When defending freedom of speech, it is often necessary to defend some of the most vile things on the planet. But it is absolutely imperative that we always do so, for as one who truly values free speech understands, it really is an all or nothing proposition.
Background
As of Thursday, February 11th, 2010; America has witnessed its first thought crime conviction [1].
Christopher Handley was sentenced to six months in federal prison for the crime of importing hand-drawn black-and-white comic books, or manga, from Japan. There is no disputing that these were positively vile comics with sickening content — lolicon and shotacon [2], but the important thing to note is that there was no victim here. Handley was arrested for his thoughts associated with ink on paper.
What really makes this abhorrent is that he actually signed a deal to plead guilty. He was denied the right to a trial and to an appeal in return for avoiding the true minimum sentence: five years and registered sex offender status for the rest of his life, with a maximum sentence of fifteen years!!
Let that sink in: fifteen years in prison. You would most likely get a lesser sentence if you took a gun, walked outside, and shot dead the first person you saw than if you drew a cartoon character naked on a piece of paper.
History
Child abuse in general has been banned in pretty much every country there is. And this is an absolutely wonderful thing. The argument is that children cannot give consent, and pretty much every psychologist agrees with this, as do I. Just so it is clear here, I have absolutely no compassion for child abusers, and no punishment is deterrent enough. I would never, ever argue for leniency for such a monster.
Next, laws were strengthened to ban the sale and purchasing of images and videos of actual child abuse. Again, there is strong and sound reasoning for this: the profits here encourage people to continue to produce this stuff.
After that, laws were strengthened further to ban even the mere possession of such materials. Again, there is sound reasoning for this: by keeping the images out there, it continues to harm the victims involved by knowing images of their abuse are out there and are being traded by like-minded individuals, and not everyone does this for money.
To put it another way, it is the same as distributing video of actual adult rape victims or of actual murders. The material being out there causes continued mental and emotional suffering to the victims. All of these laws are very good, and do a lot of good to protect innocent children.
But it didn't stop there. Congress then passed the CPPA [3], banning even fictional drawings or literature describing CP. This law immediately made hundreds of classical books, pictures and even cherub statues illegal. This was extremely overbroad, and in fact the United States Supreme Court agreed when they struck the law down in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition [4].
But Congress, in their infinite wisdom, immediately made one tiny change and passed the same law again. They added an exemption for works that are not deemed "obscene" by a jury of peers in ones' home town. This new law is the ironically named "PROTECT Act" [5], rivaling the "PATRIOT Act" for the most backwards-named legislation in history. But what is obscene, anyway?
Obscenity
The fact of the matter is, there really is no concrete definition. We have set up the Miller Test [6] to determine this, but the bottom line is that if you can get half a jury of random people from your home city to consider something obscene, it is.
The internet makes this even worse, as internet distribution counts as interstate commerce. If you preside in a liberal district in California, and a prosecutor from a rural, conservative church community in rural Arkansas decides he wants to make a name for himself as tough on crime; he can download this material and charge you with an obscenity violation in his home town.
Think about this. Not only are there countless communities in America where people would find lolicon obscene, there are many that would find any and all pornography obscene. You essentially can't sell anything without knowing the intricacies of what every community in America deems obscene.
Obscenity has always been the caveat of freedom of speech to our Supreme Court. And it has always been abused to prosecute hated individuals who have committed no actual crimes. In the past, these were primarily used against gays and lesbians, for instance.
Rationale
Most who are in favor of banning shotacon and lolicon argue that it creates child abusers, and that viewing the material makes one more brazen and willing to go and commit actual abuse crimes.
But this is absolutely ignorant and preposterous. First, people do not gain sexual attractions by repeatedly looking at imagery that doesn't interest them in the first place. If that were the case, then one could convert a gay or lesbian to at least a bisexual by showing them opposite-sex pornography. Further, why would someone not interested in such pornography even bother looking at such abhorrent material in the first place?
Second, and most importantly, it is fantasy. Does watching a horror movie featuring dismemberment and decapitation, such as Saw I-VI, turn one into a serial killer? Does playing Grand Theft Auto turn one into a professional car jacker? Does watching an adult bondage pornography film turn one into a kidnapper and rapist? Of course not. With the exception of the absolutely batshit criminally insane, virtually all humans can distinguish fantasy from reality.
Compassion
But it's so sick, isn't it? Cartoon drawings of child sexual exploitation? Fuck yes, it is. But the ick factor involved is not a reason to dictate law. Again, many people may find homosexuality icky, but we aren't Uganda or Yemen, we shouldn't incarcerate and execute people just because a majority finds them disgusting.
What we should do is incarcerate people who have committed actual crimes that hurt other people. And the fact of the matter is, no matter how disgusting this material is, there are no victims. No child is hurt when someone draws a naked kid on a piece of paper.
As I've said before, I have no compassion for child abusers. They deserve death a thousand times over. But I do have compassion for pedophiles who never act on their urges. Pedophilia by itself just means the sexual attraction. The fact of the matter is that nobody in this world understands sexuality, or how to change it, or how it is formed.
I am positively certain that nobody actively chooses to be homosexual, nor to be pedosexual. Acquiring something as detestable as pedophilia without actively choosing to is tragedy, and is not in any way their fault, so long as they don't act upon it. For one cannot control their thoughts. But one can control their physical actions. It is unfortunate the way society blurs actual abusers and those with just the thoughts as one and the same.
Those who spend their entire lives fighting against their own urges and who never actually hurt anyone, I have nothing but sympathy and respect for. Now, I wouldn't let them anywhere near my children, just as I wouldn't bring alcohol to an AA meeting, but still.
