Manga Translator Appeals Child Pornography Charges

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Duckman:

OhJohnNo:

nikki191:

well said and frankly i couldnt of put it better myself.

no matter what the defence is, no matter what people say to legitimise this stuff its still boils down to .. reality check.. DUDE you are portraying kids in a sexual way.

Thing is, prosecuting people for getting off to fictional kids portrayed in a sexual way is still essentially thought crime.

I maintain that no matter how deranged and disgusting it seems, so long as it remains a fantasy, it should not be punished.

When looking at a subject we dislike (or downright loathe in the case of some people here). It is important to look at it and question who is getting hurt here.

Are kids getting hurt from him having the images? No, because they were drawn by somebody for the expressed reason of exploring a fantasy. Fantasy is an important word, by the way. Definitely keep it in mind.

Now, with the way things are, does the law hurt people? Well, I think it's quite obvious with this story that, yes. Yes it does hurt people. But why is that? How could a law intended to protect children also hurt people?

That's because when a law is made, rights need to be taken into consideration. And unfortunately for many non-americans, Freedom of Speech is not always an assured right. In most places (Not sure about Sweden, but I'll get to that in a minutes) Free Speech is less of an established right and more of an implied one.

Now why does this apply? Well, let's assume that Sweden does in fact have established free speech. Well, oftentimes, laws are voted on, and use scare tactics in order to pass. This is done while ignoring parts of the law that limit the rights of citizens. In this case, it removes their right to have drawings of children in pornographic situations.

Practices like this are dangerous, and do happen everywhere, and do tend to take different forms. The problem here is that new laws will continue to be made. And they will build off of what is already here. And if we lay a foundation where the rights of citizens are thrown aside at the first sign of something we don't like... It just gets worse from here.

It's fine not to like this stuff. And it's fine to like it too. It wouldn't exist if there weren't a place for it. The trick is in letting perverts be perverts as long as they keep their fantasies to themselves. Most people do.

Dunno why you're quoting me, mate, I agree completely. You can't make it illegal to enjoy something.

In my experiences, most lolicons are harmless. People into lolicon H, though, little bit different.

It comes down to just not letting them around my nieces vs. putting two in their dome.

Sixcess:
A few questions:

Would anyone care to link to these images? Would doing so be considered a breach of posting rules? Would the Escapist receiving unwelcome attention from the FBI for allowing these images to be accessed via this site?

Whilst I do not know more precisely, I remember from the news report when this law first came into action that images from Dragon Ball are amongst those counted. Remember early in the manga, when Yamcha was first introduced? There's an image of Bulma taking a shower. Or any of the situations with young Goku where he's naked. THAT is what they count as child pornography, according to this. Hope that helped to clarify. ^^

OT: Things like these make me ashamed of being from Sweden. Actually, a lot of things do. Actually, I'm kind of thinking of renouncing my citizenship. Actually, I wish I could be counted as 'Not Belonging to the Human Race' or something. That way I would in no way be part of all the stupidity we display on a daily basis.

evilneko:

Grey Carter:

HobbesMkii:

I apologize for going all Diction Nazi on you, but I'm pretty sure you meant "short for the phrase" or something like that. A portmanteau is a combination of parts of two words to keep the meaning of both. "Lolex" would be a portmanteau of "Lolita Complex," for instance.

You're spot on, actually. Loli is short for Lolicon, which is a portmanteau.

Again I object. Loli is not short for lolicon. Por ejemplo.

image

Rika Furude, on the left, is a loli. Keiichi, center, is the lolicon.

Satoko is also a loli, but despite the look of jealousy on her face, she is not a lolicon. A loli can not be a lolicon until she is no longer a loli.

Isn't this the same show with graphic (non-sexual) torture being inflicted on said Lolis?

I remembered watching it as a series but was confuses, as the world seemed to reset itself after every couple of episodes.

Edit: Pull.... What? There does not seem to be anything to pull.

Sixcess:
A few questions:

Would anyone care to link to these images? Would doing so be considered a breach of posting rules? Would the Escapist receiving unwelcome attention from the FBI for allowing these images to be accessed via this site?

