Sweden: naked manga is child porn

[Isamu]

@ivan_astikov

I feel sorry for those poor judges who had to witness this filth masquerading as art. It must be terrible when you have to become a pedo as part of your job. I can imagine them ripping off their wigs the moment the case was over, and rushing out into the streets looking for the first little girl with pointy ears and small, but noticeable breasts, in order to slake their now deviant urges, after having their minds contaminated by such images.

Now Ivan, Don’t be snarky. Those people are professionals who are infinitely wiser than you or I and they have powers beyond the normal person. And isn’t it past your bedtime?!.. :dubious:

[fuzzypickles]

@ivan_astikov

Wasn’t Sweden a nation which once had legitimate child porn?

You’re probably thinking of the Danes and Color Climax Corporation:

Also notable is the fact that Color Climax was one of the only large-scale commercial producers of child pornography in the modern history of erotica to openly advertise the fact. Although generally not mentioned by the multi-national corporation of today, from 1969 to 1979 Color Climax was responsible for the relatively large-scale distribution child pornography. Though participation by such a mainstream studio was unique to Denmark, it generally did not reflect a wide-spread societal acceptance of child pornography in the country at the time.

(Link SFW.)

[ivan_astikov]

@Isamu

@ivan_astikov

I feel sorry for those poor judges who had to witness this filth masquerading as art. It must be terrible when you have to become a pedo as part of your job. I can imagine them ripping off their wigs the moment the case was over, and rushing out into the streets looking for the first little girl with pointy ears and small, but noticeable breasts, in order to slake their now deviant urges, after having their minds contaminated by such images.

Now Ivan, Don’t be snarky. Those people are professionals who are infinitely wiser than you or I and they have powers beyond the normal person.

I knew there’d be a good reason why they weren’t affected!

@Isamu

And isn’t it past your bedtime?!.. :dubious:

My Mum never comes in the basement, so I can stay awake as long as I want.

@fuzzypickles

@ivan_astikov

Wasn’t Sweden a nation which once had legitimate child porn?

You’re probably thinking of the Danes and Color Climax Corporation:

Also notable is the fact that Color Climax was one of the only large-scale commercial producers of child pornography in the modern history of erotica to openly advertise the fact. Although generally not mentioned by the multi-national corporation of today, from 1969 to 1979 Color Climax was responsible for the relatively large-scale distribution child pornography. Though participation by such a mainstream studio was unique to Denmark, it generally did not reflect a wide-spread societal acceptance of child pornography in the country at the time.

(Link SFW.)

I knew I should have asked for a cite.

Still, ya live and ya learn trivial information.

[Hamlet]

@Bosstone

@hotflungwok

@Hamlet

Personally, I find that the free speech value of virtual child pornography to be so infinitesmally small that I would be willing to support a law that makes it illegal if it were narrowly written, if there were an adequate showing that it was necessary to “ensure the ability to enforce prohibitions of actual child pornography” and that there was the standard exception for artistic or scientific value.

I think that child pornography, and virtual child pornography, have extremely miniscule value as speech.

Oh I see now. Because you don’t it, it doesn’t count for purposes of free speech. Gotcha. Interesting how the other depictions of illegal things you do like get to count as free speech.

I think you’re being unduly harsh.

I think he’s just interested in scoring imaginary points than debating. Such is life.

@Bossstone

Hamlet’s point is that if there is any benefit to be gained by banning virtual CP, there is so little benefit to keeping it legal that a ban isn’t a bad idea. I assume in this argument, “there will be less virtual CP” isn’t considered a valid benefit. To illustrate it numerically, while the benefits of banning alcohol might rate, say, 60, the benefits of keeping it legal rate 100. Conversely, while the benefits of banning virtual CP might only rate a 5 on this imaginary scale, the benefit of keeping it legal is only a 1.

I don’t think there is even a benefit to banning it, though. I have nothing but assertions, but in my view there simply isn’t enough social harm done by virtual CP to justify banning it out of hand. No children are harmed in the making, and as such it provides a safe alternative for pedos to satisfy their desires. Maybe there’s a study that disproves me and shows that virtual CP is gateway porn, but I kind of doubt it.

