him to this trash.

[MedicalAdmin]

91. I sully nothing.

And while the analogy is not exactly the same (Solzhenitsyn was a writer while the other, er, person was a consumer) it is illistrative.

Also the government didn't charge him with all the crimes they suspected (and perhaps rightfully so) because they couldn't prove their case. Beyond a reasonable doubt, no?

[blogslut]

95. Read the link I provided, thoroughly

That is a current part of US code and that particular bit was added some time around 2003.

Look, I'm not saying I agree with the regulation. While I find such portrayals abhorrent, when they come directly from the creator's imagination, they should not be subject to prosecution.

I'm just saying that this is the current law and anyone surprised at its enforcement is apparently unaware of its existence.

If you don't like this law then I suggest that contact your legislators and/or join this organization:

http://cbldf.org/

[alphafemale]

19. I'm finding it hard to work up interest in defending this.

Yeah...a real kid is in no way harmed but it's still grown pervs wanting to look at pictures of sexually exploited and sometimes beaten little kids. In some cases photo realistic kids.

Whatever. But if you look at it in front of me on the subway I might be tempted to slash your face with a pen. ////sarcasm////

[The Doctor.]

146. A friend of mine once said; "If I ever see a man hitting a woman, I'll knock him out."

I said; "I understand, I feel the same way. But let me ask you; if you saw me beating up a woman, would you beat me up?"

"I sure would, without hesitation.", he said.

"And when she pulled out her silenced pistol and put two in my head, do you think you'd have time to realize she was an assassin sent to kill me... and one who wasn't planning on leaving witnesses?"

He was quite for a moment. Then he said; 'Huh... I suppose you don't always know the whole story.'

As a side point; I'm always amazed at how willing society is to treat women as helpless victims. But my point is this; If you did see someone reading such material on the subway and did slash their face with a pen (yes, I know... the 'sarcasm' tag means you have no such impulses), I hope you don't feel too bad that you attacked a Judge, a Psychologist, or law enforcement official who was studying the material for purposes other than self-gratification.

While I would certainly find such a character who does enjoy that crap despicable, I do make a point to understand the context before taking action... wherever possible. Not all of our impulses are well-founded.

Just sayin'

-Cheers.

[Taverner]

166. If I saw a guy reading thes stuff on the subway, I would just keep my kids away

Thoughts never kill people, only actions do...

[The Doctor.]

190. I'd make friends with him...

Find out where he hangs out.

Find out where he lives.

Then call in a tip if it turned out he was a pedophile.

If not, then I wasted a few minutes or even hours. If so, then it was time well spent.

[hay rick]

21. How is the "age" of the depicted subjects

determined- and by whom?

Truly outrageous. Manga is endemic to the internet and I would wager that this makes a large portion of the population unwitting "criminals."

[DCKit]

23. Guess they were born on the day they were drawn?

And how does the DOJ determine the age of characters in a culture where lots of boys and girls are shaving, plucking and bleaching themselves bald from the head-down?

[Grinchie]

22. Maybe the people on this thread that are outraged should visit Japan

If they were to visit a common bookshop, they would find similar cartoon themes in many printed books, normally characterizing the "Children" and half human, half animal. This has been going on in Japan for at least 30 years that I know of, after seeing it myself. Is it pornography? Not to the Japanese. Pornography is a photo of a penis or vagina, which they have a special ministry that is devoted to obliterating any depiction thereof. Obviously, Playboy playmates are heavily altered in Japan.

When one travels the world and see's the different morals applied in different cultures, you tend to open your eyes about the true nature of humanity, and boggle at the descent into fascism here in America.

It was Hitler that portrayed the Jews as sexual predators early on, and this same tactic is now being used in the Good Ole USA to conjur up and enemy at every street corner.

While American parent fastidiously teach their kids to be ever vigilant, they allow the TSA stranger, an untrained, uneducated minimum wage earner, to feel up the 6 year old, because she might be a terrorist while mommy watches. That's fricken pornography if you ask me.

In my opinion, the people most vocal about the threat of this stuff are 100% American born and raised, and barely travel outside the country, let alone live in a foreign country where the moral may be a little more lax.

That's what happens when you serve your country.. You get exposed to other cultures if you venture off base and see the natives for what they really are.

Maybe if America allowed a few mature Titties on the Boob Tube, maybe the repressed idiots wouldn't go after kids. Yet, check into any Hotel and you are offered a plethora of unhealthy sexual videos for a fee. Unhealthy, because they portray unreal sexuality that thrives on the repressed American psyche.

[madrchsod]

55. yup, that sums up america....

[blogslut]

105. I wouldn't be so quick to defend Japan

They're as sexually repressed and twisted as any country. You cite their nation-wide ban on showing genetalia - that ban gave birth to "tentacle porn".

