Freedom of speech protects illegal subject matter in anime?

[ConservativeChristian]

Hello all! As an American who always votes straight ticket republican, I consider myself both a constitutionalist and a Christian conservative. However, I must admit that I am a closeted fan of anime/manga media that often indoctrinates values counter to my beliefs of what God and Jesus Christ would deem acceptable. I am trying to reconcile this with my staunch defense of the First Amendment that protects freedom of expression.

I would like to know the community’s opinion here on whether they think fictional depictions of child-like characters in a sexual context should be legal (often described as “ecchi” or even full-blown “hentai”)

 

[Dave L]

I think it comes down to the golden rule. Would you want someone depicting you as a member of a segment of society, in a sinful and derogatory manner?

Racists cartoons? Child exploitation? etc?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The concept does not please me at all. And I worry that it could possibly lead to escalation by those that have a tendency to watch child inappropriate content. If they begin on cartoons would they eventually move on to the real thing which clearly is illegal and immoral. The problem is that it may be argued as a free speech issue. I see that @Dave L compared them to racist cartoons which I also agree are wrong. The problem is that racist cartoons are legal. They cannot be banned due to free speech issues. Using that as an example if one wants ban such cartoons tends to refute one's own arguments.

I am far from being a legal expert in this but it looks like this is legal, at least in some states in the U.S., California for example does not seem to have a ban on this:

Can You Be Charged with Child inappropriate contentography for Looking at Animation? | Law Offices of Seth P. Chazin

In Britain it does appear to be illegal since they have a law banning images where in the U.S. there has to be an actual victim. Personally I would like to see it to be illegal but that may not be possible here.

 

[Dave L]

The concept does not please me at all. And I worry that it could possibly lead to escalation by those that have a tendency to watch child inappropriate content. If they begin on cartoons would they eventually move on to the real thing which clearly is illegal and immoral. The problem is that it may be argued as a free speech issue. I see that @Dave L compared them to racist cartoons which I also agree are wrong. The problem is that racist cartoons are legal. They cannot be banned due to free speech issues. Using that as an example if one wants ban such cartoons tends to refute one's own arguments.

I am far from being a legal expert in this but it looks like this is legal, at least in some states in the U.S., California for example does not seem to have a ban on this:

Can You Be Charged with Child inappropriate contentography for Looking at Animation? | Law Offices of Seth P. Chazin

In Britain it does appear to be illegal since they have a law banning images where in the U.S. there has to be an actual victim. Personally I would like to see it to be illegal but that may not be possible here.

My issue is violating the golden rule by those viewing such. Not comparing racist cartoons to child exploitation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My issue is violating the golden rule by those viewing such. Not comparing racist cartoons to child exploitation.

I was only talking about the legal implications I think that we both agree that we don't want either of those to exist. But one cannot ban racists cartoons and one may not be able to ban sexual anime with children. Perhaps a student of the law could clarify this issue.

 

[muichimotsu]

First question coming to my mind is what constitutes a sexual situation: just because there's a situation that's accidental and someone's nude or partially such doesn't necessarily make it sexual because naked /=/ sexual automatically. One's personal interpretation doesn't mean the law would consider that in a situation of a rational neutral observer

Also, there's the notion of whether it makes sense within context of the story itself, exegetically speaking, versus one self-inserting oneself as the protagonist in the 'lucky pervert" situation, more eisegetically. The latter cannot be argued strictly to be the author's intention, while what happens in the story itself is more directly their decision and vision.

If there are no people being put in danger by the picture itself and bad people may act because of it for whatever reason does not mean the artist is culpable anymore than a writer not encouraging violence can be held accountable if someone interprets them as suggesting such and doing so.

A lot of the difference is Japanese standards under the law: they technically cannot show lower nudity in pretty much any context, but upper nudity is fair game barring a specifically child-centered demographic. In the magazines, there's censorship for that reason, but volumes are uncensored and they do involve characters that are underage by American standards, but not by Japanese, 15 seemingly a cut off age for female characters (and in some cases, their body may not match that, which is an appeal in itself for some, an 18 year old appearing to be closer to 10 technically not breaking any laws even by American standards)

Your personal objection doesn't mean much when it's more preferential and not a consideration that considers the public good within the work's interaction with society at large. There could be pedophiles or such that find it appealing, but their acting on it or not isn't the author's responsibility anymore than racist people agreeing with and acting in turn from racist cartoons.

 

[Petros2015]

There could be pedophiles or such that find it appealing, but their acting on it or not isn't the author's responsibility anymore than racist people agreeing with and acting in turn from racist cartoons.

While this may be true from a legal or perhaps constitutional standpoint, I don't feel like it is true from a spiritual standpoint.

(from the Buddhist Dhammapada)

15. The evil-doer mourns in this world, and he mourns in the next; he mourns in both. He mourns and suffers when he sees the evil of his own work.
16. The virtuous man delights in this world, and he delights in the next; he delights in both. He delights and rejoices, when he sees the purity of his own work.
17. The evil-doer suffers in this world, and he suffers in the next; he suffers in both. He suffers when he thinks of the evil he has done; he suffers more when going on the evil path.
18. The virtuous man is happy in this world, and he is happy in the next; he is happy in both. He is happy when he thinks of the good he has done; he is still more happy when going on the good path.

Sexual addictions tend to be progressive, escalating and hidden, and animation makes a perfect 'gateway' into this by it's idealized nature and the fact that it is 'just a cartoon' which I feel like bypasses some normal defenses mechanisms that would otherwise be present on the conscious level. Rape is a prevalent theme in hentai which is where it eventually arrives if allowed unchecked and unmoderated. It is a very very bad and dangerous idea to nuture and tie the sexual impulses to those images. Thoughts are premeditation for action. Not every thought is acted upon, true, but some will eventually find (or put) themselves in a position to do so, or be in an inebriated state where whatever is normally present of their inhibitions is offline. And then what?

Then the person they are with is not as safe as they thought they were. And if that person is a child, the consequences can be truly horrific (I have spoken with a victim before, who told me her story).
So, my vote is no. Unmoderated or unregulated, it is too dangerous for others.

1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. ~Buddha

Proverbs 4:23 Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.

 

[muichimotsu]

Doesn't really address the author's responsibility here: never claimed people don't have to be considerate and controlled in their own actions on things, but an author making something that could be interpreted as such by a reader is not the same thing as directly encouraging them to do so.