Sankaku Complex Forums » Anime

101. 

     sifian
     

     Fonzer said:
     Also isn't it strange how the border post office checked his content and if they thought it was illegal and he could be prosecuted for it

     I think that it was actually the local postmaster that inspected the package. It probably went right on through customs without being checked. I know Saha was mentioning that he had a package that was held up by Canadian customs, and they just removed the one lolicon manga and sent the rest of the package undisturbed... so while Canada might have less aggressive freedom of speech, they also have less aggressive prosecutors of general dumbassness.

     Posted 5 years ago #
102. 

     Fonzer
     

     Also he wasn't jailed for possessing obscene material, simple possession of obscene material is not a crime. He was arrested because he transported obscene materials between states, which is illegal. Technically speaking, according to the Miller Test, all porn is obscene, but it is perfectly legal to view porn. Technically transporting porn over states is illegal.

     More comments to this comment,just interested if that is the only thing.

     Posted 5 years ago #
103. 

     GTR
     

     Fonzer said:
     Also isn't it strange how the border post office checked his content and if they thought it was illegal and he could be prosecuted for it.Then why did they send him this package,they could have protected him by not sending it to him and warn him that this stuff is maybe illegal to own.This sounds like something they just wanted to demonize the man for.

     I read the Statement of Facts (PDF) last week and ICE customs intercepted his package in Chicago.

     Posted 5 years ago #
104. 

     Vicious
     

     Rofl. ICE deals with japanese materials now?
     (or did the postmaster call customs but instead it was transferred to ICE)

     either way something tells me thats substandard organization has a pretty nice collection of rare hentai in their "personal" storage xD

     Posted 5 years ago #
105. 

     otto117
     

     Fonzer said:
     Also he wasn't jailed for possessing obscene material, simple possession of obscene material is not a crime. He was arrested because he transported obscene materials between states, which is illegal. Technically speaking, according to the Miller Test, all porn is obscene, but it is perfectly legal to view porn. Technically transporting porn over states is illegal.

     Not quite. The Miller Test doesn't make all porn obscene, just porn which lacks serious artistic, literary or political value and which offends local community standards. (The vast majority of lolicon is obscene under this test.) The law criminalizes all movement of obscene materials in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer.

     Possession of obscenity is indeed not a crime following the Supreme Court decision in Stanley v. Georgia (1969). But possession was ruled protected under the 4th Amendment (regarding unreasonably searches and seizures) rather than the 1st Amendment.

     Posted 5 years ago #
106. 

     otto117
     

     The Antiweeaboo said:Being able to jerk off to little girls is not progress, its just sick.

     Anti-pedo is the new hetero.

     Posted 5 years ago #
107. 

     sifian
     

     Fonzer said:
     Technically speaking, according to the Miller Test, all porn is obscene, but it is perfectly legal to view porn.

     Actually it's not. According to the Miller Test, the community of the defendant need find the material as a whole in order for it to be obscene.

     From wikipedia:
     

     In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test. For instance, in 2000 a jury in Provo, Utah, took only a few minutes to clear Larry Peterman, owner of a Movie Buffs video store, in Utah County, Utah, a region which had often boasted of being one of the most conservative areas in the US. Researchers had shown that guests at the local Marriott Hotel were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view pornographic material, accessing far more material than the store was distributing.

     That means that if one were in a community where a substantial enough percentage of the populace did not consider lolicon manga to be obscene, then it would pass the miller test.

     Posted 5 years ago #
108. 

     olde-skool
     

     Nothing is obscene according US law until it has been convicted in a US court of being obscene; and again, only that particular item(s) that have been convicted in that particular court case. When enough cases of apparently identical material are declared guilty of obscenity, it is designed to produce a "chilling effect" were other producers/retailers back off from supplying that particular community with material of that nature. Obscenity laws are normally punished as major misdemeanors or minor felonies of 3 months to under several years of imprisonment anyways, targeting the seller or producer 99% of the time - virtually never the purchaser (true photographic child abuse porn the exception, following the Feber ruling).

     How come the millions of American men of my Dad's generation are not in prison for subscribing to Hustler magazine with its monthly Chester the Molester cartoons?

     How come the tens of millions of Americans are not in prison who download and share Bart Simpson cartoon porn featuring Maggie & friends over the past decade or two?

     How come the million of Americans and most every adult DVD retailer in America and the Web is not in prison who sell for years DVD's featuring over 18's cosplaying preschoolers, gradeschoolers and middleschoolers having XXX intergenerational sex in the number one selling XXX DVD's in America - This Ain't the Bradys XXX, Marcia, Marcia Marcia XXX, Ain't the Bradys XXX Pussy Power, Not the Cosby Show XXX, Not the Partridge Family XXX, This Ain't Married with Children XXX etc.