If theses are explicitly sexual images it's porn, and if those depicted are depicted as children then it's child porn.

For starters any kind of sexually explicit images are forbidden on the escapist, not just child porn.
Second, we already know that most officials think of drawings of CP to be the same thing, this whole thread is directed at how ridiculous that position is. The entire reason why CP is illegal is to protect children. If no children are being harmed, who are you protecting?

And the whole "will make child rape socially acceptable" argument is a slippery slope. It could just as easily cause child molesters to use images of fake children to get their "fix" instead of going out and raping a kid.

The prosecution's arguments aren't exactly well thought out, but let's not hide behind technicalities. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck.

So every movie that has a murder in it is a murder and everyone who is in possession of such a movie should be charged as such? Like you said, it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck so it must be a duck.

OhJohnNo:

Dunno why you're quoting me, mate, I agree completely. You can't make it illegal to enjoy something.

Hit the wrong quote button. My mistake.

I don't know if it's the same case that I read about in a local newspaper, but if it is the same case then the images that were in his possession were images from Dragon Ball.

J.R.R Martin had better run for cover then, since there is something very close to an under-age sex scene in book 3.

Grey Carter:

could have used real children as models.

"And even a drawing could be of a real child," said prosecutor, Hedvig Trost. "A photo depicting a real child could have been used to make the drawing. It is hard from the outside to know whether there is an original photo or not."

What the fuck? You can blow up human beings in many video games, but I never saw anyone saying "Hurrr, they might have really blown someone up for the effects!"
Same goes for movies.

Going to fall in with most of the opinions I've read so far and say that I don't like the subject matter, but I don't think it should be illegal because, after all, who is being harmed by fictional characters in a fictional setting (or rendition of a real place)? Translating and distributing the stuff, in my opinion, is a different matter entirely that, legally, is more easily determinable. Where this really gets to me is the whole push for human rights to be applied to fictional characters.

There was a controversy a while ago with the Red Cross (on one level or another) suggesting that the violence in Call of Duty violates the Geneva Convention. I've seen articles about women's rights organizations in Japan pushing for human rights to be applied to characters in games, manga, animation, and literature.

Say you want to protect real people, real children, and real victims all you want, but do we really come out ahead as a society by stifling creative freedom so, as an extreme example, a character can't be kidnapped, enslaved, raped, murdered, etc. as a part of their background--let alone having it happen on a page--because to do so would violate their human rights? Think about what those sorts of limitations would do to comics, to literature, probably to movies. Welcome to Fahrenheit 514 and The Giver, anyone?

SacremPyrobolum:

Isn't this the same show with graphic (non-sexual) torture being inflicted on said Lolis?

I remembered watching it as a series but was confuses, as the world seemed to reset itself after every couple of episodes.

Edit: Pull.... What? There does not seem to be anything to pull.

Yes. That's all explained in the second season.

And look at Rika's swimsuit.

This isn't exactly common in Sweden and in fact it's pretty damn rare. It's one of the very few times I've seen this happen.

There is still this where people who are generally within the court and such are most likely older types. Who are VERY protective or VERY strict. In their eyes this lolicon guy would be as bad as a murderer.

I'm also quite sure these people are behind the times as well. Not to mention no one has been bothered to go through the rules and such in quite some time. If they did they surely are keeping it secretly.

I think we still have a rule where it says you're allowed to kill people with a crossbow on Sundays or something. It was something stupid at least.

Actually "lolicon" is a noun, at least as far as I've seen it used. You would describe someone as a lolicon the same way you would use a -phile word, like, say, "bibliophile" (you thought I was going to use the other one didn't you?). There's "shotacon" for young boys (target audience is women so don't go having misconceptions), and "brocon" and "siscon" which is what they sound like.

Also who is Magritte? He/She isn't mentioned until the sentence: "The Swedish courts are still struggling with the question of whether or not lines on paper technically count as children - evidently they don't agree with Magritte's view on the matter - but Trost's argument is ridiculous."

