Iowa Man Pleads Guilty to Possessing Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual Abu
- Thread starter daredemonai
- Start date
-
Akiba-Online is sponsored by FileJoker.
FileJoker is a required filehost for all new posts and content replies in the Direct Downloads subforums.
Failure to include FileJoker links for Direct Download posts will result in deletion of your posts or worse.
For more information see this thread.
So far, the only news reports have been reprints of the above press release with no additional information. I eagerly await public comments from both Handley's lawyers and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, which has been working on this case from the beginning, and will post them here as soon as they become available.
Official response of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
Here's the official response of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund:
Here's the official response of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund:
Damn, that's one well-written letter. Very concise. It says so much with so few words. I admire the writer. 
If I may be so bold, as to pose a tiny question on this topic.
If he was convicted now, will they release a list of the titles deemed illegal to import or own, possess or buy?
Or are we simply to assume the following statement holds true?
"A book was banned as obscene, for this reason all books are now to be treated as obscene."
Just wondering if the legislators wants the public to GUESS what is the case, if they don't publish the list. And if we (the people) are to be convicted based on assumptions, then the system of justice seems anything but just.
If he was convicted now, will they release a list of the titles deemed illegal to import or own, possess or buy?
Or are we simply to assume the following statement holds true?
"A book was banned as obscene, for this reason all books are now to be treated as obscene."
Just wondering if the legislators wants the public to GUESS what is the case, if they don't publish the list. And if we (the people) are to be convicted based on assumptions, then the system of justice seems anything but just.
Techie, it's too early to answer those questions. Apart from the Department of Justice press release, and the CBLDF press release, all we have are blogger reactions. (BTW, among comics and manga bloggers, both male and female, there is almost universal agreement that the case sets a chilling precedent.)
But I would be very surprised if a list of the materials is ever made public. I'm sure that defense attorneys, as well as Handley himself, had to agree to not comment on the plea as part of the deal, and I doubt the prosecutors or court would be interested in releasing a list.
But I would be very surprised if a list of the materials is ever made public. I'm sure that defense attorneys, as well as Handley himself, had to agree to not comment on the plea as part of the deal, and I doubt the prosecutors or court would be interested in releasing a list.
Sobering and informative legal analysis of the Handley case by Jeff Trexler from Newsarama:
- December 23rd, 2008: Comics, child porn and the law
- May 22nd, 2009: Handley, Comics and Obscenity
- May 22nd, 2009: Three Lessons from the Handley Case
I believe the cases referred to there are quite different.
You cannot compare Whorley, a prior convicted CP (live, not manga) consumer, with Handley I believe. The laws used are the same, though the nature and circumstances of both cases are quite a world apart.
Another thing I don't get, I guess is legaleze, quite different from administrative law and business law, which I had my feet in, the terms
"including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction."
Does it imply, "for which anyone has been convicted previously" or "for what the person him/herself has been convicted of previously".
You cannot compare Whorley, a prior convicted CP (live, not manga) consumer, with Handley I believe. The laws used are the same, though the nature and circumstances of both cases are quite a world apart.
Another thing I don't get, I guess is legaleze, quite different from administrative law and business law, which I had my feet in, the terms
"including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction."
Does it imply, "for which anyone has been convicted previously" or "for what the person him/herself has been convicted of previously".
Yes, which is why neither CBLDF nor anyone else in the comics/manga world supported Whorley.
The latter. In many states in the U.S., repeat offenders can get stiffer sentences, and some states have the notorious "three strikes" law, whereby anyone found guilty of committing felonies (even, for example, simple possession of marijuana) three times automatically gets a life sentence for the third conviction.
I'm glad Gaiman said this. I have several conservative friends who have no sympathy for Handley but who admire Gaiman greatly. +2 to +3 converts, I hope.
Sakunyuusha
Just curious about your previous comment in which you refer to his age…
It is almost as if you are saying that someone goes from art admirer to pedo, depending on the age of the person viewing it. As if there would be some underlying reason why an “older” person would view it, but not why a younger person would view it.
Just curious about your previous comment in which you refer to his age…
It is almost as if you are saying that someone goes from art admirer to pedo, depending on the age of the person viewing it. As if there would be some underlying reason why an “older” person would view it, but not why a younger person would view it.
