Possible 20 years in prison for owning manga? Support the C

[LunarRaptor]

What the hell kind of hellhole for women do you live in, Alun? First of all, I have never met a woman who was afraid that I, or any of my friends who happen to be men, were going to kill them. If they were, they bit the bullet and told us exactly what they thought of an issue to our faces when some minds didn't agree. Am I well aware that there are Male Supremists out there, still, but that's more based around older times when the men were still the single head of the household that some guys still long for rather than something they read in a comic book. Those "older times" I'm referring to are not that distant in the past, to boot as we still have people in the population who lived back then.

Thank you for telling me things I already know about the First Amendment, Alun. I agree that its wrong that sexist hate speech flies under the radar. Its not right. I should point out it also goes under the radar in reference to men, so this is not a one-way street here.

Again, I will reiterate that I do now approve of porn of any kind. No one here ever said that it was okay. There is, however, a key difference in porn of any kind with real people and a drawn image. Not that either is good, mind you. By the way, I'm not clinging to any rationalizations, so you can drop the attitude.

[Alunissage]

I'm not sure there's any kind of civil answer to make to that kind of stubborn naivete. I reiterate, if it wasn't clear before: just because YOU don't see it -- or hear about it directly in person -- doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I live in a better place than most and it's been a while since I've felt directly threatened (as in that person over there looks and sounds dangerous to me personally), but it never goes away. Meg posted a while back about not having her window blinds open when she was home working so passersby couldn't see that she was home alone. I assure you that if your female friends are truly as unafraid as you claim them they too are suffering from youthful and potentially terminal naivete. The feeling that nothing bad can happen to you is a stage of incomplete maturation that takes rather a while to grow out of -- how else do you think young men are so easily made into soldiers at a young age? Because they think at heart that death happens to other people. Note, by the way, I didn't say that women were afraid of specific men, e.g. the example you gave of yourself; I'm not afraid of my husband, or my father. But the knowledge that many, many men out there are stronger than I am AND have been conditioned to believe they have the right to do what they want to women is indeed terrifying.

Finally, again I point out in response to your comment that sexist language against men flies under the radar too and thus it's not a one-way street, you again neglect scale. Men are the dominant sex. This is not a matter for debate. Sexism is overwhelmingly slanted against women, because the dominant class can enforce it. Consider, again, the comparison to racism; does the fact that whites occasionally are the recipient of (negative) racism in any way equate to the scale that racism is dished out by whites toward other races? Of course not.

Anyway, instead of just denying it as impossible or biased, do some actual reading and research. Read some of the stuff on the porn myths site I linked above; it isn't all specifically about porn. If that seems like too much work for you, which apparently it has been thus far, think about how many insulting terms there are for women and how many there are for men, then eliminate all of the latter group that refer to the male's female relatives or partners and compare the quantities again.

[BattleMedic]

The feeling that nothing bad can happen to you is a stage of incomplete maturation that takes rather a while to grow out of -- how else do you think young men are so easily made into soldiers at a young age? Because they think at heart that death happens to other people. .

To make such a bold claim is quite offensive. Believe it or not, some of the younger people who enlist in the military don't enlist because they think they are invincible. Some of my younger friends and family, enlisted for the same reason, love. We love our friends, we love our families, and we love our home. We love them warts and all. It is something worth fighting for.

[Werefrog]

Alun is speaking of generalities. She's not saying anything about you or friends motives. You guys are individuals; Alun is talking about a population. It is quite possible that you and your friends are not indicative of the population. However, from a statistical standpoint, Alun is right. Late adolescents have really poor risk analysis abilities. This is due to an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex that doesn't develop fully until the early to middle twenties in many individuals. Maybe you and your friends are outliers. Maybe you and your friends are just early cognitive bloomers .

[Guild_Premier_Ghaleon]

Holy hell, if this gets up off the ground I'm serving a life sentence. I'm a fan of anime and manga in all aspects, and believe me I have seen some screwed up things because of my passion. Check out Violence Jack and you'll know what I mean. Definitely not for you Alun. But yes, I've played and read hentai games and manga before. Don't get me wrong, I have to be drawn to a storyline before hand, so the pornographic material is really just a filler for me. But regardless of my personal ideals concerning the content, in near every single one there has been the cliche token loli character. People get kicks out of it from time to time, though I don't know why.

I'm definitely leaning in favor of Nobi here. Child pornography is horrible because children can't make the conscious choice to consent to it, they are taken advantage of due to their ignorance and naivete. However, I think making a fictitious scenario where a character happens to be underage and engages in sexual acts, while certainly gross in my eyes, does not hold grounds for the sentencing regardless of the content. I say this because there is no abuse to an actual person. And you know what, I'm probably gonna get mobbed for saying this, but I think it might even be a good thing. If an individual is attracted to children, maybe the content in some of these books will prevent him from actually preying on a little girl or boy?

[Alunissage]

The feeling that nothing bad can happen to you is a stage of incomplete maturation that takes rather a while to grow out of -- how else do you think young men are so easily made into soldiers at a young age? Because they think at heart that death happens to other people. .

To make such a bold claim is quite offensive. Believe it or not, some of the younger people who enlist in the military don't enlist because they think they are invincible. Some of my younger friends and family, enlisted for the same reason, love. We love our friends, we love our families, and we love our home. We love them warts and all. It is something worth fighting for.

I'm sorry that you took that personally -- it is not what I intended. I certainly did not mean to imply that ignorance is the only reason one would enlist. I am referring to the history of enthusiasm for war and soldiering and such that takes no note of the realities of combat and the hell that is a battlefield. The first example that comes to mind is the beginning of Gone With The Wind, actually, with all the young Southern boys cheerfully going off to enlist. That's not to say that love isn't involved, but it's a lot easier to go off and fight for home and country if in your heart of hearts you're sure you'll come back. A whole different type and level of courage is involved when you know what the consequences may very well be, and fear them, and go anyway.

Guild_Premier_Ghaleon: regarding your last sentence, please see the "porn myths" link in an earlier post of mine; this idea (that viewing unacceptable acts prevents people from actually doing them) is addressed there. Bluntly, you're dead wrong.

[Werefrog]

Guild_Premier_Ghaleon: regarding your last sentence, please see the "porn myths" link in an earlier post of mine; this idea (that viewing unacceptable acts prevents people from actually doing them) is addressed there. Bluntly, you're dead wrong.

