Everyone is entirely responsible for their own actions unless factors outside their control are at play (acting under threat of force, etc.) Attenuating factors can be slightly more flexible but they are not a consideration in assigning blame but in assessing future threat to society and such. That said, if watching CP or "virtual CP" can never be a defense for a person's criminal acts, how can it be use to blame the content creators for crimes they did not commit (rather than only the ones they did in case of CP)?
But not everyone is tried equally. Mental health is always a determining factor in an individual's actions, and it's always debatable to what extent the individual has control. I'm not saying that a content creator must be fined or censored for another individual's criminal actions, but if there is a risk that someone might abuse content to ill end, then some amount of regulation is appropriate. Saying that the entire system should be lasse-faire is like saying gun sellers ought to be able to sell guns to whomever they choose because they have no control over what a gun-buyer is going to use a weapon for. That doesn't mean gun prohibition altogether, but regulation by way of background checks and application procedures.
Semantics again but yes I'm big on semantics and think it's an essential distinction without which it's impossible to show that the material is not socially harmful.
I disagree. Content
alone is not harmful, but if introduced into a society that does not know how to handle it, it can be devastating. It has happened time and again in history with one culture clashing upon another, and now in our globalized world, between mainstream and sub-cultures. Taking lolicon as an example, some people think it's okay, some people think it has no place in their society: it polarizes groups of people that would otherwise be peacible in other respects of life. But that does not mean it's strictly either-or: the two must be tempered with respect to each other. Unfortunately that usually means a trial-by-fire among proponents, but it is simply impossible for any society to operate on ideals/oughts/universals--everything must be judged in reference to the current and past state of affairs.
A better illustration is that while lolicon manga may remain perfectly legal in Japan (a society in which there is no indicative correlation between content and child abuse), it will most likely continue to be censored in America (which has been "plagued" with child abusers). That doesn't mean that the same lolicon manga in America causes crime, but that Americans are simply much more sensitive to the issue, and they must first figure out what's wrong with their priests and kidnappers before they can liberally allow free artistic expression for lolicon manga.
In this framework if the content helps more people control fantasies they have regardless than it encourages weak willed people to focus them and pass to act, it's not socially harmful and actually works towards prevention. This can be demonstrated with a pretty good level of certainty using statistics to see if the content being (more) accessible is correlated with an increase in crime and vice-versa (without needing to demonstrate causation which would be impossible with the current biological and psychological knowledge.) In the blame content creators framework, any abuser that was exposed to any related material can be used to show that the material is harmful and even though that's a logical fallacy, it's simply undeniable that such people exist.
You're taking my argument to the other extreme. First, your argument can easily be distorted to say that people shouldn't be having those fantasies in the first place, and that while the content does not necesarily cause crime (or is even correlated to its frequency), it does nothing to help or "cure" sickened people. In fact, it would simply be an easy way to identify people who have "ill" fantasies (even without commiting crimes), and would moreover lead to discrimination and mistrust. But I would never believe such an argument (it's careless), just as I would never argue that a content creator is solely responsible for someone else's actions. The only thing I've suggested is to allow for a basic framework that prevents content from getting into the wrong hands.
Except this is a very weak argument and leaves the door wide open to huge restrictions on the content. What is natural and at what age does it become natural? [..] Since you've already defined abuse as unnatural, any fictional depiction of remotely coercive/manipulative acts becomes off limit. [..] many simply do not consider any underage sexuality to be natural (although not many scientists working in related disciplines will agree, but juges only need to find a modicum of controversy to redefine natural. I find sticking to the reality vs. fiction distinction much more reasonable, unless you also want to ban movies involving suicides by minors and any other act than can be subjectively define as unnatural.
First, I did not define abuse as unnatural, I defined it as illegal. I take no stance on whether or not abuse is natural (that is, "right" or "wrong"), besides the fact that it
does happen in society and some artists choose it as their subject of expression (the same goes for suicide).
Your counter-examples point out exactly the problems in continuing to blur the lines between "natural" and "legal". Everyone is well aware that children start to experience sexuality once they enter puberty, and due to improved health standards, puberty begins at a significantly earlier age (proper diet aids in development of sexual organs and production of horomonal chemicals). The point is not to work backwards and say "this and that are illegal so therefore they are unnatural; and since these other things are unnatural, they must also be illegal", which is precisely what your doubts are saying. My argument is to start by pointing out that certain phenomenons are natural in the sense that
they simply occur in a given society sans any sense of legality (children left to their own devices will inevitably encounter sexuality, the anonymizing nature of globalized society will push people to suicide, etc). We can then say, "having established that pubescent sexuality occurs naturally, we will simply agree to limit intercourse to those 18+ only in order to prevent abuse". That way it can be both natural and illegal, which lends itself to the fiction vs reality argument: since it occurs naturally, it is okay to depict it in fiction, but since it is illegal, it is not okay to practice it in reality. It's a roundabout arguement, but...
