Freedom of Speech, Censorship, and Lolicon: The First Amendment and You

[Jintor]

So basically what's going on is some dude in America (Christopher Handley) is getting prosecuted for owning (physical copies) of large amounts of Lolicon (in english: drawn pictures of children having sex) and Yaoi (drawn pictures of dudes havin' sex with dudes) on the basis of obscenity. He faces 20 years.

The Comic Book Defence Fund is defending him based on the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech.

Neil Gaiman explains why.

Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.

The CBLDF will defend your First Amendment right as an adult to make lines on paper, to draw, to write, to sell, to publish, and now, to own comics. And that's what makes the kind of work you don't like, or don't read, or work that you do not feel has artistic worth or redeeming features worth defending. It's because the same laws cover the stuff you like and the stuff you find icky, wherever your icky line happens to be: the law is a big blunt instrument that makes no fine distinctions, and because you only realise how wonderful absolute freedom of speech is the day you lose it.

If this should be in the Books/Reading/Comics section then by all means move it, but I thought it'd get more traffic here first.

 

[staticprimer]

Has he been displaying these things in public, or has it been completely private?

 

[Krynn72]

lolicon is ****ing gross and should be burned in fire.
















But it should still be protected by the first amendment.

 

[V-Man339]

lolicon is ****ing gross and should be burned in fire.
















But it should still be protected by the first amendment.

Oddly enough, I concur with this statement.

 

[Jintor]

Has he been displaying these things in public, or has it been completely private?

Totally private.

From what I understand, he's been getting them via mail order. One of his packages was opened under suspicion of 'banned content', they looked at his mail records, when he came to pick one up he got followed home and raided.

 

[Darkside55]

I seem to have waylaid some links I kept on hand that basically say this is unconstitutional. Technically you're allowed to buy all the loli and shota manga you want.

 

[theotherguy]

Drawn art in any form (as long as the art isn't divulging dangerous information or stealing copyrighted information), should not ever be illegal.

It simply makes no sense to ban drawings of kids having sex because it is "obscene." It is a drawing! Nobody was harmed in the making of this art, and nothing illegal was done to make it. The reason child pornography is banned is because it is exploitative of children. Drawings of child pornography are exploitative to nobody, because they came from the mind of the artist who drew them.

We might as well ban murder-mystery novels because they contain murder.

 

[Unfocused]

Is there anything that makes him stand out from all the other people that posses lolicon? Or is this another of those shots at random people, RIAA-style?

 

[Acepilotf14]

Did someone say loli?
This thread is relevant to my interests.

 

[Raziaar]

lolicon is ****ing gross and should be burned in fire.
















But it should still be protected by the first amendment.

I share these sentiments.

 

[Vegeta897]

Did someone say loli?
This thread is relevant to my interests.

This thread is relevant to... myself D:

/paranoid

The site I order from (which I get my figures from too) ships in non-descriptive boxes so it gets through customs fine... I don't order that much of it though. I just ordered a couple a few months ago (mostly for the novelty) and I don't plan on any more.

 

[Jintor]

You should beware of federal agents tailing you home from the post office.

Failing that, take this opportunity to meet Neil Gaiman. Or anybody else who is with the CBDF.

 

[Vegeta897]

I don't go to the post office, they are delivered to my door. EMS.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

They made the mistake of prosecuting him for obscenity. They should've charged him with conspiracy to commit pedophilia.

That way it's not about the first amendment and about this sick **** getting what's coming to him.

 

[Vegeta897]

Oh lols. "Commit pedophilia" that's a good one.

Explain to me why he's a 'sick ****' for doing no harm to anybody?

Do you think all pedophiles want to rape children?

I think if he wanted to rape children, he would have done it instead of buying drawings.

Please take a minute to reconsider how ridiculous you are being before continuing down this road.

 

[theotherguy]

They made the mistake of prosecuting him for obscenity. They should've charged him with conspiracy to commit pedophilia.

That way it's not about the first amendment and about this sick **** getting what's coming to him.

conspiracy to "commit pedophilia"?


You can't "commit" pedophilia, you can just have it. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, and it is not and should not be illegal. Actually raping children is illegal, though, and should remain so.

You might as well charge someone who played a violent video game with "conspiracy to commit acts of violence", or charged someone who watched V for Vendetta with "Conspiracy to commit treason."

These comics are works of fiction. The people in them are not real. There is no reason to convict anyone for owning works of fiction depicting illegal acts.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

conspiracy to "commit pedophilia"?


