This has been on my mind a lot recently seeing as a new Act is to come into force today in the United Kingdom, namely the "Coroners and Justice Act 2009". Straight to the point - section 62-68 is what you need to indulge yourself in that concerns hentai;
Images of children
Prohibited images
62 Possession of prohibited images of children
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child.
(2) A prohibited image is an image which—
(a) is pornographic,
(b) falls within subsection (6), and
(c) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(4) Where (as found in the person’s possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,
the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.
(6) An image falls within this subsection if it—
(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child’s genitals or anal region, or
(b) portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).
(7) Those acts are—
(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;
(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;
(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal.
(9) Proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) may not be instituted—
(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
63 Exclusion of classified film etc
(1) Section 62(1) does not apply to excluded images.
(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(4) Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images;
and section 62(5) applies in connection with determining that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image is pornographic.
(5) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a recording is a recording of the whole or part of a classified work, any alteration attributable to—
(a) a defect caused for technical reasons or by inadvertence on the part of any person, or
(b) the inclusion in the recording of any extraneous material (such as advertisements),
is to be disregarded.
(6) Nothing in this section is to be taken as affecting any duty of a designated authority to have regard to section 62 (along with other enactments creating criminal offences) in determining whether a video work is suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it.
(7) In this section—
*
“classified work” means (subject to subsection (8)) a video work in respect of which a classification certificate has been issued by a designated authority (whether before or after the commencement of this section);
*
“classification certificate” and “video work” have the same meaning as in the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c. 39);
*
“designated authority” means an authority which has been designated by the Secretary of State under section 4 of that Act;
*
“extract” includes an extract consisting of a single image;
*
“pornographic” has the same meaning as in section 62;
*
“recording” means any disc, tape or other device capable of storing data electronically and from which images may be produced (by any means).
(8) Section 22(3) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (effect of alterations) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.
64 Defences
(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the following matters—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child;
(c) that the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
(2) In this section “prohibited image” has the same meaning as in section 62.
65 Meaning of “image” and “child”
(1) The following apply for the purposes of sections 62 to 64.
(2) “Image” includes—
(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means), or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).
(3) “Image” does not include an indecent photograph, or indecent pseudo-photograph, of a child.
(4) In subsection (3) “indecent photograph” and “indecent pseudo-photograph” are to be construed—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, in accordance with the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37), and
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)).
(5) “Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
(6) Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
(7) References to an image of a person include references to an image of an imaginary person.
(8) References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child.
66 Penalties
(1) This section has effect where a person is guilty of an offence under section 62(1).
(2) The offender is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine, or both.
(3) “The relevant period” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, 12 months;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, 6 months.
67 Entry, search, seizure and forfeiture
(1) The following provisions of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) apply in relation to prohibited images of children as they apply in relation to indecent photographs of children (within the meaning of that Act)—
(a) section 4 (entry, search and seizure);
(b) the Schedule (forfeiture of photographs).
(2) The following provisions of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)) apply in relation to prohibited images of children as they apply in relation to indecent photographs of children (within the meaning of that Order)—
(a) Article 4 (entry, search and seizure);
(b) the Schedule (forfeiture of photographs).
(3) In this section “prohibited image of a child” means a prohibited image of a child to which section 62(1) applies.
68 Special rules relating to providers of information society services
Schedule 13 makes special provision in connection with the operation of section 62(1) in relation to persons providing information society services within the meaning of that Schedule.
Now I know what you're thinking - "This is about 'lolicon' material, it doesn't concern me", well I don't want to sensationalise too much or blow this out of proportion anymore than I need to, so I'll supply you with some key areas that I've picked out;
Section 65;
(6) Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
First note, that a child is considered to be anyone under the age of 18, as far as I know, so - take a second to think just any images or video you may have seen showing imaginary characters or in our cases, "anime/manga" designs (which have a tendancy to depict characters with a splash of 'cuteness' that could otherwise deem the character to be more youthful depending on who is making that interpretation) that could fit this criteria, and well I hope I have your attention there.
However section 62 part 4 lists some exclusions;
(4) Where (as found in the person’s possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,
the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.
Now whether one would consider, for e.g. hentai materials such as Bible Black or even your average Hentai manga to be part of a narrative that suggests it was not produced 'principally' for sexual arousal remains to be seen even if subjective, though somehow I'm not so confident it does save the materials suggested.
I do realise someone may feel that Bible Black (which I choose for familiarity purposes), in my example, would not contain questionable content, however I'm believing these sections to make it highly probable that a character in school uniforms could otherwise be taken as such - correction and/or other examples are welcome.
_____________________________________________________________________
So for my personal closing comments; I never intended this thread to be a debate with the moral crusaders - why? From my understanding this concerns A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF hentai material in my eyes.