[wellst0nev0ter]

111. His Crime Was Importing What's Perfectly Legal In Japan

But I guess the current law is that if one place deems that type of material obscene, then it's obscene everywhere.

Plus I'll bet you dollar to doughnuts that the obscene materials in question in the Handley case are completely censored too (even the age of the characters) but apparently that's still enough to convict someone.

[bongbong]

24. subject deleted

(post deleted)

[CBGLuthier]

25. Tin Drum prosecution was local, not US

The Tin Drum prosecution was only in Oklahoma. After a few months the film was vindicated by an Oklahoma judge. I looked and can not find where it was ever prosecuted at a federal level.

It was also banned in parts of Canada.

I remember watching it for about the third time a month before the case. I really wished I had a copy of it when they went door to door to confiscate it. The settlement would have paid my house off.

Looking at Lolita it seems to have been banned in the UK but had no problems when published in the US. The original version of the movie had some trouble with the Catholic film board, primarily because of the scene where James Mason "makes love" to Shelly Winters while looking at a picture of Sue Lyon.

[Bragi]

26. I agree with the OP /nt

[Marr]

31. All you people casually dismissing this should be ashamed of yourselves.

This isn't only censorship of artwork we're talking about, but actually jailing people for having drawings. Marks on a page. That is outrageous.

If you're fine with this, you'd better not make a fucking peep when Conservatives ban Nabokov or Salinger or any other of their other chosen targets.

[cleanhippie]

34. + infinity!

:applause:

[msanthrope]

38. He wasn't jailed for the drawings. You are missing the point.

He, in fact, pled guilty.

The prosecution conceded that the images might or might not be obscene. But that wasn't the point--the text with the images clearly was. (And Nabakov is safe--even the government says so.)

As part of the prosecution's argument, although Handley did not have any criminal history nor did he possess any real child pornographic images, Handley admitted he searched the Internet for manga with stories involving the sexual abuse of minors. The prosecution also stated that "The works at issue do not even have arguable scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, such as Vladimir Nabokov's famed novel, Lolita, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or even Alan Moore's recent, but controversial, graphic novel, Lost Girls. By the defendant's own statements, the works for which he was convicted of receiving and possessing are clearly obscene."

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga

[Marr]

176. Oh wow, thank god the fucking government has deemed Nabokov acceptable.

We certainly shouldn't ever read things that the government disapproves of.

And my "marks on a page" remark stands. You've merely stated that some other marks on the page were intended to portray a theme you don't like.

[Swagman]

200. no-we get the fucking point for the 1000th time. He was jailed for words

and you think that is dandy. You frighten the hell out of me mister because I know you aren't alone.

[hfojvt]

77. Nabokov should be banned

simply for writing unreadable dreck.

He cannot vanish into the dustbin of history soon enough imo.

[msanthrope]

86. No, if you ban him, then people would want to read him--he's like the Marquis de Sade....

unreadable dreck that no one would read past page 20 unless it was elevated by 'banning.'

Ever read Justine? Mon Dieu...

[chrisa]

35. Simpson's Pornography? HAHAHAHAHA!!!

:wtf:

But seriously, that's so dumb, why would anybody go to jail for it? It's just a drawing, no matter how "wtf?" inspiring that may be.

There's real cases of kids being raped out there. Go and bash those guy's heads in.

[msanthrope]

36. Um, did no one notice the guilty plea???? The one where he pled in order to not register as a sex

offender? He didn't get prosecuted for the magna, per se--but the sexual abuse stories that accompanied the magna...




"As part of the prosecution's argument, although Handley did not have any criminal history nor did he possess any real child pornographic images, Handley admitted he searched the Internet for manga with stories involving the sexual abuse of minors. The prosecution also stated that "The works at issue do not even have arguable scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, such as Vladimir Nabokov's famed novel, Lolita, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or even Alan Moore's recent, but controversial, graphic novel, Lost Girls. By the defendant's own statements, the works for which he was convicted of receiving and possessing are clearly obscene."

"Included in court documents are scans of reference letters from family, friends and coworkers sent to the court on Handley's behalf. Also included is a letter from a certified psychologist explaining that there is currently "no risk assessment instruments developed to estimate risk for future sexual offending for individuals possessing sexual images in Manga or Anime." Handley's original psychological assessment determined that Handley, "although honest with what he reported, was not disclosing enough to gain a complete picture of the nature and extent of sexual deviancy … The main finding from the testing results is that Mr. Handley produced a guarded, defensive, and evasive profile. His test taking behavior suggests there is likely more to know about him than he is willing to disclose at this time.""

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga



ETA--and the second one??? The middle school teacher who pled guilty????