Which is why, in my posts, I have stated that things like: "if there were an adequate showing that it was necessary to “ensure the ability to enforce prohibitions of actual child pornography” and "if there is a showing that virtual child pornography hampers the prosecution of real child pornography, or that there is even a teneable link between virtual child pornography and child sexual abuse, I wouldn’t have a problem with it being illegal.

Now, if there were showings the opposite way, such as (as some have already asserted in this thread) that virtual child pornography actually leads to less child sexual assaults or less real child pornography, I’d have no problem condemning those laws as a waste."

@Bossstone

Really, the lack of anyone being harmed is the clincher. I take a dim view of victimless acts or depictions being considered criminal.

And I tend to take a more liberal view about the harm virtual child pornography creates to include its effect on prosecutions for real child pornography and potential links between VCP and sexual assault or the market for real child pornography. I find that, if those are shown, the miniscule value to VCP speech is outweighed by the positive effects of decreasing those harms. And, as I’ve stated, if there is a showing the other way, I would change my mind.

[Rune]

@Hamlet

Since the identification of victims in alleged child pornography cases is oftentimes is impossible, courts have long used expert testimony to establilsh the age of the alleged victim based on developmental standards, etc. Applying that to anime strikes me as no big deal either.

I don’t believe actual humans are comparable to anime cartoons in appearance, which are not at all made to appear realistic. And what the hell is it with those eyes the size of teacups?

@Hamlet

Not having seen them, I would hazard a guess that the the anime characters are, in fact, representations of children, and not pixies, elves, robots, or aliens.

I’m far from so certain of this. Anime and manga seem to drift in and out of various fantasy characters. But does that mean you’d still allow for sexual explicit anime of for instance Tinkerbell the Pixie, even though she may appear to be a child (although as a pixie several hundred years old)?

@Hamlet

Here in the States, the jury or judge hearing the case makes that determination. That’s kinda why we have them

With that reasoning you might as well do away with all laws and have judge and jury decide what is illegal on a case by case basis. I don’t trust any court to have so wide interpretive powers. That is why I thought that laws must be written in such a way that there must be some minimum standard for an objective method by which it is possible to prove ones innocence – not just leave it up to a random court’s subjective opinion.

@MPB_in_Salt_Lake

I read somewhere (maybe SDMB) that either Sweden or Denmark had no laws against child porn (to possess or produce) until the 1990’s, so thay may be what ivan astikov is referring to…

The current Danish law against child pornography is from 1980. Although until 2000, the age limit was 15 years, the same as the sexual coming of age. Now it is 18. The cut of age of fictional cartoon characters is also 18 (meaning that real life people can have sex before the age when cartoons can). In the 70s I think there was no law against child porn, as it apparently had not crossed anybody’s mind that it could happen. Man’s imagination is constantly tested by the actual depravity of man.

@misterW

I would think animated/cartoon pornography should be encouraged, if anything. The more people who are satisfied with cartoon pornography, the weaker the market for the real thing.

They believe cartoons is a slippery slope leading towards real child pornography.

@Hamlet

Personally, I find that the free speech value of virtual child pornography to be so infinitesmally small that I would be willing to support a law that makes it illegal if it were narrowly written, if there were an adequate showing that it was necessary to “ensure the ability to enforce prohibitions of actual child pornography” and that there was the standard exception for artistic or scientific value.

The reason given for the Swedish law, and a similar law proposed in Denmark – although unlikely to pass, is not that it helps enforce actual child pornography laws, but that the drawings are harmful in themselves. That the cartoons are a violation of the rights of children and that they constitute a slippery slope towards actual child pornography.

But certainly you can be in favor of banning the cartoons on other grounds. But why then the exception for images with an artistic value? If one believes it leads to child abuse then surely artistic value is of minor concern.

[Hamlet]

@Rune

I don’t believe actual humans are comparable to anime cartoons in appearance, which are not at all made to appear realistic. And what the hell is it with those eyes the size of teacups?

Those boom anime babes make me think the wrong thing.

