Canadian man arrested for owning pornagrphic comics

[Noah Johnson]

I would define a thoughtcrime as being solely in one's mind.

Others define a thoughtcrime as being thinking about it while collecting/viewing material that reinforces that thinking.

Noah you've already admitted that you're wishing that Canadian law disagreed with your position. It does not.

If you understood the Miller standard in the US then you would also understand that it would cover material that I've been discussing...
So you admit the crime does, in fact, come down to thinking, and possibly the heinous crime of reinforcing thinking. From now on, I'm picturing you as Walter Koenig.

As to the "Miller standard", don't tell me, tell the Supreme Court. In any event, making thoughtcrime illegal doesn't make it wrong, it makes the law wrong.

[matterconsumer]

Well I was talking about fiction.

Of course I realize that child pornography is seriously illegal.

But I'm talking about books like Lolita vs. Hentai involving young girls, etc.

Where do you draw a legal line?



Many posts ago I provided the Miller standard which is what's used in the US to determine obscenity.

If the work is solely about the positive portrayal of sexual acts between children/children and/or adults then it's well on its way to illegality.

Lolita does not fall into that category. People do not read it for the primary purpose of enjoying child/adult sex.

Whether hentai falls into an illegal category would depend on whether it was exclusively about child/child and or adult/child sex.

[matterconsumer]

So you admit the crime does, in fact, come down to thinking, and possibly the heinous crime of reinforcing thinking. From now on, I'm picturing you as Walter Koenig.

As to the "Miller standard", don't tell me, tell the Supreme Court. In any event, making thoughtcrime illegal doesn't make it wrong, it makes the law wrong.

Inasmuch as any crime is premeditated then yes thinking is involved.

The Supreme Court by the way are the ones who decided the Miller standard...

[Ian Boothby]

Yes, because he has large amounts of child porn manga in his possession. There are only so many other explanations for why he's going to have large amounts of child porn manga in his possession.

But there are other explainations for why he has this material. And since no one is harmed by his possessing this material he shouldn't be arrested for something he might potentially do in the future.

[The Xenos]

edited into one post

[The Xenos]

And you're yelling at me about drawings?

We do understand out of control litigation in the US. Recently a law had to be passed to prevent gun manufacturers from being sued because someone gets shot/killed with a gun. I would put this more in a category of out of control litigation than illegal child pornography.

Oh belive me, I yell and complain about Jack Thompson plenty. Though I see his complaints jsut about the same as the argument that pornography, and in this case drawn/virtual child pornography leades someone to commit and actual crime. That crime here being sexual assault on a child. The crime with GTA bing killing an officer. I do not belive fictional work can be held accountable for criminal actions of a person.

Name a murder mystery where the point of the plot is to enjoy the actual murder. Those who read such a murder mystery read it for the benefit of enjoying murder. After reading it they have their conviction that murder is acceptable reinforced. That's what I'm talking about. And the obvious thought should be well I don't really know any books that fall into THAT category. Because murder mysteries aren't about that at all.


Again, I can't think of a murder mystery or crime novel, but I think GTA is a perfect example of this. Hell I know I've enjoyed virtual shooting sprees.

Actually, yeah, the Punisher comics do come to mind. Plus before they became adults only in recent years, you could say kids were reading them.


Consider the following scenario. Person has a collection of comics which portray children having sex with adults. What we know in the real world is that they're likely to have more than just comics. They're likely to have videos, photos,etc. But just for the sake of our scenario let's limit it to comics. Now Ian when you think of comics you're likely to be thinking of comics that tell a story that's unrelated to children having sex with adults.

But there's another sort of comic which just deals with sex. In this case it would be sex between children and adults. This person wouldn't just happen to have a few of these comics. No it would be the crux of their collection of sexually oriented material.

If a person has this material and continues to purchase it then we understand a predilection. The material is already illegal and the person is doing what has to be done in order to obtain it. Now in the course of the investigation it can be determined what the purpose of the collection of this material is.

But generally speaking we understand that this material is being collected to reinforce the person's thoughts of children having sex with adults.

Now you're getting into Jack Thompson territory. You are making the huge jump that that owning such material, even in large quantaty, dictates future criminal acts. I think that is just plain wrong and is just un-American. I know childmolestation is a terrible thing and it should be prevented, but not at the costs of freedom. Just like I don't want another 9/11, but I do not want to sacrifice the freedoms and our rights to privacy that this country was founded on.

