The Chris Handley Case

[Stickboy]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/an ... s-network/

I'm not going to bother stating my opinion on how completely ridiculous this is or how absolutely it violates our First Amendment rights, I just wanted to make sure people saw it.

[TSEDTIKS]

Some real gems:

The 40-year-old was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/an ... z0fwLDo1lb

In response, the Protect Act narrows the prohibition to cover only depictions that the defendant’s community would consider “obscene.”

Really?

So now it's entirely subjective as to whether or not you can go to jail for this?

Come on.

[Stickboy]

Yes, like in this case, where a man went to jail for lines on paper that happened to be something someone else found obscene.

[Gorilla]

Im kinda confused: The guy had porno drawings of children right?

How is that not fucked up? More importantly, why is it ok to have something like that?

[TSEDTIKS]

Im kinda confused: The guy had porno drawings of children right?

How is that not fucked up? More importantly, why is it ok to have something like that?

Now, while I don't disagree with you (I find it pretty creepy myself), there's a couple things to remember:

1) He's jailed because, as Stick put it, he has paper with inked lines that other people find obscene.

2) No actual child pornography was find. Basically, he just had a weird taste in manga. The law was put in place to protect children, how is jailing this guy for 15+ years going to protect ANYONE?

3) All these 'ok' ages are just arbitrary anyways. A drawing of a '17 year old' topless will get you jailed for this, from what I understand. We both know that, in all honesty, the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is equivalent to the difference between an artificial raspberry jam and an artificial strawberry jam.

[Gorilla]

I guess the idea of this whole thing reeks of the Japanese porn system. I cant remember the exact ages, but : pornography is illegal in Japan. But porn is defined as adults having sex. Child porn is also illegal, but you stop being a legal child around 12. So, all porn that comes out of japna are girls in a 12-20~ bracket.

On a less tangent note, while it seems like a fairly victim less crime, i just cant help but think that somewhere along the line, the was a child 'model'. It just doesnt seem like like thats ok with me, just the same as normal child porn.

Of course, 15 years for drawings are a bit much. I looked into this and they charged him with the same thing as holding naked videos of children, hence the high sentence. It seems like this was a case where the guy just didnt know that what he was doing was illegal, and paid for it. It shouldnt work like that, ill agree.

[Stickboy]

My biggest problem, hands down, is that this is the first time the Protect Act has been used against a person without them having any kind of real pictures, images, or what not of real children. It's never been used to apply just to drawings before, so it's a rather uncomfortable circumvention of the First Amendment.

Close behind that, for me, is that this guy is going to be registered as a sex offender for own drawings on a piece of paper. I don't know how familiar you are with that process, but this man, who was simply buying a few comics, will be on a list that is not discriminate of what "crime" you did to get on it, next to a bunch of baby rapists. Effectively, this guy wont be allowed around anyone under 18, allowed to live near a school, have to register and tell anyone he lives close to, that he is on a list that equates him to a baby raper.

Note: Well the findings of this court terrify and offend me for the chance that they have to wildly circumvent my right to own items that other people may find offensive, I want to point out that real, actual child pornography or child exploitation is disgusting and wrong and deplorable in every way. If this guy had been sitting around with a bunch of pictures of actual, real children being exploited and molested and treated badly in general, I would be the first person in line to send him away for as long as they would let me.

[TSEDTIKS]

From TVTropes

Comic Books
In an extreme example, there have been cases where comic book specialty stores which had separate adult sections have been prosecuted for corrupting minors, even though children weren't allowed into those areas of the store. The basis of the case is that if it is cartoon art, then it must be for children.

Not just prosecuted, convicted. As recently as 2000, in that case, with the appeals lasting through 2003 (and failing). Oh, and even Scott McCloud came in to testify on behalf of the defense... didn't help.

Oh, and by "convicted," we don't just mean "forced to pay a fine and stop doing it." Some of the defendants in "obscene comic book" cases have been forced to (1) undergo psychological counseling, (2) undergo "journalistic ethics" courses, (3) avoid contact with minors, and/or (4) be subject to unannounced raids of their houses to check to see if they're in possession of or in the process of creating "obscenity". First Amendment rights, anyone? Maybe it's time for you to go donate to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

Wow. Just, wow. America, land of the free.

[Legion]

Ok, so, my pc's running amazingly slow, so i only read the first paragraph and a bit, so i know the rough idea of whats happened. Like wise with this thread, i read the first few posts and skimmed the larger ones, so if i acidentally go all Nick Simmons on you im sorry. i understand that what this guys done is sick and twisted, and if it were actual photos or videos then it would be fine for him to be sent to prison for importing CP. But, its not, its just anime/Manga, so techniqually, no children were harmed.

[Stickboy]

But, its not, its just anime/Manga, so techniqually, no children were harmed.

No, this is the thing that you're confused on.

There's no "technically" about it. The Iowa DA's office tore apart this guys life. Not only could they find no evidence of him ever hurting a child in any way, ever, but they also couldn't find any evidence of him owning any child pornography at all. None. No images depicting real children. Nothing.

This is the first time this law has been used and succeeded in sending someone to prison in a case where there was absolutely no child pornography.

My problem with this, among many others, is that, by the ruling of that court room, I'm sure that I could be sent to prison in Iowa for the books that I own. gasp, cry Stickboy must be a horrible lecherous bastard. Apparently, my love for Alan Moore could very easily qualify as "obscenity" under this bull shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Girls

EDIT: Also, its a complete circumvention of the The Child Pornography Prevention Act, which requires that, in order for something to be considered Child Pornography it has to use a child in its production in some way.