I haven't look at your link, but I'd like to add that according to behaviorist theory, something like this would actually create a fetish and then reinforce it-- making the fetish stronger. I have a problem with some aspects of behaviorism, but I think that it's pretty good for describing aspects of psychology. (I don't believe I've heard a cognitive explanation of fetishes yet, either)

[Nobiyuki77]

Guild_Premier_Ghaleon: regarding your last sentence, please see the "porn myths" link in an earlier post of mine; this idea (that viewing unacceptable acts prevents people from actually doing them) is addressed there. Bluntly, you're dead wrong.

I haven't look at your link, but I'd like to add that according to behaviorist theory, something like this would actually create a fetish and then reinforce it-- making the fetish stronger. I have a problem with some aspects of behaviorism, but I think that it's pretty good for describing aspects of psychology. (I don't believe I've heard a cognitive explanation of fetishes yet, either)

The problem with this theory is that there are people like me, as I've said previously, that prove these things wrong.

What I'm about to say is a personal belief. It is not necessarily the truth, but I believe it to be.

I am a person who puts my faith in science and logic more than anything else. I've seen people who, no matter what you do, no matter what you try, are not going to get any better. My mother has been a teacher for several years (and an outstanding one if I do say so myself). Her job was to teach special ed and trouble children. But try what she might, some of them just weren't going to accept her help. And there's only so much she can do. If they don't want to listen/try/participate, my mother can't force them. Ultimately, it's their life, not hers, and she may not command them to do anything.

The problem with the logic that (to use this example) viewing drawn porn of minors (possibly) is going to make someone more prone to being a pedophile or reinforce it and make it stronger is fundamentally flawed because of the vast majority cases where this doesn't happen. Let's take, say, Grand Theft Auto IV. Now, in the case of GTA, several people argue that anyone who plays this sort of game, kids or otherwise, are going to be more violent people in their real lives, because of how violent the game itself is. And they justify this when one person goes around on a crime spree and after he's caught, some media person will mention he played the game.

Sure, he did play the game.

But so did other people.

5 MILLION + according to the NPD.

So this leaves the question; why weren't those other 4,999,999 people affected in the same way this troubled individual was?

To me, the answer is right there.

He/She was a troubled individual. I personally believe that certainly people are genetically more likely to go haywire than others. This does NOT mean that anyone with said genes will automatically do so. It just means they're more likely.

Which means it could have been anything.

It could have been a song they heard on the radio.
It could have been something they saw on the way home from school.
It could have been something other classmates did to them.
It could have been gum that was placed in their hair by some brat earlier that morning.

Who knows? I don't. The trigger could be anything.

Have you ever been in a class where, because one stupid kid did something stupid, the rest of the class is punished along with them?

Didn't that suck? Why take our privileges away because they couldn't control themselves?

Here's the other problem with the theory I'm addressing. People act like these problems are new. Like there wasn't any human trafficking or violence or hate crimes or theft or abuse of any sort before radio/comic books/rock and roll/heavy metal/tv/anime/videogames/insert-flavor-of-the-decade-here. I'm not saying these things are normal and therefore right. They're awful and make me lose my faith in humanity most of the time. I'm saying they're not new.

So why are we blaming these problems on new things again?

I think people are beating about the bush.

They're not looking for the ROOT PROBLEM.

Is Mr. Handley a pedophile? I don't really know. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. But here's what I do know.

I know he didn't hurt any children.

I know there are several people who've read books like "Lolita", "Snow Crash" who've never even dreamed of sex with a minor. Anyone here own a copy of American Beauty? Congrats pedo, you have Thora Birch's seventeen year old breast on tape or DVD. I'm calling the police on you.

Are we persecuting people for thoughts now? I've never heard of a thought crime.

Whatever you think of Mr. Handley with regards to whether you think he's a pedo or not is irrelevant. What matters is that, should he go to jail for this (and 20 years at that??), he's only the beginning. Sure it's easy to write off when things like this happen to other people...

... but what happens when you purchase something that someone near you finds offensive?

What happens when they call the police, and you're arrested for obscenity for it?

Did you deserve this? There's nothing wrong with this! It's harmless.

To you it's harmless.

Let's face uncomfortable facts. No matter where you go, there is going to be someone who finds something you own, or something you say or do, to be offensive.

Which means that, if given the right circumstances, any one of us could go to jail if the logic applied to this case applied to all of us.

But we're not troubled people.

We're normal people.

Right?

Right?

We've never gone on crime sprees. We've never molested children. We've never killed or assulted anyone. We're fine, upstanding, law abiding citizens.

But now we're being accused of obscenity because of some other stupid person.

If that's the kinda world you want to live in, knock yourself out. I, however, do not wish to live in a world where my hobbies and lifestyle could land me in jail because some random other people think it's "obscene".

Who are they to judge? This is my life goddamn it. We're always looking for the worst in others. Maybe it strokes our egos and makes us feel better and more righteous. I dunno.

I think it's stupid.

But that's just me.

[Werefrog]

I'll definitely get back to this when my finals are over, and I'll go over some of the psychology behind it.

I will however point out that it doesn't help to point out works of art in this case. If you've actually read up on the Protect act, you would know that these images will be viewed in a court of law using something called the Miller Test. The Miller Test takes into consideration the artistic merit. Basically... if he can prove that it's art, he's fine. If you feel that your comics have artistic merit, you're fine and shouldn't worry about it. Don't think so bleakly of your nation's court system. Anime owners aren't some persecuted class (which I have heard argued on the Gamefaqs message board). Chances are this is just a cultural misunderstanding. It happens. It'll happen even more as we become more and more globalized.

There are definitely aspects of this conversation that we should be having if he's convicted.

[Sonic#]

The problem with this theory is that there are people like me, as I've said previously, that prove these things wrong.

...

The problem with the logic that (to use this example) viewing drawn porn of minors (possibly) is going to make someone more prone to being a pedophile or reinforce it and make it stronger is fundamentally flawed because of the vast majority cases where this doesn't happen. Let's take, say, Grand Theft Auto IV. Now, in the case of GTA, several people argue that anyone who plays this sort of game, kids or otherwise, are going to be more violent people in their real lives, because of how violent the game itself is. And they justify this when one person goes around on a crime spree and after he's caught, some media person will mention he played the game.

Sure, he did play the game.

But so did other people.

5 MILLION + according to the NPD.

So this leaves the question; why weren't those other 4,999,999 people affected in the same way this troubled individual was?

