This is what too much tax revision does to my mind
Neil Gaiman discusses the right to free speech and why he believes in its applicability to porny comics on his blog. It's an interesting little rant.
It concerns a guy who was arrested for possession of a collection of "lolicon" comics. The Comic Book Legal Defence Fund, which funds legal struggles involving First Amendment rights relating to comics, and of which Neil Gaiman is a patron, is defending the case. I haven't read "lolicon" (which Wikipedia says is art relating to the Lolita Complex, with sexualised drawings of child-like characters), and am fairly unsure what I think about the whole furore. On the one hand, "sexualised images of underage characters" is very similar to child pornography, which, I think we can all agree, is a Bad Thing. Also, I find it pretty difficult to imagine sexualised drawings of child-like characters having much in the way of artistic merit; then again, I think of how a hypothetical graphic novel adaptation of The Amber Spyglass would fare against this type of law.
However-
1) There's apparently no proven causal link between this stuff and actual child abuse, and, by providing a harmless outlet for those kind of urges, may reduce the demand for real child porn, in the same way that methadone keeps addicts off heroin (like this). People my age or older may remember the Jamie Bulger case and accompanying "video nasty" hysteria over, of all things, Child's Play 2. If anyone reading this has seen Child's Play 2, and has not, as a result, murdered a small child, they should consider themselves the exception rather than the rule, if the Daily Express c. 1992 is to be believed.
2) "Sexualised images of underage characters" does indeed sound similar to child pornography; it's also similar to the video for Hit Me Baby One More Time. Prosecuting people for possessing one of these comics today could lead to prosecution for possession of, say, Alan Moore's Lost Girls (which I also haven't read, but would like to) tomorrow. This is, I suppose, the "Pastor Niemoller" argument.
3) Even if possession of lolicon art were 100% proof that the possessor was a paedophile, being a paedophile (i.e. having the urges) is not against the law. It's acting on the urges (which I think technically makes one a pederast rather than a paedophile) that's illegal. It's difficult to justify banning something because "it's the kind of thing a paedophile might like", any more than we should criminalise gangsta rap because people who like it tend to be utter shits.
Hmp. Anyway, you get my general drift. I'm unsure how much of my reaction to this stems from a desire to position myself on the opposite side of any argument to the Daily Mail. I'm also unsure to what extent the arguments I've posted above are "thin end of the wedge" type fallacies ("if we ban lolicon, Huckleberry Finn will be next!); however, reading about applications of various "anti-terrorism" laws that have little or anything to do with terror make me wonder whether this may not be so fallacious after all, especially when applied to the blunt instrument that is the law.
Also, I think of history's lessons; there's no past incident that we can look back on and say "Wow, we really should have banned X book- that would really have stopped that genocide from happening" (and Carl, no saying "what about the Bible?"), whereas past movements such as McCarthyism, the Chatterley trial and Hitler's attempts to eliminate "degeneracy" from German art are all pretty much reviled.
So... yeah, Comment welcome.
It concerns a guy who was arrested for possession of a collection of "lolicon" comics. The Comic Book Legal Defence Fund, which funds legal struggles involving First Amendment rights relating to comics, and of which Neil Gaiman is a patron, is defending the case. I haven't read "lolicon" (which Wikipedia says is art relating to the Lolita Complex, with sexualised drawings of child-like characters), and am fairly unsure what I think about the whole furore. On the one hand, "sexualised images of underage characters" is very similar to child pornography, which, I think we can all agree, is a Bad Thing. Also, I find it pretty difficult to imagine sexualised drawings of child-like characters having much in the way of artistic merit; then again, I think of how a hypothetical graphic novel adaptation of The Amber Spyglass would fare against this type of law.
However-
1) There's apparently no proven causal link between this stuff and actual child abuse, and, by providing a harmless outlet for those kind of urges, may reduce the demand for real child porn, in the same way that methadone keeps addicts off heroin (like this). People my age or older may remember the Jamie Bulger case and accompanying "video nasty" hysteria over, of all things, Child's Play 2. If anyone reading this has seen Child's Play 2, and has not, as a result, murdered a small child, they should consider themselves the exception rather than the rule, if the Daily Express c. 1992 is to be believed.
2) "Sexualised images of underage characters" does indeed sound similar to child pornography; it's also similar to the video for Hit Me Baby One More Time. Prosecuting people for possessing one of these comics today could lead to prosecution for possession of, say, Alan Moore's Lost Girls (which I also haven't read, but would like to) tomorrow. This is, I suppose, the "Pastor Niemoller" argument.
3) Even if possession of lolicon art were 100% proof that the possessor was a paedophile, being a paedophile (i.e. having the urges) is not against the law. It's acting on the urges (which I think technically makes one a pederast rather than a paedophile) that's illegal. It's difficult to justify banning something because "it's the kind of thing a paedophile might like", any more than we should criminalise gangsta rap because people who like it tend to be utter shits.
Hmp. Anyway, you get my general drift. I'm unsure how much of my reaction to this stems from a desire to position myself on the opposite side of any argument to the Daily Mail. I'm also unsure to what extent the arguments I've posted above are "thin end of the wedge" type fallacies ("if we ban lolicon, Huckleberry Finn will be next!); however, reading about applications of various "anti-terrorism" laws that have little or anything to do with terror make me wonder whether this may not be so fallacious after all, especially when applied to the blunt instrument that is the law.
Also, I think of history's lessons; there's no past incident that we can look back on and say "Wow, we really should have banned X book- that would really have stopped that genocide from happening" (and Carl, no saying "what about the Bible?"), whereas past movements such as McCarthyism, the Chatterley trial and Hitler's attempts to eliminate "degeneracy" from German art are all pretty much reviled.
So... yeah, Comment welcome.