babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Jailed for Cartoons

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Jailed for Cartoons
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389

posted 13 March 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for skeptikool        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hope others have more details on this than I can offer, but the case has about it the stench of fascist excess.

An AFP item datelined Washington, tells of a U.S. man jailed for 20 years for downloading 20 Japanese CARTOONS of young girls being forced to engage in sex.


From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 13 March 2006 12:59 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Without more info, I can't see how the conviction will hold up. The Supreme Court struck down a ban on such things in 2002:

quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old law that prohibits the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children.

The law had banned a range of techniques -- including computer-generated images and the use of youthful-looking adults -- which were designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Link



From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389

posted 14 March 2006 07:55 PM      Profile for skeptikool        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Crippled_Newsie

quote:

Without more info, I can't see how the conviction will hold up. The Supreme Court struck down a ban on such things in 2002:

As you say, struck down in 2002, and confirmed by your link. But what has happened since? I have absolutely no interest in child porn, real or in cartoon form.

The guy may be guilty as hell but judicial excess is judicial excess. Whether used against peace activists, enmvironmental activists or those we may consider bottom-feeders, voices must be raised. Judging by response to this matter, posted early yesterday, perhaps few think so.


From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 14 March 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skeptikool:
As you say, struck down in 2002, and confirmed by your link. But what has happened since? I have absolutely no interest in child porn, real or in cartoon form.

As far as I know, that 2002 ruling was the last word on the matter-- at least on the matter of pornographic depictions that aren't actual photos. Google seems to bear that out.

I don't exactly follow the subject of child porn closely either, but I do try to keep an eye on the overall reasoning that SCOTUS uses to deem art and literature 'obscene.' I'm interested because that legal line has been used so often to supress expression of gay people's experiences.

In my search for rulings since 2002, I did find an article that seems to sum up the state of the law on such things in the aftermath of the 2002 ruling.

Findlaw


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 March 2006 09:50 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In 2001 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the controversial acquittal of John Robin Sharpe on some child-pornography charges, accepting that his unpublished writing describing scenes of sado-masochism between children and adults were works of the imagination that, while morally repugnant, could lay claim to the artistic-merit defence set out in the Criminal Code. They also ruled that since this work, which didn't use minors in its creation, was solely intended for Sharpe's personal use, he wasn't actually doing children any harm.

The howls of outrage across the country set the politicians to work finding ways to overrule the Supreme Court. The Liberals introduced Bill C-12 to amend the Criminal Code to eliminate the defence of "artistic merit." They sought to replace the defence with a vague defence known as "public good," which it defined as "that which is necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, medicine, education or art." Did I mention that it was vague?

The bill would make it illegal to create, distribute, transmit, access or possess wholly fictitious works of the imagination, such as fiction or painting, which represent characters in sexual situations who are or who seem to be under the age of 18, unless the "public good" is proved to be served.

Despite outraged reaction from civil liberties organizations and a cool reception from the print media, the Bill was passsed in the House (11 NDP members voted against), but died on the Order Paper in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved in May, 2004.

Watch for the KandaHarper government to introduce similar legislation.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca