Is this considered Illegal?

[Proteas]

This is something I've been pondering for a while now.

Sailor Moon and the Sailor Scouts. If you are out looking for free Hentai, you are bound to find pics of them in various comprimising position, doing the most x-rated things. It's just hard to NOT find this stuff so easily.

Most (if not all) of the websites you will find Hentai on will have a disclaimer at the bottom to protect their own ass: "All characters shown here at least 18 years old or older." But anybody who is even remotely familiar with the series itself will tell you; the show centers around these girls, all of whom are age 14 and younger. I'm pretty sure this is under the age of legal consent, even for Japan.

So my question is this; even though it's just an illustration, would Sailor Moon based Hentai fall under the category of "Child Pornography" and warrant federal prosecution for possesion of such material?

[JoS]

No, because unless there are actually Salior Scouts out there they are not real, hence no victims. If you were to cut and paste various pictures of children form magazines and catelogs and photoshop them to getehr to make it look dirty and such they still cant prosecute you (it actually happend) without a victim.

[BeFell]

As Rugby pointed out, if it's not an actual picture of a child in a pornographic manner then it doesn't count. This is of course meant to protect the free speach of pedifiles. Thank you ACLU.

[BAWLS]

At 12/8/04 04:54 PM, Mr_Biggles wrote: This is of course meant to protect the free speach of pedifiles. Thank you ACLU.

No, there's just no reason to make it illegal.

[Salato]

as said earlier, no one is harmed and its not illegal, and I believe the Japanese age of consent is 13, though I am not 100% sure.

[BeFell]

At 12/8/04 04:58 PM, NotYouZ wrote:

At 12/8/04 04:54 PM, Mr_Biggles wrote: This is of course meant to protect the free speach of pedifiles. Thank you ACLU.

No, there's just no reason to make it illegal.

Placing a real child's head in a pornographic film is not illegal even though it obviously encourages people to think of children as sexual objects.

[BAWLS]

At 12/8/04 05:13 PM, Mr_Biggles wrote: Placing a real child's head in a pornographic film is not illegal even though it obviously encourages people to think of children as sexual objects.

Yeah, it's wrong. But when someone draws a made up character naked, I could care less.

[fli]

At 12/8/04 05:13 PM, Mr_Biggles wrote:
Placing a real child's head in a pornographic film is not illegal even though it obviously encourages people to think of children as sexual objects.

But that could be sued for slander or libel or whatever.

A depiction of children in sexual acts in any form of media that actually involves a child creates harm to the child. But depiction of children whom do not exist in real life does not harm the child since there is none to exist. Thus Sailor Moon doing fellatio on Tuxedo mask is permisible, although many people look down on that stuff.

For me, I don't like to watch that kind of stuff. But NG is chuck full of this stuff. Yet folks are a bunch a pussies if you show two men kissing >:-(

Anyways, enough with that rant. Yeah, I don't like that stuff. I'm still rather disturbed by seeing a cartoon Harmoine Granger with cat ears and tail-- obviously underage. Even seeing Lisa Simpson being raped by Homer, and Tommy Pickles doing 69 on Angelica Pickles have all left scares on me, all encounters from opening links on NG. I would love to see the stuff go away to some where where I can make sure I won't open the link.

But unless a physical child is envolved, it can't be persecuted because it is protected speech.

[ursamajour]

At 12/8/04 05:01 PM, Salato wrote: as said earlier, no one is harmed and its not illegal, and I believe the Japanese age of consent is 13, though I am not 100% sure.

14, last I checked. Always know your consent laws. ;) Speaking of which, how disturbing is this? The age of consent in Singapore is an inconceivable 21!!!

As to the topic at hand, no victims=no crime. Let people fantasize as they please.

[JoS]

At 12/8/04 05:33 PM, spanishfli wrote: But unless a physical child is envolved, it can't be persecuted because it is protected speech.

If you draw a real life child, like say Bobby next door nude and people can tell who it is/ you did it with him sitting infront of you, then it is illegal.

[fli]

At 12/8/04 07:11 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 12/8/04 05:33 PM, spanishfli wrote: But unless a physical child is envolved, it can't be persecuted because it is protected speech.

