Dont' bring manga into Canada

[ulmont]

However, he pled guilty.  It would've been more interesting to see what would have happened had he fought it.

More interesting for us.  Quite possibly much less interesting - or more interesting in all the wrong ways - for Christopher S. Handley.

Also, from the plea agreement (factual stipulations at the end), I don't think Mr. Handley would have been a sympathetic defendant:

In May 2006, customs officials intercepted a mailed package from Japan addressed to the defendant at 1004 Timber Lane, Glenwood, lA that contained approximately seven books of Japanese manga, specifically cartoon drawings ofminors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Each book contains obscene images, with one book containing images of bestiality, including images of sex between a male pig and a minor human female, and images of a minor human female engaging in oral and genital intercourse with a male dog.

[Barrister]

Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   

So wait - you're taking the wiki page that I linked to, and saying that refutes a 100page plus SCC decision?

You are free to disagree with Parliamentary and SCC decisions.  But such decisions are entitled to deference, and if you're willing to say the SCC is out to lunch you'd better have a pretty good reason for doing so.

[Ideologue]

However, he pled guilty.  It would've been more interesting to see what would have happened had he fought it.

More interesting for us.  Quite possibly much less interesting - or more interesting in all the wrong ways - for Christopher S. Handley.

Also, from the plea agreement (factual stipulations at the end), I don't think Mr. Handley would have been a sympathetic defendant:

In May 2006, customs officials intercepted a mailed package from Japan addressed to the defendant at 1004 Timber Lane, Glenwood, lA that contained approximately seven books of Japanese manga, specifically cartoon drawings ofminors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Each book contains obscene images, with one book containing images of bestiality, including images of sex between a male pig and a minor human female, and images of a minor human female engaging in oral and genital intercourse with a male dog.

Oh, I can agree to all that.  Instead of "interesting," perhaps I ought to have said "conclusive."  Some really cursory research indicates that Protect Act virtual child porn cases haven't rised beyond a circuit court of appeals panel.

I don't want to generalize, but the last panel decision I read was an utter piece of shit, as far as legal reasoning went.  (Coyote Publ., Inc., v. Miller, 9th Circuit, another free speech case, although here it was commercial speech, specifically the advertising of lawful brothels, that was being restrained.  Did a paper on how bad the decision was--the law governing commercial speech in cases like this is so clear cut the district decision striking the law, that the panel reversed, was nigh-on summary.  Got an A, so I guess my opinion was at least well-argued.)

[Drakken]

I'd better not.  Thought crime is death these days.

Another reason not to have laws like this is the chilling effect on acceptable speech.  I'm reasonably confident that the Claudius duology does not comprise a pornographic text, but there's a lot of prurient interest material in there.  The BBC show even moreso, insofar as the actress portraying Messalina is mad hot.  The point is that the BBC series was essential for a well-read teenager who also didn't have regular access to pornography.  Incidentally, the character Messalina?  Conceivably under 18.  But, anyway, more importantly, Tiberius.

What if some jackass decides Robert Graves was peddling kiddie smut?  More importantly, what if the next Robert Graves says, "Fuck, I'd better not put in the part where Tiberius sodomizes children."

I'm fairly certain "I, Claudivs" would be exempted due to both artistic license, depiction of history, and the fact that it can't be reasonably be deemed pornographic, because it's not the main sense of the story to depict sex in a prurient and explicit manner. So would be "Lolita" as well. As much as I loathe R. vs. Sharpe for its gross and wide-opened limitation of free speech when no one is harmed but the piece of paper, somewhere we must trust that the judges would use common sense.  Academics and free speech activists would be up in arms for these, anyway, and there would be pressure on Parliament to vote a "screw you SCC" bill on the matter. But for the scribblings of a pedophile drawing kids being sodomized, either distributed or for used for private consumption, not so much.

They did ban Caligula in 1979, at least in English Canada, as it was considered obscene. In Quebec it was allowed for mature audiences only, as Quebec has its own cinematographic watchdog office.

[Camerus]

Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   

So wait - you're taking the wiki page that I linked to, and saying that refutes a 100page plus SCC decision?

You are free to disagree with Parliamentary and SCC decisions.  But such decisions are entitled to deference, and if you're willing to say the SCC is out to lunch you'd better have a pretty good reason for doing so.

