Dont' bring manga into Canada

[Barrister]

The law in Canada is complex, and not entirely satisfactory - but as I said there are no easy answers to this stuff.

I guess I find the arbitrariness of it concerning.  All they need to do to turn you, Barrister Boy, into a paedophile criminal is declare some piece of Media you have, such as a set of GRRM books, child pornography.  I would never think sitting alone and writing stories for your own private use to be a crime.  I mean laws like that could be used to destroy completely innocent people if you interpret them broadly enough.  I guess you just have to trust on good people to make sure bad laws do not turn into tyranny.

I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

A certain basic faith in the system is what separates Canada and the US from being Greece or Pakistan.

[Barrister]

The argument?  It can be used to ban all of those things.  And remember once upon a time, such material woul have been banned.

But makign an argument is not the same as winning an argument.

For the movies nothing is shown that would qualify as 'explicit sexual activity'.  For GoT the dominant purpose of the books is not child sex.  And there's a defence of artistic merit for all of them.

I would argue that Manga's dominant purpose is not child sex, yet, it gets banned.

As a visual representation, you probably don't get involved in the "dominant purpose" question - it is whether or not it depicts people under 18 being engaged in "explicit sexual activity".

Plus artistic merit defense.

[Valmy]

I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

Well we are supposed to assume that and try to write good laws instead of relying on good people because if all men were angels we would not need laws or government to begin with.  At least that is supposed to be the American tradition.  So naturally laws that require the judicial system to be wise make me nervous.

Also bear in mind I live in a part of the country where the legal system was systematically corrupted to destroy the lives of minorities for a hundred years and judges are elected hacks who cannot help but make rulings to impress the electorate.  Got to be tough on crime and drugs dontcha know?

[Viking]

The article doesn't specify Hentai, is says Manga. Tentacle sex with schoolgirls is found in non-Hentai Manga.

Regardless of the artistic merit of Manga, Soap Operas, Bodicerippers etc.etc. It's not up to the public at large (or the jury pool) to decide, it is a right of the consumer.

[Barrister]

I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

Well we are supposed to assume that and try to write good laws instead of relying on good people because if all men were angels we would not need laws or government to begin with.  At least that is supposed to be the American tradition.

And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them?

By the way, here is the law in question: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html

[Valmy]

And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them?

Because they sound arbitrary, complex, and unclear.

Besides dude you yourself said they were complex and unsatisfactory.  Does 'complex and unsatisfactory' mean good?

[Viking]

As a visual representation, you probably don't get involved in the "dominant purpose" question - it is whether or not it depicts people under 18 being engaged in "explicit sexual activity".

Plus artistic merit defense.

Does canadian law distinguish between visual and non-visual media? Can a sentiment expressed in image form be proscribed while the same sentiment expressed in text does not? That sort of defeats the purpose of prohibiting that attitude. I don't see how you can maintain the argument. Text is ok because it is free speech yet drawings are bad because they encourage the attitude that sex with children is ok. As far as I can tell both drawings and text do exactly the same direct harm to children, the only difference is with the text the images are in the head while with the images the context is in the head.

[Barrister]

And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them?

Because they sound arbitrary, complex, and unclear.

Besides dude you yourself said they were complex and unsatisfactory.  Does 'complex and unsatisfactory' mean good?

Some areas are not really amenable to simple and clear laws though.

In this area you will wind up making only a very small amount of material illegal (and making it very easy to circumvent), or you will wind up criminalizing a huge amount of material.  Neither sounds very satisfactory to me.  So instead we go with the "we'll know it when we see it" approach.  It's not perfect, but's the best we can do.

[Valmy]

Also being a sex criminal in Texas basically ruins your life.  You will never have a good job or be able to live in peace again even after you get out of prison.  Having that sword hanging over your head for not actually being sexual with any living person is pretty terrifying.

But then perhaps in Canada the penalties are less draconian.

[jimmy olsen]

The article doesn't specify Hentai, is says Manga. Tentacle sex with schoolgirls is found in non-Hentai Manga.

Regardless of the artistic merit of Manga, Soap Operas, Bodicerippers etc.etc. It's not up to the public at large (or the jury pool) to decide, it is a right of the consumer.

If it's got tentacle sex it's hentai and a small subset of it at that.

