I didnt actually know this was illegal here in sweden until this case came up, but recently a man who works as a translator and is basically an authority on manga and anime got convicted in a swedish court for owning child pornography, due to having *drawings* of said porn on his computer. about 50 or so images were deemed illegal out of the rather substantial collection the man had of manga and anime images.
This is just insane troll logic How the hell can a completely fictional account of a crime, such as having sex with someone underaged, be criminal? It boggles my fragile little mind, it really does.
On the swedish police homepage the following definitions on the subject can be read, with licence for my translation, but i think im fluent enough not to make errors that affect the meaning of the paragraph:
"digitalised drawings and animated pictures and movies which depict children in pornographic situations are to be considered child pornography. the restriction on depicting and posession does not apply to the person drawing or painting such an image if it is not made available for others."
in an earlier paragraph the homepage of the swedish police describes child pornography thus:
"The police believe that every child pornographic image or movie is a documented abuse of a child and should be treated as a record of a criminal offense . / Criteria is that the image is pornographic and shows a child. With children referred to a person whose pubertal development is not complete or when it is clear from the picture and circumstances, are under 18 years. "
So, aside from the personal reflection that making all pictures of people below 18 in sexual situations child pornography is a bit weird, as its legal for people to have sex with their partner from the age of 15, but if they film it, thats child porn, i have to wonder how a cartoon image is a documented abuse of a child?
I hope higher courts over here rectify the matter, as i think this particular part of child pornography laws have not been tried before. the alternative is scary.
Can I see them?
In all seriousness, this is stupid. If someone were to draw stick-figures having sex and label them as children, would they be considered criminals?
Well, you have lots of erotic manga where women often look very young and then you have erotic manga that feature actual child characters, which imo is disgusting and should face charges.
Objectively, it smacks of "Thoughtcrime"...but all the same, stay away from the kinder just to be safe.
On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.
- George Orwell
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
- Richard Dawkins
I mean, I completely get the disgust when it comes to child porn, even in fictional form, its hard not to have a visceral reaction of the "hang em high" variety. Also, I have no issue with actual child porn, ie pictures, movies etc featuring the actual abuse of real kids beeing illegal, since theres an actual child beeing abused. For that, I have no trouble putting people away and loosing the key for a rather substantial time. As for the people making these pictures, well..
This is *drawings* though. Theres a world of difference here. If we criminalise fictional accounts of crimes, where exactly do we stop? Who is the victim in a cartoon image?
If we start labelling things illegal just out of a moral disgust, then whos moral should we go by?
I get the moral disgust, I dont get the idea that anyone should face charges for your moral disgust against this particular thing though.
I find this bizarre. Sweden police believe that images or movies is a documented form of abuse of people and should be treated as a record of a criminal offense?
By that same strain of logic their authorize can charge people as criminals for shooting virtual players in a game or for reading violent Shakespeare plays...because those are documented forms of abuse. Even if it's something really morally disgusting it is just fictitious material, nobody was actually harmed or violated...
I think the issue is the distribution of the material.
According to the summary you posted, its not illegal to posess such images if you are the creator, it's illegal to make that image available to others.
Not sure how I feel about this, I mean, I despise censorship and I accept that these images aren't actually documented cases of child abuse but,
what is the purpose of illustrating child abuse, or even depicting children in a sexual manner and then distributing the image?
Are they just something for diddlers to whack off to, or do they have some artistic merit that validates them as legitimate art?
Is there a purpose for making these images available to others that might be considered positive or valid, and could you help me understand what it is?
as far as i know, some of the images are various manga and anime images, some is fanart, apparently depicting characters from Love Hina. It not just illegal to distribute your own cartoon pics, its also illegal to own cartoon pics made by someone else, apparently.
Its hard to know exactly what the original purpose and or artictic merit of the pictures in question are, all we know is that they are drawn, ie they are all fictional.
So lets say that they are fapmaterial, that still makes it insane to convict someone for owning them. There doesnt need to be a positive or valid, for some definition of valid, purpose to the images. even assuming theyre used by people who get off to them, they still shouldnt be illegal to own.
Personally, I dont think this guy is a phaedophile, even if its beside the point. He had, i read, several k pictures on his harddrive, the man studies and translates japanse comics for a living, and 50 of these were considered child porn under the above stated premises.
