Manga Exempt from New Child Porn Laws in Japan
An article in the Guardian reports that a new law banning the possession of child pornography is being drafted by the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, but that many groups may be mad about it– because it exempts manga and animation. The legislators say they’d like to ban it, but that it’s hard:
“We would like the revised law to cover manga, but it is extremely difficult,” Yuka Saito of Unicef’s Japan office told the Guardian.
“We keep encountering arguments about freedom of expression, but if the US and other countries can ban that kind of material, why does Japan continue to tolerate it?”
However…
Manga belonging to the popular “lolicon” - Japanese slang for Lolita complex - genre are likely to escape the ban, as MPs are concerned that outlawing them could infringe on freedom of expression and drive men who use them as an outlet for their sexual urges to commit more serious offences.
I’m inclined to agree with this assessment. A rant follows regarding America’s drawn child pornography laws which I’ve probably written up before…
For the record, Bush’s Amber Alert laws (aka The Protect Act of 2003) do include a provision that owning virtual/hand-drawn depictions of minors engaging in sexual acts are illegal (Sec. 504). However, this law has not been tested in the Supreme Court and I doubt anyone will try to push for that with the current court, though the court has struck down such laws when tested previously.
That said– and I apologize if I’ve gone through this before –I’m of the opinion that if it did go to the Supreme Court and the court did its job properly by looking at previous decisions, they would have to find the law unconstitutional. Regardless of your own opinions of pedo manga, the reason why live-action child pornography is illegal is because its creation by default involves the sexual abuse of minors.
No actual abuse occurs in the creation of hand-drawn child pornography, and no definitive link between such drawings and then going out and actually abusing children has been determined by any study I know of. The courts have said many times: you can’t ban something because of the thoughts it might lead people to have. If there’s no provable causative link between the drawings, the thoughts, and actual molestation or abuse, then the drawings cannot and should not be banned– it would set a dangerous precedent in terms of freedom of speech (if the drawings are banned, why not drawings of ANY rape? Or of violence? Or of theft? What happens to art?).
Unfortunately, coming out against laws that would ban drawings of child porn tends to make politicians look like they’re not in favor of protecting kids. Yipe.
Tags: eromanga, lolicon, politics
March 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I’ll agree with the argument that if it is all banned, some may be more inclined to commit more serious offenses in order to satisfy their urges. Sure you can have discipline to resist your desires, but it has to give out at some point.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
>coming out against laws that would ban drawings of child porn tends to make politicians look like they’re not in favor of protecting kids.
That’s the reason for the Supreme Court. They serve for life, so they don’t have to worry about making “unpopular” decisions. Brown v. Board of Education (which desegregated public schools) was HELLA unpopular in its time.
Though I’m really worried about the possibility of McCain appointing more deeply conservative Supreme Justices. The court is at a rather precarious place right now.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
@Anon: That’s exactly why I suggested that no one’s willing to try it against the current court, and why I expressed concern that the court could remain fully unbiased politically-speaking should it come up. But you’re absolutely right, if this law came to the Supreme Court and the court did its job properly, it would have to find the law unconstitutional. But that doesn’t mean they actually *would*…