     Seems the Internet for the recipient is not interstate commerce.

     Posted 5 years ago #
109. 

     GTR
     

     Vicious said:
     Rofl. ICE deals with japanese materials now?

     yep... the same way they deal with wetbacks and those said wetbacks being used as a mule to transport illegal drugs.

     (or did the postmaster call customs but instead it was transferred to ICE)

     here's from the PDF (pg 1 of this thread)

     II. Statement of Facts.

     On May 12, 2006, Des Moines, Iowa, United States Postal Inspector Troy Raper was contacted by a Chicago, Illinois, Postal Inspector, who informed him that special agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) had intercepted a mail package coming into the United States from Japan addressed to “Chris Handley,” in Glenwood, IA, with a return address of “cosplay café/Tomo Kawa.i.” The package contained seven books depicting the obscene sexual abuse of children lolis[.....]

     Posted 5 years ago #
110. 

     GTR
     

     Fonzer said:
     Also he wasn't jailed for possessing obscene material, simple possession of obscene material is not a crime. He was arrested because he transported obscene materials between states, which is illegal. Technically speaking, according to the Miller Test, all porn is obscene, but it is perfectly legal to view porn. Technically transporting porn over states is illegal.

     word

     Posted 5 years ago #
111. 

     Mika the Banned
     

     GTR said:

     word

     Double Word!

     Anyways so if the material is considered obscene by the community wouldnt it be better to make a community filled with lolicons? That would surely stop that.

     Posted 5 years ago #
112. 

     otto117
     

     Obscenity laws are normally punished as major misdemeanors or minor felonies of 3 months to under several years of imprisonment anyways, targeting the seller or producer 99% of the time - virtually never the purchaser (true photographic child abuse porn the exception, following the Ferber ruling).

     "Normally" doesn't mean the laws don't apply to consumers. In fact, the laws DO apply to consumers and the courts have, in each such case, consistently upheld that application.

     Why isn't everyone prosecuted for receiving obscenity? There are many reasons, among which are the following: the gov't rarely knows when people receive obscene matter, couldn't afford to prosecute everyone even if it did know, and has better things to do (most of the time). You may as well ask why the gov't doesn't arrest every suburban kid who smokes pot at home. You can't arrest and prosecute everyone.

     BTW, Chester the Molester cartoons in Hustler don't apply: taken as a whole, Hustler has rarely been found to be obscene.

     Posted 5 years ago #
113. 

     Mika the Banned
     

     Well thank you sir for stating the obvious. Its more than impossible to arrest many ppl all at once.

     Posted 5 years ago #
114. 

     Ukonkivi
     

     Fonzer said:
     

     Have I ever told y'all how much I love RussiaToday?

     Posted 5 years ago #
115. 

     Fonzer
     

     Ukonkivi said:

     Have I ever told y'all how much I love RussiaToday?

     don't know about that,i just discovered it not long ago,because i was looking for christopher handley,what kind of opinions people have about this.But i must say it's really an awesome news channel,even though i just discovered it.

     Posted 5 years ago #
116. 

     Fonzer
     

     otto117 said:
     

     Obscenity laws are normally punished as major misdemeanors or minor felonies of 3 months to under several years of imprisonment anyways, targeting the seller or producer 99% of the time - virtually never the purchaser (true photographic child abuse porn the exception, following the Ferber ruling).

     "Normally" doesn't mean the laws don't apply to consumers. In fact, the laws DO apply to consumers and the courts have, in each such case, consistently upheld that application.

     Why isn't everyone prosecuted for receiving obscenity? There are many reasons, among which are the following: the gov't rarely knows when people receive obscene matter, couldn't afford to prosecute everyone even if it did know, and has better things to do (most of the time). You may as well ask why the gov't doesn't arrest every suburban kid who smokes pot at home. You can't arrest and prosecute everyone.

     BTW, Chester the Molester cartoons in Hustler don't apply: taken as a whole, Hustler has rarely been found to be obscene.

     well i think those companys pay the goverment taxes to import the stuff and sell it.Plus they agree with what is still acceptable for the right amount of $$$$$ and they can sell it.Don't think that christopher had any company that would support this as being in the legal bassis of agrement for the right amount of $$$$$$,because nobody was interested in it.
     So he got something what was considered to be obscene,got no company to support him that would pay the goverment for this,so they can easily judge him.

     Posted 5 years ago #

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.