More excellent (and well-documented) analysis:
http://comipress.com/special/miscellaneous/down-the-slippery-slope-the-crime-of-viewing-manga
http://comipress.com/special/miscellaneous/down-the-slippery-slope-the-crime-of-viewing-manga
Not this again. D: Haven't we already been through this? What did I write in the very post I made that statement in?
Person A: This is going to make me sound like a jerk, but ... your breath really smells.
Person B: A! Dude! What is your problem? Do you realize what a jerk you were just now?
Person A: Actually I--
Person B: I mean, can you BELIEVE how mean-spirited you'd have to be to tell me my breath smells?
Person A: Yes, actually, I do realize. You see, that's why I--
Person B: GOSH! YOU ARE SO THOUGHTLESS!
*Person B leaves the room, slamming the door on his way out*
This is the comedy routine we call life, and you and I aren't too different from these made-up Persons A and B.
========================================
To give you a straight answer: I agree that it's a silly prejudice, but it's still one I have. I understand that if a guy like me can love hentai and have the capacity to zone out all of the loli and other stuff he sees and doesn't like that a man decades older than I am should be able to do it too. I understand that in the rational part of my brain. But instinctively, I don't trust the older hentai fan more than I do the younger one. The younger one (in my instinctive view) is still close enough in age to most of the girls in the hentai, and so maybe sees himself as part of their age group and therefore sees them as acceptable mates; whereas the 55-year old CLEARLY cannot see himself as being part of a teenage group of boys and girls and so if he's reading hentai then the odds are higher that he's a pedo.
Person A: This is going to make me sound like a jerk, but ... your breath really smells.
Person B: A! Dude! What is your problem? Do you realize what a jerk you were just now?
Person A: Actually I--
Person B: I mean, can you BELIEVE how mean-spirited you'd have to be to tell me my breath smells?
Person A: Yes, actually, I do realize. You see, that's why I--
Person B: GOSH! YOU ARE SO THOUGHTLESS!
*Person B leaves the room, slamming the door on his way out*
This is the comedy routine we call life, and you and I aren't too different from these made-up Persons A and B.
========================================
To give you a straight answer: I agree that it's a silly prejudice, but it's still one I have. I understand that if a guy like me can love hentai and have the capacity to zone out all of the loli and other stuff he sees and doesn't like that a man decades older than I am should be able to do it too. I understand that in the rational part of my brain. But instinctively, I don't trust the older hentai fan more than I do the younger one. The younger one (in my instinctive view) is still close enough in age to most of the girls in the hentai, and so maybe sees himself as part of their age group and therefore sees them as acceptable mates; whereas the 55-year old CLEARLY cannot see himself as being part of a teenage group of boys and girls and so if he's reading hentai then the odds are higher that he's a pedo.
Sakunyuusha, you'd be surprised at how little aging changes our basic identity. I'm a forty-something man, but on the inside, I'm still a kid, still a college student, still a young father...still a baby. You'll find out in time. :goodboy: And be careful of speaking in absolutes, as you do in your final sentence. :bingo:
Here's more commentary, or rather a semi-insider's offering of some info that hasn't been made public otherwise, including extended statements by Handley's own mother!
http://matt-thorn.com/wordpress/?p=318
Here's more commentary, or rather a semi-insider's offering of some info that hasn't been made public otherwise, including extended statements by Handley's own mother!
http://matt-thorn.com/wordpress/?p=318
To be honest, I'm not a fan of anime or the likes, but I still think the government is a little over the top on this one. But it seems to me there would be quite an easy way around this... Since we are talking about fictitious characters in a fantasy world... and since the images are left up to the imagination of the artist... couldn't they just say the "underage" character is 412 years old? Or just give them small cat ears and wha-la... not human. It's not like there is some "animation age database" out there or anything. I mean... would the government actually take someone to court and say "No, this character is underage"? I think not.
If so, I'd like the government to tell me how old Scooby Doo is....
If so, I'd like the government to tell me how old Scooby Doo is....
In the end, I don't think calendar age will (or can) matter for fictional characters. If the nations of the world decide to press forth and illegalize certain types of fictional characters having sex, and if included among these are fictional underage characters having sex, I think the laws would assuredly be written to focus on how the fictional characters looks and not on how old the author claims she is.
