It is the appearance of the cartoon characters they are measured on, not their actual age – whatever that may mean for a cartoon. The law also covers pornography with real actresses, where the actress is over 18 but appears to be younger. Here is a similar law from Australia:
But surely the court must make these decisions within clearly stated guidelines, so that the people will have a chance to know when they are committing something illegal. And also so that different courts across the country can be dependent on to, more or less, come to the same rulings on similar cases.
Many paintings that are now considered great pieces of art, did not fulfill these criteria when they were produced, at which time they were considered obscene.
Gustave Courbet for instance: Woman with White Stockings, [noparse]http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Courbet,_Gustave_-_Woman_with_White_Stockings_-_c._1861.jpg[/noparse] - L’Origine du monde, [noparse]http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Origin-of-the-World.jpg[/noparse] [Ed.: Possibly NSFW.]
![http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Courbet,_Gustave_-_Woman_with_White_Stockings_-_c._1861.jpg[/noparse]](http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Courbet,_Gustave_-_Woman_with_White_Stockings_-_c._1861.jpg%5B/noparse%5D){kind=link}
![http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Origin-of-the-World.jpg[/noparse]](http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Origin-of-the-World.jpg%5B/noparse%5D){kind=link}
- personally I find that a man like Jeff Koons doesn’t produce anything of value that in anyway deserves to be call art.
Unless you can substantiate your disagreement in a way that can be written into law books, your statement that you have personal unobjective opinions about what is artistic is irrelevent to the discussion.
Nonsense. Show me one example of a judge calling in an art professor or other comparable expert to determine whether or not something is porn before you start claiming that will be the trend.
I take this as a concession that you are utterly wrong.
I mean, your entire argument requires that there be an objective standard of artisticness which a layman, like a judge or you can understand and make unambiguous determinations based off of. I say that there is no such standard, and you say that there is - but are recoiling from demonstrating the application thereof. Which seems kind of like saying that you can fly, but refusing to demonstrate it - completely unimpressive. So man up as much as Buzz Lightyear and jump off that bed.
As for your yet-another-stab-at-the-nonexistent-standard, let’s look at Ranma 1/2, by Rumiko Takahashi, a successful and apparently respected professional manga-ka with wide international audience. Ranma 1/2 is her most successful work to date and one of her best known works, with over 20 published volumes of manga, 8 TV seasons, 2 (or 3) theatrical movies, and an short direct-to-video OAV series. It also has rampant teenage nudity (particularly in the first season of the anime incarnation), including nude teens in each other’s presence and at least once instance of unclothed breast-grabbing of a minor.
It’s a bit early to judge the show’s influence on subsequent works, though there’s no indication that people are shying away from the themes therein. And as for beauty… of course it’s beautiful. I mean, I say so! (It’s also gloriously amusing.)
However, despite the fact that the nudity is the least sexual nudity I’ve seen in animation, many people would take one look at it and call it porn - and it technically includes minors. So, great master of the imaginary objective standard, is it artisitic or not? Feel free to apply plethoras as needed.
There is no standard. Your argument is based on a fantasy that doesn’t exist and which you certainly can’t back up.
Which is the point. You have no argument.
Oh, and by the way? Pictures of nude children not engaging in sexual contact are generally considered suspect as being child porn - enough to get you prosecuted for them. Trying to No True Scotsman them away just adds a fallacy on top of all the other problems with your argument.
Do you remember 2 Live Crew and “As Nasty as they Wanna Be”? The defense called three expert witnesses, including a Rhodes scholar, to testify as to the artistic value (oddly enough, I think Supreme Court nominee Kagan was involved in the defense). You remember the big Supreme Court case about obscenity, Miller v. US? The State provided an expert witness. I’m not saying that every case involving child pornography has an expert witness, or that the courts will always allow it. That testimony can help the judge/jury with the factors that go into the determination of artistic value.
YOU can take it any way you wish. If there is one thing you’ve shown me adequately in this thread is that you consistently fail to understand even the simplest of my points.
