
‘Obscene’ U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 Months  - sailormoon
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/
======
jrockway
This showcases several major problems with our legal system. The first is
obvious; cartoons are not children, nor can they be abused. So there is no
point in going after people who possess said representations. Not really my
thing, but definitely not a federal crime. (How long until any document the
Ruling Party doesn't like becomes "obscene"?)

The second problem is more subtle; and something I see as a major threat to
the rights afforded to the accused -- ridiculous trumped-up charges, and
minimal pleas in exchange for not going to trial. 15 years in prison for
owning certain books? Who would risk a fair trial if that's a possible
outcome? Much better than submit to the will of the system and take your six
months.

Fifteen years should not even be an option on the state's table. 1 year max.
Fifteen years is what murderers and rapists get, if they have a really bad
lawyer. Is owning books worse than taking someone's life?

Not going to trial means that the legal system never has a chance to strike
down these blatantly unconstitutional laws, leaving anyone who owns books open
to potential criminal charges. Are you sure the government likes every book on
your shelf? With this kind of precedent, you should probably quit reading and
just watch CSPAN -- It's What's Best.

Edit: I just realized that many actual child rapists face fewer than fifteen
years in prison. So rather than reading a book showing someone who might be
underage, it's better for you to just rape children instead. A fine message
our lawmakers are sending us.

A few more cases like this, and I'm quitting programming and going to law
school. This stuff needs to stop.

~~~
cduan
Little bit of legal background for you, hopefully it adds something to your
thoughts:

The standard for "obscenity" is defined in the leading Supreme Court case
Miller v. California, which held that obscene material was not protected free
speech. I won't go through the whole test (Wikipedia explains it well), but it
generally says that obscene material has to "appeal to the prurient interest"
to an average person in the local community, and it has to have no redeeming
social values.

So I wouldn't be worried that the "Ruling Party" deems something obscene or
not. Instead, I would be worried about what the "average person" thinks. Isn't
that a little odd--that your constitutional rights depend on what your
neighbors think?

(That was an argument that one of my law professors made, and I think it's
pretty compelling.)

~~~
jrwoodruff
This test is greatly complicated by the internet, where 'community' takes on a
whole new meaning.

~~~
CamperBob
Not in the minds of senile judges and functionally illiterate jurors...

------
igorhvr
This is utterly absurd. You cannot limit in any way _fiction_ that people read
or write - not if you claim to be a free country.

Seriously - why is this happening? I am not talking about "protecting the
children" or other such nonsense - the question is what _actually_ is
happening here? What is the reason? What possible advantage can anyone have
from destroying the life of this man like this?

EDIT: Improved wording.

~~~
jrockway
_What possible advantage can anyone have from destroying the life of this man
like this?_

"God" will like them more. Pleasure is evil, sex is even more evil, and sex
involving people who look like they're under 18 is so evil that you shouldn't
even be allowed to think about it.

~~~
olefoo
Not to mention that it establishes a precedent. Your library, your viewing
habits, your browser history are all potentially criminal now. Can you declare
with certainty that you possess nothing incriminating?

What if the definition of obscene materials were expanded to include
depictions of abortion or of darwinism...?

~~~
jrockway
What if you could be imprisoned for your thoughts alone?

~~~
olefoo
Just wait till next year when we start installing the brain scanners at
airport security checkpoints.

/me wishes that sounded less plausible.

------
basugasubaku
I just googled the probable original Japanese titles of the first four listed
seized items. I found they are all available on Amazon.co.jp (3 available as
used from third-party vendors, 1 as new directly from Amazon). From the covers
it's clear these are the items in question.

It's not like you need to go underground to buy them; Amazon is selling them,
though obviously Japanese standards of what counts as obscene are different
than those of the U.S.

~~~
iamaleksey
Is there even a word in japanese for "obscene"?

~~~
anabis
"hiwai" works, but the "waisetsu" is used more in the legal context. Japan did
a trial regarding a publisher few years back, called "Matsubunkan trial". Some
details in the middle of page: <http://comipress.com/article/2007/07/17/2307>

------
jrockway
Sorry for two top-level comments, but I did some more reading on the case. It
started when the postal service seized a box containing the books. So if
there's someone you don't like, just order a few books from amazon.co.jp for
them, and then they'll be facing 15 years in prison.

"Land of the free," indeed.

~~~
philh
Now you're getting slightly hysterical. They would just claim that they didn't
order the books themselves, the evidence would back them up, and they probably
wouldn't even be prosecuted.

~~~
jrockway
Or maybe they'd just take the plea agreement, because they actually do have a
few comic books on their bookshelf.

~~~
philh
Plea bargaining is one stage of prosecution, intended to avoid a trial. If
they don't get prosecuted (for example because there's no evidence that they
ordered the books), there's no plea bargaining.

Plea bargains are not unique to manga-related crimes. If your claim was
accurate, it would be easy to get someone locked away for _any_ crime just by
planting weak evidence against them.

------
gnosis
_"Handley was the nation’s first to be convicted under that law for possessing
cartoon art, without any evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine
child pornography."_

Mike Diana was first to receive a conviction for publishing, distributing, and
advertising "obscene" comics (in 1996). See:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_diana>

And Diana's website to see the comics he was jailed for:

<http://www.mikedianacomix.com/mikediana/mikediana.html>

------
cousin_it
The whole article was pretty horrifying, but this sentence in particular stood
out for me:

 _The high court ruled that the ban was too broad, and could cover legitimate
speech, including Hollywood productions._

So Hollywood's business interests matter and regular people don't?