@Rune

I’m far from so certain of this. Anime and manga seem to drift in and out of various fantasy characters. But does that mean you’d still allow for sexual explicit anime of for instance Tinkerbell the Pixie, even though she may appear to be a child (although as a pixie several hundred years old)?

As with a vast majority of these kinds of determinations, it completely depends. The work as a total, the scene, the similarities between real children, and on and on. I’m not comfortable with a general rule, it should be, and is, on a case by case basis. Like all these determinatons.

@Rune

With that reasoning you might as well do away with all laws and have judge and jury decide what is illegal on a case by case basis.

I’m kinda sure that’s how the whole trial thing works. Whether it is a murder, a jaywalking ticket, or child pornography, either a judge or a jury has to make a determination that specific actions are, in fact, a violation of the law.

@Rune

I don’t trust any court to have so wide interpretive powers. That is why I thought that laws must be written in such a way that there must be some minimum standard for an objective method by which it is possible to prove ones innocence – not just leave it up to a random court’s subjective opinion.

I really don’t follow. The State prosecuting a case has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, to either to a judge or jury, that the defendant committed a statutory offense. Everything is on a case by case basis.

@Rune

The reason given for the Swedish law, and a similar law proposed in Denmark – although unlikely to pass, is not that it helps enforce actual child pornography laws, but that the drawings are harmful in themselves. That the cartoons are a violation of the rights of children and that they constitute a slippery slope towards actual child pornography.

As I said: “if there is a showing that virtual child pornography hampers the prosecution of real child pornography, or that there is even a teneable link between virtual child pornography and child sexual abuse, I wouldn’t have a problem with it being illegal.” Sweden is apparently convinced that the latter is true, that there is some kind of link between VCP and either child sexual assault or the increase in the market for real child pornography.

@Rune

But certainly you can be in favor of banning the cartoons on other grounds. But why then the exception for images with an artistic value? If one believes it leads to child abuse then surely artistic value is of minor concern.

Again, as I said: “I find that the free speech value of virtual child pornography to be so infinitesmally small.” Were something that were alleged to be illegal did have artistic or scientific value, the free speech concerns become more important. If something has artistic and scientific merit, it escapes my defintion of VCP.

[YogSothoth]

@Hamlet

Personally, I find that the free speech value of virtual child pornography to be so infinitesmally small that I would be willing to support a law that makes it illegal if it were narrowly written, if there were an adequate showing that it was necessary to “ensure the ability to enforce prohibitions of actual child pornography” and that there was the standard exception for artistic or scientific value

What does it matter if it has no value? It’s not hurting anyone

[Hamlet]

@YogSosoth

What does it matter if it has no value? It’s not hurting anyone

The Swedes have concluded that it does, in fact, cause harm, either be increasing the market for real child pornography, by being used in the seduction of children, or leading to more child sexual assaults. As I’ve pointed out, if those conclusions are supported by evidence, then I have no problem with their ruling.

[hotflungwok]

@Hamlet

I think he’s just interested in scoring imaginary points than debating. Such is life.

Scoring points for what? I just wanted to see where your ‘depictions of illegal things should be illegal’ idea came from. Yours appears to be utilitarian rather than hysterical.

I don’t know about prosecuting abuse, but depictions of child porn can make the abuse itself easier. Child molesters sometimes show kids existing child porn or loli manga and say something like ‘See? It’s everywhere, everyone does it, there’s nothing wrong with it.’

[ivan_astikov]

The trick is for parents to have adequate enough communication skills to teach their children about this ploy that Uncle Charlie might pull, not to start banning cartoon porn.

[Miller]

@Hamlet

Again, as I said: “I find that the free speech value of virtual child pornography to be so infinitesmally small.” Were something that were alleged to be illegal did have artistic or scientific value, the free speech concerns become more important. If something has artistic and scientific merit, it escapes my defintion of VCP.

How do you tell if something has artistic value? Is the dividing line between Lolita being legal or illegal down to how much the judge likes Nabokov?

[Hamlet]

@Miller

How do you tell if something has artistic value? Is the dividing line between Lolita being legal or illegal down to how much the judge likes Nabokov?

