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.