Positive Cynicism – Convicted without even committing a crime
June 2, 2009 11:57 am Positive Cynicism
Aaron R. Davis |
An Iowa comic book collector who doesn’t own any child pornography has been convicted of possessing child pornography.
Christopher Handley, a 39 year-old officer worker who collects manga, has pled guilty to two counts of obscenity: mailing obscene matter and “possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.” Three more counts were dropped as part of a plea bargain.
He faces 15 years in prison for collecting comic books.
How did we get to this?
In 2002, the Supreme Court struck down the “Morphing Law,” which held that fictional cartoon or photoshopped images depicting minors would be treated as obscene. In 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT Act, which held that a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting showing children in sexual situations could be ruled illegal if local community standards – one of the hardest things in the world to quantify – considered it obscene.
Drawings of fictional characters are pornography? I can understand child pornography laws that are in place to protect children from sexual abuse, but most of those laws have covered photography and film. How are children actually going to be protected by this conviction? And how does a court determine if a comic book character is a “minor”? They don’t actually exist.
What Handley had among his manga collection were a few graphic novels that, according to customs officials, contained images of bestiality and children being sexually abused. Handley had some lolicon and yaoi books. For those who don’t know, lolicon is a genre of manga that depicts childlike female characters in erotic situations. Yaoi is a romance genre dealing with stories about young homosexual men. Apparently women are the main audience for yaoi, but because the men are androgynous and because the depiction of pubic hair is taboo in Japan, they looked like children to customs officials.
I have a question: why, exactly, were customs officials opening his mail? Everything I’ve read about this case says that this all started when customs officials seized a package addressed to Handley. What cause did they have to open his mail?
Charles Brownstein, executive director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, said, “This art that this man possessed as part of a larger collection of manga … is now the basis for [a sentence] designed to protect children from abuse. The drawings are not obscene and are not tantamount to pornography. They are lines on paper.”
Handley had no child pornography of any kind in his house or on his computer.
What disturbs me the most in this case is the implication that the government can decide whether or not it’s okay for you to have certain kinds of fiction in your home. Handley was not showing his “obscene material” to children. He wasn’t selling it to kids. He wasn’t distributing it. It was never meant for anyone but himself. The government pinned him with having the material shipped across state lines; it came from Japan. In America, the sexualization of teenagers seems to be as much of an everyday pastime as talking about how the sexualization of teenagers is wrong. We have television shows like Gossip Girl and 90210 and The Secret Life of the American Teenager which are about teenagers dating and having sex. Those shows aren’t obscene; they’re carried by cable into everyone’s home, where anyone could flip past them. So what makes it so different when a man buys a comic book and reads it in the privacy of his own home?
Again I ask: how is this endangering children?
What else is at risk here? Do I have to live in fear of the government coming to check out my collection of comic books because I subscribe to Playboy? Is it illegal to own classic adult comics like Omaha the Cat Dancer or anything by Robert Crumb? Are we back to the days of being fearful of owning a copy of Lady Chatterly’s Lover or Lolita?
I live in a country where just a couple of clicks on the Internet can bring me accidentally and horrifically to pages of porn videos involving minors or animals. Can’t the government work on stopping that from happening instead of making me wonder if my private thoughts or anything I might write down or draw could be turned into evidence of a crime that doesn’t exist? There are people out there who are actually sexually abusing minors. Why does the government waste its time going, yet again, after comic books that harm and exploit no one?
|
Does the law really need to waste its time protecting pretend minors?
Handley has pled guilty, mostly because he and his defense attorney, Eric Chase, are out of options. Chase admitted that he didn’t think the charge could be successfully countered because “It’s probably the only law I’m aware of, if a client shows me a book or magazine or movie, and asks me if this image is illegal, I can’t tell them.” He also said that he didn’t think a jury would be convinced to acquit when it saw the images in question.
Handley could go to prison because he owned something which he showed to no one that some person may have considered obscene had they actually seen it.
Be careful what you read, write and think about. You never know what might be construed as evidence for a crime you never committed.
Aaron R. Davis lives in a cave at the bottom of the ocean with his eyes shut tight and his fingers in his ears. You can contact him at samuraifrog@yahoo.com.
Joelle :
Date: June 2, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
This is so crazy. There’s got to be a way to protect kids from real, actual harm, and NOT end up with shit like this happening.
I also just heard recently about “sexting” (stupid name, but whatever) where teens are sending dirty pictures of themselves to each other, but since they are minors, they are being accused of sending child pornography.
James :
Date: June 3, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
This is a difficult issue. I have to say, though, that I can’t agree with some of your analysis and comparisons.
I suppose, what it all comes down to is, when it concerns children (under 16 in my view, as opposed to 18-21, per the “law”), I’d rather us as a society err on the side of prude than progressive.
This increasing acceptance of the sexualization and exploitation of adolescents/children – on TV, cable, movies, ads, print, etc. – has been going on for years and is getting to the point of being out of control. Where do we draw the line and, more ominously, where is this pattern ultimately leading?
