Are you prepared for a US ban on Dungeons and Dragons?
A ban on anything like that would have problems getting pushed through, what with that pesky first amendment getting in the way.
Well the first ammendment is right next to that other one that's always under attack.
:lightbulb
I know, we can get Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent to fight for our D&D rights. I don't know if Heston will go for it, but the Nuge loves the first amendment and is always up for a fight.
Heston: You can have our D&D books when you pry them from my cold dead hands, you damn, dirty congress.
Heston? Only if you find a Raise Dead spell.
Heston died?! I didn't know that. Ok. This should fix it.
Zombie Heston: You can have our D&D books when you pry them from my cold dead hands, you damn, dirty congress.
We obviously cant discuss the original source of this Legal precedent, but because it extends to Anime and will progress through that, it will innevitably extend to Violence based games like D&D that are marketed to children.
Are you prepared for a US ban on Dungeons and Dragons?
I can never tell whether you're trolling or just that paranoid. Either way, well done.
...I don't see how there's a change.
If it gets banned then teens that are trying to be badasses would play it.
...I don't see how there's a change.
Well, it would no longer be teens playing it to pretend to be badass. It'd be teens playing it because they thought it actually was badass.
Basically, there'd be a lot more teens that I'd want to hit in the head with a shovel.
..."Cool" kids have little grasp on reality to begin with...
...inb4anotherD&Dcausespeopletogocrazydebacle
Zombie Heston: [smallcaps]Mrrrrrrrrh![/smallcaps]
If anything happened, which I doubt, it would just be a requirement of a "mature content" label or something.
No such law would ever be passed, the constitution itself (1st amendment, more than anything) impedes it.
Right conclusion, wrong reason.
No such law will ever be passed and stay on the books, because there are quite a few organizations that focus on freedom of speech issue that challenge such things whenever they come up. The constitution is all fine and well on it's own, but unless people are actively trying to preserve it and fight unconstitutional laws and actions then it's all just pretty rhetoric.
Right conclusion, wrong reason.
No such law will ever be passed and stay on the books, because there are quite a few organizations that focus on freedom of speech issue that challenge such things whenever they come up. The constitution is all fine and well on it's own, but unless people are actively trying to preserve it and fight unconstitutional laws and actions then it's all just pretty rhetoric.
You are nitpicking, and you reasoning is wrong to begin with, such organizations would have no (legal) right to fight if it wasn't because of the first amendment clearly defining what the state as an institution could not do regarding speech, expression, peaceful assembly, the establishment of religion, and more importantly the right to petition. Without the amendment protecting the right to petition those groups could even be incapable of saying they have a right to argue in favor of their right to free speech.
No argument, but unconstitutional laws are made and passed all the time, and must be fought in court on those grounds. Merely being unconstitutional isn't enough to stop a law if there aren't people willing to fight it.
Well as dirtyfrank says
Legislature can pass unconstitutional laws. A law must first effect someone before it can be challenged in court.
Also, my objection is to the apparent (I don't know if intentional) confusion about the cause (the constitution) and the effect (people defending it). Therefore such laws may not be passed (or nullified if passed) not because of people protesting against them, but because the constitution singles them out as unconstitutional and provides people the mechanism to fight against them.
But this is really an unnecessary and sterile argument, we're both, ultimately, in agreement, I think.
yellowdingo is making a mistake here, the mistake being that yellowdingo did not realize the fundamental difference between the two issues- one is kiddie porn, the other is playing make believe.
Better hide the Book of Erotic Fantasy...
hands can touch feet.
mine can't... but what's that have to do with anything?
mine can't... but what's that have to do with anything?
I never said anything about your hands touching your feet. I just said that hands can touch feet.
I never said anything about your hands touching your feet. I just said that hands can touch feet.
well, apparently I also lack the mental flexibility to understand what the heck your point was...
Better hide the Book of Erotic Fantasy...
... and not to mention the Nymphology episode from Encyclopaedia Arcane.
Ahhhh...
Liberalism at its best...
Absolutely ridiculous, but I am not surprised....
somebody else knows whats good for you, and, by God, you're gonna listen!
Forgive my naiveté... isn't that like, the exact opposite of liberalism?