I’ve provided numerous examples of factors involved in the determination. I could add more specifics depending on the type of depiction. But you’ll just wave your hands and pretend I didn’t do it anyway. Not much point to it.
I’m not going to spend my time researching and making determinations on every piece of literature, pottery, books, or other thing you want to throw at me. Even if I do, as I have, you, or the next poster, or the next will come up with yet another example and then claim if I don’t do it for that one, I’m wrong. Again, nothing in it for me.
Once again, you’ve missed the point and instead have to resort to making stuff up and inane dismissals. What a shock!
For the 5th time: I’ve made the parallel between the “artistic value” standard and the “reasonableness” standard. Both are standards which certainly carry a certain amount of subjectivity, but both have component factors that can be looked at in reaching a conclusion. In one case, you seem fine letting the jury decide, in the other, you don’t. I’m simply pointing that out.
And again I have to repeat myself for you: “Barring some kind of disgusting context, I don’t find nudity, even of underaged children, whether cartoon or real, to be illegitimate.”
To try and return this to a civil discussion where you might be able to go back to understanding, here is how I see our issue.
I assert that the phrase “literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value” is an applicable standard that a judge, jury, etc. can use to protect free speech from unjust prosecutions. I’ve provided numerous individual components to that determination to try and establish it is a workable determination, and compared it to the “reasonableness” standard already in wide use in the system.
You disagree. You find the phrase "“literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value” to be too vague and too subjective, and it shouldn’t/doesn’t protect speech enough to be of any use.
Fair enough? Have we reached a point where we can agree to disagree?
Stop playing the ad hominem card - I understand you just fine. You just can’t back up your argument, because you’re wrong and there is no objective standard of artisticness.
And I demonstrated that they don’t add up to anything. You just can’t back up your argument, because you’re wrong and there is no objective standard of artisticness.
You just can’t back up your argument, because you’re wrong and there is no objective standard of artisticness.
Stop playing the ad hominem card - I understand you just fine. You just can’t back up your argument, because you’re wrong and there is no objective standard of artisticness.
And you’re wrong - they’re not comparable, because you’re wrong and there is no objective standard of artisticness.
With all due respect, allow me to repeat that your opinion diverges from the law in this matter - and the law is what is under discussion. If you wished you could hold the opinion that anal penetration of infants is not illegitimate, but that wouldn’t change the fact that to the rest of the world it don’t fly.
If you want to bring it back to a civil discussion you might try resisting the urge to throw out the bullshit ad hominems about my ability to understand. At least for the duration of the one single sentence, maybe?
I can agree that you’re wrong and there is no objective standard of artisticness.
In which case, I might add, it is not possible to reasonably argue that there should be an exception to pornography laws on those grounds. Either all artistic representations of nude and/or sexually compromized children are acceptable, or all of them aren’t, by a single standard. That or the lawmakers and/or ‘artistic community’ are making exceptions based purely on their own subjective preferences.
No need to outsource the judgment of artistic value to this nebulous unnamed jury.
Give us your judgment. You and people like you will BE ON THAT jury. Explain your thought process.
I understand that this “parallel” as you see it is the root of your argument but it’s not a strong one. The “reasonableness” deals with real-life actions between people. Theft, extortion, assault, rape, murder, etc, etc. Many of these interactions and how we deal with them can be traced all the way back to stone tablets that outline how to resolve disputes between parties. Golden rule stuff like “don’t do to others that you wouldn’t want done to yourself, etc”
On the other hand, “artistic value” simply reflects the tastes of whoever is in charge. It doesn’t have have anywhere near the consistency of judgment that “reasonableness” has had. The key difference is that these works are ideas. You can’t write smart laws about ideas restricting what to write, what to draw, and what chords to play in music. Banning certain chords from church music or certain books in a person’s library is not the same as banning the “reasonableness” of stabbing someone with a knife. Passing these off as parallel situations is ridiculous.
Classic books such as Madame Bovary, Ulysses were banned for obscenities. Now we manufacture PhD graduates that specialize in post-modern analysis of them.