But the fact of the matter is that most of society does not have this common decency. This basic compassion for other human beings. They'd rather lynch and execute people they dislike. And that is what is happening to Christopher Handley here.
If we truly cared, we wouldn't use blackmail and extortion to coerce guilty pleas to avoid 15-year prison sentences. If we truly cared, we would offer voluntary treatment, up to and including chemical castration, to help pedosexuals. But we don't. They can't even seek help, lest society burn them at the stake.
And instead of mandatory treatment for being caught with cartoon drawings of this stuff, we lock them away and throw away the key.
But who are we really protecting?
Fictional Characters
One is supposed to have the right to confront their accuser. How does one confront Lisa Simpson? What emotional damage has Lisa Simpson suffered?
How do you even determine the age of a drawing on paper? "But your honor, she said she was 18 on panel 3A!" Can you ask for photo identification first? What if the character portrayed in the drawing is a cyborg, or is really 600 year old Sasami from Tenchi Muyo? Or what if they are only half-human?
No child is being protected by this. No, we are simply villifying people who have a despicable sexual attraction, but who have not ever acted upon it. We are persecuting them for the thoughts inside their heads. The very definition of a thought crime.
What This is Really All About
Lastly, don't think for one second that everyone pushing for these increasingly draconian laws are just thinking about the (fictional) children. For many, this is just an incremental approach, a means to an end.
Many people have an interest in having this stuff banned. People who want all pornography banned. People who want to install web filters that purport to ban child pornography can in fact use the filters and logging to catch political dissidents, copyright infringers, and so on. People who want these CP black lists in place with no public oversight to also block other types of speech as they choose. People who want all citizens to be criminals: you may like drugs, you may like porn, you may like listening to music before buying it — once all of soceity is a criminal, anyone who is a problem can easily be arrested and dealt with. And on and on. You don't go from a democracy to a theocracy overnight ... the PROTECT Act is a stepping stone to it.
Maybe they even meant well. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Proof
But as I've said, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the viewing of fictional cartoon child pornography increases the chances of abuse of actual children. In fact, it is often quite the opposite. In Japan, they have the most such material in the world (arguably), and yet their sexual abuse crime rate is lower than pretty much any other nation in the world.
Just as one can argue that banning the material stops people from getting into the real thing (the "gateway drug" argument), the reverse can also be argued. If we ban a safe and victimless outlet, what's to say pedophiles won't in turn decide to just go after the real thing now instead? If you get 15 years for looking at a drawing on paper, or 15 for actual abusing a child or trading real pornography, why waste your time with the drawing?
The evidence thus far points to the fact that access to this material decreases child abuse incidents [7] [8] [9]. Absolutely no evidence indicates that it increases it. But if such evidence ever does arise, I will be the first person to also seek to ban drawn child pornography. Until then, however, until there is any proof whatsoever that this material is harmful to anyone; this remains nothing more than vindictive legislation designed to persecute a detested minority.
But even if the evidence does point to this, treatment and smaller sentences are required. Fifteen years is just sick. It is a grave and terrible insult to victims of actual abuse. You are telling the 10 year old girl who was raped that her abuser is going to get the same sentence that a guy who looked at a cartoon drawing on paper is going to get. This is deplorable and it makes me sick to my stomach.
Precedent
By setting this predecent, we have paved the way for more draconian laws to arise. This isn't a slippery slope argument, one need only look at Australia right now to see the next logical result. In Australia, there is no artistic / literary exemption to child pornography. In Australia, a porn actress cannot appear to be under the age of 25, and must not have an A-cup breast, lest someone assume they are underage [10]. This is where America is headed next.
And what else after that? Should anthropomorphic furry art count as bestiality? Should vore art be considered cannibalism? Should a drawing of rape count as the real thing? Is it just sexual repression here? Or should we start moving toward banning violent movies and video games that depict crimes next? Should watching Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas get you an illegal drug use conviction?
In closing: look, I know these people need help. But the fact is, this is an outlet that is a victimless crime. Just as the ACLU and co defends the neo-nazi's speech, so too much we defend the speech of pedosexuals. Because if we start picking and choosing what is allowed, then we no longer have free speech. We have a theocracy where religious morals dictate what we are and are not allowed to speak of, to draw, to write about, dare I say to think about. Freedom of speech is a tower of dominoes, and the PROTECT Act takes a pivotal piece out of the bottom. It absolutely must be repealed or overturned.
In the mean time, more and more innocent men will sit in prison for harming absolutely no one but the prudish, victorian sensibilities of the truly detestable individuals whom would love nothing more than to tell you what you are allowed to think.
And if you don't stand up for these people now, one of these days, they will come for you. And who will be left to stand up for you?
References
[1] Wired: 'Obscene' U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 Months
[3] Wikipedia: CPPA
[4] Wikipedia: Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition
[7] Pornography and the pedophile: is it criminogenic?
—"Explicit child pornography was uncommon. However, offenders also generated their own 'erotic' materials from relatively innocuous sources such as television advertisements, clothing catalogues featuring children modelling underwear, and similar sources. In no case did exposure to pornography precede offending-related behaviour in childhood. All of the offenders had experienced childhood sexual abuse by adults or older peers. The relationship of these findings to previous research and implications for legislation are noted."
[8] The consumption of internet child pornography and violence and sex offences
—"Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses - at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable."
[9] Pedophilia on the internet—a study of 33 convicted offenders in the Canton of Lucerne
—"Deviant sexual fantasies seem to be widespread also among men otherwise not registered for any offences. The consumption of even particularly disgusting material may not be a specific risk factor for "contact" crimes."
[10] Australia bans small breasts in films and magazines
© 2010 byuu - archive.is/Jxrl8