Etna (Disgaea) is probably the most famous copout I can think of. She looks like a little boy but is allegedly hundreds and hundreds of years old. A lot of delusional fans get it into their minds that this is going to protect her from the long arm of the law. Think again: if anything, Etna is in far more danger as a millenial boy than is Kasumi from the Dead or Alive series, a 17-year old girl who has the body of a smoking hot woman in her mid-20s.
This argument naturally leads us to what's really going on in modern society: a shift from illegalizing actions and attempts to illegalizing ideas and intentions. Let us assume we live in a society where it is widely agreed upon that pedophilia is immoral, i.e. bad. Historically, the crimes associated with pedophilia were actions. Harboring or producing CP. Abducting children for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Stalking children. Et cetera. But all throughout human history we have lived in a world -- indeed, we have existed as a species! -- which judges men based on the values they hold in their hearts. When we learn a man enjoys child pornography, we keep our children close and do not trust his personal oath to never abduct or r*** anybody. It is not enough for most of us that he abstain from pedophilic actions. That he even has pedophilic thoughts upsets us. And so we seek to drive him out. His ideas, we fear, will corrupt and pervert our society. They cannot be allowed. He cannot be allowed.
Ten thousand years of microevolution and the development of human civilizations have not helped us to shed this innate character to our humanity. Ten thousand years later and humans still operate in this manner. "If he likes violent video games, likes to hunt, and can be seen squishing insect pests inside his home, then he is more likely to be the next school shooter than is this other boy who likes Tetris, who doesn't own a gun, and who never kills insects." This is what our minds tell us. It's how we operate. We use logic -- rough logic -- to guide us from Point A to Point B. And when we turn on the 6 o'clock news and learn that Richard McDean, 37, strapped 4 kilos of TNT to himself and detonated the explosives inside of @@@ Airport, killing 14 and injuring 37, and we learn that Mr. McDean owned no violent video games, owned no guns, and was described by friends to be someone who would never swat flies or squish spiders, our minds even then will relentlessly try to put this new evidence into context and to predict Mr. McDean's nature. "Maybe he was a PETA activist," we think, "an extreme animal rights person who blew himself up to take out some humans." "Maybe he was psychotic," we think, "and didn't take his meds that week." "Maybe he worked at the airport but they fired him recently." Without any real knowledge, we come up with theories that might explain this unusual behavior.
But had we turned on the news and learned that Mr. McDean owned Killzone, Resistance:tFoM, Halo, Half-Life, Team Fortress 2, and a collection of seven hunting rifles and two handguns? We wouldn't even bother to imagine all of those other possibilities. "Case closed," we'd say. "He was a gun nut."
Back to the point, then, with pedophilia and modern-day criminal law. In theory, a pedophile is no more nor less likely to be a r**ist than a non-pedophile. That is to say, in theory a desire to r*** others and pedophilia are two separate things. (In practice, I have no idea what the real figures are. I would assume a slightly higher incidence of r*** amongst pedophiles than amongst the general population, but I could be wrong.) But human society isn't concerned with theories and loose logic like these. Human society says, "We can't take chances." It says, "If he's a pedophile, then it means our children are moreso in danger than if he were not a pedophile." And so, in that sense, pedophilia the thought/belief/mentality is what becomes the crime and not actions associated with it (e.g. abduction, r***, exploitation).
So what are modern societies doing? They're pushing for the illegalization of certain thoughts and ideas considered to be unsavory by the masses. If a man is a neo-Nazi but has committed no other crimes, many in our society still want him thrown in jail. They see his neo-Nazism as the crime. If a man enjoys simulated-r*** pornography, there are those who would say that he is a r**ist waiting to happen and that actions should be taken now before he has the chance to strike. If a child of 8 years of age enjoys playing Halo 2, there are those who say that he is a prime candidate for counseling. On and on the list goes of modern-day examples where people, uncomfortable with others holding what they perceive to be dangerous or unpalatable thoughts and dreams, wish to take legal action against them for those ideas/beliefs and not be tied by the law to wait until those people, if ever, commit illegal actions.
In other words, they seek to make the thinking of an immoral act just as criminal an "action" as the actually doing the act.