For those who haven't realised, the OP is probably referring to the Handley case, in which a Manga collector has pled guilty and now faces jail for importing manga which features child porn.
hmmm....interesting, hope this gets to be heard at a higher court, would like to see what they say.
For those who haven't realised, the OP is probably referring to the Handley case, in which a Manga collector has pled guilty and now faces jail for importing manga which features child porn.
D&D has kidie porn now?
Handley case,
And I really fail to see how it pertains to D&D. Maybe someone could point out the actual connection.
Man, things are getting awfully fascist around here.
I think the connection the OP is trying to make is that they are both fantasy and/or make believe. I think the OP is using the slippery slope argument here.
I can certainly see the point there. Thank you for clearing that up.
..., something that I personally agree with for the mere issue that apart from enjoying ****, what would posses someone to purchase and amass such comics. (Of course if the law is overturned, I'll probably don't care either).
Why? Being a **** isn't a crime - acting on it is. Because you psychologically (and sometimes physically) damage defenceless children et cetera et cetera. No-brainer. But if you happen to be attracted to children (for whatever reason), but you are a person upstanding enough to not act on it either directly or by watching porn (which exploits children the same way), isn't hentai a great substitute? After all, it's just lines on paper. Nobody gets hurt from it. You can keep your fetishes in the closet without having to repress them, and the kids in your neighbourhood grow up safe. Everyone's happy. What's the problem? I still don't understand.
Apart from this, I gather from the article that the person in question was a collector. So beyond ****, there's a perfectly valid reason for importing such mangas.
Why? Being a **** isn't a crime - acting on it is. Because you psychologically (and sometimes physically) damage defenceless children et cetera et cetera. No-brainer. But if you happen to be attracted to children (for whatever reason), but you are a person upstanding enough to not act on it either directly or by watching porn (which exploits children the same way), isn't hentai a great substitute? After all, it's just lines on paper. Nobody gets hurt from it. You can keep your fetishes in the closet without having to repress them, and the kids in your neighbourhood grow up safe. Everyone's happy. What's the problem? I still don't understand.
Apart from this, I gather from the article that the person in question was a collector. So beyond ****, there's a perfectly valid reason for importing such mangas.
As I said in the previous post, I don't care if the law exist or not, obviously the courts will have to rule on the constitutional issues its existence as a law presents. Also you are right **** is a crime is you act on it; however this law defines the possession of lolikon as possession of child pornography (as do many other European Countries, if I'm not mistaken). So as far as the law is concern, he did commit a crime and admitted (reluctantly) to it. I could make the slippery slope argument, but the argument is a slippery slope in it self and mostly reaches no conclusion. This is one of those issues where morality defines law, and the question is 'Is lolikon child pornography because of the idea it represents?' I feel inclined to say yes, I however know that I can be very wrong and won't mind if the courts (that oftentimes invisible branch of government) decide otherwise.
1)Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2)Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
3)Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)
hands can touch feet.
Hands Can Touch feat? What PrC has that for a requirement? And can I trade it in for something else?
In this case, however, they are arguing that possession of lollicon is possession of child pornography (if I'm not mistaken Canada has a similar law), something that I personally agree with for the mere issue that apart from enjoying ****, what would posses someone to purchase and amass such comics.
But it is not known if he was collecting just lolicon manga, or manga in general. The article is a bit ambiguous on that fact.
Why do you say such?
Because it is no longer majority opinion that DnD = Satan, take this from a Fundamentalist Baptist who plays DnD while serving a position as assistant Treasurer. And most people wouldn't fall for such argument (look at how horribly the most extreme of the whole 'Video Games are Violent and Must be Banned' movement has gone).
There are plenty of people in the US that wish to censor others.
Not only in the US. As somebody brought up the "video games = killing sprees waiting to happen", let me just throw in that that's actually drawing quite a crowd over here in Germany. To each culture its lunacy, I suppose.
D&D does not need to = Satan for it to be banned.
At least then we could claim religious persecution.
D&D does not need to = Satan for it to be banned. All there needs to be is people that want to censor others for it to be banned. There are plenty of people in the US that wish to censor others.