To me, the answer is right there.

Using the dumb labeling that the media use to sell their stories doesn't help your argument. Of course GTA 4 alone doesn't contribute to a crime spree. If anything does, it's all the violence, in all forms of media, and the way that the violent images find their way into the hands of the mentally vulnerable (like most children). GTA 4 is just emblematic.

The violent exposure doesn't mean that everyone who's exposed to violence is going to go shoot someone up. It can be as small as a temper, can be a greater willingness to throw the first punch, can be a casual disregard for those physically weaker, can be anything up to the crime spree. Thus for many the effects are hardly perceptible. However, because the effects are there, we as a society should try to make sure that only those mature enough to have little risk of acting out such violence should have contact with it. The same with sex and any other sensitive material.

Legally, that is difficult to do. Of course widespread banning need not be the answer. We need to talk about it in our communities, with our friends, and make sure that as parents and friends we are able to regulate our excess.

[qupte]He/She was a troubled individual. I personally believe that certainly people are genetically more likely to go haywire than others. This does NOT mean that anyone with said genes will automatically do so. It just means they're more likely.[/quote]

Quite true. But the likelihood implies that some action should be made, if only to help the individual, and other individuals like them. If that means setting provisional limits on the material (such as an adults only label), then that's fine.

Which means it could have been anything.

Technically, yes, but a better answer is that it is most likely many things.

It could have been a song they heard on the radio.
It could have been something they saw on the way home from school.
It could have been something other classmates did to them.
It could have been gum that was placed in their hair by some brat earlier that morning.

Who knows? I don't. The trigger could be anything.

It could've been all of those things and more. Obviously there can't be control of a person's experiences; that's mad. But if we can affect the process through which materials get into their hands and how they are mediated, then there will be less of a danger from all of the necessary unmediated interactions. (Gah, I sound so boring.) Again, that mediation should be social rather than legal, the responsibility of teachers and parents.

Have you ever been in a class where, because one stupid kid did something stupid, the rest of the class is punished along with them?

Didn't that suck? Why take our privileges away because they couldn't control themselves?

Yes, that sucked. Arbitrary power often sucks. Our government has shown a tendency in that direction with wiretapping and provisions of the Patriot Act.

Here's the other problem with the theory I'm addressing. People act like these problems are new. Like there wasn't any human trafficking or violence or hate crimes or theft or abuse of any sort before radio/comic books/rock and roll/heavy metal/tv/anime/videogames/insert-flavor-of-the-decade-here. I'm not saying these things are normal and therefore right. They're awful and make me lose my faith in humanity most of the time. I'm saying they're not new.

Just because they aren't new doesn't mean we shouldn't want to get rid of them. And because they aren't new doesn't say anything about whether they are more or less rampant now. And if they are more rampant now, cannot one effect be the new media you have suggested?

So why are we blaming these problems on new things again?

I think people are beating about the bush.

They're not looking for the ROOT PROBLEM.

Is Mr. Handley a pedophile? I don't really know. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. But here's what I do know.

I know he didn't hurt any children.

No, what you know is that he's never been prosecuted for hurting children. Now, obviously I'm being dramatic; he probably hasn't. But you don't know that he hasn't. No one can. The other thing we can't know is whether he will hurt children in the future. Of course, neither case is sufficient for prosecuting him, if that is the only reason for doing so.

I know there are several people who've read books like "Lolita", "Snow Crash" who've never even dreamed of sex with a minor. Anyone here own a copy of American Beauty? Congrats pedo, you have Thora Birch's seventeen year old breast on tape or DVD. I'm calling the police on you.

Werefrog pointed out the Miller Test. You always try to justify manga by going to what can be more formally called artistic. Now, the classification is a little unfair; there are always new works (like video games) that do not get considered artistic.

It's also important that the respective artists, in all of these works, did not set out just to depict pedophilic scenes. There was a purpose behind it that was beyond perverse titillation.

I can easily conceive of manga (and books) that only want that titillation in a disruptive manner and thus might be considered obscene. The question then is whether we should do anything in *that* case. I think so, but as I said, I'm undecided as to what.

Are we persecuting people for thoughts now? I've never heard of a thought crime.

No, the persecution is for owning a manga, possibly because it's considered obscene. The reason for it is because it has an undue influence that is far greater than any acceptable pleasure that can be derived. It is not merely offensive, we do not merely disagree with it.

Whatever you think of Mr. Handley with regards to whether you think he's a pedo or not is irrelevant. What matters is that, should he go to jail for this (and 20 years at that??), he's only the beginning. Sure it's easy to write off when things like this happen to other people...

... but what happens when you purchase something that someone near you finds offensive?

What happens when they call the police, and you're arrested for obscenity for it?

Did you deserve this? There's nothing wrong with this! It's harmless.

To you it's harmless.

When the societal shift is so great that what I possess is no longer harmless but transgressive, my being arrested for possessing it will probably be the least of my worries.

The important distinction is between the offensive and the obscene. I think there is a real and useful distinction between the two. Offensive is what different particular views object to. Obscene is what every person in the society considered reasonable must object to. One is individual judgment or the judgment of a segment of the population, while the other is a more widely-rooted one.

Of course, that's my own definition, and there are problems as to how the courts might appropriate the distinction. I think, if they do a fair enough job, then Mr. Handley has nothing to fear.

Let's face uncomfortable facts. No matter where you go, there is going to be someone who finds something you own, or something you say or do, to be offensive.

But if they call it obscene, then they call upon everyone else to agree. That's the difference.

Which means that, if given the right circumstances, any one of us could go to jail if the logic applied to this case applied to all of us.

Given the right circumstances. There's a slope, but it's not as slippery as you think, at least on this side.

But we're not troubled people.

We're normal people.

Right?

Right?

I've come to terms with not being normal.

We've never gone on crime sprees. We've never molested children. We've never killed or assulted anyone. We're fine, upstanding, law abiding citizens.

But now we're being accused of obscenity because of some other stupid person.

Accused, not convicted. The problem is the person who charged them, not the courts. Perhaps your issue is with frivolous litigation?

If that's the kinda world you want to live in, knock yourself out. I, however, do not wish to live in a world where my hobbies and lifestyle could land me in jail because some random other people think it's "obscene".

I agree wholeheartedly. I fail to see how that would happen without considerable societal unsettling though.

