Comments on: Comics A.M. | The comics Internet in two minutes

By: BD

BD — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:08:10 +0000

Matt Groening better make sure he doesn’t visit Canada, or he might get busted for animal cruelty to Itchy and Scratchy.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:11:58 +0000

First off, yuck.

Second, I think this ruling is silly. Will charges be made against people that own comics depicting murder? Let’s change part of their argument to fit another atrocity and violation…

“Murder wouldn’t happen in the first place if there weren’t people there to look at this material.”

It just doesn’t make sense.

By: Kevin Melrose

Kevin Melrose — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:44:39 +0000

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying; I took it as a rephrasing of the sentence I quoted — essentially, a “vicious circle” argument.

By: Joe H

Joe H — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:41:18 +0000

You left out the previous sentence; “Every one of these images involves the victimization of children. The victimization wouldn’t happen in the first place if there weren’t people there to look at this material.”
To me that sounds like that they’re saying that the crime isn’t only possessing depictions of minors performing sexual acts, but that the victimization of fictional characters is also immoral and illegal.
But either way, it is a completely asinine argument.

By: Thad

Thad — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:42:14 +0000

“The victimization wouldn’t happen in the first place if there weren’t people there to look at this material.”

I try to give the benefit of the doubt to reports from foreign press that something may be lost in translation, because the statement as given here is absurd on its very face. Children wouldn’t be victimized if there weren’t people who looked at lolicon? Really? I’m pretty sure there are some recorded instances of child abuse by people who don’t have loli collections.

Standard disclaimer: I despise the stuff, but as long as no actual minors were harmed in its creation, it should be legal. I’m pretty much with Gaiman on this: if you want to support free speech, at some point you have to support speech that turns your stomach.

I think the First Amendment would protect it in the US, though the cases you mention here haven’t gone to the Supreme Court.