Most proponents will simply fall back to the fiction vs reality
measuring stick, because to them it's the most obvious answer. However, its simplicity is also its weak and danger. What about fictitious content that is hyper-realistic, either by talented artistry or advanced computer generation? What about CP that is simply altered to look less realistic? Illustrated content does not harm any specific child, but CP is illegal because it would otherwise legitimize the crime. Hyper-realistic content would then easily be criminalized even if fictitious. And then people will argue over what constitutes "real". Two eyes, pigtails, randosel, no pubic hair = "real enough". And if reality is illegal, then why shouldn't fiction be illegal as well? You can argue principles, but no one (besides fellow lolicons) will listen.
I think arguing that lolicons understand "better than most people" that child sexuality is "natural" is going to make a whole lot of people very uncomfortable and not help your cause very much. Better forget about arguing about real children completely, that's not what's this is about. Stick to fiction is fiction for manga and to beauty, naïve seduction are not necessarily sexual and something that suggests sexuality to a particular viewer does not make it a sexual act for JI.
I wasn't really saying that it's
how people should argue it. But unfortunately you
have to argue about real children in order to defend your position that lolicon manga does not encourage real abuse. Most people think "lolicon" is just a slang word for "pedophile", or worse, child molestor. In reality they're two completely different things that may from time to time coincidentally (but not by necessary correlation or causation) be exhibited in one particular person. But most people think they're the same. And since most people are more interested in protecting their children, they will assume that an interest in fictitious "abuse" is a good indicator of willingness for real "abuse". And despite your efforts to convince them that you really wouldn't touch their child, they will naturally assume the worst.
I agree that naive seduction is not necessarily sexual and that a sexual idea does not automatically cause sexual misconduct. But as long as child abuse occurs, no matter how infrequent, lolicon will be a target. And if you continue to insist on free-reign of "artistic creativity", it will only cause people to harbor more mistrust.
That's the key issue for this thread and I completely disagree on both counts. I have strong reasons to believe that the poll is actually very representative of the population and that even if it was the results to do not tell us what people think, yet such polls do influence public opinion. Humans [..] do have a strong tendency to rally to the (perceived) majority opinion, especially when they are not particularly informed about the subject and do not already feel strongly one way or another.
But that is precisely what I argued when I said that "the
real harm is if everyone continues to think that way [..]". In other words, if people continue to be uninformed and harbor mistrust against lolicon subculture; whether by their own prejudices based on a false perception of the dangers involved, or their own ignorance on the issue and subsequent willingness to defer to popular thought (as you point out).
I agree the poll is representative of the population. But I still maintain that a lot of those people are probably just uninformed. And no one else is going to help inform those people. So it is strictly up to those inside the lolicon subculture to help others understand that lolicon is strictly divorced from child abuse. And believe me, human beings are more likely to distrust that which they don't understand (and to greater degree); and our own ignorance that "it will just go away" is far more dangerous than any poll.
[..] I think one reason people oppose censorship in theory but often don't oppose it in even dangerous particular cases is that they don't consider censorship of things they disagree with (or consider "harmful") to be censorship. Censorship and repression are not subjective terms even though they're often emotionally charged. Some things should be repressed (violent crimes, etc.) and some speech should be censored in specific circumstances (privacy laws preventing public servants / companies from sharing confidential information for example), but most people prefer to deal with this conflict via cognitive dissonance rather than rationally assessing this. I think censorship of art forms and means of expression should always be considered harmful however and I think that's something that should be made explicit and focused on.
I agree in theory, but as you said human beings don't behave according to theory. There is no self-evident universal that dictates theoretical or practical levels of censorship/repression. Moreover, your idea that "censorship of art forms should always be considered harmful" is itself a problematic
ideal because no one will ever agree on what constitutes
art. "Means of expression" is even more reckless (or ignorant at best), as r*** could be considered a means of expressing a sort of physical attraction. Ideals are a great place to start a discussion, but they will
never get you to the answer.
[..] it's important to talk about correlation between the availability of the content and abuse and not between individuals who consume the content and abuse because [..] things seem to point towards a negative correlation in the first case and a positive correlation in the second [..]
That's just up to differeing interpretation of data which we don't have. One party will skew it to illustrate one trend, another will skew it the other way: it's rhetorical, it's political. I think a better way to present the data is to correlate availability
and consumption against abuse, and then separately correlate abuse to other sources (the traditional "uncle", "cousin", or "salaryman"). I would imagine you could find a stronger correlation in the latter that would help ease the doubts of the former.
In the end, I personally am giving faith to the Japanese population despite the seemingly overwhelming results of this poll. Why? Because if they really felt passionate about it, this would have become a central issue long ago. Plus, with anonymous interviews during a (relatively) recent special on the "Junior Idol Boom", people really
are divided in arguing both sides (that interest in young girls is "unnatural", and that as long as otaku aren't harming anyone it's okay). Of course a couple of TV stations put their own spin on report, but to their credit, many stations were fair about it, and the general consensus is that JI is okay, there's no need for censorship, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little cautious just so that things don't get out of hand. And under those (general) terms, I don't think artistic creativity and freedom of expression is at stake.
