Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiju32
I keep being told that it's legal, but then I keep running into the United States Code Title 18:
and as for now I'm still puzzled as for if it is or is not legal in the US. And just to make sure I'm completely clear, I'm refering to manga. I do not under and circumstances condone actual children.
|
I don't condone actual children either. I shall go on the record as being opposed to them.
You say you keep running into Title 18. How do you keep missing the stuff that invalidates it?
As Congress's findings demonstrate, Congress understood the the "appears to be a minor" and "conveys the impression" of a minor to refer to depictions that are virtually indistinguishable from unretouched photographs of real children. 18 U.S.C. 2251 note (Supp. IV 1998) (Finding 5). Drawings, cartoons, sculptures and paintings of youth-looking persons engage in sexual activity do not satisfy that standard. The Act therefore does not cover such artistic works.
I believe this is the governments argument, as it came from a petition from the Solicitor General. The government was never after cartoons or comics or sculptures or paintings. They were interested in the real thing or computer generated images that were "virtually indistinguishable" (whatever that means) from the real thing.
It was all moot. The Supreme Court in John Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition found much of Title 18 unconstitutional:
206
The contention that the CPPA is necessary because pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children runs afoul of the principle that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it. See, e. g., Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, 130-131. That the evil in question depends upon the actor's unlawful conduct, defined as criminal quite apart from any link to the speech in question, establishes that the speech ban is not narrowly drawn. The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles' appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e. g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447 (per curiam). The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because
207
few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all.
No victim. No crime. While you kept running into Title 18, you somehow managed to avoid running into the Supreme Court decision invalidating the passage you quoted -- a passage that never intended to cover any drawing, comic, painting, or sculpture in the first place. Frankly, I just don't know why people so adept at finding (and in your case, running into) Title 18, just can't find a key definition from the Government and the Supreme Court's decision that invalidated the language those same people are so fond of quoting (and putting in bold text).