No, I am saying show me a rational reason why this law makes sense / conclusive evidence that supports the gateway theory - and preferably something other than "because the courts say so."

[Barrister]

Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   

So wait - you're taking the wiki page that I linked to, and saying that refutes a 100page plus SCC decision?

You are free to disagree with Parliamentary and SCC decisions.  But such decisions are entitled to deference, and if you're willing to say the SCC is out to lunch you'd better have a pretty good reason for doing so.

No, I am saying show me a rational reason why this law makes sense / conclusive evidence that supports the gateway theory - and preferably something other than "because the courts say so."

Parliaments law making power has never depended on "conclusive evidence".

There is strong but not conclusive evidence that child porn leads to child sexual abuse.  That's good enough for me.

[Camerus]

Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   

So wait - you're taking the wiki page that I linked to, and saying that refutes a 100page plus SCC decision?

You are free to disagree with Parliamentary and SCC decisions.  But such decisions are entitled to deference, and if you're willing to say the SCC is out to lunch you'd better have a pretty good reason for doing so.

No, I am saying show me a rational reason why this law makes sense / conclusive evidence that supports the gateway theory - and preferably something other than "because the courts say so."

Parliaments law making power has never depended on "conclusive evidence".

There is strong but not conclusive evidence that child porn leads to child sexual abuse.  That's good enough for me.

Fair enough, although I will point out before concluding this debate that, in spite of the blanket label you just used, in fact it is prosecution for possessing drawings and texts that don't involve real people that's at issue here.  Obviously the real thing needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

So I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.   

[Martinus]

Parliaments law making power has never depended on "conclusive evidence".

Err. What the hell is that supposed to mean? We are discussing the rationale behind passing such law, and whether this is sufficiently reasonable. If your justification for the law being passed is that it has been passed, then I fail to see why you even participate in this thread.

Seriously, it's almost amusing to see you staying in your little box on this issue and apparently being unable to move outside it. You are probably wondering why everyone else does not see the wisdom of your words, either. 

There is strong but not conclusive evidence that child porn leads to child sexual abuse.

Show us that evidence. (But please link to actual study conclusions, not a court decision where the court says there is such evidence by using an argument by assertion).

[Ideologue]

Question to practicing lawyers: does the $150k legal defense figure the CBLDF is throwing around seem high to you? Actual question, don't have the experience to judge.

[The Brain]

There is strong but not conclusive evidence that child porn leads to child sexual abuse.  That's good enough for me.

Do these studies see a difference in this regard between real child porn and child porn cartoons?

[Martinus]

Question to practicing lawyers: does the $150k legal defense figure the CBLDF is throwing around seem high to you? Actual question, don't have the experience to judge.

It depends whether this assumes only one instance or full appellate process, and whether it includes costs of experts or just litigators. Probably quite excessive if this was just one instance and only the lawyers' fees (unless they went to like the most expensive lawfirms, in which case I wonder why they would).

Btw, are such costs sunk in Canada or can they be recovered from the Crown assuming the defendant is acquitted?

[Martinus]

Btw, I'm deeply opposed to "prosecution bargain" deals, i.e. situations where the defendant pleads guilty to a smaller crime or gets charged with a more serious crime. Something like this would be illegal in Poland, and this really questions the entire role prosecution plays in the criminal trial (i.e. that it should aim at serving justice and establishing the truth, not just "scoring points").

[The Brain]

Obviously many people who use BDSM cartoons fantasize about being the victim in the activities portrayed. My impression is that these people are less likely to become real life rapists/torturers than the people who fantasize about being the perpetrator. How many of those who use child porn cartoons fantasize about being the child? I don't know.

I know that BDSM cartoons don't lead to rape/torture. I find it unlikely that child porn cartoons are that much different.

[Slargos]

Is there something you want to tell us, Brain?

[Yeah, I'm implying Brain is so enthusiastic over BDSM because he is himself a pervert]

[garbon]

Btw, I'm deeply opposed to "prosecution bargain" deals, i.e. situations where the defendant pleads guilty to a smaller crime or gets charged with a more serious crime. Something like this would be illegal in Poland, and this really questions the entire role prosecution plays in the criminal trial (i.e. that it should aim at serving justice and establishing the truth, not just "scoring points").

Sometimes it is the best way to get justice.