I guess, we really should be careful of what we read, watch etc.

I appreciate your article and point of view.

Looking forward to next week’s installment,

JB

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.