(Post a new comment)

	deadwood 2009-05-28 08:01 am UTC (link)
	I saw this yesterday and thought about posting it here. To be honest, I do not like loli- or shotacon. It's just not my thing. However, I think they went a little too far with his conviction. Fifteen years for a victimless crime? Really? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	t_boy 2009-05-28 08:05 am UTC (link)
	That's what bugs me. Why did he plead guilty? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zellieh 2009-05-28 09:18 am UTC (link)
	I don't like lolicon either, but I think this guy's lawyer let him down badly when he advised him to plead guilty. The lawyer might not have been able to defend it on moral grounds, because I'm sure at least some of the art would be offensive to many jurors, but surely this case is entirely defensible under freedom of speech? sigh (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	EEP WRONG ICON. t_boy 2009-05-28 09:20 am UTC (link)
	It feels like Free Speech 101; I mean, with free civics lesson! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: EEP WRONG ICON. zellieh 2009-05-28 11:31 am UTC (link)
	Yeah! I mean, I get it, and I'm British! mind boggles (Reply to this)(Parent)

	pyratejenni 2009-05-28 02:36 pm UTC (link)
	Apparently the lawyer didn't think it would pass the "has artistic merit" benchmark, judging by this quote: The lawyer declined to describe the details. “If they can imagine it, they drew it,” he says. “Use your imagination. It was there.” Given some of the lolicon manga out there, the lawyer was making the best call for his client. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kuromitsu 2009-05-29 12:47 pm UTC (link)
	It's been a while since I studied this, but isn't child pornography (virtual or not) one of the things not protected by "free speech"? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

zellieh
2009-05-29 01:30 pm UTC (link)

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're right. I think I remember hearing something about that...

But I also think that it would have been helpful generally if the lawyer and his client had argued their case, and forced the prosecution to prove their case. I mean, this guy could be facing years in jail and being put on the sex offender's register - for buying books. I dunno; it just seems like overkill to me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kuromitsu
2009-05-29 02:21 pm UTC (link)

Oh, sure, it is overkill, I'm not arguing that. But from what I know about the case, I think the lawyer just did what he thought was best for the client. I mean, the case doesn't fall under free speech, he can't defend it on moral grounds, he can't say "but it's only books!" since the content of the books clearly violates the Protection Act (I suppose he judged that there was no artistic merit to the manga). He could only say "ffs people, these are only drawings!" but that wouldn't really accomplish anything, especially since they're drawings that apparently most people out there find very offensive.

I understand that people feel let down that the defense didn't fight harder, especially with all the effort and money CBLDF put into the case, but honestly, based on the info I have, I think this was the best decision. There was no way they could win, and while they could've turned it into a flagship case, sort of like the Lexicon case was for Stanford, that definitely wouldn't have served the client's best interests.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	kuromitsu 2009-05-29 12:22 pm UTC (link)
	Actually, it's up to fifteen years - I'm quite sure he won't get it, especially after pleading guilty and cooperating with the authorities. (Not that even one year wouldn't be ridiculous.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	darksumomo 2009-05-28 03:25 pm UTC (link)
	Brad Hicks just posted an "I told you so" rant on this case to his LJ. (Reply to this)

	solesakuma 2009-05-28 06:57 pm UTC (link)
	... I know, I know, free speech but why would you get it by mail? And addressed to your real name and all. I mean, is anybody surprised this happened? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	lady_ganesh 2009-05-28 07:20 pm UTC (link)
	Depressed, but not surprised. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kuromitsu 2009-05-29 12:17 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, this. I mean, I'm very sorry if he's imprisoned over this but for chrissakes. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	solesakuma 2009-05-29 04:58 pm UTC (link)
	That's what the Internet is for, damn it. It may not be totally possible to stay anoynymous but it's easier than PUTTING YOUR NAME ON IT. (Reply to this)(Parent)

kuromitsu
2009-05-29 12:34 pm UTC (link)

ANN writes:
"According to the press release, Handley's original package from Japan contained 'obscene material, including books containing visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, specifically Japanese manga drawings of minor females being sexually abused by adult males and animals.'"

...yeah. As I said above, I'm sorry for the guy if he gets a prison sentence, but for chrissakes, how the hell did it occur to him to import such things? Even if he wasn't aware of the Protect Act, did he really think there was no way he could get into trouble over something like this? (Of course he probably didn't think about it at all...)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	pyratejenni 2009-05-29 05:26 pm UTC (link)
	As the saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. And if he's into manga that heavily, he should have been aware. It's not like this issue hasn't been talked about. (Reply to this)(Parent)