Here you are not tracking down the criminal act of filming an actual child sexually and owning this illegal tape. You are punishing people for crimes they have not commited yet and might not ever. You're assuming guilt based on assumed thought. This is where I think you are totally wrong.

While you can't assume everyone who owns this stuff will not commit future crimes, you simply cannot assume they are going to automatically commit such crimes either.


Nope comics can be about anything. Like the Tijuana Bibles they can be Little Orphan Annie fucking the Katzenjammer Kids. But no real kids are being harmed. Copyrights are the only things being violated (and by the by you can buy reprints of Tijuana Bibles as I said before in Mainstream books stores). Those are just about sex, illegal sex but they're considered kitsch.


I've always wanted to check out those Tijuana Bibles. I found a website with some scans. Pretty funny and very itneresting historically.

You know, many of these pornographic mangas are pretty much Tijuana Bibles. You ahve characters from popular manga and anime series screwing each other. Go to Otkaon or any big con and you'll see booths of it. Lord knows there's likely that guy yelling to fangirls, "YAOI! Get your YAOI here!" (Yaoi = gay slash fan comics.) The fangirls love that shit. Then again I must admit to cehcking out some of it too. Well, on the non gay side of the table.

Actually, if you consider teh ages of many of the characters, then most of the stuff is underage porn. All drawn, but still pornography featuring minors. Hell, just the doujinshi (fan comics) featuring Rei and Asuka from Eva alone are a big section. Then again, heh, who am I kidding, you don't even need fans for that sort of stuff. Gainax, who made the original show, sells ponographic statues of these underage characters on their offitial website. Just imagine Marvel selling X-rated satrues of teenaged Mary Jane and Gwen.


Though certainly there are plenty of lolicon hentai mangas that don't feature popular characters and are just there depicting sex with orignal underage characters.

Many posts ago I provided the Miller standard which is what's used in the US to determine obscenity.

If the work is solely about the positive portrayal of sexual acts between children/children and/or adults then it's well on its way to illegality.

Lolita does not fall into that category. People do not read it for the primary purpose of enjoying child/adult sex.

Whether hentai falls into an illegal category would depend on whether it was exclusively about child/child and or adult/child sex.

Ok, I need to know how this MIller standard applies. Does it just apply to things being show in public and to minors or does it include private collections and showings?

There have been rulings, as posted before here, where the courts have ruled that virtual childporography is legal. Plus I'm pretty sure there are plenty of publications and exhibits that feature obsceneity. I can't imagine that this obscenity standard applies to everything, priavate as well as public.

Also, yes, many hentai is about child sex. Many legal hentai sold in the US features this too.

Hell, like I've said, I have many non-hentai yet NC-17 mangas that feature minors having sex, with each other and with adults. I cited both Blood: The Last Vampire 2002 from Viz and Berserk volume 9 from Dark Horse.

-Xenos

[Melissa]

Isn't Astroboy a robot and aren't the Pokemon cybernetic constructs? So the comics concerned actually show a machine doing a super-hologram?

His lawyer must've been asleep.

[The Xenos]

Naw. The author of that article didn't know crap of what he was talking about.

Though, c'mon, Misty from Pokemon is teh hawt. It'd hit it.

-Xenos

[Charles RB]

But there are other explainations for why he has this material.

Such as what?

[Converge]

Many posts ago I provided the Miller standard which is what's used in the US to determine obscenity.

If the work is solely about the positive portrayal of sexual acts between children/children and/or adults then it's well on its way to illegality.

Lolita does not fall into that category. People do not read it for the primary purpose of enjoying child/adult sex.

Whether hentai falls into an illegal category would depend on whether it was exclusively about child/child and or adult/child sex.

The Miller standard wouldn't apply to anime, because anime has obvious artistic value.

[Michael P]

Isn't Astroboy a robot and aren't the Pokemon cybernetic constructs? So the comics concerned actually show a machine doing a super-hologram?

His lawyer must've been asleep.
I'm pretty sure Pokemon are just animals, but your point holds. You can't really say a guy who gets off on robots doing dragons and unicorns is a threat to public safety. Hell, a guy like that, I kinda want to give him his own TV show.

[Ian Boothby]

I've always wanted to check out those Tijuana Bibles. I found a website with some scans. Pretty funny and very itneresting historically.

-Xenos


Go to Amazon.com and type in "Tijuana Bibles : Art and Wit in America's Forbidden Funnies, 1930s-1950s" . You can also find this in a lot of major bookstore chains. In Canada it's for sale at Chapters.