Anyway, stupid public, poor victim, hope he gets off free and the situation doesn't have any lingering after effects on his life.

Grey Carter:

image

- but Trost's argument is ridiculous. Director, John McTiernan, could have perfected Die Hard's gritty, yet realistic, action scenes by mercilessly gunning down hobos as research - yet the Swedish police force have yet to arrest Bruce Willis as an accessory to murder.
[/b]

Its actually even dumber then that. This is like arresting the guy who wrote the subtitles to Die Hard if Bruce Willis had actually gunned down people to practice for the role.

Gatx:
Also who is Magritte? He/She isn't mentioned until the sentence: "The Swedish courts are still struggling with the question of whether or not lines on paper technically count as children - evidently they don't agree with Magritte's view on the matter - but Trost's argument is ridiculous."

Magritte, creator of the painting used as the article image. The Treachery of Images is a simple reminder of the difference between object and image. Microscopists know this well.

Flailing Escapist:

Irridium:
So if you burn a book, does it count as murder?

What if you steal one, would that be kidnapping on top of theft?

Ha, if you say you don't like a book it's slander. And if you throw it across the room, it's abuse.

Wait... people can actually own books? SLAVERY!

Great, his entire life ruined because he was translating a loli manga. He will be forever labelled as a sex offender for doing his job. For god sake Sweden, you're supposed to be an ascended god tier country! Act like one!

Tanis:
I...um...huh.

Aren't Swedes suppose to NOT act like neo-con religious wackjobs?

Normally, yes. But when something that could potentially be considered child pornography rears its ugly head, we try to stop it down into the black void from whence it came.

My opinion? I live in Sweden, and I think this whole case is absolute b*llocks. Heck, I even wrote an entire essay on the matter for my school paper, and the gist of the problem is that the law for child pornography is rather poorly worded. Basically any picture containing a character (not child, character) who might be seen as, or is stated to be, 18 years old or less in the nude, is child pornography. I'm a collector of manga, and roughly 70 % of my collection (all of which I've bought in my local, legal comic store) contains something that, by the definition given by the law, can be considered child pornography.

Though, the law does have a loophole that allows more highbrowed works (paintings, regular comics, etc.) a pass from the judge: a work is not considered child pornography if it has "artistic worth".

...

Let me ask some perfectly valid questions; who is to say these works don't have artistic worth? And why should it make such a difference, when we can walk into any random museum and watch a picture of a child getting molested, sitting on the wall on full display? Does this law cover fictional characters who're not human, but just look the part? Why is the limit for child pornography 18 years, when our age of consent is 15? Why does the court rack down on these relatively harmless manga pictures, when they could be using their resources to judge ACTUAL child pornography crimes? And why is depicting naked children in drawn pictures so taboo, when it is perfectly fine to depict it in books, music, and other forms of so-called "art"?

Our child pornography laws need a bit of a cleanup...

So a country where the age of consent is 15 is bent out of shape by some drawings? Are they trying to suggest they're not interested in young ladies while picking up High School girls for a night out?

Interesting, its been a while since something else than gaming had a story so retarded centerd around them. Yay? Ok ill shut up now.

DVS BSTrD:

Grey Carter:
Manga Translator Appeals Child Pornography Charges

According to the Swedish courts, cartoon characters are people too.

I'll believe cartoons are people when Texas executes one.

Here's the next best thing!

-sigh-. Welcome to the european mentality.

This same logic applies in England too. (And australia, probably one of the worst offenders in how far they take that idea, since you can be proscecuted for 'child pornography' even if it is 100% provable you have a picture of someone over 18. If, by some nebulous ill-defined standard it 'looks' like a picture of a child - or more accurately in most cases, a teenager, you can still get charged.)

I don't know where this comes from, but it's a growing trend worldwide that I feel may ultimately be counterproductive.

By all means take action to protect real children. But trying to take on any depiction that may vaguely hint at something child-like seems like a recipe for disaster, and a wasted effort overall.

newwiseman:
So a country where the age of consent is 15 is bent out of shape by some drawings? Are they trying to suggest they're not interested in young ladies while picking up High School girls for a night out?