Who are they to judge? This is my life goddamn it. We're always looking for the worst in others. Maybe it strokes our egos and makes us feel better and more righteous. I dunno.

I think it's stupid.

But that's just me.

And this is just me. I've tried to draw a distinction first between what can have negative effects on people's behavior (which generally divide into themes and not individual pieces like GTA 4: sex, violence, racism) and what has no positive value at all and great negative impact on the user (obscene).

Then I tried to draw a distinction between what people find personally offensive (sex, violence, racism, contrary viewpoints) and what our judgment, put forth under the consensus of society, tells us to reject (the obscene). Because society isn't always right, we trust those cases to judges that can best decide whether something is obscene without allowing the loud cries of the offended influence them. So long as that standard stands, I have little to fear.

And in case you're curious, I would only call something obscene in extreme cases, such as pedophilia content or a videotape of an actual murder.

[Alunissage]

To be honest, I'm not sure that Nobi's post has all that much to do with what came before it, as few people have been arguing the pro-prosecution side or the legal issue at all. It does sound very defensive to me, and very black and white -- 'I want to be free to pursue my hobbies, so no one else has any business to interfere' is what I get from it all. Therefore, the suggestion that anything about those hobbies could be harmful is violently rejected, because of the fear that one might actually not always get everything one's own way.

The long, pregnant-pause-laden statements about how anything could be a trigger misses the point. We're not talking about triggers here; we're talking about encouraging and reinforcing the mindsets that result in there being something TO trigger. The more you watch depictions of violence the more likely you are to punch someone in the nose when they say something that rubs you the wrong way, to make up a simplistic example. Yes, the person doing the punching or whatever is the cause and bears the blame, but other things can contribute to the ease of doing the punching.

The effect of television violence on children is, I suspect, very well documented. We all know that kids pick up language they hear older people saying. What makes you think this type of effect stops happening just because you grow up?

Are you sure you prove all of this wrong? That there is not one single fantasy or unrealistic desire or expectation lurking in your mind? That you're not impelled to draw certain things because you see drawings of them? Because I think it's pretty unlikely that there's been no effect on you at all.

(I don't read manga, but I'll give you a comparable example from my own life. When I read books, I get pretty deeply involved in them. One time -- and this sort of thing has surely happened more than once, but this is the one I recall -- I was reading a mystery novel, which incidentally is also set in my home state and told first-person by the protagonist, who is only a few years older than I am. In this particular book, she had been having a fight with her husband and was still mad at him later in the book, at which point my reading was disturbed by my own husband. I had to consciously think and remind myself that we didn't have the fight, that I'm not angry with him.)

I'm not sure how great the parallel is between games, which are by nature interactive, and manga, which are passive. I would venture a guess that manga, text, and even television and movies are going to have a greater influence on one's mental state than games (referring to your GTA 4 example here), because with a game you're going to be involved with the game's mechanics and not devoting so much attention to fleshing things out with your imagination. Sure, we build backstory and characters in our minds for RPGs, but I don't think you were thinking of that genre with regards to influences.

Finally, to turn some of your argument around, if people's lives are negatively impacted by the additional stimulus toward wrongful acts that content in your hobbies provides, then you are punishing those people by insisting that that content continue to be freely and widely available. Just a thought, albeit one I'm not particularly interested in arguing. But do try to think a bit farther than your own vested interest here.

[Nobiyuki77]

I know I'm being a bit extreme, but I just feel very very strongly about this. I'm going to copy a couple of responses I've found elsewhere since I feel they did a better job of wording my thoughts than I did.

The problem is that our society, media, and art encourage and glorify a lot of potentially harmful or illegal -Dragon Diamond-; violence, drugs, gangsta culture, casual high-risk sex, murder, etc. I have several boxes of comics that promote and glorify vigilantism. But we, as a society, accept and recognize that there is a line drawn between reality and works of fiction.

And would it be better if the cartoon child porn didn't glorify the act? If, instead of being a yaoi book showing a loving sexual relationship between two androgynous teenage boys, it featured a hairy, grizzly pedophile abducting and raping a boy, with the moral of the story being, "Hey! Don't be rapin' people!" Would that really be better?

I feel that I would much rather have fictional depictions of VERY VERY BAD THINGS in the world than start prosecuting for things in which no actual people were harmed. If the manga was made by tracing child porn photos, that's one thing. If the thing depicts actual, real-life people, that's one thing.

But, to my knowledge, it is fictional characters who exist in no real-world form going at it like woodchucks. Beyond that, you have the issue that these characters have NO legal form of age whatsoever. Here, watch this.

O<-<

That figurine is fifteen years old.

O<8-<

That figurine is nineteen years old.
Code:
O<8-<
O<J<
Have I just created child pornography and illegal things? I do not think so.

Seriously, it's 20 -Fatal Hopper- years in jail for the same -Dragon Diamond- your weeaboo girlfriend goes "squeee" over at conventions and the average person makes jokes about. The fact that he's a creepy dude notwithstanding "destruction of your life" is not really the appropriate punishment for "possessing crude images of fake people not doing real things."

I mean good lord, should every Harry Potter slashfic writer get 20 years? Every reader? Or only the ones we think look creepy in person?

[Nobiyuki77]

Are you sure you prove all of this wrong? That there is not one single fantasy or unrealistic desire or expectation lurking in your mind? That you're not impelled to draw certain things because you see drawings of them? Because I think it's pretty unlikely that there's been no effect on you at all.

Fantasies? Of course I have?

But that's the thing I've said previous. EVERYONE DOES!!!

The difference is that they STAY fantasies. I've never punched a person in my life. I've never just told off my stupid boss in real life. Because I know the difference between reality and fiction.

I'm not sure how great the parallel is between games, which are by nature interactive, and manga, which are passive. I would venture a guess that manga, text, and even television and movies are going to have a greater influence on one's mental state than games (referring to your GTA 4 example here), because with a game you're going to be involved with the game's mechanics and not devoting so much attention to fleshing things out with your imagination. Sure, we build backstory and characters in our minds for RPGs, but I don't think you were thinking of that genre with regards to influences.

Actually, the majority of people who study this sort of thing, even if I do disagree with them most of the time, would argue that it's more affective BECAUSE it's interactive. And once again, I've never gone on killings sprees or beaten people up for fun.

