[002]
Lindaeus
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
My home country of Sweden is one of the few nations in the world where drawn child pornography is just as illegal as real child pornography. This has become more apparent in recent years due to \'\'Mangamålet\'\' (\
to:
My home country of Sweden is one of the few nations in the world where drawn child pornography is just as illegal as real child pornography. This has become more apparent in recent years due to \\\'\\\'Mangamålet\\\'\\\' (\\\"The Manga Case\\\" or \\\"The Manga Lawsuit\\\"), where a translator named Simon Lundström was put on trial for possession of manga images that could be classified as child pornography according to Swedish law. He was declared innocent by the Supreme Court of Sweden 15 June 2012, since only one of the 51 images he was originally arrested for was judged as actually being child porn, and since he was not only a translator but also an expert on Japanese culture, it was considered acceptable that he had it on his computer.
My point is not the trial itself, but one of the images that ceased to be considered child porn. It\\\'s the cover image from the manga \\\'\\\'The Aria on I Gland\\\'\\\', and since I\\\'m not sure if I\\\'m allowed to post a link to it, I\\\'ll describe it instead: it shows two girls, quite obviously children, holding each other and sharing a banana in a phallic fashion, all the while staring at the \\\"camera\\\" as if they\\\'re mildly surprised someone sees them. \\\'\\\'The Aria\\\'\\\' is openly of the lolicon genre, and while anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can tell that they\\\'re not real children, there\\\'s no doubt that they\\\'re supposed to resemble children in an erotically charged context (it\\\'s not possible to see the characters\\\' nipples or genitalia, but parts of their buttocks can be seen).
Ergo: the Supreme Court of Sweden, consisting of people who were paid to evaluate the severity of this kind of material, did not consider an image displaying two childlike characters in erotic poses to be child pornography. If I were to present \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' to them and ask them to send its creators and everyone watching it to prison, I\\\'d be laughed to scorn. The above mentioned image was not considered dangerous in a country that judges simulated child porn in the same way as real porn, and there\\\'s no way \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' would be deemed more harmful. That\\\'s what I call perspective. I should probably also add that Sweden\\\'s child pornography laws have been criticised as of late, but they\\\'re still in effect.
You could say that it doesn\\\'t matter what some lawyers in Sweden think, since this is TV Tropes. I\\\'d agree. But by the same token, it wouldn\\\'t matter what reviewers condemning \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' as paedophile material think either.
\\\'\\\'\\\'The series could potentially make paedophiles write about it, which would cause discomfort fo the rest of us.\\\'\\\'\\\' Before \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' got deleted, I was the only one writing about it. There were other people editing it, but only to fix typos and such. The only thing I wrote that could possibly be interpreted as supporting the amount of alleged underage fanservice was the entry on Trailers Always Lie, where I wrote that the trailer made the anime seem more perverse than it really was, and even that was about the nudity itself, not the specific scenes involving Mii or the other children in the series. Other than that, the only comments on inappropriate behaviour were strictly neutral. There were zero paedophiles editting the page (or at the very least, there were no people writing about the series in a perverse fashion, neither positively nor negatively). Of course, there might have been paedophiles reading it, in the same way that there might be rape enthusiasts reading about the Rape Tropes. That\\\'s not an argument for outright deleting anything, it\\\'s just an argument for locking a page at the most.
Tomorrow\\\'s the day. I\\\'ll make a post fairly early, because I have an event to attend in the evening, and I\\\'ll be unavailable by then. I trust the two of you to keep up the discussion while I\\\'m gone. In any case I\\\'ll send you messages after the post has been made.
My point is not the trial itself, but one of the images that ceased to be considered child porn. It\\\'s the cover image from the manga \\\'\\\'The Aria on I Gland\\\'\\\', and since I\\\'m not sure if I\\\'m allowed to post a link to it, I\\\'ll describe it instead: it shows two girls, quite obviously children, holding each other and sharing a banana in a phallic fashion, all the while staring at the \\\"camera\\\" as if they\\\'re mildly surprised someone sees them. \\\'\\\'The Aria\\\'\\\' is openly of the lolicon genre, and while anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can tell that they\\\'re not real children, there\\\'s no doubt that they\\\'re supposed to resemble children in an erotically charged context (it\\\'s not possible to see the characters\\\' nipples or genitalia, but parts of their buttocks can be seen).