Rereading the article, it doesn't specify that the manga was hentai, but I can't imagine the custom officer would arrest someone over something mainstream like Dragonball or Naruto or whatever. If they did the case will get thrown out. If it was hentai he'll get convicted.

[Viking]

I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

Well we are supposed to assume that and try to write good laws instead of relying on good people because if all men were angels we would not need laws or government to begin with.  At least that is supposed to be the American tradition.

And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them?

By the way, here is the law in question: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html

A few questions

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

This is a bit unclear to me, "photographic" is an adjective, yet, it is followed by a comma. The questions is really to my mind at least is if the law covers drawings at all. The definition suggests to me that it only includes still and moving images acquired using means including digital still or video cameras and analog still or video cameras.

(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

The law seems to suggest that a defense under this law is to say that no children were harmed. So, what are the definitions of "undue", "risk" and "harm"? No children were harmed or abused in the making of manga, that seems to be a sufficient defense.

[Barrister]

As a visual representation, you probably don't get involved in the "dominant purpose" question - it is whether or not it depicts people under 18 being engaged in "explicit sexual activity".

Plus artistic merit defense.

Does canadian law distinguish between visual and non-visual media? Can a sentiment expressed in image form be proscribed while the same sentiment expressed in text does not? That sort of defeats the purpose of prohibiting that attitude. I don't see how you can maintain the argument. Text is ok because it is free speech yet drawings are bad because they encourage the attitude that sex with children is ok. As far as I can tell both drawings and text do exactly the same direct harm to children, the only difference is with the text the images are in the head while with the images the context is in the head.

Yes.  Canadian law distinguishes between visual and non-visual media (it also distinguishes audio recordings).

I don't see how recognizing that different media are, well, different, will "defeat the purpose" of any prohibition.  A single image of explicit sexual activity with a child is enormously powerful - a power a single sentence of text can not match.  You really might say "a picture is worth a thousand words" in this case.

[Barrister]

Also being a sex criminal in Texas basically ruins your life.  You will never have a good job or be able to live in peace again even after you get out of prison.  Having that sword hanging over your head for not actually being sexual with any living person is pretty terrifying.

But then perhaps in Canada the penalties are less draconian.

Penalties are certainly less draconian in Canada, but a conviction for child porn on your record is still going to fuck your life up pretty good.

[Barrister]

I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

Well we are supposed to assume that and try to write good laws instead of relying on good people because if all men were angels we would not need laws or government to begin with.  At least that is supposed to be the American tradition.

And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them?

By the way, here is the law in question: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html

A few questions

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

This is a bit unclear to me, "photographic" is an adjective, yet, it is followed by a comma. The questions is really to my mind at least is if the law covers drawings at all. The definition suggests to me that it only includes still and moving images acquired using means including digital still or video cameras and analog still or video cameras.

(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

The law seems to suggest that a defense under this law is to say that no children were harmed. So, what are the definitions of "undue", "risk" and "harm"? No children were harmed or abused in the making of manga, that seems to be a sufficient defense.

First question - a "visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means" certainly covers drawings and paintings to me.

Second question - you missed the word "and".  In order to qualify as a defence there must be both a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, art, etc. AND not pose an undue risk of harm.

[Viking]

As a visual representation, you probably don't get involved in the "dominant purpose" question - it is whether or not it depicts people under 18 being engaged in "explicit sexual activity".

Plus artistic merit defense.

Does canadian law distinguish between visual and non-visual media? Can a sentiment expressed in image form be proscribed while the same sentiment expressed in text does not? That sort of defeats the purpose of prohibiting that attitude. I don't see how you can maintain the argument. Text is ok because it is free speech yet drawings are bad because they encourage the attitude that sex with children is ok. As far as I can tell both drawings and text do exactly the same direct harm to children, the only difference is with the text the images are in the head while with the images the context is in the head.

Yes.  Canadian law distinguishes between visual and non-visual media (it also distinguishes audio recordings).

I don't see how recognizing that different media are, well, different, will "defeat the purpose" of any prohibition.  A single image of explicit sexual activity with a child is enormously powerful - a power a single sentence of text can not match.  You really might say "a picture is worth a thousand words" in this case.

So, the practice in canadian law is to regard anything that turns paedos on as child pornography as long as it isn't text. Is that correct?