Legal sentence outrage!

Is there somewhere I could go to have my voice heard (and acted upon) without being chastised for my beliefs, told I'm a troll because of inciting flames, or just being either off topic or inappropriate for the whole BB?

Don't say go to an opinion blog or sound off site (controversial subject) because hardly anybody reads those, and the people who do don't take them seriously.

Christopher Handley Pleads Guilty to Possession Charges (Update 2)
By the way, I'm not defending lolicon, I'm defending the artist's right to draw it, and the reader's right to look at it.
I must point out however, shipping lolicon out of Japan isn't legal, yet nobody has mentioned that.

I have E-mailed the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, but I've received no response.

I think this is a case of apples and oranges. the artist who drew it was a Japanese who was in Japan. Japan has different laws, different culture and different values. In this country out values and morale say child porn is wrong. Bottom line, constitutional free speech is not an absolute nor is the Constitution itself, hence the Amendments. In regards to what can be construed as child pornography, finding an open forum for discussion is going to be rather limited regardless of political affiliation.

It's probably an issue which both Republicans and Democrats can actually agree on. Having your voice heard is one thing, acted upon is completely different. I seriously do not think no matter how much of an uproar comes from the anime community, this decision is going to be overturned. Hell, I think he got off light. What was committed here was clearly against federal law, and hence the initial investigation by the US Postal Inspector's office.

Maybe it is not illegal by Japan post standards to mail it, but US Postal and Federal law clearly does as this how the material was intercepted within the mail stream to begin with.

Let's see here...

I've seen similar cases before, but this is the first in which a jail sentence would be put on a man for possession of lolicon. I've held long discussions with people much more wise than I and we agree that, while lolicon is unique, it has been declared legal in the US under a US court case by this: The prohibitions against computer-generated and illustrated child pornography have also been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, when they were included in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. Depictions, therefore, that are illegal are ones that are done directly of children in the situation, not the imagined ones.

Konrad13 wrote:Let's see here...

I've seen similar cases before, but this is the first in which a jail sentence would be put on a man for possession of lolicon. I've held long discussions with people much more wise than I and we agree that, while lolicon is unique, it has been declared legal in the US under a US court case by this: The prohibitions against computer-generated and illustrated child pornography have also been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, when they were included in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. Depictions, therefore, that are illegal are ones that are done directly of children in the situation, not the imagined ones.

THANK YOU!
I'm glad someone agrees with me.
Unfortunately your quote comes from a 2002 ruling that was overturned a year later, called the PROTECT Act of 2003.
The PROTECT Act also had some amendments, such as: "To be child pornography, a reasonable person must not be able to distinguish the image from real life," which is imposable with anime or hentai.

Artilects rule! wrote:

Konrad13 wrote:Let's see here...

I've seen similar cases before, but this is the first in which a jail sentence would be put on a man for possession of lolicon. I've held long discussions with people much more wise than I and we agree that, while lolicon is unique, it has been declared legal in the US under a US court case by this: The prohibitions against computer-generated and illustrated child pornography have also been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, when they were included in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. Depictions, therefore, that are illegal are ones that are done directly of children in the situation, not the imagined ones.

THANK YOU!
I'm glad someone agrees with me.
Unfortunately your quote comes from a 2002 ruling that was overturned a year later, called the PROTECT Act of 2003.
The PROTECT Act also had some amendments, such as: "To be child pornography, a reasonable person must not be able to distinguish the image from real life," which is imposable with anime or hentai.

It is true that it was overturned, but it is being fought against, seeing as the sentencing get's it into sort legal gray zone that appears to be largely illegal.