I’m curious as to the answer to this question… on the popular flash site newgrounds, a small furor came about where someone had made a zombie cartoon and in it a child (she looked 8 by the depiction) was in a scene where she got… violated, then cut open by an evil doctor. This led me to the question of: since it’s a cartoon, albeit a realistically drawn one, is there anything illegal about it? Or can you pretty much put anything you want in a cartoon?
The Supreme Court ruled in the appropriately named case Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition in 2002 that laws against “virtual” and cartoon child pornography are an unconstitutional violation of free speech. The rationale is that child pornography laws are intended to protect children who are victimized in its creation. Since no children are actually harmed in cartoon depictions of child sexual acts, they cannot be banned outright.
I kinda remember a ruling where fake kiddie porn (created with digital editing, IIRC) was proven to be legal. If my memory is correct, then I would presume cartoon would be legal as well.
What he said.
I read a story on-line which contained some fairly explicit under age teenage sex – I wondered how in the hell it could be on the web without the writers being busted - (it wasn’t one of “those” sites really, or even “that kind” of story really). This makes sense – assuming that writing is considered “virtual” in this regard … Is it?
Yep.
Pornography involving children, like every other kind of writing, is essentially untouchable under the first amendment. I say “essentially” because it theoretically could be prosecuted under an obscenity statute, but the chances of that are next to zero. This was true even before that irrelevant Supreme Court case, which is about visual depictions only, not print.
Wasn’t there a case in Ohio a few years ago about a man on parole for some sex offense (I think it was child molestation but am not so sure)? He had just written a fictional story(s?) describing doing the sorts of things he was already on parole for, and was found out, and they were trying to put him back in prison for doing those things in a fictional work.
As I understood the case, the court was in effect saying that fictional characters enjoy the right to legal protection from being molested. I was surprised at the time that the courts were extending any rights at all to fictional characters, and wondered about all the authors who had killed off their characters in murder mysteries, et cetera.
Can anybody recognize this case and help me out?
Another “wasn’t there…”
Wasn’t there some talk about two years ago about making it illegal to film the appearance of minors having sexual relations? That is, the standard Hollywood practice of having a 16 year old actress play a role and an 18 year old body double for the naughty bits was going to be outlawed. There was even talk of extending this to characters who are minors, so even if your main actress was 18, if her *character * was 17, no sexual conduct could be portrayed.
Anyone else remember this or know what came of it?
The Ashcroft decision mentioned above would forbid such a law. Laws against child pornography exist in order to protect children from being exploited. If no children are being exploited, then free speech protections kick in.
And the idea about protecting fictional characters is just asinine. By that rationale, a scriptwriter for a Hollywood action movie would be a mass murderer.
What they do is they just draw characters that are 10 years old and then claim that they are depicting 18 year olds. I don’t know how you can argue against that.
IIRC, it was a condition of his parole that he not write any erotic stories involving children. Sounds kinda silly, but they can make any rules they want regarding parole/probation, I guess.
One exception to the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech (heh) decision – cutting & pasting a child’s head onto a pornographic ADULT body is still considered child porn. Makes no sense to me…what kind of pedophile would enjoy looking at a naked adult???
This is asinine. Do you mean to say that if I take an image of a minor found online and photoshop its head onto a pornographic image of an adult body I also found online, I’m guilty of child pornography? Show me the face of the child I harmed with that little exercise in pixel-pushing.
I almost understand the reasoning behind the law, but the scope of this part of the decision is so obviously overbroad that it makes me angry.
It’s been ruled that mere possession of child pornography is illegal, even if you could argue that you only made copies of pre-existing child porn that you obtained for free. Why? Because- uh- [:rolleyes:] because some things are EVIL, and if you do them you DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED!!! [/:rolleyes:]
The Comics Journal has covered the sad story of Mike Diana , the first cartoonist in America to be prosecuted for obscenity. I think the case was Diana v. Florida. He self-published (with a photocopier) a very crudely-drawn comic called “Boiled Angel” which depicted, among other things, child molestation. This was probably five or six years ago, under the Clinton administration, so such a prosecution is not without recent precedent.
It’s hard to suss the artist’s motivations for this comic, but my personal opinion is that we can rule out prurient interest. I’m not familiar with any cases where that was the central theme.
Just to nitpick, I’m pretty sure the prosecution was a local one, not federal.
I googled, and found a pdf file including an abstract of this comic along with an interview of the author (mostly about his trial and prosecution). I’m obviously not going to give a link, but it’s easy to find.
Anyway, though I didn’t read the interview in detail, it seems to me that this comic is essentially a poor taste and way over the top rant against child abuse by catholic priests. I doubt he’s catering for pedophiles.
Besides, I can’t imagine a comic with similar drawings (I’m refering to the style of the drawings, not to the content) being arousing for anybody. It looks like…say someone who wouldn’t know how to draw inspired by Art Spiegelman’s style, and with a lot of shocking sexual content. Though I’ve seen in France quite similar drawings (still refering to the style, not the content), by people who, I understand, are deemed good enough to be published. Maybe I just don’t understand the value of this style, in the same way I don’t get conceptual art, for instance.
Just to add that when I’m comparing it to Art Spiegelman’s comics, I had more his narrative style than his drawing style in mind. I wouldn’t want to disparage Spiegelman.
One argument I’ve heard for making drawings, CGI or “special effects” wherein it appears a child is having sex illegal is that art of this type feeds the market; it increases demand for all types of child pornography, including pornography in which actual children are used. That is, Hollywood can use tricks to make us think little 12 year old Lolita’s gettin’ it on with skany old Jeremy Irons when the underage actress isn’t. This fuels the fire of child pornography fans, who will then seek out actual child pornography made in people’s basements with actual children. It may also encourage them to seek out encounters with children, because they’ve been excited by the images on the screen - which appear to be of pedophilia.
I’m not sure what I think about that line of reasoning myself. It does seem to have some merit, but I also think far too much outstanding and safely produced art would never have been made in such a restrictive environment. I also think assholes who make actual child pornography with actual children are the criminals here, and they’re certainly not deterred by such rulings.
The logical end of such a point of view is that people who watch fictional serial-killer movies will seek to become serial killers themselves, which is obviously absurd. But of course, when it comes to the abuse of children, very few people are able to remain cool and rational when thinking about it, which explains why we (and I include myself here) tend to overreact.