For all i know its manga piccies of girls in school uniforms showing their panties. Noone has any decription of the actual pics up though, so its all speculation on that front. It could be absolutely stomach-churning imagery, I still dont see the legitimacy in criminalising it.
It has been mentioned before that the main characters in Romeo and Juliet are minor (by modern standards) so a graphic novel adaptation could be child pronography, because clearly, they have sex in the play (well, not on stage.)
Im not commenting on the case in question, because i cant see the images. I'm willing to guess that the legal response is reactionary and possibly ignorant.
Just because manga is an accepted genre, and there are huge collections of the stuff on millions of hard drives, and the stuff is traded and has a whole fan culture around it, it doesnt necessarily mean that it should be acceptable to illustrate and market imagery of children getting raped by everything from robots to cthulhoid demons.
I understand that the age of the 'victims' is usually ambiguous, but often its clear that the depicted victims are of school age, and are made to appear underage with visual cues such as pig tails, teddy bears or childrens pyjamas.
My question is, does material such as this encourage paedophilia? Does the distribution of such material reinforce in the paedophiles mind that he/she is not isolated and that they are part of an accepted 'subculture'?
Is distributing material such as this, enabling, facilitating or merely catering to paedophiles and should it be allowable for someone to profit from this?
Again, Im very anti censorship, and i dont like the concept of 'thought crimes' either, but this issue does make me uncomfortable.
When Coppola made Godfather he wasn't arrested for murder, embezzlement, bribery, theft, etc. When Eli Roth made Hostel he wasn't charged with torture and manslaughter. When Nobokov wrote Lolita he wasn't brought up on charges. And when Deborah Kampmeier directed that Dakota Fanning rape scene, she wasn't charged with rape.
So in what reality does someone get charged for a crime that never happened to people that don't exist?
That being said, cut the shit Japan.
"Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
but that said, even if the pictures are extreme, to me, that still doesnt justify an arrest, not to mention a conviction. All other issues aside, how grave the imagery is, what the purpose of them are etc, theyre fiction. Its a drawing, theres no abused child, theres no rapist, if we assume thats the image. How do we make a drawing illegal?
If we make fictional imagery of one crime illegal, how do we argue that fictional imagery of rape should be ok? or torture? or murder? or genocide? or any other kind of abuse of other people?
I heard in Japan they have the most sexual/violent games and comic yet their crime rate\sex abuse is relatively low compared to other countries.
Now I wonder why people don't make a fuss over the more... extreme fetishes like guro (mutilation) or vore or something.
extreme fetishes, depicting adults consenting to bizarre acts, (or consenting adults performing bizarre acts while pretending not to be consenting adults) isnt the same thing as the sexual exploitation of children.
If the Vore, guro, or any other form of sexual fetish is depicted involving children, then the objection is the same.
The same goes for the 'hostel' example. Would that get past the censors if it were the same movie, but the victims were pubescent or prepubscent children?
I've not seen the dakota fanning movie.
interestingly, i just looked up 'hounddog' on amazon and noted that people who bought that movie also bought a bunch of exploitation movies, which tells me that many people (not all or even most) bought the movie simply because of the depiction of child rape, whatever the underlying tone or theme of the movie may be.
Im not sure how I feel about that either.
That is indeed one of the problems with the law: like it or not, but from puberty humans are sexual, and a LOTS of teens have sex. It is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions, but if they film themselves it is child porn. And lo and behold, in America there have been quite a number of cases of kids having been prosecuted for manufacturing child porn after they took pictures of themselves. There was even one utterly absurd case where two fifteen year-olds who had sex were BOTH prosecuted, because they both had sex with an underage partner.So, aside from the personal reflection that making all pictures of people below 18 in sexual situations child pornography is a bit weird, as its legal for people to have sex with their partner from the age of 15, but if they film it, thats child porn, i have to wonder how a cartoon image is a documented abuse of a child?
I can't see how the law can protect children when it is applied in this way.