There is no legitimate movement that would find DnD worthy of censorship at the moment, nor, if demographics and trends continue, will there ever be. Unless we suddenly become a nation griped by mad religious fervor (and I say this as an active Baptist) and fear and feel a nationwide need to purge anything fantastical, it won't happen.
To worry about this, is, at the moment, idiotic and stupid.
No it wouldn't. It'd be the fuel for bloggers of a skewed mind, but nothing else.
I know. I was using hyperbole to get a laugh. Besides, I think we have nothing to worry about in the department of getting a "good", sexy, and violent D&D movie.
Found this interesting tidbit:Show"The law surrounding simulated child pornography in the United States is complex, but can be summarized as follows: simulated child pornography is generally protected speech, unless offered as if real children were involved, or if the material is deemed to be obscene." In order for something to be deemed obscene it must pass the Miller Test and meet all three of its requirement.
1)Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2)Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
3)Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)
Unlikely considering the present course of human opinions. So why worry?
I'm not worrying about this though I am worried about censorship topics in general.
For instance. Recently a radio show in my home town has a member that said something that a member of the LGBT community got offended by. This person has now started spreading some slanderous stuff about the radio show and is demanding that the radio hosts apologize (for having an opinion) and is trying to get the radio hosts kicked out of the public media line of work and banned from it. All because of something one of the hosts said was taken way out of context. So a big and ever growing censorship issue is happening right in the city I live in so the idea of censoring people is a big issue for me as a whole.
By the way, was it Savage?
I'm not worrying about this though I am worried about censorship topics in general.
For instance. Recently a radio show in my home town has a member that said something that a member of the LGBT community got offended by. This person has now started spreading some slanderous stuff about the radio show and is demanding that the radio hosts apologize (for having an opinion) and is trying to get the radio hosts kicked out of the public media line of work and banned from it. All because of something one of the hosts said was taken way out of context. So a big and ever growing censorship issue is happening right in the city I live in so the idea of censoring people is a big issue for me as a whole.
Frankly, unless the radio person actually violated the FCC's regulations, then it's just a lot of hot air being blown around. If the people can drum up enough bad press then the person might get fired, but there's no real (legal) danger.
Of course, as much as it's the radio person's right to have an opinion, it's the people's right to get offended over it and make their opinion heard. That's how it works. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from people not liking it, and in a business like radio that can mean someoen gets told from the boss upstairs to shut their trap, and frankly that's nothing new.
So though I don't know the details, I suspect that nothing major will come of it unless the radio person violated the FCC's regulations, in which case the people upset over it are attacking this from the wrong angle entirely.
But who knows, I may be wrong.
Well since it's not the government doing the censorship, there is no constitutional rights being violated.
The person that is offended will probably take thing to court because I don't think the radio station will drop the show. The show is really the only thing keeping the radio station running. If the offended person doesn't get an apology soon (which wont ever come) then the person will most likely take it to court (probably for the advocating of beating transgendered children, which is something that the radio hosts have never supported).
Show
Omg, actual real research and precident cited (rare)...nj/respect, even if some of the legality therein seriously gets under my skin.
Some things to consider: artistic license, intent, your basic rights, etc. Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy my **** as much as the next guy ;), but this is getting to be a bit much. Print, not pic. Cartoony big-eyed ppl, not RL .jpegs dripping w/ someone's latent evil.
And the whole Tentacle **** Monsters from Hell© breed of anime/manga, oh, that's okay (no children depicted), right? Just whispy adult girls that are a little too curious. Abberations are sexually violating adults (****, also a crime), but it's fine. Same format, Hell, probably same pencilers & writers in many cases. But they zero in on this manga? Neither are an issue IMO, it's just pop culture, albeit, very low brow.
I'd say Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (good show, respect) is a bigger hazardgiven the similar subject matter, full availability, and graphic content in a WAY MORE REALISTIC light than pen & ink on newsprint.
There are plenty of pictorals in LEGAL porn mags, actual photos of simulated **** even, but that's not what's on the table (poorly drawn victimized kids from the East). So, where does that leave us? Sounds like a scapegoating...