You can't "commit" pedophilia, you can just have it. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, and it is not and should not be illegal. Actually raping children is illegal, though, and should remain so.

You might as well charge someone who played a violent video game with "conspiracy to commit acts of violence", or charged someone who watched V for Vendetta with "Conspiracy to commit treason."

These comics are works of fiction. The people in them are not real. There is no reason to convict anyone for owning works of fiction depicting illegal acts.

I didn't expand enough as there really isn't enough to charge for conspiracy- I'm very sure they easiy could've tricked him the same way those news channels trap those guys who show up for underage sex. i doubt it would've been that hard.

Just seems like they jumped the gun on getting this guy who very obviously is ****ing sick for getting off on children. What they charged him for DOES present a threat to freedom of speech so they should've got him the other way I described, so as to not create a legal slipper slope situation against other art, etc based on his case. I understand where they're coming from and I'm sure it's not about restricting art. It's just the case makes it a future problem for art by setting precedent.

 

[Vegeta897]

So you're just assuming that because he orders lolicon, he would be willing to meet up with a little girl for sex?

Rakurai, you're an idiot.

You're viewing pedophiles as people who have no sense of right and wrong, like they're mentally unstable. Fact is they can be completely normal people. Pedophilia does not imply anything other than a sexual attraction to a certain age. It does not imply willingness to break the law, or bring harm to anyone.

 

[kineaesth]

They made the mistake of prosecuting him for obscenity. They should've charged him with conspiracy to commit pedophilia.

That way it's not about the first amendment and about this sick **** getting what's coming to him.

I liked you better when you were banned.

Durrhurr cross thread self-quoting.

Anyway this is some bullshit, man. I'm totally against proper CP but people should be able to have as much shota and loli as they want.

Not that I have any.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

So you're just assuming that because he orders lolicon, he would be willing to meet up with a little girl for sex?

Rakurai, you're an idiot.

You're viewing pedophiles as people who have no sense of right and wrong, like they're mentally unstable. Fact is they can be completely normal people. Pedophilia does not imply anything other than a sexual attraction to a certain age. It does not imply willingness to break the law, or bring harm to anyone.

Wow. Just wow. An attraction to children IS a mental instability and needs action taken, period. Why are you defending pedophiles?

Look, I clearly understand that the case sets bad precedent for real freedom of speech, and they should not have charged for "obscenity"

I'm saying they should've gotten this **** on another charge. I don't see any way you can be defending HIM himself. I want to defend freedom of speech and dont want this case to set precedent- not defend this asshole in the least.

 

[Vegeta897]

Read a little more carefully please.

You're still throwing out words like "asshole" as if he ****ing is doing anything to harm anyone, or displaying ANY intention to.

Pedophilia is a mental affliction with unknown causes, but it is mostly accepted as a non-choice affliction. Right there you are already calling him a sick **** for something he can't even help.

That is all it is. Of course all people who rape children are pedophiles, but that DOES NOT mean that all pedophiles rape children.

Being a pedophile has nothing to do with your ability to judge right and wrong, nor does it have bearing on your mental stability.

Please shut the **** up.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm starting to think some of you people actually have some of this lolcon shit yourselves. Good god.

Read my posts- he should not be charged for having drawings. But his "massive collections" of them ARE a red flag and are a good starting point for an investigation and sting operation.

Their mistake is prosecuting him for the drawings and not for him getting off to children and ensnaring him. They threaten freedom by doing that.



Listen man it's not illegal for me to have bomb making instructions. But if they see I've got hundreds of books and instructions on making bombs it's a good idea to INVESTIGATE it and see WTF is up and try and see if I WILL do anything ****ed up.

Same idea here- they wouldn't get me for the instructions but they'd be a good starting point to get me on conspiracy to blow some shit up after investigating and doing some kind of operation to trap me.

 

[Raziaar]

Even if they did, you're hardly one to be in the position of morality police Rakurai.

 

[kineaesth]

I'm massively into loli and shota. Shall we have a fight about my sexual preferences now?

 

[Vegeta897]

KA you are a sick ****.

Why do you want to rape children?

I wish you wouldn't have admitted it here, so the government could have waited until they set you up with that little boy that you would obviously go meet up with and have sex, because since you are a pedophile you have no morals or soul and should be sent to prison for assrape.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm massively into loli and shota. Shall we have a fight about my sexual preferences now?