If your username Hamlet derives from Shakespeare, I find it ironic that his plays that were produced and staged in the red light district outside London (and outright banned by later rulers). It is now studied in the most prestigious universities around the world and forced upon millions of high school students.
Judging (or banning) ideas is different from judging real-life interactions.
That’s the kinda class I’ll come to expect from you, begs. I try to bring the discussion back to relevance, and you simply repeat the same thing over and over and over, with a few inane attacks included. I hope that works out for you.
I hope the viewing audience finds this as pathetically ironic as I do.
Come back when have argument. Or even just an honest inclination to actually bring the discussion back to relevence, without your inane attacks.
This seems a completely bizarre discussion -
Any depiction of anything, be it child porn, murder etc, that does not involve real people should be legal, regardless of artistic merit. Even if it is used to help people to commit crimes, so are sweets - free speech is too important to dismiss because you don’t like it or ‘it is the start of a slippery slope’ or ‘only sickos like it’.
The artistic get out in the law should only apply when real people are involved. Generally, i would expect an incredibly high hurdle to support this get out with real images. The picture of the child covered in napalm was naked but , rightly in my view, published as it had a greater merit and the point was not the nakedness. I personally cannot think of any other published picture of a real naked child that would pass this distinction.
Real people, real victims - lock them up
Pictures, statues, books - let them carry on, even if i wouldn’t want to go the pub with them
You know what begbert2? I apologize. I took your hand-waving dismissal of my arguments as an attack on me, and let my temper get the better of me.
I’ve made my arguments. You dismiss them. That’s fine. That’s what makes internet debating what it is. I apologize for any perceived attacks on you. I can disagree with you and the way you debate without making it personal.
Once again, I’m sorry. I’ve made my points, you’ve made yours. It is what it is.
The question of whether works of purely artificial origin ought to be censored is a question of what legal rights the government chooses to grant. Persons can argue back and forth about this but at a fundamental level it comes down to how much of nanny state the people desire/tolerate.
The question of whether there is an objective artistic or cultural difference between pornographic works made today and pornographic works made hundreds of years ago, which justifies acceptance of the older works while rejecting the current ones, is a separate one which can apply to either purely artificial works or ones involving actual children (assuming the manga hasn’t already been given a full pass for being a line drawing). The thing about this discussion is that if there is not an objectively determinable standard, then artistic exceptions are hypocricy.
I appreciate if we can keep this on an even keel; it would go better for all.
The thing is, though, I do not feel that I have hand-waved your arguments. I feel that you have attempted to argue that there is an objective artistic standard by presenting example criteria that might be part of it. I feel that an appropriate rebuttal of that sort of argument is to show that the example critera are prone to generating false positives or negatives - that is, that the critera don’t match up with the results. If I say that one can define things that walk on two legs as humans, that makes ostriches humans and infants not. Thus it’s not a great criteria. Similarly I think that your proposed criteria for ‘artistic’ are poor: it’s not an objective standard.
Based on my dabbling in the subject (which includes college classes), I think the actual objective standard for “artistic” is “old”. There’s also a large dollop of “my professors told me it was art”, and a dash of “popular at the time” and/or “not popular at the time” thrown in. (You see why this standard fails to impress.) I actually hesitate to agree that beauty is a factor - have you seen what passes for art nowadays? My college campus was littered with what looked like scraps left over from serious metalworking projects. (And scaled to 100x their original size.) And of course there’re paintings that are nothing but paint splats that count as art too.
Asking you to assess Ranma 1/2 was another attempt to show that false positives are generated by your criteria.
And asking you what it would take to turn pornographic manga into respectable art is also a reasonable tactic - even if looking at Donatello’s David leads one to ask whether carving it in chocolate would help. After all, if there is a clear line that the manga crosses, there must be a clearly-defined way to drag it back across the line.
If you wish not to debate, that’s your right; nobody’s forcing you to post in this thread. But if you do want to debate, these counterarguments call for refutation.
Maybe this has already been mentioned, but wasn’t there a US supreme court decision a few years ago that said that cartoons were not illegal because there was no specific child being harmed?
