Tastes are subjective, and just because you find something offensive doesn’t mean other find it so. Additionally you cannot take on the moral imperative to change people’s opinions to match your own standards because they don’t agree with your own. Free Speech protects your right to express your self, and it protects Nazi Skin heads’ rights to expression. You may hate it but that is a key and valued feature of the United States’ constitution. Granted there are limitation, but honestly, even those give you plenty of space to express yourself.

This is a case of close-minded individuals attempting to regulate the comics industry because they need something to focus on.

And that’s thought crime. That’s the problem. What if the guy only had a collection of binders filled with pictures from department store mailers and catalogs of kids wearing bathing suits and underwear? Actual photos, not drawings? That’s far MORE creepy than a copy of Lost Girls or lolicon comics. But what part of it is illegal? None.

This case potentially opens the door for ANY drawing that _could_ be construed as child porn, regardless of intent of the creator, seller or owner, to _be_ child porn.

There’s full frontal nudity in Maurice Sendak’s _In the Night Kitchen_.

Tom Lehrer had it right almost 50 years ago, in a song called “Smut” which was, conincedentally, about censorship:

“When correctly viewed, EVERYTHING is lewd. I could tell you things about Peter Pan, and the Wizard of Oz, THERE’s a dirty old man!”

Well, in this guy’s case, out of over 1,200 books and movies, they found between 150-300 IMAGES (that’s panels, pages or frames, as opposed to entire books or movies) that they could argue were obscene. Considering the number of pages in the average manga, that’s a fairly small percentage, small enough that they might well be for lack of a better term “Accidental”. Potentially. I’m confident we shall never know.

“It’s not fair to convict this guy of something when we don’t know all the facts. I’m just saying there had to be more going on than what was made public.”

They DID have all the facts, and they DID convict him, or at least got him to cop a lesser plea. So in his case, the argument over whether or not he’s guilty is over. We can talk about if he’s “really guilty” all we like, tho.

“I just can’t see a right-minded person pleading guilty to this unless they were wanting to avoid the additional scrutiny of a trial that might have revealed something worse.”

As I mention on my perviously plugged blog, Paul Rubens (Pee Wee Herman) did. He got caught with some miniscule number of vintage photos (out of a lot of tens of thousands) that showed young people in decidedly non-sexual positions, but still were judged child porn. He copped a misdemeanor plea just to have an end to it.

And there’s nothing saying the guy with the kiddie porn manga can’t have a copy of “Lost Girls”. But the difference is a collection with one book depicting child sex compared to an entire collection of books most of which depicting child sex. Quantity speaks a lot to intent. At least in the eyes of a jury and the general public. I’m not saying that’s right, because it’s not. Just how it is most times.

It’s not fair to convict this guy of something when we don’t know all the facts. I’m just saying there had to be more going on than what was made public. I just can’t see a right-minded person pleading guilty to this unless they were wanting to avoid the additional scrutiny of a trial that might have revealed something worse.

Or course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

I am not defending child predators, but there is theoretically a lot more at stake than whether someone is allowed to draw minors having sex. I’d also like to point out that your assertion that someone who owns Lost Girls is a serious collector and someone who owns a manga is a pervert. On what grounds do you base that? Do you even know what materials were seized from the accused? If you do, please tell me because that might change my opinion of the situation.

And what’s stopping the guy with a sick fetish from BUYING a copy of Lost Girls?

“So long as they don’t act on that fetish I don’t have a problem with them owning that material.”

Ah, but isn’t going out and buying more material about said fetish akin to “acting on it”? It is to some people. The fear is that the government or some other body might someday get to the point that you won’t even be allowed to do things in your own home, something you kindly allow.

The knee-jerk reaction in this case has been that the guy is a pedophile, and if you support him in any way, you are “pro-pedophile”. This is an argument that is hard to dispute, as it is based on personal opinion, which is notoriously hard to shift. It’s the same reason that so much time is spent by, say, Obama’s detractors ensuring the world that they disagree with his actions and standings, and not Because He’s Black. It’s like trying to convince people that you susbcribe to Playboy for the articles. It’s just too easy to believe the big idea than to cut it up and realize that these little ideas are true. So in the minds of too many people, The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund now “supports child porn” No. This is like saying the George Washington Bridge supports the War in Iraq because trucks containing military equipment drive over it.

I do not envy the CBLDF in this case. But like the ACLU et al, they must come to the defense of people who are being persecuted in a way that could eventually be used against everyone else.

More at http://40yearoldfanboy.blogspot.com/