Police officers, prosecutors, expert witnesses, juries, trial court judges, appellate judges. We’ve entrusted them with determining all sorts of crimes, even to the point of giving them the power to lock people in prison until they die. They have to determine what a person’s intent is, what is “reasonable”, and all kinds of other somewhat subjective determinations, I don’t have a problem with them deciding whether something has serious artistic or scientific value. After all, judges and juries have been doing it for centuries.

[begbert2]

@Hamlet

@Miller

How do you tell if something has artistic value? Is the dividing line between Lolita being legal or illegal down to how much the judge likes Nabokov?

Police officers, prosecutors, expert witnesses, juries, trial court judges, appellate judges. We’ve entrusted them with determining all sorts of crimes, even to the point of giving them the power to lock people in prison until they die. They have to determine what a person’s intent is, what is “reasonable”, and all kinds of other somewhat subjective determinations, I don’t have a problem with them deciding whether something has serious artistic or scientific value. After all, judges and juries have been doing it for centuries.

I do, since intent is irrelevent in this case. So they still have no crieteria to go on except “I liked this, but didn’t like that”. Upon these grounds is not a just legal system based.

[Huerta88]

Australia apparently went further (?? is it further or less far?) by banning (among other things) A cups in nudie mags.

http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/press-releases/619-depictions-of-female-orgasm-being-banned-by-classification-board

[Hamlet]

@begbert2

I do, since intent is irrelevent in this case.

I believe you are missing the point. We have entrusted the groups I listed with the power to make determinations, such as what someone intended, whether an action was “reasonable”, whether someone truly consented, whether someone suffered under a serious mental defect or extreme emotional distress, and a myriad of other “subjective” determinations. But I rarely see people bemoaning their powers in those realms, but only when the determination is “literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value”, then they can’t be trusted. I’m not convinced that a jury can determine if someone killing another person was “reasonable” or not, but not whether something has “literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value”.

@begbert2

So they still have no crieteria to go on except “I liked this, but didn’t like that”. Upon these grounds is not a just legal system based.

I don’t think “literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value” and “I don’t like this” are synonyms.

[begbert2]

@Hamlet

I believe you are missing the point. We have entrusted the groups I listed with the power to make determinations, such as what someone intended, whether an action was “reasonable”, whether someone truly consented, whether someone suffered under a serious mental defect or extreme emotional distress, and a myriad of other “subjective” determinations. But I rarely see people bemoaning their powers in those realms, but only when the determination is “literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value”, then they can’t be trusted. I’m not convinced that a jury can determine if someone killing another person was “reasonable” or not, but not whether something has “literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value”.

Other judgements may be based on things that are generally agreed to be objective criteria. With regard to nude art, though, the only criteria that’s even vaguely objective is “is it old?”, which seems like a pretty stupid criteria for this to me.

@Hamlet

I don’t think “literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value” and “I don’t like this” are synonyms.

You might have a point about scientific value, if it weren’t entirely irrelevent to anything that might be even tangentially considered as being child porn. (Well, aside from the molecular structure of polysorbate - that’s pretty racy.) As for the rest of it, I ainxiously await your explanation of how these things can be determined aside from subjective preference. Just age?

[Ruminator]

@begbert2

With regard to nude art, though, the only criteria that’s even vaguely objective is “is it old?”, which seems like a pretty stupid criteria for this to me.

Indeed, that is only objective criteria. One could argue that Donatello’s David is worse than cartoons because he probably required a real child to stand naked for hours as a reference for his sculpture. A real “victim” may have suffered in this case. Shouldn’t we assume that Donatello repeatedly raped his adolescent model when he wasn’t “posing?”

On the other hand, manga cartoons can be easily drawn purely from the imagination.

Compared in this way, snobby art connoisseurs are closer to the crime of actual child pornography than cartoon ownership.

[Hamlet]

@begbert2

Other judgements may be based on things that are generally agreed to be objective criteria. With regard to nude art, though, the only criteria that’s even vaguely objective is “is it old?”, which seems like a pretty stupid criteria for this to me.

Let me repeat myself: "I don’t think “literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value” and “is it old?” are synonyms either.