EDIT: This on MSNBC this morning that talks about what I'm getting at (related to a different subject though)

“Merely thinking about something is not a crime,” said Mr. Monico, a lawyer for Christopher Kelly, a former Blagojevich fund-raiser who was indicted last year on tax charges “Just talking about something is not a crime. You need another action for someone to commit a crime.”'

To address Alun's question about my long rant, I got a bit carried away because judging by some responses I think people think I'm trying to defend child porn or something, which is not the case. I'm contesting that this incident should be tried as a criminal offense.

[Angelalex242]

I have a feeling the courts will throw it out on grounds of the case being unconstitutional. Especially if the search of his mail constituted unwarranted search and seizure.

It's not just free speech at stake, here. It's search and seizure. By what right did the post office have to search his mail in particular? Was he on the NSA's security watchlist, or something?

With two hallmarks of the Bill of Rights at stake, I think he'll be found innocent. Even if the manga included an 8 year old being gang raped then tentacle raped or some such thing.

[Werefrog]

I have a feeling the courts will throw it out on grounds of the case being unconstitutional. Especially if the search of his mail constituted unwarranted search and seizure.

It's not just free speech at stake, here. It's search and seizure. By what right did the post office have to search his mail in particular? Was he on the NSA's security watchlist, or something?

Well... that's assuming that they didn't have a warrant. I could think of a lot of reasons that they could have a warrant to search his mail.

Also, the argument with the "figurine" is a ridiculous strawman. No one would argue that something with no verisimilitude to a real person could be considered pornography. The problem is that the depictions are so realistic (in some considerable ways).

Just because something isn't real doesn't mean that it can't have so many very real effects on the brain. The government should be able to have the authority to limit stimuli that has a negative effect on society like it does with drugs. There are things in our society that we have to limit. For instance, we don't permit schematics for nuclear weapons to be published in comic books because it represents a larger threat to society than does a comic book featuring super-heroes. Freedom of speech is relative, guys. Where you draw the line is what's important, I agree. But simply arguing that freedom of speech is a constitutional right, won't win you any points because it's been shown again and again to not apply to every form of speech.

Again, I would have to know the content/context of the material before I could state my opinion on this particular case. I just have a feeling by ignoring the content this article is covering up something that would be the equivalent of a guy writing an article for an amateur film site saying that someone is going to jail for 20 years for his amateur film while neglecting that the film was a snuff film.

[Kizyr]

All right! Three pages! I swore I'd lay low for a bit until it got discussed for a little while.

What I'm going to do here is make a series of posts. First, I'll give my own reasons for supporting the CBLDF and Handley. I'll make a second post later today responding to the arguments laid out here.

First, the short of my own stance (read this summary if the "long of it" section will be too long for you).

For the original case: there is no justification for this guy facing the kind of charges he's up against. Not only are the charges themselves unjustified, but bringing them in the first place is already going to have a potentially-irreparable effect on him, basically giving him a punishment for a non-existent crime far in excess of what the crime (if it were one) should justify. I will elaborate on my reasons in the "long of it" part.

Once again, I point to what Neil Gaiman has already said on this case. He offers up an excellent reason why (a) the case itself is so troubling, and (b) why anyone concerned with free speech in this country should support the defense, even if they strongly object to the content. (The link I posted earlier no longer works, so check this one out instead.)
Neil Gaiman - "Why Support Icky Speech?"

Now, for the other arguments. I mostly agree with Nobi. I do think there are some flaws in his logic, but none that would invalidate his general point--I have some better supporting evidence and arguments anyhow. I mostly disagree with Alun; while her argument's more logically constructed, there are some flaws in both the argument and the supporting evidence that weaken her case. I will elaborate on these in a secondary post, later today, because this one's gotten too long already.

Oh, and just because I like a challenge: I'm not going to argue "in support" of porn, but I'm perfectly fine to argue in defense of it. Since, like Gaiman says, I'm fine defending even "icky" and objectionable content.
____________________________________________

Now for the long of it. I'll start out with my own stance. Remember, I'll respond more specifically to the points laid out before in a later post. If anyone has a response to make to this post, I won't guarantee that I'll respond to it until tomorrow.

The Legal Aspect: Precedence and the Slippery Slope Revisited

First, there are two important things to understand about the law relevant to this case:
(1) What gets decided now can be brought up later as precedent.
(2) The law works to the extent that lawyers can argue their case. And, they very often use precedent.

To quote Gaiman, "The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible."

Because of that, the slippery slope argument does work, but only to a limited extent (Sonic# and Nobi's posts I think grossly overstated their effect, in opposite directions--although Sonic#'s overstatement was intentional). The more reasonable direction isn't quite so dramatic nor simplistic, but still very important. If Handley were found guilty, then:

• It sets a precedent for laws governing objectionable material, which are based on the people involved in its production, to be extended to cover objectionable content. (I'll elaborate on this in a moment.)
• It sets determination of objectionable content in the hands of judges. Because of this, individuals don't have any metric by which to determine if content is "objectionable"--what's objectionable to a judge might be fine by me.
• Because of (1) and (2), people could possess illegal content and have no way of knowing about it--until they find themselves the subject of a criminal investigation. This already happens in other arenas besides just pornographic content, due to similar reasons.
• Because of the subjectivity allowed by (2) and (3), it'd then be easier to use the law as a blunt instrument to abuse individuals. If I were a lawyer, and I had a grudge against someone, well, I could simply dig through their internet history until I find something objectionable and bring a court case for it. Or I could dig through their mail. Or any other personal and private items I can exploit (and this does happen already).

Making "Objectionable" Ambiguous

To elaborate on (1)... Ask yourself this: why is child pornography illegal? It's very obvious: because it exploits children. As a society, we don't find laws criminalizing child pornography troubling because there's a very clear and unambiguous need for criminalizing it, and a clear and unambiguous way of determining it. It's also illegal for the same reason that bestiality is - children can't consent (with the same faculties as an adult), animals can't consent, therefore any sexual activity between a minor and an adult, porn included, is exploitative by definition.

The only possible ambiguity in reason is with the age of 18 being the determining factor. That's symptomatic of how the law works. It's a blunt instrument. The only ways to legislate in this case is with clear, objective, often measurable metrics--age, in this case. This is necessary because to do otherwise would make the law subjective.

Now with this case, it's taking a law based on objective metrics (i.e., a minor involved in its production) and extending it to being subjective (i.e., an apparent minor depicted in its content, in an apparently exploitative manner). That is an enormous problem, because no longer is there an even law that can apply to everyone, but a law that changes depending on the judge's interpretation and perception of said content. Maybe you're lucky enough to get a judge who's familiar enough with Japanese manga to view it in context; but more likely, you won't be so lucky.

