Comments on: Fictional Freedom: a Legal Perspective, Part 1

By: the_pragmatist

the_pragmatist — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:38:40 +0000

Something being labeled “pornographic” does not equal not being artistic. In fact, pornographic material is always also art (art is defined as “the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions”); the problem is that somehow it has legislatively become a “special” form of art in most jurisdictions which can legally be declared “not art” so as to force one group’s morals regarding sex onto everyone else in society. That does not change the fact that it is a fully legitimate form of art, and I would argue that pornography is quite possibly the most powerful form of art, as it seems to invoke the strongest effect on one’s senses or emotions out of all the art forms we possess today. Why else are there laws that destroy peoples’ lives for producing porn, yet videos of murder or songs about killing rival gang members are somehow protected from such laws?

By: Immigrant88

Immigrant88 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:30:42 +0000

Although your comment (Orenji) about art as pornography makes a lot of sense, it is very likely that most jurisdictions’ jurisprudence worldwide has classified “lolicon art” as pornography. It is likely a reality already. “Lolicon art” defined in this article are drawings which are erotic, not just child like. Hence, there could be a grey area on whether a naked drawing, devoid of any sexual act, is pornography. The classification of these ambiguous pictures will depend on local case law. Whatever assertions I have mentioned are only assumptions though, which will have to be investigated by reading cases. I will look into it when time allows. The aim of the article is not to argue from a jurisprudence basis, but a legal theory basis, which is behind jurisprudence, it therefore attempts to render some jurisprudence void

By: Orenji

Orenji — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:51:15 +0000

The most functional problem with this argument or any position we might hold is that lolicon art, or any form of hentai, is being called “pornography” in law. Once this definition becomes reality, it’s integrity as an artistic drawing is lost, and becomes very difficult to argue in court.

Because hey, if lolicon art is porn, than so are those museum Renaissance paintings and sculptors of naked boy/girl angels. And if those people want to argue “those are angels, and natural (religiously)”, than we get a whole ton of free arguments. Most notably, that 99% of lolicon characters in anime have age well over an average adult (just not in appearance), or we could just go start our own religion and then separate it from the state entirely and not get involved in law.

It’s ridiculous how such logical arguments are so easily thrown out of court because of biased judges, the people saying it don’t have a law degree, or the chance to speak.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:40:53 +0000

Makese absolute perfect sense! The DPJ government officials in Japan should read this!

By: Fonzer

Fonzer — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:16:06 +0000

good job.

By: skim

skim — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:09:51 +0000

Very nicely written article. =)

By: Sorrior

Sorrior — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:48:50 +0000

i agree with the above i remember reading a link to this that i think was posted on sankaku. Very nice work now if only i could get off my lazy ass and do something this worthwhile. I’ve been meaning to volunteer to write something up about handley but just can’t seem to get the energy up.

By: Fanzhon

Fanzhon — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:28:24 +0000

Awesome work, good to see it finally posted =D