Puh-lease brotha, ladies are like fruit. You can't pick em too early, you can't pick em too late. You gotta pick em when they're juuuuust right.

By which I mean, no, we do not sex little girls as a national sport. Generally the only ones picking up high school girls would be high school boys.

Anyway, this case scared me a little. Because this man has done nothing wrong. He wasn't even the one that made these drawings, he works as a translator. Even if we just illegalise this sort of fetish, can it be proven that he had these drawings for sexual pleasure rather than to you know, translate them?

It scares me a little a little that my government thinks it can just up and arrest nowadays. Between this, people killing old ladies and getting to walk, and people defending old ladies and being jailed for one and a half years. I have little trust in it anymore. Unless you drive just slightly tipsy. In which case I'm pretty sure they just take you behind the barn and shoot you.

Also people let's get real, Sweden dose have federal agents. Because it's not a fedearation.

This...is

..well...

this doesn't really make any sense to me..

at all.

I didn't know a forum thread could make me hate anime more than I already do, but this one did it. I don't know anything about Swedish law (though Maxxn's clarification is helpful), but I do know that the internet is fond of defending this kind of stuff. If that's what you're into, more power to you, but I'll just keep my distance.

ehh, in 1995 the owners of Planet Comics in Oklahoma City

faced 86 years of jail over Iron Devil #2.(by Frank Thorne)

This is not new, or limited to sweden

or loli-stuff.

RedBird:
Hasn't this happened before, in australia? There was a big hoo ha when they found som guy downloading porn of the simpsons, and they put him in jail for a year.
(If anyone can find that article or back me up, please do and assure me it's not just the voices in my head falsely giving me information. Again)

I actually did a paper once on simulated child pornography, so I have quick access to an article on that, and more!

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/the-simpsons-skins-and-child-p
The guy was Steven Kutzner of Idaho, and he was sentenced to 15 months in prison for possession of obscene material (i.e. images of the Simpsons having sex). He also had actual child pornography.

Similarly, in 2009 Dwight Whorley went to jail for viewing manga child porn (and real child porn as well). Also in 2009, comic collector Christopher Handley was charged with possession of obscene material for owning manga with child porn and bestiality. And finally, there is the famous Mike Diana case from 1994, where a guy drew some pretty darn obscene comics of various kinds and was sentenced with three years probation, a $3,000 fine, no contact with minors, and random searches of his house for obscene drawings.

For some reason lolicons and lolicon supporter blaming always seem to be blaming feminists for their plight in things. As if the fact that a few feminists target paedophiles, like practically ever group in the world, is suddenly a pillar of the movement. I'm sorry, but there's no one group responsible for this.

I have real life friends who are lolicons and shotacons and all sorts of creepers. Heck, I kinda feel a bit like one myself sometimes in that I'm not super fond of secondary sex characteristics. Lolicon definitely creeps me out sometimes, and it's even present is Shoujo manga I read like Honey and Clover. I particularly don't like it when they're so blatant about it like with Loveless, and the characters are clearly stated and portrayed to be minors. All of my friends love Loveless, it's like the most famous BL manga ever. But is features, like, literal paedophilia! Ritsuka is like, 12! People say it doesn't matter if they're stated to be 100 years old and given adult status and personality and the like, but it does! It matters a lot! It's a lot less creepy!

Yeah, I'm okay with this sort of thing in degrees. But I can't lie and say I don't worry about it in some ways. Like sexualizing characters that are clearly intended to be minors in ever respect. And fetishizing innocence and virginity and emotional weakness and the like. In fact I would have liked Honey and Clove a lot more and been a lot more okay with Hagu being a loli, if they didn't make her personality so childish. And Kobato can at least appeal to the moe fans and DFC lovers without be super short.

I don't think that this sort of material is going to lead to the molestation of children and should be illegal, though. I feel sick to my stomach though when I hear some people calling adult women disgusting and how they like lolis because they're "more innocent" and "not nasty sluts".

