Tag Archives: cbldf

Christopher Handley’s Guilty Plea and its Implications

Posted on by

Christopher Handley has plead guilty for possessing obscene manga. While on the surface it seems a simple matter, the implications are enormous and complex, and to tell the truth I’m not sure I can get around to everything that I feel is worth saying, but I will at the very least try to get people to think about the causes and effects and consequences of this decision.

Handley was threatened by the government through a variety of means. While it is legal to have obscene materials in the privacy of your own home, they tried to get him on charges of having obscene material shipped across states, which it was because it came from Japan. However, that material was never meant for others, it was Handley’s personal pornography, and it involved no actual people, only fictional characters, concepts in a story. Of course, that’s not how the government prosecution wants you to see it.

The whole matter comes down to underage pornography. While there is the matter of the government never being too specific on the manga that caused Handley to be charged in the first place, ultimately they want you to think that it’s child porn even if it isn’t, even if all the characters are well over 18 and have adult proportions, even if they mistake Gaogaigar for lolicon. That’s where this discussion will take place.

A minor in the United States is someone under the age of 18. I am perfectly fine with that number. It’s different in other countries, sometimes higher and sometimes lower, but 18 is fine. It is fine, that is, when applied to real people, and that’s what the law should be about. However, anyone would be daft to believe that teenagers under the age of 18 do not have sex. Legally, it would be ideal if this did not really happen, but it is the truth and it is reality, and fiction should have every right to depict an aspect of reality while not being completely beholden to it or the law. In other words, if fiction were to be forced to depict a world where everything is legally okay or turns out that way, fiction would die. Imagine Death Note without murder. Imagine Kare Kano without sex between its high school-age characters. Both are possible, but both are enriched by these acts which can be deemed wrong by some, and while both are not considered “obscene” normally, when you start to hack away at the “obscene titles,” what you might not realize is that you’re also chipping away at more “innocent titles.”

Luckily, the US is not controlling all fiction. Shows about teenagers dating and having sex have been a staple of television since the 90s, the most prominent example probably being Beverly Hills 90210. And sure, they eventually grew up and become full-fledged adults, but the start was always the sexualization of teenagers, even if those teenagers were played by adults. Here we are in America, sexualizing teenagers while also saying that it’s wrong. Again, I am perfectly fine with the law saying that a guy who is 30 should not be fooling around with a girl who is 16 along as this law is for real people and not fictional characters where that huge age gap and all the implications behind that age gap can possibly factor into the story. And it seems like for a lot of entertainment in America, the government understands this, but something is particularly dangerous about comics.

I have to wonder if the the idea of comics being “for kids” has influenced this perception in any way, that comics should not have the ability to go that far when in fact it might be more suited to taking things a step further than perhaps any other form of media or art or entertainment. Purely text fiction would not so nearly incur the wrath of the government or normal people as the potential for obscenity requires some digging; it is not as immediate as visual imagery. I do not ask comics to be like literature or high art, but what I do hope is that comics, comic creators, and comic readers as a whole can achieve all of the possiblities of the medium without having to worry about their ideas being considered too “obscene” or “wrong.”

If you think the material is bad, you are allowed to say so, but it should not be possible to run to the government and tell them on someone with whom you disagree, even if the “you” I mentioned IS the government.

I understand that not everyone is as closely connected with the world of fiction as myself or others, and they may see this guilty plea and its consequences as being very cut and dry, very black and white. “What does it matter that there are a few less stories out there,” one might say, “If it protects people from getting hurt?” But the “matter” is that ultimately these are ideas put on paper, and you are trying to protect people from harm that may or may not happen based on a fictional work where the motive of the work may fall entirely out of step with the perceived harm that it could potentially generate. It is thought crime, and while the term thought crime is bandied about and misused constantly, this is a very valid example and I ask that you consider the idea that your own private thoughts, thoughts which may exist only in your head and in a diary or journal in your home, could be turned against you without there being any actual evidence of intent to carry it out in reality.

As a final note, I want to talk about the manga Ressentiment. It is a title where people have the ability to have virtual sex with virtual girls, and the main virtual girl is depicted and designed to be around high school age, and it’s all designed to be a part of the story. It can be offensive, but it’s all there aesthetically to give the reader a sense of disgust or sadness. When she’s naked, or put into an obscene position, she is a fictional virtual minor. Who is harmed by this? Can the law extend so far as to protect a character who is part of the fictional world of another fictional world, and punish those who read about it?

I COULD Get in Trouble for This: Christopher Handley and the CBLDF

Posted on by

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.