Might be - they can be sensible at times. Thus we pity the Swedes. (Well, the Swedish pedophiles, manga-lovers, and manga resellers anyway.)
sigh. I have never said that there is an objective artistic standard for determining “literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value”, I have always admitted that there is a level of subjectivity to it also. It’s not purely objective, nothing is, but, I maintain, it’s not purely subjective either. It’s these misunderstandings/misrepresentations of my position that have made me increasingly frustrated in this thread.
I agree. It’s not a completely objective standard. I’ve never said differently. But I do not find "“literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value” to be completely subjective, and therefore useless, either. And I have attempted to provide a very short, very quickly arrived to list of ideas that would add to that determination.
I have also consistently emphasized that it is a case by case determination. And I’m not willing to spend hours trying to educate myself on every single example that someone throws at me in the thread. The simple fact that some things are not child pornography does nothing to prove that other things are.
And I maintain I have answered them. You are, of course, free to disagree.
Yes. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. It was discussed a bit upthread.
There are only two things that objectively can be used to determine whether something has artistic merit: whether it’s old, or whether the artistic community likes it (and the main factor backing this is age). All other factors are completely subjective. Do you disagree?
If you disagree, I will raise counterexamples for every example you present. They are legion. (For example if you say “beauty” I will say “Picasso”.)
I will also note also that “how old is old enough” is also extremely subjective, slamming the entire thing back towards subjectivity again.
And in some cases Huck Finn was deemed bannable. Which is pretty much the critical failure of your argument: on a case by case approach, everything is an exception if the judge has a bone to pick. And if this is possible, there is no objective standard, demonstrably.
Besides, you didn’t have to educate yourself about Ranma - I gave you all the information you asked for. It is a significant work in a prominent artist’s career. That’s what you asked for, right?
Similarly Sailor Moon is a large and significant work in a prominent artists portfolio, which has influenced later works to a noticeable degree - and the main character spends pretty much the entire last episode buck naked (not counting the wings she’s acquired and the talisman stuck to her naked collarbone). To the japanese this represents innocence; to the americans it represents this-season-doesn’t-get-translated-for-kids-WB. (Though admittedly the gender-changing in that season probably didn’t help matters either.)
Similarly Disney released a copy of My Neighbor Totoro - by the famed Studio Ghibli, whose works have influenced artists around the world. The Totoro character even gets a prominent cameo as a stuffed animal in Toy Story 3. The show is rated G - but guess what? It has a scene where two little girls are sharing a bath with their father. Completely inoffensive -note the rating- but everyone’s nude, and to various persons other than you this is immediately suspect.
It’s not about me demanding that you do the research. I’ll do the research, if you would just tell me what to look for. Unless of course you are just avoiding this to avoid having to admit that no even vaguely objective standard you can formulate would even vaguely approximate with anybody’s definition of what’s artistic, other than “my classical arts professor said so”.
And sadly that sort of avoidance does seem to be what’s going on here.
Could you kindly point out what your counterarguments were? Possibly restate them?
Because so far I’m hearing ‘There is no objective standard, it’s kind of subjective but not completely, based on various critera that can’t be clearly articulated. And I refuse to address counterexamples that might disprove my already-vague criteria’.
And I haven’t seen an answer to the question of how to make manga into art at all.
Is there something I’m missing? Because these counterarguments strike me as ranging from extraordinarily weak to completely nonexistent.
Rune, you really should have treated those images as NSFW.
[ /Modding ]
Here’s something I don’t get: how would the presence of cartoon child porn make it harder to prosecute for real child porn? Hamlet brought it up repeatedly but never really explained it.
The argument there isn’t for cartoon porn, but for photorealistic computer generated images. If it’s possible to use computer graphics to create a pornographic image involving a child that is indistinguishable from a photograph of same, then anyone arrested for possessing child pornography could argue that it’s not a real photograph, but simply a computer simulation. One solution to this potential issue is to make possessing either sort of image prosecutable under the same law, so it doesn’t matter if it’s a photo or an artificial image.