Ergo: the Supreme Court of Sweden, consisting of people who were paid to evaluate the severity of this kind of material, did not consider an image displaying two childlike characters in erotic poses to be child pornography. If I were to present \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' to them and ask them to send its creators and everyone watching it to prison, I\\\'d be laughed to scorn. The above mentioned image was not considered dangerous in a country that judges simulated child porn in the same way as real porn, and there\\\'s no way \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' would be deemed more harmful. That\\\'s what I call perspective. I should probably also add that Sweden\\\'s child pornography laws have been criticised as of late, but they\\\'re still in effect.
You could say that it doesn\\\'t matter what some lawyers in Sweden think, since this is TV Tropes. I\\\'d agree. But by the same token, it wouldn\\\'t matter what reviewers condemning \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' as paedophile material think either.
\\\'\\\'\\\'The series could potentially make paedophiles write about it, which would cause discomfort fo the rest of us.\\\'\\\'\\\' Before \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' got deleted, I was the only one writing about it. There were other people editing it, but only to fix typos and such. The only thing I wrote that could possibly be interpreted as supporting the amount of alleged underage fanservice was the entry on Trailers Always Lie, where I wrote that the trailer made the anime seem more perverse than it really was, and even that was about the nudity itself, not the specific scenes involving Mii or the other children in the series. Other than that, the only comments on inappropriate behaviour were strictly neutral. There were zero paedophiles editting the page (or at the very least, there were no people writing about the series in a perverse fashion, neither positively nor negatively). Of course, there might have been paedophiles reading it, in the same way that there might be rape enthusiasts reading about the Rape Tropes. That\\\'s not an argument for outright deleting anything, it\\\'s just an argument for locking a page at the most.
Tomorrow\\\'s the day. I\\\'ll make a post fairly early, because I have an event to attend in the evening, and I\\\'ll be unavailable by then. I trust the two of you to keep up the discussion while I\\\'m gone. In any case I\\\'ll send you messages after the post has been made.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
My home country of Sweden is one of the few nations in the world where drawn child pornography is just as illegal as real child pornography. This has become more apparent in recent years due to \'\'Mangamålet\'\' (\
to:
My home country of Sweden is one of the few nations in the world where drawn child pornography is just as illegal as real child pornography. This has become more apparent in recent years due to \\\'\\\'Mangamålet\\\'\\\' (\\\"The Manga Case\\\" or \\\"The Manga Lawsuit\\\"), where a translator named Simon Lundström was put on trial for possession of images that could be classified as child pornography according to Swedish law. He was declared innocent by the Supreme Court of Sweden 15 June 2012, since only one of the 51 images he was originally arrested for was judged as actually being child porn, and since he was not only a translator but also an expert on Japanese culture, it was considered acceptable that he had it on his computer.
My point is not the trial itself, but one of the images that ceased to be considered child porn. It\\\'s the cover image from the manga \\\'\\\'The Aria on I Gland\\\'\\\', and since I\\\'m not sure if I\\\'m allowed to post a link to it, I\\\'ll describe it instead: it shows two girls, quite obviously children, holding each other and sharing a banana in a phallic fashion, all the while staring at the \\\"camera\\\" as if they\\\'re mildly surprised someone sees them. \\\'\\\'The Aria\\\'\\\' is openly of the lolicon genre, and while anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can tell that they\\\'re not real children, there\\\'s no doubt that they\\\'re supposed to resemble children in an erotically charged context (it\\\'s not possible to see the characters\\\' nipples or genitalia, but parts of their buttocks can be seen).
Ergo: the Supreme Court of Sweden, consisting of people who were paid to evaluate the severity of this kind of material, did not consider an image displaying two childlike characters in erotic poses to be child pornography. If I were to present \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' to them and ask them to send its creators and everyone watching it to prison, I\\\'d be laughed to scorn. The above mentioned image was not considered dangerous in a country that judges simulated child porn in the same way as real porn, and there\\\'s no way \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' would be deemed more harmful. That\\\'s what I call perspective. I should probably also add that Sweden\\\'s child pornography laws have been criticised as of late, but it\\\'s still in effect.