[Ian Boothby]

Such as what?

You find it funny. You enjoy manga. You're trying to get a complete run of a book for collection purposes. You like the art. You're interested in seeing what another culture's comics are like.

[TheLyle]

Again, I can't think of a murder mystery or crime novel, but I think GTA is a perfect example of this. Hell I know I've enjoyed virtual shooting sprees.

I'd disagree, but American Psycho comes to mind as a novel accused of being about grisly murders presented as entertainment. I disagree with that viewpoint, but it is one leveled at the novel.

[Spackling Compound]

What about Wolfman's Terra from the old Teen Titans series back in the 80's? She was a "teen" and was depicted having a "waif" figure that could be construed to be around 13 or 14 yrs old.

She was doing the dirty with Slade Wilson, a gray-bearded adult male.

Now I even feel creepier for having that run than I did before...

[matterconsumer]

Now you're getting into Jack Thompson territory. You are making the huge jump that that owning such material, even in large quantaty, dictates future criminal acts. I think that is just plain wrong and is just un-American. I know childmolestation is a terrible thing and it should be prevented, but not at the costs of freedom. Just like I don't want another 9/11, but I do not want to sacrifice the freedoms and our rights to privacy that this country was founded on.

Here you are not tracking down the criminal act of filming an actual child sexually and owning this illegal tape. You are punishing people for crimes they have not commited yet and might not ever. You're assuming guilt based on assumed thought. This is where I think you are totally wrong.

While you can't assume everyone who owns this stuff will not commit future crimes, you simply cannot assume they are going to automatically commit such crimes either.

Owning the material is illegal period.

Now I know that you don't agree with that position.

But there's no sense going on about what may or may not happen. Owning illegal child pornography is illegal.

Well it's nice to be against child molestation. Hopefully if you hear someone telling others about their child molesting you would presumably walk away because they're not actually molesting a child in front of your face. And if they had a comic which was page after page of child molestation you'd think proud thoughts of freedom...

[stealthwise]

Are we talking about the Green Lantern comic or something else here?

The GL comic.

[matterconsumer]

Ok, I need to know how this MIller standard applies. Does it just apply to things being show in public and to minors or does it include private collections and showings?

There have been rulings, as posted before here, where the courts have ruled that virtual childporography is legal. Plus I'm pretty sure there are plenty of publications and exhibits that feature obsceneity. I can't imagine that this obscenity standard applies to everything, priavate as well as public.

Also, yes, many hentai is about child sex. Many legal hentai sold in the US features this too.

Hell, like I've said, I have many non-hentai yet NC-17 mangas that feature minors having sex, with each other and with adults. I cited both Blood: The Last Vampire 2002 from Viz and Berserk volume 9 from Dark Horse.

-Xenos

If you actually understand the ruling then you would understand that all that was agreed upon was that the Miller standard was satisfactory.

The Miller standard describes what is to be considered obscene. Illegal child pornography would fall under obscenity.

If you're buying the material at a chain bookstore then in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about. The worst that would happen is that the bookstore would be held responsible...

[matterconsumer]

The GL comic.

Then I wouldn't worry about being arrested...

[matterconsumer]

The Miller standard wouldn't apply to anime, because anime has obvious artistic value.

Not all anime is illegal child pornography. Obviously.

[stealthwise]

Well that's part of my point. The only person who's going to seek out pro-murder material is already a person who needs professional help and/or is a danger.


What the?

I seek out stuff like Punisher, Preacher, American Psycho and the like, much of which could be said to be "pro-murder", and I'm not in need of professional help, nor am I a danger to society.

Nor is my own mother, who's read the first two and enjoyed them immensely. You're making (yes, I would be tired of hearing this too by this point) sweeping generalizations.

[Ian Boothby]

Owning the material is illegal period.

Now I know that you don't agree with that position.

But there's no sense going on about what may or may not happen. Owning illegal child pornography is illegal.

Well it's nice to be against child molestation. Hopefully if you hear someone telling others about their child molesting you would presumably walk away because they're not actually molesting a child in front of your face. And if they had a comic which was page after page of child molestation you'd think proud thoughts of freedom...

Two very very different things. One is a person talking about something real that really happened to them. The latter is something make believe.
It's the difference between someone telling you about their uncle who was murdered and someone owning a Murder She Wrote DVD.
I know you think you're on the moral high ground here and so you're starting to act very smug. So far those of us who think you're off base are being quite polite with you in this discussion. Let's try and keep it that way.

[matterconsumer]

You find it funny. You enjoy manga. You're trying to get a complete run of a book for collection purposes. You like the art. You're interested in seeing what another culture's comics are like.

And we're talking about someone collecting comics which soley depict illegal sexual activity involving children...

[matterconsumer]

What the?

I seek out stuff like Punisher, Preacher, American Psycho and the like, much of which could be said to be "pro-murder", and I'm not in need of professional help, nor am I a danger to society.

Nor is my own mother, who's read the first two and enjoyed them immensely. You're making (yes, I would be tired of hearing this too by this point) sweeping generalizations.

How many, many, many times do I have to say that this is not illegal material?

Yet people don't understand.

Then they suggest that somehow the material they read is ILLEGAL when I'm not saying that it is and then they get upset.

[matterconsumer]

Two very very different things. One is a person talking about something real that really happened to them. The latter is something make believe.
It's the difference between someone telling you about their uncle who was murdered and someone owning a Murder She Wrote DVD.
I know you think you're on the moral high ground here and so you're starting to act very smug. So far those of us who think you're off base are being quite polite with you in this discussion. Let's try and keep it that way.

No it's time for you to explain how people having a "fantasy" conversation about child molestation is a good thing.

According to your line of argument it's just fantasy and so it's ok.

As long as it's fantasy then it's ok to write it or draw it. Or so you're saying.

Child molestation never equals Murder She Wrote. But you continue to mention Murder She Wrote.

[matterconsumer]

Ian, the crux of our disagreement is that you suggest that it's ok for people to fantasize about illegal activities and to collect material which reinforces those illegal activities.

Of course we disagree regarding how fictional material can be illegal.

I consider those individuals at best to be in need of professional help and/or a danger either to themselves or to society.

You certainly come across as suggesting that at least some if not most of these people are ok...

[Converge]

Ian, the crux of our disagreement is that you suggest that it's ok for people to fantasize about illegal activities and to collect material which reinforces those illegal activities.

Of course we disagree regarding how fictional material can be illegal.

I consider those individuals at best to be in need of professional help and/or a danger either to themselves or to society.

You certainly come across as suggesting that at least some if not most of these people are ok...

It's not illegal to fantasize about illegal activities.

I've done it plenty of times.

That's what Johnny the Homicidal Maniac is all about. Jhonen Vasquez writes a comic about a character who is an analogue of himself who murders jocks, cheerleaders, and other assholes who made Jhonen's life a living hell in various ways. JTHM is about Jhnonen fantasizing about killing people. He's even said himself that that is exactly what the comic is about. Should JTHM be illegal? Should Jhonen be arrested by the thought police for fantasizing about killing people and even creating a comic book that reinforces this fantasy?

[matterconsumer]

It's not illegal to fantasize about illegal activities.

I've done it plenty of times.

That's what Johnny the Homicidal Maniac is all about. Jhonen Vasquez writes a comic about a character who is an analogue of himself who murders jocks, cheerleaders, and other assholes who made Jhonen's life a living hell in various ways. JTHM is about Jhnonen fantasizing about killing people. He's even said himself that that is exactly what the comic is about. Should JTHM be illegal? Should Jhonen be arrested by the thought police for fantasizing about killing people and even creating a comic book that reinforces this fantasy?

I think that we have to make a distinction between thinking and fantasizing. Now the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

But if a person is thinking about killing another person(s) especially if it's an ongoing part of their thought process then yes that person either needs professional help and/or is a danger to themselves or others.

Haven't read JTHM and if it's been accurately described can't really say that it has any appeal for me. If a person has to contemplate killing people on an ongoing basis to "maintain a handle" then this person needs professional help. Don't take my word for it though. Go ask a psychiatrist...

[Converge]

I think that we have to make a distinction between thinking and fantasizing. Now the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

But if a person is thinking about killing another person(s) especially if it's an ongoing part of their thought process then yes that person either needs professional help and/or is a danger to themselves or others.

Haven't read JTHM and if it's been accurately described can't really say that it has any appeal for me. If a person has to contemplate killing people on an ongoing basis to "maintain a handle" then this person needs professional help. Don't take my word for it though. Go ask a psychiatrist...

you might think that we should make the distinction. but the fact is that we don't, at least not legally.

a judge isn't going to ask someone, "Well were you thinking about killing someone or were you fantasizing about killing someone? WHICH ONE? IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE! I CAN'T CONVICT YOU OF THOUGHT CRIME UNLESS I KNOW WHICH ONE!"

That just isn't going to happen in our legal system.

[stealthwise]

How many, many, many times do I have to say that this is not illegal material?

Yet people don't understand.

Then they suggest that somehow the material they read is ILLEGAL when I'm not saying that it is and then they get upset.

The thing that I quoted from you had nothing to do with "illegal material", it was dealing with popular culture that was "pro-murder". You seem to keep switching back and forth between a moral and a legal argument. Your posts don't make it sound like what we're reading is illegal, but immoral.

Anyways, I'm more interested in how feel about a country like Canada (or the States or wherever) even allowing fictional stuff that you feel is pornographic into the country in the first place. With "real" child pornography, involving read children, it is often hard to find the source and/or distribution and eradicate it because it is so underground. However, ordering comics from Japan online, or even picking them up in a local comic shop that Ian once worked is completely different. Why are the officials not targeting the sources of said "illegal material"?

[MacQuarrie]

Can I just say that as a person who was molested as a child, I find your agrument to be a load of crap.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Can I just say that as a person who was molested as a child, I find your agrument to be a load of crap.

I'm assuming this is directed at matterconsumer?

[Ian Boothby]

No it's time for you to explain how people having a "fantasy" conversation about child molestation is a good thing.

According to your line of argument it's just fantasy and so it's ok.

As long as it's fantasy then it's ok to write it or draw it. Or so you're saying.

Child molestation never equals Murder She Wrote. But you continue to mention Murder She Wrote.

Because murder in the real world is horrible. Murder in the fictional world is a PG TV show. In the case of the Lion King there's a brutal murder but that's a G rated film. Why is this? Because people can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Real murder is horrible, fictional murder is different. One has a real person being harmed, the other has no one being harmed.

Real child molestation is horrible. Fictional representations of such have no one being harmed. This is the comparison I'm making. You can say people who own this material are sick but you're making assumptions.

A lot of folks saw Saw 2 this weekend. A gross out film without a real moral center where the audiuence is supposed to be thrilled by the torture and murder of people. Number one at the box office. Are all these folks sick? No. They can tell the difference between real and not real. We need to trust folks can make this distinction.

[MacQuarrie]

I'm assuming this is directed at matterconsumer?
Yup.

I do not accept the argument that any fictional material causes people to commit crimes. People make choices, and blaming those choices on their choice of readimg material is nothing but dodging responsibility.

Child molestors molest children because they are disgusting and vile humans, not because some cartoons drove them to it.

[Ian Boothby]

Ian, the crux of our disagreement is that you suggest that it's ok for people to fantasize about illegal activities and to collect material which reinforces those illegal activities.

They can do whatever they want with their brains. Bring it out into the real world and harm real people and then I hope they're arrested. Keep it to yourself and I don't care what a consenting adult reads or enjoys. Real about illegal things all you want.

Of course we disagree regarding how fictional material can be illegal.

In Canada it seems to be at times. I'm ashamed about that and if I can do something to change that I will. I've written my MP at this point.

I consider those individuals at best to be in need of professional help and/or a danger either to themselves or to society.

Your considerations are based on assumptions and prejudices you have. You think people are a potential danger even though they've harmed no one. If you want to arrest all the potential criminals then you're in totalitarian territory.

You certainly come across as suggesting that at least some if not most of these people are ok...

Of course they are! You think everyone who owns this material is sick or a danger to society? Then we're in a lot of trouble because this material sells pretty well. That's a lot of child rapists out there about to spring out on society.

[MacQuarrie]

Anyone with common sense understands that we are impacted by what we read. It can make us laugh. It can make us cry, etc. Now those who are seeking out illegal child pornography have a goal in mind. They're contemplating illegal sex acts involving children.
Or maybe they are using fictional material as a substitute in order to avoid contemplating such illegal acts.

[Noah Johnson]

Or maybe they are using fictional material as a substitute in order to avoid contemplating such illegal acts.
Hey, I've been saying for years that if Realdoll would introduce an "Altar Boy" model, a lot of suffering could be averted.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yup.

I do not accept the argument that any fictional material causes people to commit crimes. People make choices, and blaming those choices on their choice of readimg material is nothing but dodging responsibility.

Child molestors molest children because they are disgusting and vile humans, not because some cartoons drove them to it.

Yup.

Matterconsumer has a few good points in his arguments, but by and large they are spurious, lacking in logic and seriously divergent from reality. There are some kernels of wisdom there, but like I've said before, there are sometimes kernels of corn in shit, and just as I wouldn't advise people to eat shit to get at those nutritious kernels, I wouldn't suggest anyone take matterconsumer's arguments seriously just because of the occasional good kernel.

[Lester C.]

Ian, the crux of our disagreement is that you suggest that it's ok for people to fantasize about illegal activities and to collect material which reinforces those illegal activities.

Of course we disagree regarding how fictional material can be illegal.

I consider those individuals at best to be in need of professional help and/or a danger either to themselves or to society.

You certainly come across as suggesting that at least some if not most of these people are ok...

For me it’s not about suggesting that people who collect this material are decent because quite frankly it‘s rather creepy. For me it’s protecting someone's right free speech and enjoy artwork and or literature that some would find offensive. We live in a society where what you do for one you have to do for all and banning controversial artwork will set a horrible percent in censoring free speech. Today it a creep that looks at simulated child pornography and tomorrow it’s going to be violent movies and pretty soon classics works like Hamlet and Dante’s Inferno will be on the chopping block due to their inherent controversial themes.

[The Xenos]

Yeah, it's not that you can say that all these people are decent who collect this stuff are decent. Yet, you can't condemn everyone who does. Just because you have a majorirty of people who are sick, it doesn't mean you make it all illegal and label everyone as a sex offender. I doubt you could prove that everyone is guilty and I'm not one to fry one innocent man to convict ten guilty. You're taking things way too far if you do.

Plus, how do we know what people have? Are we honestly going to go door to door checking these out? Do you want the government going through your mail? Do you want them monitoring legal tranactions online? There are plenty of legal US websites, nevermind legal Japanese ones, that sell this stuff.

Plus, Matt, you keep calling this hentai illegal child pornography. In America IT IS NOT! Now part of this argument is if it should be ilelgal. Canada says it is. America says it isn't. Many here including myself side with the US on this. We keep telling you real illegal child pornography involves real abused children, not drawings.

I'd also llike to thank people for brining up American Psycho and Johnny. Those are murder fantasies just like these comics fantasize about having sex with minors. If you are going to argue about making these sex comics illegal, you need to make those illegal too. They too are fantasies about illegal acts and I'm sure many argue that they might cause someone to kill like you are arguing that these sex comics cause someone to molest a child. I disagree.

I agree that these people are sick and they are the ones to blame.

I am so f&*#$ing sick of a country that blames Doom and Maryln Manson for Columbine. Shit. I've ehard Senator Joe Lieberman linking GTA 3 and Columbine when that game came out afterwards. I'm dman sick of the scapegoating and not going after the real damn problem.

Instead of blaming comics for child molestation, let's blame the molestors. Let's blame the mental heath system that seems to be ill-eqquiped to deal with these people and help them and stop them from hurting innocents. Let's blame organizations that help hide real child molestors. Let's blame a legal system that doesn't quite get these people behind bars or the mental help they need to stop hurting innocent. Maybe they're too busy putting fiction on trail. Once you are done fixing those bigger real world problems, then maybe we can spend time looking at fictional books. I think if anything these books are at most a symptom, not a disease and not a cause to be attacked.

I just found out tonight that this week Jack Thompson is going to trial in Atlanta suing video game companies for the murder of two police officers. The kid who actually killed them is already on death row. What a damn waste of our court system.

Matt, I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, but I think it's people with your mind set of attacking fiction that is distracting us from attacking the real problems with these issues.

-Xenos

[Cam63]

Call me a wuss, but I've never felt comfortable watching movies or TV shows where the victims suffered horribly.

[Ian Boothby]

Call me a wuss, but I've never felt comfortable watching movies or TV shows where the victims suffered horribly.

Me either, I hate that type of thing for the most part. But me being uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be illegal. I hated Identity Crisis but DC should have the right to do it.

[Spackling Compound]

Me either, I hate that type of thing for the most part. But me being uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be illegal. I hated Identity Crisis but DC should have the right to do it.
Yes, I agree.
I don't like menace of children, especially in movies or books. I even thougth Lemon-Snickets (movie) was a little creepy with Jim Carey "marrying" the teenage girl for money.

But I don't think they shouldn't have a right to make these films nor do people have a right to watch them. Same with comics.