If you draw a real life child, like say Bobby next door nude and people can tell who it is/ you did it with him sitting infront of you, then it is illegal.

A physical child is involved then... making it illegal. Thus it's not protected speech. However, it also depends on the context of the media.

Some of the most beautiful photographs are of those of nude children, in fact I recall a book a few years ago full of it... Nothing sexual, it was usually pictures of naked mothers holding their babes, or sleeping dad with naked baby sprawled asleep on his chest... That cover of Nirvana... etc. These aren't pornographic, but they envolve nudity of underage legal age people.

So there is a small tolerance after all.

[Thanatopsis]

At 12/8/04 07:23 PM, spanishfli wrote:

A physical child is involved then... making it illegal. Thus it's not protected speech. However, it also depends on the context of the media.

as i understand it nudity on its own is not illegal no mater what age its the content that comes in to question you cant have a kid riding another kids magic pole for lack of better euphimimes. at the same time though you can show a 3 year old nuid and posed how ever you want as long as its not explicit. an example of this is Jack Sturgeses "radiant immages" (i think thats the colection) which has one contraversial image of a child posed in a way that some has called pornographic and others have not but because its not explicit it is aceptable.

[fli]

At 12/8/04 08:35 PM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote:

Jack Sturgeses "radiant immages"

Actually, Jock Sturges' "Radiant Identities".

A very stricking piece of art, I wish I can remember more of it. I was 16 or 17 when I got to glimpse a few of his pictures. Sometimes shocking, but not pornographic or sexual. It's beautiful, and it stired quite a contraversey years back if I recall...

[Thanatopsis]

At 12/8/04 08:47 PM, spanishfli wrote:

At 12/8/04 08:35 PM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote:

Jack Sturgeses "radiant immages"

Actually, Jock Sturges' "Radiant Identities".

A very stricking piece of art, I wish I can remember more of it. I was 16 or 17 when I got to glimpse a few of his pictures. Sometimes shocking, but not pornographic or sexual. It's beautiful, and it stired quite a contraversey years back if I recall...

yes it is striking, i have only had the ability to watch a projection of the colection in classes. he was arested for child pornography for that colection only to be aquited a year later because it was clear that no mater how shocking it was it didnt fit the criteria for beeing porn.

[Cleric]

At 12/8/04 04:54 PM, Mr_Biggles wrote: As Rugby pointed out, if it's not an actual picture of a child in a pornographic manner then it doesn't count. This is of course meant to protect the free speach of pedifiles. Thank you ACLU.

Not even the ACLU can take away my right to call the sick fucks who look at that sick fucks. Although, as they are the ACLU they'd most likely want to give me that right....bastards.

[puffsters269]

no it wouldnt because this law only applies to the wellbeing of humanity, so that little children would not be scared from sexual conducts. but since these are just cartoons and have no emotion they would be 4 years old girls and if someone woould make a hentai version on them it wold not matter because there not real

[Gunter45]

Illegal? No. Absolutely disgusting? You bet your ass.

[SilentObserver]

well, I'd say it's wrong, but not illegal.

watching that sort of stuff is just sad anyway; people should find better things to do.

[JoS]

What about pictures of naked kids say in the bathtub in family photo albuims?

faps to Salior Venus

[Maus]

The USSC ruled that rendered child pornography is not illegal. There is a loophole where it can be ruled as obscene, and therefore, illegal.

HOWEVER - If minors are able to access it, a website can be shut down for pandering to minors.

The good news about John Roberts is that he will not defend the rights of child hentai creators/distributors.

[specimen56]

The main thing is that when someone draws the images, no matter what their reason, you could turn it round and say that they are over the age of consent, but have a growth deficience. Thus rendering the age argument pointless (or at least close enough to).
Personally, its not my thing. But its not harming anyone except the person who gets off to it (in my eyes). And if a person is into it, fine. If they can use child hentai as a way to 'subdue' those feelings that would otherwise be taken out on real people then all the better. Considering we're linking a liking of misty to a liking of real children, but thats another topic... I think...

[PandaPorn]

It's not illegal, it's just sad. Get a girlfriend.

[Elfer]

At 12/8/04 04:28 PM, Proteas wrote: the show centers around these girls, all of whom are age 14 and younger. I'm pretty sure this is under the age of legal consent, even for Japan.