After all, how do you determine if a minor is depicted in the content? They're lines on paper. Do you go by apparent age? Character's age? Age of the artist? The first is 100% subjective, the second is irrelevant (Etna from Disgaea is 1,470 years old, and what if the manga is in Japanese?). The third... is actually not a bad measure, but is irrelevant in this case.

Fun examples if this case went in the wrong direction:

• The Japanese version of Snatcher would be illegal. But the American version would be legal. Why? Because Katrina's age in the English version was changed from 15 to 18. (I'd better hide my Saturn version of the game!)
• The government or any local law enforcement would have a precedent to search through my mail if I receive anything from overseas, particularly Japan. (They've already done this to many of my relatives for personal correspondence we've received from Bangladesh. So yes, you'd better believe there's precedent for it and people willing to abuse it--the justification that time was the USA PATRIOT Act.)
• Whenever I return to the US from abroad, everything on me is subject to search for possible objectionable content. That includes the contents of my MP3 player or phone, my computer and any saved emails, etc. (There was an article last week in the Washington Post on one imam of a mosque in this area that has had to go through that so regularly, that he now deletes everything from his iPhone when he leaves, and re-synchs it when he returns. So, again, there's precedent for it with the PATRIOT Act, and every reason to believe it'd happen again if this case were to go through.)

Even if you don't like it...

Now, all that being said, if I still haven't convinced you, then consider the ramifications of this guy's sentence--and that they're grossly disproportional to his alleged crime (particularly considering that the "crime", even if it did happen, is something that he would have no way of knowing was illegal). If he's found guilty, his life is ruined. If he's acquitted, even, then his reputation is damaged for having been "outed" as an alleged consumer of child porn--despite that turning out false.

Now, there's no secret that I'm strongly against alcohol use. I believe that alcohol (and any non-medical intoxicant) is an awful substance that has a net bad effect on society. But, do you think for a moment that I'd support charging everyone with a DUI as an attempted homicide? Or everyone who displays public drunkenness with attempted aggravated assault? (Because, intoxication can directly lead to either vehicular homicide or aggravated assault.)

I might be against alcohol, and you might be against pornography on principle. But that's still no justification for allowing the law to be abused like this.

Tune in later as I go down the list of arguments!
It should be fun. It's been a while since I had a good debate with intelligent folks. KF

[Nobiyuki77]

Kiyzr, you're awesome.

Granted, this is also why I tell most people I know that I'm not the intellegent sort, even if they insist that I am. I'm not good at putting my arguements into words that aren't just pages and pages of emotional gut reaction.

[Alunissage]

I just want to mention again, in case it got lost, that I am not arguing that the prosecution should proceed or anything about the case itself at all. I'm just arguing about some of the premises used for arguments, both regarding this specific case and more general issues.

I haven't read the "long of it" yet but will later.

[Nobiyuki77]

Well I've learned one thing 100% in this thread. Alun and I are complete opposites.

[Kizyr]

Ok, I think I can finally get back to this. Still not feeling great, but oh well. There are a lot of arguments that've been presented, so I'll try to go through them in the order that they were raised.

The Main Legal Case

Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition
The long story short, in a 6-3 decision, the prohibitions of the 1996 CPPA act against "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," is overly broad and, thereby, prohibits a "significant universe of speech that is neither obscene under Miller v. California nor child pornography under New York v. Ferber".

My prediction? Handley's lawyers will cite this case and be done with it.
/thread.
It's all over now. But, I did want to revisit all the other issues. Here we go. And I'll refer back to some particulars in this case much later on.

Slippery-Slopes and Assumptions

You see, once you start the snowball rolling down the mountain, the ensuing avalanche becomes damn near impossible to stop, even if you started it with just an insignificant snowball no bigger than your fist. Seems harmless while it's in your hand, but let it roll out of control and the results can be catastrophic.
And this is why the first amendment exists in the first place. It protects us from the tyranny of people in power telling us how we must think, act, feel, and behave without allowing any of us to think or feel for ourselves. It protects our right to be who we are without fear of persecution so long as we obey the letter of the law.

First there's perverse sex depicted in manga.
Then there's overflows of explicit sex into media channels that aren't acceptable for children.
Then the children grow up believing that perverse relationships are normal.
Then they, in turn, run the risk of physical, mental, and spiritual harm.
The cycle repeats, each generation less well than its predecessors until society collapses.

Slippery-slope arguments tend to get far-fetched--in either direction. This is because with each "step", they rely on an additional assumption. Meaning that by the end, you've made a whole lot of assumptions that all need to be going on. As I've said in the previous post, though, there's a much less-dramatic, but still very important, series of events that could happen--the only assumption there is the fact of legal precedent.

There's two directions this could go. The first direction is with the issue of restricting content (as Nobi said). Currently, obscenity (such as porn) does not intrinsically enjoy Constitutional protection. However, "indecency" as opposed to obscenity may enjoy protection. (Two court cases to take a look at: Paris Adult Theater v Slayton & Sable vs FCC). Yet, we haven't even progressed into banning pornography in this country (well, we did in some states for brief periods, but not anymore).

The main reason why this case is troubling is the inconsistent and arbitrary nature of it:

• Handley's being charged under laws dealing with child pornography, despite the fact that no children were involved in the production of what he had purchased.
• Any laws dealing with protection of minors in adult entertainment are based on age, not appearance. This would turn it in the other direction.
• Aside from age, the other significant factor in the legality of porn (assuming it's legal to begin with in the given venue) is consent. Given that we're not dealing with real characters, there is no issue of consent/force of the participants.
• So, what it amounts to is using the law to go after a specific genre of porn.

I already addressed in my earlier post the legal issues behind this case, so I won't belabor that point any further.

The second direction starts at the existence of porn and continues to the degradation of society. The problem here is that it relies on assuming many things, the most significant of which are:
(1) that viewing porn has a direct causal link to treating people in a degrading manner, and
(2) that consumers of porn blur the distinction between fantasy and reality.

There's insufficient evidence to suggest that these are the norm. These two points, and the issue of First Amendment rights, will come up in a moment. Moving on for now...