I haven’t seen the images/depictions at issue in your article, so I can’t say whether I would agree with the ruling. I do find, however, one of the defendant’s attorney’s quotes particularly telling: “He also said that he didn’t think a jury would be convinced to acquit when it saw the images in question.”
I’d say that if a person can’t convincingly say that a jury of his/her peers would not have an issue with the material/images/video in question, that they should find something else with which to entertain themselves.
And aren’t there enough (indeed, a universe of choices) other options for viewing/reading pleasure that material bordering on indecent shouldn’t be necessary?
I have a teenage daughter and would not want this gentleman in my neighborhood. Would you?
Aaron R. Davis :
Date: June 4, 2009 @ 10:02 am
But the thing is, it doesn’t concern children. It concerns cartoon images on paper. I don’t understand how that’s child abuse. I haven’t seen the specific images, either, but I have seen the same types of manga, and it’s definitely for specific audiences. But just because it’s not for me doesn’t mean I think someone shouldn’t be allowed to have it. It’s not real. It’s not actual child pornography.
As for the sexualization of teenagers, there’s an amazing amount of hypocrisy out there. Teenage girls have always been sexualized; it was Brooke Shields when I was a toddler, and she was hardly the first. America got over it. Prolonged adolescence is relatively new; there used to be a time not too terribly long ago that teenage girls were getting married. There’s this ridiculous assumption that imagery causes people to do violent things they wouldn’t normally do, but history shows us that people who are going to do violent things aren’t sparked by violent video games or pornographic images in comic books. Violence–including sexual violence against children–has been around a lot longer than comic books.
As for wanting this gentleman in your neighborhood, I guarantee you that there’s someone in your neighborhood who reads the same kind of manga or watches some kind of extreme porn on his computer or reads adult novels. As long as he’s not hurting anyone, but is just keeping it in his own home to himself, what do you even care?
James :
Date: June 4, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Like I said, Aaron, this is a difficult issue in terms of where to draw lines. 1st Amendment Rights are a cornerstone of our society and are to be protected vigorously. I do not consider images on paper – no matter what they are – a form of child abuse. Is it conceivable that drawn images (comic format or other) could be categorized as, “illegal,” or lewd and indecent to the point of justifying criminal culpability? Perhaps. I really don’t know and would have to be in the “jury” and understand all the details and circumstances surrounding the individual’s possession of the material, to be able to fairly say. I believe this is the reason why the law is ambiguous in this area.
I can tell you this. If, like sited in your article, it was a situation where someone possessed this type of material for their private use in their home, etc., and the only issue was having it, I have a hard time imagining the scenario where I would think some criminal conviction/penalty would be appropriate – no matter how disagreeable I might find the content.
Your response to my comments on the sexualization of children/adolescents is really weak. If you want to believe that the photo shoots with Brook Shields (and, admittedly others) back when we were kids (I’m 33, so late 80’s – early 90’s) are in any way – even remotely – similar to the landscape today, well, I guess that’s your right. But it isn’t. And you know it and so does everyone who has been around for the last 30+ years. What it gets down to, though, is some are ok with it and some are concerned about it.
I am not someone who believes that imagery, video games, movies, etc., in any way is responsible for youth violence – or violence in any age group. I agree with you that none of this stuff causes anyone to do anything that they weren’t likely to do anyway. But lumping all this stuff together is overgeneralizing.
The guy who collects comics/imagery/novellas that depict children/child-like characters in pornographic-like scenes is different, and clinical psychology and quantitative data agree. A great many convicted child molesters began on their path as child voyeurs/viewers of child porn. In this, the child-containing material is an indicator, not a cause or catalyst.
Does that mean that we should outlaw the comics that were the subject of your article? No. But is it a contentious area of debate, and an area of the law that needs to be very carefully applied and used with reasonable judgment and in appropriate context? Bet your ass.
Aaron R. Davis :
Date: June 4, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Well, let’s see. Brooke Shields posed for nude photographs when she was 12, at about the same time she was in the movie “Pretty Baby,” which she also appeared nude in as a prostitute having an affair with Keith Carradine. When today’s mainstream entertainment reaches that level, then I’ll agree that today’s landscape is far worse.
A great number of convicted child molesters were themselves abused as children. Will convicting a guy of owning comic books protect any more children from being molested? Of course not. For me it’s not a difficult issue. It’s an issue of wasting time and resources that would be better spent actually pursuing people who are abusing and exploiting children, not people who have comic books depicting people who not only aren’t children, but don’t actually exist. You’re making some pretty big assumptions about what Handley’s state of mind is when the actual facts of the case show that he was a manga collector who just read it at home.
Sorry, but I’m not comfortable living in a world where people can be prosecuted for simply owning something they keep private and that harms no one.
James :
Date: June 4, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Understood. At the risk of further hijacking your article and the comments section, I won’t push any further.
I appreciate your article and point of view.
Looking forward to next week’s installment,
JB
Aaron R. Davis :
Date: June 4, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Thanks. I appreciate that we can understand one another even if we don’t completely agree.
Anthony :
Date: June 5, 2009 @ 12:47 am
Quite an over-the-top punishment IMO. But the law is the law and it is applied according to the interpretation of the proper authorities.
I guess, we really should be careful of what we read, watch etc.