HEre's his sentencing report--

"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p

[msanthrope]

39. YOu do realize that both these guys pled guilty, right? And not for possession of anime.

Handley wasn't charged for his drawings, he was charged for the obscene stories that accompanied the drawings--a point clearly established by the prosecution--


"As part of the prosecution's argument, although Handley did not have any criminal history nor did he possess any real child pornographic images, Handley admitted he searched the Internet for manga with stories involving the sexual abuse of minors. The prosecution also stated that "The works at issue do not even have arguable scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, such as Vladimir Nabokov's famed novel, Lolita, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or even Alan Moore's recent, but controversial, graphic novel, Lost Girls. By the defendant's own statements, the works for which he was convicted of receiving and possessing are clearly obscene.""

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga




Kutzner's sentencing memo detailed the very real child porn he also possessed--

"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p


These assholes like depictions of children being raped. This won't be their last brush with the law...

[DutchLiberal]

45. It makes no sense at all. If cartoon porn about children replaces *actual* child pornography...

... why then are we prosecuting it, instead of cheering it on? I mean, nobody gets hurt when animated characters have sex. So why go after it? Wouldn't it be a good substitute for real child pornography?

But I guess it's the "principle" that counts... Because as we all know, patting ourselves on the back is much more important than pragmatic solutions to stop real harm.

By the way, same thing is going on in Holland, as well, it's absurd.

[msanthrope]

54. They didn't plead guilty over cartoons. They pled guilty over writings.

But keep defending the middle-school teacher with the cache of real-child porn....

"The evidence shows that, besides the obscene material that he pled guilty to possessing, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for eight years. He avoided being charged with a child pornography offense because he used wiping programs to delete the images from his computer. So, while Kutzner pled guilty to possessing obscene fictional representations of the sexual abuse of children, he also has a long history of viewing sexually explicit images of real children."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p

[DutchLiberal]

67. Not the topic of discussion. This marks the 6th time I have to explain that to you...

Are you having trouble reading or are you just enjoying derailing this discussion, because you don't like the subject (which is *cartoon* porn)?

[msanthrope]

90. How is the actual charge they are going to jail on not the topic of discussion?

I mean, I fail to see the point of discussing charges that simply don't exist.

[Johonny]

104. I agree

What you brought up has to be part of the discussion because it was part of the case.

[MedicalAdmin]

84. Writing / drawings - what's the difference?

It's depiction in drawing or writing.

I don't care why they pled guilty in terms of this issue. That one of them admitted to actually trading in real images of child porn is ... well, words fail me. But I'll tell you this, literature or art should not be a prosecutable offense in a democracy. In a plutocracy or totalitarian state however it is business as usual.

FIrst it is books and images, then it is artists, then it is intellectuals, then...

[msanthrope]

88. Obscene material has no First Amendment protection.

Neither does libel.

I think you confuse literature and art with obscenity. It's a distinction that's still enshrined in law, particularly when it involves depictions of minor children.

[MedicalAdmin]

93. I am aware of that....

Obscenity is in the eye of the puritan. My view is that unless there is a demonstrated direct harm to anyone actual living human being then this is a non issue. Drawing and writings should not be subject to the thought police.

What if some teabaggin asshats take over your area and get a law making DU obscene in their area? Or perhaps one of your favorite authors? Think it can't happen? Think again.

[msanthrope]

97. I don't have any favorite authors that depict child rape in order to arouse the reader's sexual

interest.

The First Amendment isn't absolute.

[Thinking Chimp]

100. Would you expand the point you are trying to get at?

How anyone can be sentenced to prison/jail for drawings/cartoons is as ridicules as saying the "fair tax" is progressive. Regardless if you find the images distasteful, they amount to COLORS and PRINT.

[msanthrope]

115. Um, they aren't in jail for drawings or cartoons. n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

192. Maya Angelou should be banned.

The obscene witch. How dare she write about child rape? Purient titillating trash written for the edification of subhuman scum, obviously.

[Silent3]

102. Obscene material has been denied First Amendment protection, yes...

...but I consider that there even is such a legal category as "obscene material" the true obscenity.

As far as I'm concerned, the state should never have the job of deciding what does or does not have "artistic" or educational or political value, as if words and images need to justify their existence.

The only categories of expression I think should ever be subject to criminal prosecution are (and only after meeting strict criteria): libel, slander, verbal harassment and intimidation, and reckless endangerment (i.e. the old "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater" issue). Much toned down from the current insanity of "intellectual property" law, I can also see as reasonable civil liability for copyright infringement.

[msanthrope]

130. Child porn is different.

There's a 9-0 decision, Ferber, that tells you why, and I've yet to see an explanation as to why SCOTUS is wrong.