Two Asides and a Segue

And may I point out again that I was not commenting on the specific case or the slippery slope of deciding obscenity? I was noting that the same argument you use suggests a different (or is it?) issue to me, one to which you are probably at least partially blind due to your privileged position.

I believe you have a tendency to levy charges of chauvinism--or blindness to it--very freely, and your main defense here has basically been "because you're male, you wouldn't understand". That's about as disingenuous as me accusing you of racism because you're white, or blindness to racism because you're white. If you're going to accuse someone of being blind to sexism, then you don't need to include accusations that they're blind because they're male.

(For the record, I think Nobi has more respect for women than you may give him credit for. This goes back to when he first posted some of his artwork. But I don't want to get offtopic. ...I'll post in the Arts thread on that later.)

I will come back to this racism vs. sexism issue, however, since it's relevant to another point.

but my point is that if you take the right to express it away, for any reason, you open a very dangerous can of worms where people in power get to decide what is and isn't "obscene", and with the conservative nature of our country that could mean women suddenly being forced to dress like women in the middle east; completely covered and not allowed to reveal any skin.

I think you have a very biased perception of the Middle East. The entire "head-to-toe" thing hasn't existed in any country save for pre-war Afghanistan (which isn't even the Middle East). Certain countries do have pretty backward laws (such as Saudi), other places are pretty open, particularly in urban areas (such as Egypt and Morocco), and other places are a bit odd with regards to women's rights (like Libya, where there's more equality but which has a pretty poor all-around human rights record). I'm sure you can make your points without resorting to generalities.

Although Alun does bring up a good point in response:

There isn't much difference in being required to cover up and being required to reveal (which is pretty much the way trends here go). Either way, it's an expression of women-as-property -- either only one man, the owner, has the right to see the woman, or every man does, to ogle or criticize at will. In neither case does the woman belong to herself and freely choose how to dress. And don't bother to say that that's not the case here and that females choose to dress provocatively because they like doing so...

The first part is definitely true. The key here is being objectified--and, more importantly, objectification of the women you come into contact with. If you notice, however, your argument is predicated on the assumption of a causal link between someone's taste in entertainment and their treatment of other people. That's where I think your argument is weakest, and which has been a repeated theme in much of this thread.

Causation and Entertainment

First thing I want to bring up is Alun's link:

While I'm looking at my bookmarks, here's one that defenders of pornography as free speech should take a look at:
http://www.oneangrygirl.net/pornmyths.html
This is NOT for the faint of stomach, as you might imagine. But since at least two of these have already been mentioned in this thread, it's relevant. Click on the balloons and take a look at real information and accounts, not just the rationalizations to which you cling.

It proves nothing. ...well, almost nothing, though at the very least it doesn't prove what you're trying to argue.

In logical and statistical terms, it's as useful as anecdotal evidence. Yes, it's a series of true stories, but the problem with anecdotal evidence isn't to do with the anecdotes' veracity--it's because of how they're collected versus how they're used. Under most of those topics, I didn't see anything on there about controlled studies, just a series of stories--most of them about specific individuals. (There were a few that did have studies, but I saw nothing that avoided the causation-correlation mistakes--I'll touch on that shortly.)

With anecdotal evidence, there's an obvious selection bias: you only select the stories that prove your claim, and reject stories that don't. With this link, there's an additional problem: stories that could counterbalance (not counteract, just counterbalance) said claim aren't the kind of things that show up on one's radar. In other words, any "evidence" you collect is not going to be a representative sample.

This doesn't mean the site has no merit. But it does limit what you can claim. Namely:

• It does provide evidence against the claim that porn is never harmful.
• It calls into question the claim that access to porn prevents more serious acts from taking place in the real world (I don't see definitive proof in the studies listed there, but there are case studies and some real-world examples that make such a claim difficult to maintain.)
• It does not provide evidence that porn is always, or in general, harmful.

One of the down sides to being a statistician is that you rarely get to make really awesome and definitive claims. So, I can't claim that porn is generally beneficial (since I don't have evidence for it), but nor can I claim that it's generally a bad thing based on the evidence (it wouldn't stop me from believing it, but it would prevent me from claiming it can be empirically proven).

Another aside, though: a few of those topics do highlight some important things to realize. The most important, I think, are that (a) porn--particularly internet porn--can be addictive (I have seen formal and informal studies done on this that convince me of it--the best study I saw was actually an informal one), and (b) men who would "otherwise do bad things" are unlikely to avoid it through use of porn--incidentally, this is the only topic that actually linked to some studies, albeit many of them either sounded flawed or had limited information. Though on that note...

The more you watch depictions of violence the more likely you are to punch someone in the nose when they say something that rubs you the wrong way, to make up a simplistic example. Yes, the person doing the punching or whatever is the cause and bears the blame, but other things can contribute to the ease of doing the punching.
The effect of television violence on children is, I suspect, very well documented. We all know that kids pick up language they hear older people saying. What makes you think this type of effect stops happening just because you grow up?

Just because someone owns a book where minors (potentially) are having sex does not make someone automatically a pedophile, nor does that mean that they're going to do anything to children as a result. To say so is making a lot of assumptions, in the same way that certain people would argue that people who play violent videogames are automatically going to be more violent people in real life. I'm living proof that this is not true.

I've only seen credible studies done of some causal link between violent entertainment and violent activity (particularly play) among children; I won't dispute that much.

The main reason I would dispute that the same thing holds true for adults is because adults tend to have a better grip on the distinction between reality and fantasy. Additionally, children tend to mimic what they see (at least, all the children I've interacted with)--particularly if they're under the impression that whatever they're mimicking is something that adults do--and will mimic with less understanding of what is or isn't appropriate. (This is one of the reasons I'm strongly in favor of video game ratings, but this is a tangential matter.)

The problem is, it's very easy to fall into the correlation=causation trap. Let's take the example of a recent BBC article (Rom-coms 'spoil your love life). The finding is that women who are fans of romantic comedies have "less realistic expectations" when it comes to relationships. It doesn't disprove any of a number of other possibilities:

• Women who have more idealized notions of love are more likely to enjoy romantic comedies (the causation goes in reverse)
• Other factors that encourage an idealized notion of love also encourage enjoyment of romantic comedies (a third factor unaccounted for)
• The student volunteers were unrepresentative of the larger population (sample bias)

This can apply to most studies that link violent video games and violent behavior if you change the actors. I wanted to choose something that might be less familiar to folks here. But the main point is that the studies you'll see in media claiming to prove something are often either flawed, or the claims are not quite so definitive as the article will claim.