You could say that it doesn\\\'t matter what some lawyers in Sweden think, since this is TV Tropes. I\\\'d agree. But by the same token, it wouldn\\\'t matter what reviewers condemning \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' as paedophile material think either.
\\\'\\\'\\\'The series could potentially make paedophiles write about it, which would cause discomfort fo the rest of us.\\\'\\\'\\\' Before \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' got deleted, I was the only one writing about it. There were other people editing it, but only to fix typos and such. The only thing I wrote that could possibly be interpreted as supporting the amount of alleged underage fanservice was the entry on Trailers Always Lie, where I wrote that the trailer made the anime seem more perverse than it really was, and even that was about the nudity itself, not the specific scenes involving Mii or the other children in the series. Other than that, the only comments on inappropriate behaviour were strictly neutral. There were zero paedophiles editting the page (or at the very least, there were no people writing about the series in a perverse fashion, neither positively nor negatively). Of course, there might have been paedophiles reading it, in the same way that there might be rape enthusiasts reading about the Rape Tropes. That\\\'s not an argument for outright deleting anything, it\\\'s just an argument for locking a page at the most.
Tomorrow\\\'s the day. I\\\'ll make a post fairly early, because I have an event to attend in the evening, and I\\\'ll be unavailable by then. I trust the two of you to keep up the discussion while I\\\'m gone. In any case I\\\'ll send you messages after the post has been made.
My point is not the trial itself, but one of the images that ceased to be considered child porn. It\\\'s the cover image from the manga \\\'\\\'The Aria on I Gland\\\'\\\', and since I\\\'m not sure if I\\\'m allowed to post a link to it, I\\\'ll describe it instead: it shows two girls, quite obviously children, holding each other and sharing a banana in a phallic fashion, all the while staring at the \\\"camera\\\" as if they\\\'re mildly surprised someone sees them. \\\'\\\'The Aria\\\'\\\' is openly of the lolicon genre, and while anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can tell that they\\\'re not real children, there\\\'s no doubt that they\\\'re supposed to resemble children in an erotically charged context (it\\\'s not possible to see the characters\\\' nipples or genitalia, but parts of their buttocks can be seen).
Ergo: the Supreme Court of Sweden, consisting of people who were paid to evaluate the severity of this kind of material, did not consider an image displaying two childlike characters in erotic poses to be child pornography. If I were to present \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' to them and ask them to send its creators and everyone watching it to prison, I\\\'d be laughed to scorn. The above mentioned image was not considered dangerous in a country that judges simulated child porn in the same way as real porn, and there\\\'s no way \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' would be deemed more harmful. That\\\'s what I call perspective. I should probably also add that Sweden\\\'s child pornography laws have been criticised as of late, but it\\\'s still in effect.
You could say that it doesn\\\'t matter what some lawyers in Sweden think, since this is TV Tropes. I\\\'d agree. But by the same token, it wouldn\\\'t matter what reviewers condemning \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' as paedophile material think either.
\\\'\\\'\\\'The series could potentially make paedophiles write about it, which would cause discomfort fo the rest of us.\\\'\\\'\\\' Before \\\'\\\'Popotan\\\'\\\' got deleted, I was the only one writing about it. There were other people editing it, but only to fix typos and such. The only thing I wrote that could possibly be interpreted as supporting the amount of alleged underage fanservice was the entry on Trailers Always Lie, where I wrote that the trailer made the anime seem more perverse than it really was, and even that was about the nudity itself, not the specific scenes involving Mii or the other children in the series. Other than that, the only comments on inappropriate behaviour were strictly neutral. There were zero paedophiles editting the page (or at the very least, there were no people writing about the series in a perverse fashion, neither positively nor negatively). Of course, there might have been paedophiles reading it, in the same way that there might be rape enthusiasts reading about the Rape Tropes. That\\\'s not an argument for outright deleting anything, it\\\'s just an argument for locking a page at the most.
Tomorrow\\\'s the day. I\\\'ll make a post fairly early, because I have an event to attend in the evening, and I\\\'ll be unavailable by then. I trust the two of you to keep up the discussion while I\\\'m gone. In any case I\\\'ll send you messages after the post has been made.