[Silent3]

133. Frankly I don't care what the SCOTUS has decided.

A 9-0 isn't all that surprising on a hot-button issue where no one wants to be publicly portrayed as "supporting child porn", even if all they're really doing is supporting a broad interpretation of free speech. People writing fictitious stories about fictitious people, no matter what age those fictitious people are, should never face jail time for that.

[msanthrope]

135. I generally care to the extent that I wish to conform my behavior to avoid arrest.

I highly recommend that course of action.

[Silent3]

144. I have no desire to write nor read such stories myself...

...but that hasn't the slightest thing to do with the principle of the matter regarding free speech.

If you're suggesting not vocally supporting free speech to the extent that I do in order to "conform", keeping my opinions on this matter quietly to myself, that's way too much conformity enforced by fear for my tastes.

It is sadly true, however, I'd be less likely to be as spirited in my defense of free speech if I were posting under my real name. Knowing that I can be cowed like that is exactly why I don't give much weight to the 9-0 SCOTUS vote.

[msanthrope]

170. Yeah, but child porn isn't free speech.

Really, it's not.

[Silent3]

173. If it only involves imaginary children...

...it's free speech to me. It's not like there's one indisputable definition of free speech. I personally won't abide by any definition that essentially sets some speech aside as unprotected thought crime.

[daleanime]

62. A simple question....

Did either man do anything wrong other then have access to these "images"?:hide:

[JonLP24]

81. This kind of reminds me of the Karen Fletcher case

Sad story about a woman that lived in isolation that wrote stories about crimes against children which she was victim of herself prosecuted by Mary Beth Buchannon who is famous for prosecuting Tommy Chong.

[Taverner]

109. By this logiuc, "The Aristocrats" is an obscene movie

"Lolita" would be obscene as well

Virtually everything by Jerzy Kosinski would be as well

[Lyric]

114. By this logic, "Romeo and Juliet" might be obscene.

Neither of them were "of age", and they have sex in the play.

:shrug:

[Taverner]

118. Yes - very true

Obscenity does not exist

Sexual Exploitation does, and it is a crime with a clear victim

So kiddie porn pics - illegal

Kiddie porn drawings - legal

Kiddie porn stories - legal

[Taverner]

153. Yes I am getting a bit upset with the Pro-Censorship crowd here

They should be ashamed to consider themselves Democrats
I certainly wouldn't

[Silent3]

160. Unfortunately, I think one can easily call oneself a Democratic...

...without strong free speech advocacy in an area like this.

Like it or not, I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans, Democrats included, have "Isn't that disgusting! There should be a law!" reactions, when it comes to stuff like this, than their support for principles of free expression can hold up to.

[Taverner]

164. Well yeah, John Wayne Gacy was a Democrat

And he's the kind of guy Ayn Rand would have fallen for

[keepCAblue]

145. There is no victim in these cases. WTF? It's a bit like the Minority Report...

If you merely even THINK about kiddie porn, expect a knock on the door. Yikes.

[Taverner]

154. Yes, and despite what some Democratic Impostors would say - it is protected speech

Folks who see otherwise should find a new party. I suggest the Christian Dominionist one.

[blogslut]

159. While I agree that it should be protected speech

It isn't. It is currently against US law.

[Taverner]

162. Then Nabakov's "Lolita" is illegal. Wonder how they got away with that for so many years?

[blogslut]

165. You didn't read the link

did you?

[Taverner]

167. "Obscenity - I know it when I see it"

Does not prove your point

Yes, I read it. And it's dodgy standard that could not survive a true legal test

[blogslut]

172. I don't have a point

Except that, as of this moment, visual depictions of minors (engaged in sexual scenarios) is against the law.

This isn't about the definition of obscenity. That determination is still left to community standards. Sadly, numerous people in my industry have been arrested under the pretense of obscenity law violations and instead of bringing their cases before a court of their peers, they often plead guilty to lesser charges because they can't afford to fight the charges. Obscenity law is a gray area where the old saying "You may beat the rap but can you beat the ride?" applies.

But this visual depiction of minors law is not vague. Like I said, I don't agree with the law but that does not discount the fact that the law exists.

Shout "Nabokov!" all you want. It's doesn't change things.

If you want to fight to have this law struck down then join these people:

http://cbldf.org

[horsehead]

185. Erm yeah...

"as of this moment, visual depictions of minors (engaged in sexual scenarios) is against the law."

Isn't that the whole point of the OP? That it's against the law but really shouldn't be? Lol. Sorry maybe I'm just tired and/or being slow but I can't figure out what your point is in repeating that fact.

[blogslut]

188. Some people in this thread aren't so clear on the matter

Some are conflating this law with obscenity law or do not know that this kind of content is presently illegal.

I'm glad you are informed. :hi: