No.

Promoting pedophilia is promoting pedophilia no matter how fictional it might be.

@ Putin33: Care to elaborate?

@ Bo_Sox: How does viewing a cartoon "promote" anything?

Really, so cartoons cannot convey messages, is that right?

What is the purpose of the cartoons depicting children being sexually exploited? Nothing other than to get off on children being sexually exploited.

Ban it and lock up anyone who owns the filth.

"“This is material that clearly society and the public can well do without. Its danger is that it obviously portrays sexual activity with children, and the more it’s portrayed, the more the ill-disposed may think it’s acceptable.”"

What a terrible standard for outlawing something. I don't suppose we'll be banning violence in film, will we? Drug use?

We can "do without" almost anything. Certainly every individual work of fiction is expendable. There are a plethora of works of fiction that depict, promote and glorify other horrible, illegal acts. Such a standard would open the door for -- and, for sake of legal consistency, necessitate -- banning the overwhelming majority of fiction.

"I don't suppose we'll be banning violence in film, will we? Drug use?"

Do you support fictional portrayals of the sexual exploitation of children for gratifying purposes? If not, why not, based on your commentary here?

Putin, while I wouldn't argue with your assessment of the purpose of the cartoons in question, I certainly would argue that the last thing any free society should want to do is attach prison sentences to owning certain items of fiction on the basis of a judge's assessment of the literary value, meaning or purpose of those items.

It'd be better to know a bit more details I think. From the article it sounds like these were more like highly realistic drawings / computer models than what we're probably thinking of. This isn't someone drawing Pokemon characters in compromising positions, this seems a bit more... real.

"Do you support fictional portrayals of the sexual exploitation of children for gratifying purposes? If not, why not, based on your commentary here?"

No, I don't, and I don't understand why my commentary here would imply otherwise.

Jamiet, are you saying cartoons that are drawn can't have any deeper meaning? Political cartoons are frequent during times of elections to promote a certain party over another. They can easily be used to promote things.

But I would say while it is distasteful, I don't think it should be illegal. As this is closer to the argument to violent video games cause violent individuals.
But instead it's do pornographic animes promote pedophilia, it's the same idea of something fictional causing an affect on your actual life style.
And that's not a debate I wish to get into at 1 in the morning...

The slippery slope argument always assumes human beings are too dumb to rationally discern between what is acceptable and what is not. The choice being offered is always legalize everything or ban everything.

"No, I don't, and I don't understand why my commentary here would imply otherwise."

I don't see the distinction. You're worried that all fiction would be banned or depictions of violence in movies would be banned, if images of the sexual exploitation of children in cartoon form for the purpose titillation are banned? But not if it involves child actors? Why doesn't the same logic apply to the latter? Presumably violence in movies often involves child actors, and you're worried that somehow our psychopathic addiction to that form of entertainment might be curtailed.

Censorship of imagination. Ugh!

Lolita is often brought up in discussions like this.

I don't have much more to add now - it's gone 1AM and I don't want to think about it tonight, but I'm just commenting to get a star.

It's not a slippery slope when the items being compared are equivalent in all properties pertinent to the comparison. I didn't list "everything" -- merely violence and drug use. And I'll concede that not all drug use is a priori undesirable and drop that particular submission.

By the same logic that suggests these pictures should be outlawed -- that "society can do without them," and that "portrayal of <insert undesirable thing> encourages the ill-adjusted to find them acceptable" -- one absolutely could argue that violence in works of fiction should be banned. Working with violence to an extent since it's the clearer example, we would surely argue that violence is bad, and that encouraging the ill-adjusted to find violence acceptable is bad. It would then follow from this legal standard that banning violent fiction is a reasonable course of action to prevent the danger of the ill-adjusted finding violence acceptable.

Were we talking of something of uncertain moral danger, like wearing overalls, then you would have a point; but unless you're prepared to argue that violence is not certainly a moral danger, I don't see where this is a fallacious question to ask.

"Censorship of imagination. Ugh!"

Right, so why is it ok to censor the 'imaginary' child sex that might occur with the participation of child actors?

If cartoons/fiction don't "promote anything", as you guys claim, doesn't make any sense.

What actors? Wasn't this about comics? Putin, are you playing stupid or being stupid?

So is your objection simply to the legal reasoning not to the ban itself?

"What actors? Wasn't this about comics? "

FFS, how hard is it to follow the following:

If cartoon images of child sex are legal, why not fictional portrayals with child actors?

I'm asking a very simple question, Zmaj. Why would anybody support the legalization of one but not both?

How can it be illegal to draw a picture, despite what is on it?

If I wrote a book where a man assassinated the president, would that be the same as wanting to assassinate the president? No.

So why should drawing some depiction of children be the same as actually doing it or having a real picture of a child? I don't like these kinds of pictures, but I think making them illegal is laughable.

This guy is really dense. Putin, there are no actors in manga.

"You're worried that all fiction would be banned or depictions of violence in movies would be banned, if images of the sexual exploitation of children in cartoon form for the purpose titillation are banned?"

My concern is that this precedent would allow for banning depictions of violence in all forms of fiction if a judge deemed that the violence had no purpose except for emotional gratification.

"But not if it involves child actors? Why doesn't the same logic apply to the latter?"

Sorry to make you play 20 questions, but can you clarify this particular line of inquiry for me? The principle I'm discussing doesn't require any particular diversion for the age of the target of the violence.

"Presumably violence in movies often involves child actors, and you're worried that somehow our psychopathic addiction to that form of entertainment might be curtailed."

Violence is a moral danger to any target, regardless of his or her age; and we do have plenty of rather popular movies whose value is entirely predicated on the emotional thrill of violence. The entire horror genre as it exists today is built on that. There's no higher purpose to it than that. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Scream, you name it. They all would absolutely fall under this.

And, again, I don't even partake in horror; I don't get anything out of it. But it strikes me as being precisely the kind of gratuitous display of violence for the audience's pleasure that would fall under the purview of this decision.

Putin, if you managed to make such a fictional portrayal without harming the child actors in any way, then I'd have no problems with it.

Since I can see no way that that's possible, I'm not sure why you're persisting with this meaningless hypothetical.

They're acting. It's all "fiction". Fiction is said to be harmless. This is what you all have been saying over and over again. It's censoring "imagination".

"This guy is really dense. Putin, there are no actors in manga."

You're just being stupid on purpose at this point.

"So is your objection simply to the legal reasoning not to the ban itself?"

It is to the legal reasoning, but wouldn't that entail an objection to the ban itself as well? After all, enforcement of the ban in subsequent cases depends on application of the legal reasoning to the individual cases.

If you're asking whether I object to the broader idea, I find the comics in question incredibly distasteful but don't really see a compelling reason to ban it. I'm open to the idea with good reasoning behind it, though (and simply don't consider this particular argument advanced by the judge to be convincing).

How can drawn things be "acting"?

That's like saying CGI characters are actors.

Your second paragraph seems to contradict the first, but anyways, I think I am clear on your position.