(...also it's possible to argue that the romance novel genre, which is mainly geared towards women and often contains sordid descriptions of sex scenes, could be as damaging as fictionalized porn (meaning, drawn or written, but not involving any actors). I'm not making that claim, but merely pointing out that I think there's a similar lack of evidence for either.)

Back to the subject of porn, there are a few things that even a statistical correlation between violent behavior or degrading opinions of women and consumption of porn wouldn't disprove, namely:

• Men prone to violent behavior towards women will also consume porn (the causation goes in reverse)
• Other factors, such as mental disorders, contribute towards a skewed understanding of reality versus fantasy (a third factor unaccounted for)

Fantasy and Reality

Besides the lack of statistical support, the other reason I discount a lot of studies linking entertainment to actual behavior is because of the mental distinction between fantasy and reality. I can get very involved in a game, in a movie, or in a story. But when I close out, it's a completely different sensation. I can play an FPS for hours, but I feel extremely awkward holding a gun (except for Nerf weapons).

Fantasies? Of course I have?
But that's the thing I've said previous. EVERYONE DOES!!!
The difference is that they STAY fantasies. I've never punched a person in my life. I've never just told off my stupid boss in real life. Because I know the difference between reality and fiction.

Basically, this. My contention is that most use of porn is similar. That is, it's within the mindset of a fantasy. And whether that fantasy seeps over into someone's real actions depends on their cognitive development--that is, how deep their distinction is between reality and fantasy.

One confounding effect, though, would be any short-term effects. That is, immediately after viewing porn, gauging someone's mindset would probably give some limited results (this is something I saw the earlier rom-com study do). That is, if you find that men who view porn immediately thereafter have higher or unrealistic expectations of beauty/sexiness, this doesn't necessarily prove if they, in general, have higher or unrealistic expectations.

Y'know, while I'm in the middle of this really long post no one will likely ever read, I may as well confess a few things. I don't really shy away from looking at some idealized female celebrities. And, the famous people I find attractive is shaped by this (my top two are Kari Byron and Morena Baccarin, by the way). But, when I first met Jenner, well... I was attracted to her. I mean, she's really cute. But, she's far from, say, celebrity-level beautiful (sorry!). That really didn't affect how I felt about her. I really liked her, and I really thought she was attractive, regardless of whatever idealized notions of beauty might've gotten into me from media.

I'd say this is because I have a normal level of control between my distinctions of my real world, and my entertainment. I can let my interest in the Civilization series affect my interest in history, but my enjoyment of FPS games doesn't make me want to go hunting, and my torrented AVI of the MythBusters Jaws special doesn't mean I expect every woman to look like Kari.

Back to Free Speech... Sort of

I should also add that the First Amendment was written regarding political speech and the freedom to criticize the government without reprisal. Note, however, that "hate speech" is considered a crime. People usually recognize hate speech when it's racist, whether in words or art. Hate speech which is sexist flies right under the radar.

It's interesting you bring this up, considering that it's notoriously hard to prove that something is hate speech.

First, something said in the case I cited at the beginning (Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition) cites the following:

"The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles’ appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447."

The line I bolded is cited in various forms in many court cases, and is one of the reasons why proving something is hate speech is so difficult. There are many things I wouldn't mind seeing gone (like Chick tracts, which clearly contain bigoted and harmful lies regarding my religion). But they're allowed to exist, both for the reason described above, and since such regulations would likely open the possibility for tightening other venues of speech (e.g., I know the Southern Baptist Convention and some other conservative churches have said very negative things about my religion, and I do believe it's harmful, but I'm not about to say they should be denied the right to preach such things).

If you've actually read up on the Protect act, you would know that these images will be viewed in a court of law using something called the Miller Test. The Miller Test takes into consideration the artistic merit. Basically... if he can prove that it's art, he's fine. If you feel that your comics have artistic merit, you're fine and shouldn't worry about it.

The case I cited at the beginning actually references the Miller test's case. But besides that, the one concern I have is that the judge may not be in a position to view whatever art in its correct context. After all, the general public in the US isn't as familiar with Japanese manga as with other forms of entertainment. But, given the way it's gone in the past, I do agree that it's far-fetched to claim that anime/manga fans are some discriminated class.

(By the way, the specific Miller Test guidelines can be found here:
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Ce ... -test.html)

A great example, which I've wanted to link here because I thought Sonic in particular would appreciate it: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655 ... urity.html

Ok, with this, I'm not sure what the purpose was. All I see is an example of how absurd it is to co-opt language about racism to describe sexism. Sexism is not parallel to racism (and racism is not parallel to religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is not parallel to bigotry based on sexual orientation, and so forth). They occur for different reasons and manifest themselves in different ways. Sure, there's some overlap between people who are chauvanistic, racist, or bigoted, and there are most certainly some common trends--but that doesn't mean they're identical.

I live in a better place than most and it's been a while since I've felt directly threatened (as in that person over there looks and sounds dangerous to me personally), but it never goes away. Meg posted a while back about not having her window blinds open when she was home working so passersby couldn't see that she was home alone. I assure you that if your female friends are truly as unafraid as you claim them they too are suffering from youthful and potentially terminal naivete.

For starters, Meg's situation had a lot of other factors, such as living in a poor area of Richmond (or just living in Richmond--*rimshot*--nah, Richmond's all right). I wouldn't let people on that I was home by myself. It is true that women, on balance, have more to fear then men, given the same conditions. But, it's rather presumptuous to claim that LunarRaptor's friends are unafraid because they're naive--could just as well be that they don't like the thought of perpetually being afraid. Just like I'm well-aware of white supremacist groups, but it doesn't stop me from going to Waffle House in the middle of the night in rural Tennessee.

Also, the argument with the "figurine" is a ridiculous strawman. No one would argue that something with no verisimilitude to a real person could be considered pornography. The problem is that the depictions are so realistic (in some considerable ways).

That specific example? Possibly. But as far as saying that "no one would argue that..."... I wouldn't be so sure:
Simpsons cartoon rip-off
Basically, "Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people." So people would argue that... just it's unlikely in the United States.

I'm done

Really... I spent hours composing this. I actually enjoyed arguing this. I can see why defense lawyers do it. And just a reminder... nothing personal, folks. Y'all have been great. And I wouldn't spend this kind of time composing arguments and hunting down old links for just anyone. KF