@begbert

You might have a point about scientific value, if it weren’t entirely irrelevent to anything that might be even tangentially considered as being child porn. (Well, aside from the molecular structure of polysorbate - that’s pretty racy.) As for the rest of it, I ainxiously await your explanation of how these things can be determined aside from subjective preference. Just age?

There are dozens of things that go into it. Does the item have words or descriptions. Is the language sophisticated. What is the point? Does it deal with emotions? Is it beautiful? Is there a discussion of ideas? Is there poetry? Is it realistic? Is it a commentary on society? Is it artistically done? Hows the lighting? What is the focus? Is there a point? Are there articles? Is there editorializing? Opinions? Is it widely accepted? Are schools discussing it? Is it a parody? Does it deal with political issues? Is it a comment on censorship? Is it found in libraries? Has it been discussed in literary journals? Has it been favorably reviewed? Has it received awards? Is it historically accurate? Does it deal with the human condition? What is it’s purpose? Does it help people? Can it be used clinically? Does it teach anything? How does it fit in contemporary art? Does it elicit feelings? Does it bring about discussion?

These are just a smattering of quickly drawn ideas off the top of my head. Once again, I do not find "“literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value” to be any more vague than many other things we leave to police, prosecutors, juries, judges, and the rest to determine.

[ivan_astikov]

We are talking about something that is going to be masturbated over, ideally in privacy; what does any of the above have to do with someone getting their rocks off, if no person has been harmed in the making of the porn in question?

[begbert2]

@Hamlet

There are dozens of things that go into it.

Donatello’s David:

Does the item have words or descriptions.
No.

Is the language sophisticated.
No.

What is the point?
To represent David from the bible - but that’s not the point of the nudity. (Heck, he wears a hat and shoes.) Not to read Donny’s mind, but the point of the nudity was probably to present an ideal naked human form for the admiration of the audience.

Does it deal with emotions?
Not overtly.

Is it beautiful?
Subjective! I think not, but then I’m not a homosexual pedophile.

Is there a discussion of ideas?
Nope.

Is there poetry?
Nope.

Is it realistic?
More realistic than manga!

Is it a commentary on society?
Not that I can tell.

Is it artistically done?
Oh yes. Lovingly, you might say.

Hows the lighting?
N/A

What is the focus?
The thing in the center of the field of view when looking at the statue is his crotch. To be charitable, though everything between neck and boottops is probably the focus.

Is there a point?
Per wiki, “There are no documents related to the commission or production of the bronze David.” So maybe it wasn’t for the money!

Are there articles?
Er, no. Playboy has articles though, so I don’t know if this is good or bad.

Is there editorializing?
Nope.

Opinions?
Nope.

Is it widely accepted?
Well, it’s old.

Are schools discussing it?
Probably.

Is it a parody?
Er, probably not?

Does it deal with political issues?
Nope.

Is it a comment on censorship?
Nope.

Is it found in libraries?
Close enough.

Has it been discussed in literary journals?
Not literary journals…

Has it been favorably reviewed?
Oh, probably. But then, it’s really old.

Has it received awards?
Er…

Is it historically accurate?
I seriously doubt it. Aside from the issues of battlefield protection, he looks cold.

Does it deal with the human condition?
Not really.

What is it’s purpose?
Presumably, so that people can admire the naked male adolescent form.

Does it help people?
Nope.

Can it be used clinically?
Nope.

Does it teach anything?
If it does, I don’t want to know what.

How does it fit in contemporary art?
Not well, honestly. Bronze is so 15th century.

Does it elicit feelings?
Not in me, but then I’m not a gay pedophile.

Does it bring about discussion?
Probably. But then, so does Playboy.

@Hamlet

These are just a smattering of quickly drawn ideas off the top of my head. Once again, I do not find "“literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value” to be any more vague than many other things we leave to police, prosecutors, juries, judges, and the rest to determine.

Based on your smattering of ideas, Donatello’s David has a lot in common with the ladies in a nudie bar, except that he’s adolescent, male, made of bronze, and standing on a severed head.

Oh wait, he’s also very old? Then he must be art. Pass!