------
fauigerzigerk
It seems the legal system as well as our society as a whole is pretty
schizophrenic about that relationship between fantasy and reality.

Do we believe that representations of violent fantasies generally cause crime?
And secondly, if something does indeed cause a tiny group of people to commit
a crime is that a good enough reason to prevent everybody from using it?

Depending on the answers the consequences of applying it consistently are very
far reaching.

Clearly, if comic books depicting child porn are prohibited, any depiction of
rape and murder for entertainment purposes must be prohibited as well. That
includes mainstream movies, TV programs and video games.

I suspect the real purpose of laws like the one applied here is not preventing
crime or protecting anyone.

So the meta question is whether laws should be consistent and effective at
preventing crime, or whether it is sufficient if they allow some kind of
collective emotional identification.

I'm concerned that if we put up with the latter the law will become a mere
pretence for mob rule, which is easily exploited by fanatics and populists.

~~~
jrockway
_Clearly, if comic books depicting child porn are prohibited, any depiction of
rape and murder for entertainment purposes must be prohibited as well. That
includes mainstream movies, TV programs and video games._

It is interesting how many arbitrary lines this creates. Soldiers killing the
enemy would be legal to depict, but the enemy soldiers killing us would be
illegal. Depicting someone having sex at 23:59:59 on the day before her 18th
(or whatever) birthday would be a crime, whereas at 24:00:00 it would be
legal.

Extending this to cartoons is even more arbitrary. How do you know which side
is the good guys (where killing is legal) and which side is the bad guys
(where killing is a crime)? How do you know the age of someone being depicted?
(I've seen 14-year-old girls that could pass as 25, and 25-year-old girls that
could pass as 14. If you depict someone who is 25 but looks 14, is that a
crime? If you depict someone who is 14 but looks 25, is that a crime?)

All I can come up with is that any fantasy should always be permitted,
unconditionally.

------
metamemetics
wire article from 2009 with more details:
<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/>

''' Chase says he recommended the plea agreement (.pdf) to his client because
he didn’t think he could convince a jury to acquit him once they’d seen the
images in question. The lawyer declined to describe the details. “If they can
imagine it, they drew it,” he says. “Use your imagination. It was there.” '''

moral of the story: GET A BETTER LAWYER

~~~
jrockway
I don't think the jury should even matter. They determine the facts of the
case, not the law. The fact is, he has what the law disallows. But the reality
is, the law is totally illegal.

I would be shocked if he didn't win his first appeal.

(Some other details seem shady. Is receiving books in the mail grounds for the
warrant used to search his house? Were the obscene pictures in "plain view"?
If this is what I can think of, having never studied law, you'd think
someone's whose job it is to think of stuff like this would do better.)

~~~
pmccool
Can he appeal, having pleaded guilty? Shouldn't the invalidity of the law have
been raised At the trial he elected not to have?

~~~
rglovejoy
IANAL. Having said that, there are a _few_ avenues for appeal. For instance,
if the defendant's lawyer was provably incompetent or did not disclose a
conflict of interest against his client. Or if the prosecution withheld
evidence that would have prevented the defendant from taking the plea.

In most jurisdictions, the defendant could also opt for a bench trial, which
would have just the judge and no jury.

------
garply
Does it stop being porn when it's old?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_Wife)

~~~
jrockway
Unrelated, because the girl in that painting is not obviously under 18. No, I
don't think the legal system makes sense here.

~~~
garply
Not unrelated, Wired implies that part of the problem with the manga was that
they depicted bestiality. Although it seems that he wasn't convicted for the
bestiality part?

I don't totally understand the law - maybe the bestiality helped further
classify it as 'obscene'?

~~~
Confusion
He wasn't convicted at all: he pleaded guilty.

@metamemetics: OK, but you get my point :). Does anyone have a suggestion for
a succinct way to say what I meant to say?

~~~
metamemetics
convicted=found guilty and punishment decided. He was convicted. Pleading
guilty is how the majority of people are convicted.

------
Methos
That sounds absurd. What about South Park creators? Shouldn't they be jailed
by same laws?

------
jongraehl
“I’d say the anime community’s reaction to this, since day one, has been
almost exclusively one of support for Handley and disgust with the U.S. courts
and legal system,”

I'd say the reaction of any intelligent, decent person would be the same.
Which, I guess, is why his lawyer told him he'd better not face a jury.

------
ghshephard
And yet, somehow 4chan continues on... The irony is overwhelming.

~~~
baby
is it really relevant ?

~~~
radu_floricica
Well, it makes it even more obvious that local standards for obscenity are
meaningless. Also that if you must find a common denominator it should
probably be the most permissible. All things said and done, I very much like
the old principle: "You do not have a right not to be offended".

~~~
jrockway
_"You do not have a right not to be offended"._

Not sure how that even applies here. The books arrived in sealed boxes and
remained in the guy's home, free from public view. Nobody should even know
that the guy has the books, making it even more powerful than "you do not have
a right not to be offended". You do not have a right to open other people's
mail and be offended, because you do not have the right to open other people's
mail!

~~~
radu_floricica
If I read correctly, the package was opened by customs officials. While
slightly annoying, it is their job to open packages from time to time, and it
has its uses.

The problem is it should not fall on me to keep my manga hidden. It's actually
pretty hard to keep something completely out of sight... should he make a
special room locked at all times just because he _may_ have questionable
materials? I'd say "you don't have the right to be offended" is the more
general principle here, and solves the issue much more elegantly then privacy.