Well it's pretty obvious you're not serious so no. If you really did get off to little kids then I don't even have words to describe how sickening of a human being you are.

Raziaar- I'm not claiming to be a morality police. It's pretty ****ing obvious that someone getting off on CHILDREN is wrong, period. There is no room to disagree with this in the least.

 

[theotherguy]

I didn't expand enough as there really isn't enough to charge for conspiracy- I'm very sure they easiy could've tricked him the same way those news channels trap those guys who show up for underage sex. i doubt it would've been that hard.

Just seems like they jumped the gun on getting this guy who very obviously is ****ing sick for getting off on children. What they charged him for DOES present a threat to freedom of speech so they should've got him the other way I described, so as to not create a legal slipper slope situation against other art, etc based on his case. I understand where they're coming from and I'm sure it's not about restricting art. It's just the case makes it a future problem for art by setting precedent.

The problem is, what they trap them for there is actually illegal, since they really are conspiring to rape children. This person merely bought drawings of children having sex and viewed them. He was not soliciting children for sex, and he was not conspiring to rape children.

Also, the reasoning for why it should not be upheld is not that it will create a "slippery slope" (this is actually a fallacy), but that it is wrong to ban any art, regardless of its content. However, it is right to ban unethical art. This is art that is inherently unethical, like, say, graffiti, or that artist who starved a dog to death in his gallery. In these cases, the artist does something illegal or immoral to make the art.

However, I don't think drawing children having sex is immoral, and it certainly isn't illegal. It might be distasteful, but there is nothing inherently wrong about it.

 

[Vegeta897]

Rakurai, exactly what problem do you have with people who bring no harm and have no intention to bring harm to anybody?

 

[Raziaar]

Well it's pretty obvious you're not serious so no. If you really did get off to little kids then I don't even have words to describe how sickening of a human being you are.

Raziaar- I'm not claiming to be a morality police. It's pretty ****ing obvious that someone getting off on CHILDREN is wrong, period. There is no room to disagree with this in the least.

You're talking about the lolicon stuff and cartoons.

Look, I'm someone who takes great issue with it, but there's only so far I'm willing to go with my protest of it, because I can't in my right mind believe people need to be prosecuted or be forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation or anything because of it. I'm deeply disturbed by their interests in it, but I know it serves no good to take it to the extremes that you're talking about. Only people who actually prey upon children I think should be affected by the law.

 

[delusional]

Listen man it's not illegal for me to have bomb making instructions. But if they see I've got hundreds of books and instructions on making bombs it's a good idea to INVESTIGATE it and see WTF is up and try and see if I WILL do anything ****ed up.

Same idea here- they wouldn't get me for the instructions but they'd be a good starting point to get me on conspiracy to blow some shit up after investigating and doing some kind of operation to trap me.

Do many people derive pleasure from looking up bomb making tutorials? Or is the pleasure derived in acting out whats described in bomb making tutorials? I would go with the latter.

In the case of a pedophile I would say pleasure is derived from the act of looking at lolicon. while only the mentally deranged act on these desires.

 

[Vegeta897]

Rakurai you need a clear understanding of the facts here because it's obvious your whole idea on the subject is seriously construed. You're operating on many biases here and being awfully hateful without any apparent rationale.

I suggest you take a moment to reconsider what you're saying and implying.

Not to mention how many people are against you in this thread.

Which I am actually pleasantly surprised at, as I thought most people were as ignorant as you on this subject. Cheers, guys.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

You're talking about the lolicon stuff and cartoons.

Look, I'm someone who takes great issue with it, but there's only so far I'm willing to go with my protest of it, because I can't in my right mind believe people need to be prosecuted or be forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation or anything because of it. I'm deeply disturbed by their interests in it, but I know it serves no good to take it to the extremes that you're talking about. Only people who actually prey upon children I think should be affected by the law.

I can agree with this but there obviously was something about the guy that peaked law enforcement interest- mainly his "massive collection". That's what should've warranted investigation.

They messed up badly by prosecuting him for having the material, rather than conspiracy to do something else (post investigation of course)

I'd say a massive collection is probably cause for an investigation as well. If the investigation yielded nothing useful to prosecute then let it go. But I'm fairly sure they would've got this sick **** for it- why else would he have a collection of it?


Vegeta- there's nothing to defend in this guy.

It's clear the second amendment needs to be defended in the courts. He should win this case against obscenity based on the first amendment. They should've investigated him to find out if he'll do more (would I'm sure) and get him.

