Today I decided to donate to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) to support Christopher Handley, a man who has been charged with possession of “obscene” material, in this case a certain unspecified manga. I was already convinced that I should support the CBLDF weeks ago when Neil Gaiman posted an illuminating essay on the matter, one which reinforced beliefs I already hold, but I hesitated. With the additional passionate calls for help from respected anime industry members Carl Horn and Jason Thompson, what began as good intent on my part became a concrete action.
If you’re unsure as to whether or not it’s worth helping out the CBLDF, the arguments given by Neil Gaiman, Carl Horn, and Jason Thompson are all far more convincing than anything I could say. I am not going to argue that porn reduces sex crimes, or the difference between a 2D fetish and a 3D one, or any of those things which are missing the point. Instead, what I am going to describe below are the reasons why I made the decision to donate, and my fundamental feelings on the matter.
It is my belief that art, which I’m using as a general term for creative works, exists to express ideas and emotions, and that art’s strength is directly related to its diversity. No matter the quality or intent of the artist, their work matters because it contributes ideas. They may be wrong, they may be completely misguided, but they still have the right to express themselves, especially if such things are kept in private. Obtaining art, be it by your own creating hand or by the wallet in your pocket, whether you are the maker or the taker, is an extension of this idea.
Let’s disregard the actual content of the manga in question, and just pretend that it is the most vile, disgusting thing you can imagine. It affects you negatively on both an emotional and ideological level, and you wouldn’t be caught dead taking so much as a glance at it. And let’s say that, given the reprehensible content, this manga could influence someone to make a big mistake. It could be the catalyst which drives someone to endanger human lives. There is a difference however between “could” and “did,” and “could” and “will.”
If you’re allowed to punish someone for something they could do, then where do you draw the line? What factors go into determining whether or not someone is capable of committing a crime? And even if you could determine a method that would differentiate those who “can” from those who “cannot,” how are you to tell someone to simply stop how they feel?
Human beings are emotional creatures, and we often cannot help how we think or feel, even when we know those thoughts and emotions are unhealthy. And while you can tell someone that their feelings are wrong or dangerous and be right, you also cannot force someone to have the emotions you expect them to. Yes, if someone acts purely on their emotions without regard for others, then it is a problem. This is why humans are also rational creatures: reason tempers emotion. But if we punish someone because their thoughts are troubled, or that their emotions and ideas have been put to paper, then we give no opportunity for reason to play its role in human thought. We are punishing someone for what they could do, and humans being what they are, that would mean that we are all already guilty of something.
OGIUE MANIAX 
I’m probably going to donate to the CBLDF for the same reason.
LikeLike
THOUGHT CRIME
LikeLike
I think it always comes down to the “simple” matter of freedom vs safety and where you are willing to draw the line. Some people will choose to give others certain freedoms with the knowledge that those very freedoms might come to bite them on the arse. Other people just don’t have trust in their fellow man and often with good reason.
I myself tend to rather take the risk of not letting go of certain freedoms with full knowledge that is makes the world a more dangerous place at times. I would rather let people get their have freedom of expression to read or create what they want as long as it does not directly hurt others. I can’t see anything that this guy was buying directly hurting anyone. I understand why people would feel the other way.
LikeLike
My first thought was to think that having it under the CBLDF banner was kind of out of contact with the wider issue at hand. But then, we’ve had this in literature haven’t we. And society came down on the side of free expression there. Which should have set up a precedent for expression over influence.
I’m unconvinced that drawing are so massively different from descriptions. So I think this shows a social predisposition towards particular media. People not seeing comics as a valid form of expression damages the argument.
LikeLike
Censorship sets a dangerous precedent.
By liberally applying it, you WILL shield the next generation from such evils by deluding them that such things don’t exist.
Which leads to punishing people for exercising free will.
By punishing people for exercising their free will, you teach the next generation that it is okay to discriminate and look down on people who are different from the status quo.
Which is basically teaching people to not be gracious.
By teaching them not to be gracious, you teach them to think only for themselves and not for others, or worse, to actively antagonize against such people.
Being gracious means realizing why people do such things. And produce such things. And then attacking the root of the problem. If you don’t cut the problem off at the root, no matter how many times you swing that blunt mace around, you’re going to break lots of bones. Friendly or otherwise. Maces don’t discriminate against anyone, so do laws.
And this is why justice is always tempered with mercy.
The answer then, would be to go to Japan and help the people making such things to not make them anymore, not punishing the consumers for buying these things. As the problem lies with Japan’s disillusioned, bitter, yet strangely nationalistic, patriotic and patriarchal otaku, not America.
You could also blame free-market capitalism, but as you can see, we’re in a major economic crisis due to it, see…
LikeLike
The short answer to “If you’re allowed to punish someone for something they could do, then where do you draw the line?”:
The law seeks, in all cases, to balance the harm caused to victims (or potential victims) and the effect on the public when deciding what must constitute an offence. The more serious the possible harm to the victims, the greater the burden and restrictions on the public to prevent the committing of that crime.
For example, gun laws. In most nation states guns are outlawed because they constitute a great risk to potential victims of gun-related crimes, that of serious injury or death. Therefore, to prevent crimes involving guns, the law places very strict limitations on who can or cannot own guns.
Obviously abuse of children is a very, very, very, very serious issue. Therefore, to prevent the abuse of children, child pornography is outlawed. And because it is a very, very, very, very serious issue, anything that could even remotely cause or lead to greater demand for child pornography is also outlawed.
Most people in America, as I understand it, don’t own guns because they want to harm someone. However, because the consequence of just even a tiny portion of people buying guns are doing so with the intent of harming others is so terrible, guns are outlawed in most countries. Similarly, the consequences of just a tiny portion of people who like hentai may one day seek greater thrills in pornography of real children is so severe that the law also seeks to outlaw drawn pornographic images of children.
It’s not a question of “who can or who cannot”, but one of “How great is the possible harm that may result if even only a tiny portion of the population does [do that thing in issue]?”
Hope that makes some sense.
LikeLike
I don’t have much money, being a poor student, but I will donate what I can. I don’t care if it’s a comic full of pedophilia, zoophilia and gore all thrown together, it’s NOT real. If ink on paper should be banned, might as well start meticulously ban books with obscene content (whatever can be considered obscene).
As was said before, I’ll disapprove of your choices, but I’ll defend to the death your right to have them.
LikeLike
I don’t have much money, being a poor student, but I will donate what I can. I don’t care if it’s a comic full of pedophilia, zoophilia and gore all thrown together, it’s NOT real. If ink on paper should be banned, might as well start meticulously ban books with obscene content (whatever can be considered obscene).
As was said before, I’ll disapprove of your choices, but I’ll defend to the death your right to have them.
LikeLike
Pingback: Emotion, Intelligence, and the Use of Both in Essays « OGIUE MANIAX
Pingback: Emotion, Intelligence, and the Comics Ambassador « OGIUE MANIAX