First, no children were exploited or harmed in any way.

Second, if he gets off looking at children, well no, I don't condone that, but he is staying away from real children.

Third, art censorship.

exactly. Lord knows I have no sympathy for actual pedophiles (meaning there is a difference between some person raping a 10-year old and another person having sex with a 17-year old.)

But there is no way I can agree that having mere images especially drawings should be held to the same legal status as actually going out and hurting someone. Heck it shouldn't even be the same as photographs or films.

As Bingo stated, no one was exploited or harmed, neither directly or indirectly.

Heck a case could be made that such forms of release can help prevent harm.

I disagree with part of what you said there.
Photographs and films ARE child porn, children are exploited and hurt to make those.

That is the point I was trying to make.
That is why I was saying that drawings are not in the same category as films/movies
I guess it was a bit vague.

Another comment at CBLDF site made the point that murder is also illegal, yet you can find depictions of it in nearly every home in the country.

Manga does dance a slim line with it's emphasis on youthful appearing characters, as well as ...interesting subjects such as tentacle rape.

Actual tentacle rape of a woman would be an odd and unlikely happening, so the depictions this man may have had or mailed would be quite far in the realm of fantasy and improbability.

This case is VERY terrifying for anyone who enjoys comic books and/or sex!

"Oooh, that man just hit Supergirl, therefore he is a child abuser, and you are too since you are looking at this!" It may be weak, but that is the gist of this case.

spam edited by josh

...and if someone looking at this crap asked if he could date your daughter/sister/neice...you would be all fine with it?

Art is one thing...depicting the rape of a minor...well why would you WANT to look at it?

The point is that (in this case) art is illegal to look at because some find it morally objective. I'm not defending graphic sexual art, but I am defending freedom to create or view art of any nature. Our taste in art is not up to the government to decide.

Edit: (Obviously granted it doesn't involve, in any way, real minors)

I would be weirded out, but honestly I would just assume he is into bdsm.. and hopefully just likes young looking women.

Maybe my brain isn't working yet, but weren't drawings/renderings and such ruled legal? The case name was someone vs ashcroft I believe.

From what I understand after further research, it was Japanese Manga that showed females having sex with animals...probably tentacle sex.

What they prosecuted on was the fact that the females were not depicted as having pubic hair, and thus were children. This is ridiculous in that:

A) Virtually all Manga sex scenes show the participants with no pubic hair

B) A large portion of so called "mainstream" porn PHOTOS - i.e. REAL PEOPLE show them with no pubic hair

Apparently, his lawyer didn't feel like fighting this all the way and lied to him about what he was pleading guilty to. He failed to mention that the charges he was copping to included the phrase "with children", and was also told there would be no jail time in the charges. Both of these were no true.

I am also interested in why the postmaster who started the whole thing off felt it was necessary to open his package originally. Do all packages from Japan contain (supposed) kiddy porn?

And if someone who read this wanted to date my daughters, I would let him...but keep my eye on him. But NOT because of the content of the Manga. My daughters read Manga...not the extreme stuff that this was. I would watch him only because he would be dating my daughters. They can take care of themselves as far as choosing whom they date, and I trust that they are smart enough to weed out the unworthy. To an extent.