So bringing it all back to my very first paragraph: seeing as we live in just such a society (which is pushing to illegalize beliefs and ideas in addition to actions), I think it's guaranteed that if hentai begins to be treated under the same legal scutiny as real porn and therefore if loli begins to be treated under the same legal scrutiny as real child porn that what will follow is this:
- Etna, and other loli-looking adult women --> GUARANTEED illegal
- Kasumi, and other adult-looking minors --> walking the fine line
- adult-looking and actually adult women --> legal
In other words, I think the lolikon is kidding himself if he thinks that pointing to a fictional character's purported age is going to protect him from the lynch mob. "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc, it's a duck." And if it looks like a little girl, acts like a little girl, etc, then it's a little girl -- even when there's proof that it isn't. lol
For the record, I was talking about society here and not my personal POV. Personally? I dislike loli but don't think it should be made illegal any more than hentai which depicts other criminal actions (e.g. r***). Personally? I don't want us to become a society which illegalizes thoughts and ideas. It reeks too much of fascism in that the state determines what you can and cannot think and ideas considered dangerous to the state are considered immoral and therefore criminal -- including revolutioanry ideas which endanger the wicked rulers of a corrupt government. Personally? I do think the Etna thing is bullshit. XD Makes me laugh every time people bring it up. I know as well as you do that if she looked like an adult that lolikons wouldn't like her, even if she was allegedly a minor. You know who a great example of that is? Dizzy from Guilty Gear. I love Dizzy. A lot of people like Dizzy. She's a beautiful, beautiful woman who has what seems to be a schizoid personality that is a fusion of adult woman and child. But her calendar age? Three years old. XD She's an infant ... in the body of a woman and with certain maturities of behavior and of thought which one expects to find only in the adult woman. Is Dizzy loli? No. Is Etna loli? Yes. I wish people would quit bringing up official ages for this reason. lol Porn has always been about VISUALS, i.e. about what you see in front of you with your own two eyes, so anybody who claims he's jacking off to Etna but isn't into underage girls in hentai is either a liar or a fool.
Etna (Disgaea) is probably the most famous copout I can think of. She looks like a little boy but is allegedly hundreds and hundreds of years old. A lot of delusional fans get it into their minds that this is going to protect her from the long arm of the law. Think again: if anything, Etna is in far more danger as a millenial boy than is Kasumi from the Dead or Alive series, a 17-year old girl who has the body of a smoking hot woman in her mid-20s.
This argument naturally leads us to what's really going on in modern society: a shift from illegalizing actions and attempts to illegalizing ideas and intentions. Let us assume we live in a society where it is widely agreed upon that pedophilia is immoral, i.e. bad. Historically, the crimes associated with pedophilia were actions. Harboring or producing CP. Abducting children for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Stalking children. Et cetera. But all throughout human history we have lived in a world -- indeed, we have existed as a species! -- which judges men based on the values they hold in their hearts. When we learn a man enjoys child pornography, we keep our children close and do not trust his personal oath to never abduct or r*** anybody. It is not enough for most of us that he abstain from pedophilic actions. That he even has pedophilic thoughts upsets us. And so we seek to drive him out. His ideas, we fear, will corrupt and pervert our society. They cannot be allowed. He cannot be allowed.
Ten thousand years of microevolution and the development of human civilizations have not helped us to shed this innate character to our humanity. Ten thousand years later and humans still operate in this manner. "If he likes violent video games, likes to hunt, and can be seen squishing insect pests inside his home, then he is more likely to be the next school shooter than is this other boy who likes Tetris, who doesn't own a gun, and who never kills insects." This is what our minds tell us. It's how we operate. We use logic -- rough logic -- to guide us from Point A to Point B. And when we turn on the 6 o'clock news and learn that Richard McDean, 37, strapped 4 kilos of TNT to himself and detonated the explosives inside of @@@ Airport, killing 14 and injuring 37, and we learn that Mr. McDean owned no violent video games, owned no guns, and was described by friends to be someone who would never swat flies or squish spiders, our minds even then will relentlessly try to put this new evidence into context and to predict Mr. McDean's nature. "Maybe he was a PETA activist," we think, "an extreme animal rights person who blew himself up to take out some humans." "Maybe he was psychotic," we think, "and didn't take his meds that week." "Maybe he worked at the airport but they fired him recently." Without any real knowledge, we come up with theories that might explain this unusual behavior.
But had we turned on the news and learned that Mr. McDean owned Killzone, Resistance:tFoM, Halo, Half-Life, Team Fortress 2, and a collection of seven hunting rifles and two handguns? We wouldn't even bother to imagine all of those other possibilities. "Case closed," we'd say. "He was a gun nut."
