Thought Police- Right or wrong?

so he imported manga, not drawing it? im confused :S

this isn't really 'thought police,' but i think some japanese manga a bit, well sick. In france they love it and they sell loads of it, but I've seen some in bookshops there where it's a bit of a... questionable taste. But at the end of it, how can you prove that the drawings are of underage people? They are drawings not people.:S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kk.

so he imported manga, not drawing it? im confused :S

---

He collected it and maybe drew it I'm not sure. Doesn't make a difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

this isn't really 'thought police,' but i think some japanese manga a bit, well sick. In france they love it and they sell loads of it, but I've seen some in bookshops there where it's a bit of a... questionable taste. But at the end of it, how can you prove that the drawings are of underage people? They are drawings not people.:S

---

I thought that. I didn't think it would be too hard to win this in court. I mean you could even go as far as saying it's just a drawing and so how you perceive it is up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Japan

Looking at naked children having sex is, in my eyes, child pornography. Doesn't matter if they are 2D cartoons. No normal person would ever feel the need to draw/look at things like that.
Anyone who says this man has done nothing wrong is simply advocating pedophilia.

---

So black and white. 'Anyone who says thi man has done nothing wrong is simply advocating pedophilia'

=

'If you aren't an apple you must be a banana!'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi

He collected it and maybe drew it I'm not sure. Doesn't make a difference



I thought that. I didn't think it would be too hard to win this in court. I mean you could even go as far as saying it's just a drawing and so how you perceive it is up to you.

---

Quite. It's an interesting dilemma I have because I see importing tha manga drawings as illegal, and so should be punished, but being jailed for drawing it I think it's wrong :P

Why? Surely if anything is going to be punishable, it would be the mere possession of it?

but then by drawing it, he then possessed it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi

Why? Surely if anything is going to be punishable, it would be the mere possession of it?

---

I never replied :P

that's my problem, I see imprting the stuff wrong, but drawing it not, it's strange lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misawa

I wouldn't say war zone photos like Vietnam could be called "art", more relics of shock value. There is one photo in particular of the Vietnam war with a naked girl walking, and that became a symbol of the war, as did another of a man being shot, with the photo being taken half a second before the bullet was fired. Not art, just poignant shock journalism, but yes, I see what you mean.

---

Depends how you look at it. In a photography sense, it's a type of art form (historical/portrait/war photography), but it is a type of relic of shock value, both are acceptable :P I think you're talking about the two I've seen, they were in an exhibition in London many years ago, each picture had came with an analysis talking about contrast and so forth (the artistic/photographic side of the photo) and the story behind it and story of the subject (historical).

Anyway, that's going off topic :P

It's crude, but there's a line between reality (two girls actually doing it) and what we have here, which is just art with shock value, like people who write or draw fanfiction, some of the things you read are quite foul, and the art is no better. Mystery books usually have people being raped, shot down or killed in weird, puzzling ways, doesn't mean the writer is a sicko :/

I standby jailing the man. Having thoughts of sexual behaviour with underaged girls is one thing, drawing it for all the world to see is another.