Anyone who has a collection of drawings of children in sex acts needs their ****ing ass kicked. And that's not on a legal level but a social level. If any of you people actually have some I hope somebody in your life finds it soon and you're outed to everyone you know for having it. Seriously.

 

[Vegeta897]

But I'm fairly sure they would've got this sick **** for it- why else would he have a collection of it?

While facepalming at your entire post I peeked through my fingers to see this little question...

You ask why "else", well, what reason do YOU think he has that you're asking for an alternative to?

Is he stocking up on massive amounts of lolicon to use to construct the ultimate child rape, or something?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

While facepalming at your entire post I peeked through my fingers to see this little question...

You ask why "else", well, what reason do YOU think he has that you're asking for an alternative to?

Is he stocking up on massive amounts of lolicon to use to construct the ultimate child rape, or something?

Obviously he's getting off on it and it wouldn't be a big leap to say he'd be willing to have sex with a child if propositioned.

If someone has a collection of porn with blondes with big tits it's safe to say that if a blonde with big tits propositions them for sex they'll mostly likely oblige.

 

[Vegeta897]

Obviously he's getting off on it and it wouldn't be a big leap

Stop. Yes it, is a big leap. Please to be reading my posts in this thread.

If someone has a collection of porn with blondes with big tits it's safe to say that if a blonde with big tits propositions them for sex they'll mostly likely oblige.

Yeah, except for the minor detail that that would be both legal and morally acceptable.

Jesus Christ dude, give it up.

 

[Raziaar]

Obviously he's getting off on it and it wouldn't be a big leap to say he'd be willing to have sex with a child if propositioned.

If someone has a collection of porn with blondes with big tits it's safe to say that if a blonde with big tits propositions them for sex they'll mostly likely oblige.

Dangerous territory there my friend. You can't prosecute somebody based on assumptions of what they might do.

The two things you are comparing are also non comparable. One is legal the other is not(and to a serious degree). That will weigh in most peoples minds.

 

[delusional]

Obviously he's getting off on it and it wouldn't be a big leap to say he'd be willing to have sex with a child if propositioned.

If someone has a collection of porn with blondes with big tits it's safe to say that if a blonde with big tits propositions them for sex they'll mostly likely oblige.

How often do you see children asking an old man to have sex?

As I said earlier, the man derives pleasure from the act of looking at loli, this doesn't necessarily mean he would act on these desires. His collection probably satiates his desires, and keeping him from acting on them.

 

[Vegeta897]

Dangerous territory there my friend. You can't prosecute somebody based on assumptions of what they might do.

Unfair and unreasonable assumptions at that.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It's not a big leap.

Unfair and unreasonable assumptions at that.

Wow it's in no way unreasonable to infer based on a collection of child sex drawings that the person would have sex with a child. It's common sense. It might NOT be true but more than likely it is. Just like someone who has a lot of books on Jihad, bomb making, and urban combat might not be planning to do anything, it would be common sense to infer they would.



Listen man. I support the comic book defense fund defending him in this case. Rather- they're not defending HIM the man but they don't want the charge to take precedent with the first amendment being threatened.

I'm sure the lawyers near him think "wow this ****er is sick in the head" as they defend him in the case.


It's safe to say he's a likely candidate to commit an act of child sex and he should've been investigated for it. A massive collection of drawings of children having sex is a red flag that someone is likely to have sex with a child. You're retarded if you think otherwise.

Dangerous territory there my friend. You can't prosecute somebody based on assumptions of what they might do.

The two things you are comparing are also non comparable. One is legal the other is not(and to a serious degree). That will weigh in most peoples minds.

I'm not saying prosecute based on the assumption- I'm saying INVESTIGATE based on that assumption. It's probable cause to investigate. You have to start somewhere.


If a cop pulls you over and SMELLS alcohol you don't go to jail- but it's their PROBABLE CAUSE to investigate if you are drunk driving. Same idea- the cop sees he has a massive collection of child sex drawings- they have probable cause to investigate if he'll have child sex.

 

[Vegeta897]

Look at you providing no logic at all for why you think it's reasonable to assume a pedophile will commit a crime against an innocent little girl.

Brilliance, I applaud you for such a bold move.

Actually, no, it just makes you look retarded.

I usually don't get nasty with insults in arguments on hl2.net, but you sir are offending a large group of people and so I feel it is my right to offend you.

"to investigate if he'll have child sex."

Exactly how is this performed?