20 Years for Yaoi + Other Government Sex Law Stupidity

[kedawa]

Yeah, it's got to be awkward reporting to a cop that you were raped when you know it's giving him a boner.

[The_Meach]

This is not necessarily true. Yes the rape stats for japan are low on paper, but that can be attributed to the lack of reporting of rapes, and the poor investigation of rape by japanese police.

Blv.

[GohanX]

Sounds like an opportunity to me.

[Rich]

Wuzzat?

http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html

[MarsKitten]

I was about to say. Japan is the biggest producer of anything porn and their rape stats are very low and the most popular porn is women acting like they're being raped.

BTW didn't the supreme court already rule something to the extent of if there isn't any actual kids in it then no harm no foul?

Re: Japan - could be a reporting deal. I was under the impression that sexual harassment and assault were stupidly under reported there.

As for the court case: Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition is what you're thinking of that struck down the 1996 anti child porn act which explicitly said children don't need to be harmed for it to be bad. It kicked it back to the miller test and the ban on child porn itself was still justified under Ferber. The reason they did that was because the 1996 law basically made ANY depiction of children in a sexual act illegal. Like Romeo and Juliet, or American Beauty, or Lolita. So they can ban yaoi under the Miller test, but if they want an automatic pass on miller they say its child porn and Ferber gets past the miller test. Justifications wise, it was written in 1973.

State of Iowa wants to be tough on child porn, they can ban it, and by extension yaoi under Ferber if they believe/are convinced its child porn. Ferber says: child porn is of negligible social/political/lit/artistic value and thus fails the Miller test's third prong. Thus bannable. So the defendant will want to get back to the Miller test, while the state will claim its child porn to make it easier to get around the constitutional argument.

But if it does go to the Supreme Court, the court has changed seats since Ashcroft. Kennedy wrote that opinion and if they feel this is the 1996 anti-child porn act again. It may go the same way. But we've got Roberts, Sotomayor and Scalia (he dissented last time) which may go the other way. But we can't really comment until we see how they charge him and what goes to appeal.

And because I've applied to the bar: this isn't legal advice, i'm not a lawyer, if you need legal advice, call your local bar for a lawyer familiar with the local laws. they're getting pretty strict on this i've heard.

[Fe 26]

they're getting pretty strict on this i've heard.

What is the story on this? Old fuckers trying to stove off the change (or it becoming unhideable) of culture? Can't stop your grandson Billy from being gay but god damn it, we can send his nerdy friend to jail for having some shitty Japanese gay hentai. Is this just a new form of anti gay sentiment in American government or what?

[Josh]

http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html

Everyone be sure to click that at work.

Also: Rules one and two, faggot.

[Anal Kaboom]

This is not necessarily true. Yes the rape stats for japan are low on paper, but that can be attributed to the lack of reporting of rapes, and the poor investigation of rape by japanese police.

Re: Japan - could be a reporting deal. I was under the impression that sexual harassment and assault were stupidly under reported there.

As for the court case: Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition is what you're thinking of that struck down the 1996 anti child porn act which explicitly said children don't need to be harmed for it to be bad. It kicked it back to the miller test and the ban on child porn itself was still justified under Ferber. The reason they did that was because the 1996 law basically made ANY depiction of children in a sexual act illegal. Like Romeo and Juliet, or American Beauty, or Lolita. So they can ban yaoi under the Miller test, but if they want an automatic pass on miller they say its child porn and Ferber gets past the miller test. Justifications wise, it was written in 1973.

State of Iowa wants to be tough on child porn, they can ban it, and by extension yaoi under Ferber if they believe/are convinced its child porn. Ferber says: child porn is of negligible social/political/lit/artistic value and thus fails the Miller test's third prong. Thus bannable. So the defendant will want to get back to the Miller test, while the state will claim its child porn to make it easier to get around the constitutional argument.

But if it does go to the Supreme Court, the court has changed seats since Ashcroft. Kennedy wrote that opinion and if they feel this is the 1996 anti-child porn act again. It may go the same way. But we've got Roberts, Sotomayor and Scalia (he dissented last time) which may go the other way. But we can't really comment until we see how they charge him and what goes to appeal.

And because I've applied to the bar: this isn't legal advice, i'm not a lawyer, if you need legal advice, call your local bar for a lawyer familiar with the local laws. they're getting pretty strict on this i've heard.

Well sucks for this kid then.

[MarsKitten]

What is the story on this? Old fuckers trying to stove off the change (or it becoming unhideable) of culture? Can't stop your grandson Billy from being gay but god damn it, we can send his nerdy friend to jail for having some shitty Japanese gay hentai. Is this just a new form of anti gay sentiment in American government or what?

No law students/non lawyers acting as lawyers and people taking their advice as such. You're not supposed to give legal advice, but when you talk law, someone could take it as such to their detriment.

Anyone applying to the bar has to act as if they're already under the rules, but not a lawyer. Meaning the disclaimer for the criminally retarded.

[Fe 26]

I wasn't asking why you gave the disclaimer. I'm asking why we are seeing this sudden strictness? It seems like more anti gay legislation to me. Why else attach some guy for having gay hentai? Its not like the guy owned it to look at little boys. Hell, half the appeal of that kind of smut is that the characters are so featureless that they make easier avatars for someone's own fantasies. No one reads the shit thinking "hmmm 17 year old boys." They picture the characters beign close to their own age. Or at least that is my take on it from talking to the few nerdy gay friends I have that actually read the crap.