One can indeed only hope so, and hope that society will regain its sanity, because one can ask where exactly this sort of law leaves artists. On another thread someone asked a question about the relative body proportions of adults compared to adolescents. In reply someone posted a nice diagram illustrating it. The diagram included depictions of nude children. So is that pornography? We can't tell. In some countries you can perhaps now be prosecuted for such pictures. Once we reach the point where artists can no longer freely work, we might as well live amongst the Nazis again.I hope higher courts over here rectify the matter, as i think this particular part of child pornography laws have not been tried before. the alternative is scary.
an illustration of a naked child isnt pornography because its purpose isnt necessarily sexual. Art galleries are full of naked unidentifiable kids (well usually we know when its jesus), nobody cares.
an illustration of a child having sex with an adult/robot/supervillain/demonic tentacle/whatever is usually less ambiguous and a much much darker shade of grey.
I wouldnt equate nazism to the fact that society doesnt quite understand how to deal with the mass distribution of images that twenty years ago nobody would admit to creating.
The artistic merit or otherwise is entirely irrelevant. The question you should ask yourself here is this: what if it were pictures of someone shooting an innocent old lady, or planting a bomb in a mall, or robbing a bank? That's also a crime. Would you get prosecuted if you drew such pictures and put them on your website? Would you have to explain what their artistic merit is before you could show them to your friends?
Some years ago I saw a graphic novel in which Judge Dredd blasted the hell out of Santa Claus, in a most bloody manner. (Santa had a toy gun which he was going to deliver as a gift, and it got Dredd all paranoid...) Well, the graphic novel was available in the bookshop for anyone to page through and buy if he wanted to. I don't think the Swedish police would have batted an eyelid over it. Nor have I ever seen the police make an issue over pictures of any other crimes, including the MURDER of children.
Now you could say that in the case of sexualized pictures of children, you find it so disgusting that you don't really mind if people got prosecuted for them. They're sick perverts and should be locked up, right? But I can guarantee you, let the prosecutors get away with this one, and it won't be long before any one of us could end up behind bars, for any image at all. As Martin Niemoller put it so eloquently:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Any society that prosecutes victimless crimes is a society that is hovering dangerously close to the edge of barbarism.
godwins law.... sigh.
Pfft...pictures of underage sex?
You know what is really sick? Movies that depict horrible murder and mutilation. All the "saw" series and so many other horror movies. If you want to lock someone up, it should be people who make and watch THOSE types of things.
Call me crazy, but I see the drawn out torture and murder of multiple people a worse crime than consentual sex with a 17 year old....
Look up the movie "human centipede"... people are buying and watching things like that for PLEASURE and FUN.
People have their priorities mixed up....
Sorry, I think this is a bit of a strawman argument kind of thing.
Judge Dredd comics have never to my knowledge depicted children being raped, and although they might infer it happened to a character, or occurred within the timeline of a story, I've never seen the rape of a child or the sexualisation of a minor become the focus of a single panel in Judge Dredd.
Find me an example that depicts naked children in a sexual fashion, that is considered acceptable, and use that.
Nabokov's lolita, was a comment on the natue of paedophilia and the weakness of the paedophile who was ultimately corrupted by the minor, and not the other way around. It wasnt a page by page account of sex with a minor. this analogy doesnt hold up either.
If paedophiles enjoy such materials, what business is it of the rest of society? There are no victims. One can indeed even argue that such pictures might be a form of sexual release for paedophiles which they would otherwise have to seek from real children.Is distributing material such as this, enabling, facilitating or merely catering to paedophiles and should it be allowable for someone to profit from this?
If this issue makes you uncomfortable, you are not very anti-censorship. ;-)Again, Im very anti censorship, and i dont like the concept of 'thought crimes' either, but this issue does make me uncomfortable.
It seems to me pretty clear: there were no victims. Thus no crime has been committed. Moral disgust simply doesn't come into it. In Victorian Britain they locked up Oscar Wilde because people were morally disgusted with him. Today we shake our heads and feel all superior, but then go and do precisely what Wilde's society did to him.
If the human centipede or the Saw movies used child actors, we would have a problem. Funnily enough, nobody makes movies like that depicting children as the victims.
Children need more protecting than adults do, and that should be well established.
This isnt moral disgust, that implies that my objection to the sexual exploitation of children is merely based on my own morality, as if im somehow unenlightened and there is a greater train of thought that makes it acceptable.