At my time at this site, I've actually been surprised at how little "anime" sort of stuff is talked about. Consider this is a video game site and Japanese culture and anime has had a huge impact on the video game industry. Kinda cool when articles like this pop up. Many of the users here may not have heard of Touhou, but at least one of the moderators has!

"It is hard from the outside to know whether there is an original photo or not."

For the purposes of this case it DOES NOT MATTER if there was an original photo or not (it is highly unlikely in any event). The only thing at question is whether the so called "lolicon" or drawings that appear to depict people with child-like qualities, is child pornography. To say that it is is ridiculous and an affront to the real children who get victimized by real child pornography every year around the globe.

Hopefully the Supreme Court over there will realize what a farce this whole case is and overturn this poor man's conviction. The saddest part is that it appears the images at question were not even for his own enjoyment, but rather part of his work.

Personally I find "lolicon" very disturbing but I wouldn't criminalize it.

DVS BSTrD:

Grey Carter:
Manga Translator Appeals Child Pornography Charges

According to the Swedish courts, cartoon characters are people too.

I'll believe cartoons are people when Texas executes one.

Texas: "Challenge accepted!"

lancar:
It's truly a depressing read. My tax money is being wasted on this absolute tripe, and there's nothing i can do to stop it.

You're swedish?

All things aside, I don't like any manga at all, so this is particularly "bleurgh" as a medium. However, if this is the most important thing that's going through the courts right now, Sweden's getting off pretty lightly compared to Norway.

I'm tempted to side with the courts just because this lolicon business is really, REALLY fuckin' creepy, but those arguments are ridiculous. Their arguments SHOULD have been something like, "We're talking about pictures of children displayed in an erotic manner. That makes it child porn. End of fucking story."

Arresting people for fictional pictures or stories definitely is the wrong way to go aboput it. Neither is robbing pedophiles of a nonharmful way to act out their sexuality. for all we know this could be driving them to real childpornography since they see no more legal way to release their sexuality anymore.

Grey Carter:
The prosecution, however, argued that the images could be used to entice children into performing sexual acts, and even went as far as to suggest the artists involved in the work could have used real children as models.

"And even a drawing could be of a real child," said prosecutor, Hedvig Trost. "A photo depicting a real child could have been used to make the drawing. It is hard from the outside to know whether there is an original photo or not."

That's just silly, manga drawings aren't that realistic.

Frozen Donkey Wheel2:
I'm tempted to side with the courts just because this lolicon business is really, REALLY fuckin' creepy, but those arguments are ridiculous. Their arguments SHOULD have been something like, "We're talking about pictures of children displayed in an erotic manner. That makes it child porn. End of fucking story."

It's DRAWINGS of FICTIONAL children. Nobody is getting hurt and it definitely doesnt warant being branded as childmolester and years of prison time.

ResonanceSD:

lancar:
It's truly a depressing read. My tax money is being wasted on this absolute tripe, and there's nothing i can do to stop it.

You're swedish?

If I wasn't I wouldn't have said that, now would I? ;)

Wait, I'm confused. He was a paid manga translator. ... am I wrong, or does it sound like he got arrested for translating manga his job assigned him, and then got FIRED from that job?

That's either serious hypocrisy on the part of his employer, or I've missed a key detail here.

neonit:
see, i live in netherlands, we have a pedophile association here. no, i shit you not, they even have a clubhouse as far as i know. and its 100% legal! iirc they even were going for elections!

Dutch guy here. Wasn't that association banned and those guys put on a watch list? If the association actually still exists, I'm going to throw up.

SpaceBat:

neonit:
see, i live in netherlands, we have a pedophile association here. no, i shit you not, they even have a clubhouse as far as i know. and its 100% legal! iirc they even were going for elections!

Dutch guy here. Wasn't that association banned and those guys put on a watch list? If the association actually still exists, I'm going to throw up.

"well, as long as they do nothing illegal everything is ok!"
is the most recent statement afaik.
so yeah, they are an association advocating pedo's, but that doesnt mean they are ones. stupid logic i know, but what are you gonna do about it o.O
but im pretty sure they are "watched" more, if they are not, SOMEONE is not doing their job properly.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here