I don't consider myself to have any significant knowledge or even intelligence for political or legislative debates, I'm simply raising awareness, hopefully, of what I have believed to be concerning and I WILL GLADLY stand corrected at any stage.
I hope I haven't over-estimated the MAL community's enthusiasm for discussion of subjects like this, as I found myself questioning creating this thread here in the first place - do forgive me.
I am not some lolicon 'nutcase' (I'm not being derogatory to anyone who is) or even hentai for that matter, but I do believe as anime fans, we've all seen this stuff, so it's relevant and I personally feel passionate about the subject.
I will not stray from downloading, looking at or watching any hentai materials or related if I so choose, even if such materials would be considered illegal when this act comes into force.
Further elaborations on sections of the Act, interpretations, thoughts - more than welcome
"First they came ..."
THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
~ Martin Niemöller
And now I'm going to bed.
IN B4 TL:DR!111!!!!111!1
TOFFEECRISPApr 6, 2010 12:18 PM
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Censorship has always, and will always be completely idiotic. There is only a very few subjects I willingly approve of censorship, and is in the subject of real life child abuse.
Censorship is basically the governments attempt to control the public, for better or worse.
Slimda said: Censorship has always, and will always be completely idiotic. There is only a very few subjects I willingly approve of censorship, and is in the subject of real life child abuse.
Censorship is basically the governments attempt to control the public, for better or worse.
I think images of child pornography being illegal goes without saying, it has victims who are REAL, people who need to be protected - kids. I am not sympathising with such material, nor would I ever.
The difficulty I'm having with this particular act is they've extended it to fictional characters, complete fantasy, and it's extremely difficult to assess whether a particular character in the realm of hentai can be considered above or below the age of 18 based on their criteria, even more so as hentai images don't come with ****ing birth certificates. It's asinine.
I can sympathise in some ways because this has been created so as to protect REAL children from digitally manipulated copies of REAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, and I think they could have clearly stated this as the specific prohibited material, but apparently all hentai is potentially considered to be peadophillic material in their eyes, fictional or not.
You're lucky being from Norway, for the present time, they can still distinguish fantasy from reality.
Kuromii said: Lol @ the UK. Why don't we try harder to combat REAL child pornography rather than drawings of the stuff? This country baffles me.
This.
Score Criteria:
10~max enjoyment; made me think about it for at least a week.
9~greatly enjoyed it; lacking the umph to be a 10.
8~greatly enjoyed it; lacking story/art/characters to be a 9.
7~enjoyed it
6~adequate
5~bad
4~very bad; difficult to finish
*3/2/1-dropped
3~unbearable as it progresses
2~first episode repulsed me
1~cerebral molestation
(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
Yes, that is a problem. In the worst case scenario this could be what you're talking about. At the best of this at least they didn't wrap it around aesthetics policing and say something about looking like a child.
Which means less likely to go Australia on us. Still is alarming in this could imply things like school swimsuits, pigtails(also aesthetics policing of a different kind), lolita clothes, and other things adding to an otherwise youthful atmosphere may become taboo.
And I mean, come on, pigtails are just a good hairdo. And the blue one piece swimsuit can show that a person can be sexy without wearing ridiculously revealing clothes and pushing skin showing bikini swimsuits.
That means the UK most definately won't be getting any uncut DVD release of Vampire Bund any time soon.
Funimation must regret picking that series up now XD
You know when it gets taken too far if they start banning anime for panty shots on schoolgirls. Half the stuff on the shelves atm will be gone!
Check out SunnyCon! The North-East of England's newest and biggest convention of anime, manga and Japanese culture!
Now a club on MAL too!
EDIT: Even tho i laugh at at Briton now, I dont really think it'll be too long before something like that hits us here in the US. Too many people looking to make them selfs look like they did something amazing without actually doing anything worth while. : /
Can't really stop hentai, just like you can't stop people watching anime online. (Any kind of porn is disgusting, why allow porn with schoolgirls in it, ut no cartoons showing such a thing), pointless i suppose.
It seems countries are jumping all over this "let's protect the animated children" bandwagon, like the legislation in Japan (that I believe is still being debated) and I think something came up in the US a while ago as well, though it was shot down quickly. It's nice to know that they care more for the 2D kids than for the real ones, considering that anyone I've ever met who is into lolitas in the hentai sense are repulsed by real children.
Lolicon hentai allows a pedophile to legally access material that will further develop his problem.
Every time I see an English-speaker on the Internet add an honorific to someone's name, I die a little bit inside. Every time I see, "^_^," my will to carry on crumbles that much more.
Lolicon hentai allows a pedophile to legally access material that will further develop his problem.
Oh boy. We had this discussion so many times already... :/
'
That's because lolicons everywhere are in denial about it.
Every time I see an English-speaker on the Internet add an honorific to someone's name, I die a little bit inside. Every time I see, "^_^," my will to carry on crumbles that much more.