Back to the point, then, with pedophilia and modern-day criminal law. In theory, a pedophile is no more nor less likely to be a r**ist than a non-pedophile. That is to say, in theory a desire to r*** others and pedophilia are two separate things. (In practice, I have no idea what the real figures are. I would assume a slightly higher incidence of r*** amongst pedophiles than amongst the general population, but I could be wrong.) But human society isn't concerned with theories and loose logic like these. Human society says, "We can't take chances." It says, "If he's a pedophile, then it means our children are moreso in danger than if he were not a pedophile." And so, in that sense, pedophilia the thought/belief/mentality is what becomes the crime and not actions associated with it (e.g. abduction, r***, exploitation).
So what are modern societies doing? They're pushing for the illegalization of certain thoughts and ideas considered to be unsavory by the masses. If a man is a neo-Nazi but has committed no other crimes, many in our society still want him thrown in jail. They see his neo-Nazism as the crime. If a man enjoys simulated-r*** pornography, there are those who would say that he is a r**ist waiting to happen and that actions should be taken now before he has the chance to strike. If a child of 8 years of age enjoys playing Halo 2, there are those who say that he is a prime candidate for counseling. On and on the list goes of modern-day examples where people, uncomfortable with others holding what they perceive to be dangerous or unpalatable thoughts and dreams, wish to take legal action against them for those ideas/beliefs and not be tied by the law to wait until those people, if ever, commit illegal actions.
In other words, they seek to make the thinking of an immoral act just as criminal an "action" as the actually doing the act.
So bringing it all back to my very first paragraph: seeing as we live in just such a society (which is pushing to illegalize beliefs and ideas in addition to actions), I think it's guaranteed that if hentai begins to be treated under the same legal scutiny as real porn and therefore if loli begins to be treated under the same legal scrutiny as real child porn that what will follow is this:
- Etna, and other loli-looking adult women --> GUARANTEED illegal
- Kasumi, and other adult-looking minors --> walking the fine line
- adult-looking and actually adult women --> legal
In other words, I think the lolikon is kidding himself if he thinks that pointing to a fictional character's purported age is going to protect him from the lynch mob. "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc, it's a duck." And if it looks like a little girl, acts like a little girl, etc, then it's a little girl -- even when there's proof that it isn't. lol
For the record, I was talking about society here and not my personal POV. Personally? I dislike loli but don't think it should be made illegal any more than hentai which depicts other criminal actions (e.g. r***). Personally? I don't want us to become a society which illegalizes thoughts and ideas. It reeks too much of fascism in that the state determines what you can and cannot think and ideas considered dangerous to the state are considered immoral and therefore criminal -- including revolutioanry ideas which endanger the wicked rulers of a corrupt government. Personally? I do think the Etna thing is bullshit. XD Makes me laugh every time people bring it up. I know as well as you do that if she looked like an adult that lolikons wouldn't like her, even if she was allegedly a minor. You know who a great example of that is? Dizzy from Guilty Gear. I love Dizzy. A lot of people like Dizzy. She's a beautiful, beautiful woman who has what seems to be a schizoid personality that is a fusion of adult woman and child. But her calendar age? Three years old. XD She's an infant ... in the body of a woman and with certain maturities of behavior and of thought which one expects to find only in the adult woman. Is Dizzy loli? No. Is Etna loli? Yes. I wish people would quit bringing up official ages for this reason. lol Porn has always been about VISUALS, i.e. about what you see in front of you with your own two eyes, so anybody who claims he's jacking off to Etna but isn't into underage girls in hentai is either a liar or a fool.
I guess it would come to that. hmmm
Since telecommunication and e-mail is so closely related, I wonder.
I only know of two places this applies, and that is a) The State of Utah and b) Sweden.
(or at least used to apply)
"Any person has the right to record telephone conversations at any time, 1) as long he/she is a part in the conversation and 2) even though failing to inform the other party the conversation may be recorded."
I wonder what truly applies to e-mail conversations in this case.
Since telecommunication and e-mail is so closely related, I wonder.
I only know of two places this applies, and that is a) The State of Utah and b) Sweden.
(or at least used to apply)
"Any person has the right to record telephone conversations at any time, 1) as long he/she is a part in the conversation and 2) even though failing to inform the other party the conversation may be recorded."
I wonder what truly applies to e-mail conversations in this case.