However, since the characters are fictional, the pornography could easily take place five years after the setting of the show.

That's why cartoon porn has such zany laws surrounding it, because the characters aren't even real, therefore have no age.

[psycho-squirrel]

no its not illigal because they are not real. it could show pics of little babies and such, and it wouldnt be illiga, just very very gross. it is because it is not in any way hurting the one in the picture. because it is only drawings.

[Jordannguyen]

At 9/25/05 11:24 AM, pandaporn wrote: It's not illegal, it's just sad. Get a girlfriend.

hey i just want to point out your name is PANDA PORN!!!! hahaha....nothing personal....i just wanted to point it out.

[Jimsween]

At 12/8/04 05:13 PM, BeFell wrote: Placing a real child's head in a pornographic film is not illegal even though it obviously encourages people to think of children as sexual objects.

Not so obviously. It's rather outlandish to think that one can be taught to be a child molester so simply.

It is commonly claimed by evangelical christians and even just many conservatives that pornography causes rape. Now, nobody would disagree that the availability and use of pornography has skyrocketed with the invention of the internet. So logically, we would have more rapes. However, looking at the statistics.

In 1994 (before internet porn) there were 39.2 rapes per 100,000 population.

In 2002, there were 33.0 rapes per 100,000 population.

In 2004, there were 32.0 rapes per 100,000 population.

There is a decreasing rate, despite the massive increase in use of pornography. It would seem to debunk the whole theory that one can learn to become a rapist.

[Maus]

At 9/25/05 11:35 AM, Elfer wrote: However, since the characters are fictional, the pornography could easily take place five years after the setting of the show.

Actually, what I've found is that a lot of the creators of this stuff claim that the characters are wacky ages like 762 years old. Seriously.

[GoldenToe]

I'm pretty sure cops aren't going to nit pick about the supposed age of cartoon characters that are doing it.

[JohnGoody]

At 9/25/05 08:21 PM, Maus wrote:

At 9/25/05 11:35 AM, Elfer wrote: However, since the characters are fictional, the pornography could easily take place five years after the setting of the show.

Actually, what I've found is that a lot of the creators of this stuff claim that the characters are wacky ages like 762 years old. Seriously.

Actually, that's pretty normal. Most Anime creators like the fantasy stuff and often imagine their characters (most often the powerful ones) as hundreds or even thousands of years old.

As a matter of fact, the Sailor Scouts are technically thousands (or was it hundreds) of years old. They were reincarnated while still alive and still retained memory of their past lives. It's kind of difficult to argue if you haven't watched it, but I was a big fan when I was young.

Aside from that, though, the age of consent in Japan is 13. What's stranger, though, is that the age of marriage is 16 (and that's with parental consent). I don't understand why the age of consent is lower than the age of marriage, but hey, whatever. Besides, in some Middle East countries, the age of consent is in the single digit area. O.O

[Blackhawkdown]

At 9/25/05 08:03 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/8/04 05:13 PM, BeFell wrote: Placing a real child's head in a pornographic film is not illegal even though it obviously encourages people to think of children as sexual objects.

Not so obviously. It's rather outlandish to think that one can be taught to be a child molester so simply.

It is commonly claimed by evangelical christians and even just many conservatives that pornography causes rape. Now, nobody would disagree that the availability and use of pornography has skyrocketed with the invention of the internet. So logically, we would have more rapes. However, looking at the statistics.

In 1994 (before internet porn) there were 39.2 rapes per 100,000 population.

In 2002, there were 33.0 rapes per 100,000 population.

In 2004, there were 32.0 rapes per 100,000 population.

There is a decreasing rate, despite the massive increase in use of pornography. It would seem to debunk the whole theory that one can learn to become a rapist.

There's also statistics out there showing that the dicline of pirates causes globle warming, the point being that you can link the rise of one thing with the decline of the other, yet the two are totally diffrent. If you look at crime in general it's no just rape that's declining but all other violent crimes are as
well
I have heard of a few cases were porn was the cause, I'll see if i can find them. The problem being with child porn though, that there are victims when this porn is created. That's what makes it illegal. Heanti has no real victims so therefore it's not a crime.