Suboena his HD, poke through his personal affects (ruin his life in general), look for the "real deal" for physical evidence. I'm sure they'll be able to drag out a character witness for decent testimony...and look like idiots for it too. He's probably just an afficiando of Japanese pop culture. Still, like an accusation of **** upon a eunuch, the character assassination is enough. Just the finger pointing will undo years of credibility and innocence.
It never was a majority opinion. Very vocal and poorly informed ppl just whipped up a media frenzy to curry favor and get the attention they thought was needed. Most of the 80's Americans were just doing business as usual. Squeaky wheel gets the grease in other words. Camera goes on the loud attention seeking guy, not the articulate/educated, but dry one...
I think the Thrill Kill Kult put it best (Shock of Point Six), "I think there's just some eccentric housewives imagining the Devil under every bed."
D&D is not gonna' get banned. Mark my words. Bigger fish to fry...
Of course, as much as it's the radio person's right to have an opinion, it's the people's right to get offended over it and make their opinion heard.
We have no right to be offended.
We can be offended but in being offended it doesn't mean that we can infringe upon there people's rights. We either need to just deal with it or change the channel/station/walk away so that it no longer bothers us.
The person that is offended will probably take thing to court because I don't think the radio station will drop the show. The show is really the only thing keeping the radio station running. If the offended person doesn't get an apology soon (which wont ever come) then the person will most likely take it to court (probably for the advocating of beating transgendered children, which is something that the radio hosts have never supported).
Sounds like the radio will win in court then, unless they have an incompetent lawyer.
We have no right to be offended.
We can be offended but in being offended it doesn't mean that we can infringe upon there people's rights. We either need to just deal with it or change the channel/station/walk away so that it no longer bothers us.
Perhaps I had a poor choice of words, but (as long as you don't cross into slander or libel) speaking your own opinion about someone else is also protected speech.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean they're not allowed to say it. That goes both ways.
The person that is offended will probably take thing to court because I don't think the radio station will drop the show. The show is really the only thing keeping the radio station running. If the offended person doesn't get an apology soon (which wont ever come) then the person will most likely take it to court (probably for the advocating of beating transgendered children, which is something that the radio hosts have never supported).
'What did the radio guy say?' (quote please). And if it is taken to court unless the Radio Guy said something that is not protected under the first amendment, nothing serious will happen to him.
We have no right to be offended.
We can be offended but in being offended it doesn't mean that we can infringe upon there people's rights. We either need to just deal with it or change the channel/station/walk away so that it no longer bothers us.
The first amendment only applies to government restriction on language not on interpersonal censorship.
The first amendment only applies to government restriction on language not on interpersonal censorship.
It's on a public radio show so they have to follow FCC guidelines. Also, I'm sure that if there is no apology then the offended party will try and make the Californian government force this person to apologize and force this person out of the radio industry. I can't find the exact quotes in written form but I can link to the audio of the show talking about and explaining it. I'll PM it to you.
It's on a public radio show so they have to follow FCC guidelines. Also, I'm sure that if there is no apology then the offended party will try and make the Californian government force this person to apologize and force this person out of the radio industry. I can't find the exact quotes in written form but I can link to the audio of the show talking about and explaining it. I'll PM it to you.
I don't think the FCC will intervene here, and the California Government can't do anything such as you claim would be done. Also, there is no evidence GLAAD wants to sue, they are effectively doing a quarantine.
The guys however were insensitive, they're gonna have to attain to the consequences (and the guys did say as much that he would hit his son if he was transgender).
In the end, however the state cannot act as the statements were not meant nor did they cause imminent lawless action.
Doesn't child pornography require... children in it? Are people seriously worried that that poor ink will now be warped for its entire life?
As long as the ink is 18 years old it's fine.
We obviously cant discuss the original source of this Legal precedent, but because it extends to Anime and will progress through that, it will innevitably extend to Violence based games like D&D that are marketed to children.
Are you prepared for a US ban on Dungeons and Dragons?
This has already been debated in courts and overruled. The US will never have a ban on violence based games, anime, etc. It is a major violation of freedom of speech.
Now, someone call in Webster.
Now, someone call in Webster.
I PMed webster before anybody responded to the this thread, so that part has already been taken care of.
I PMed webster before anybody responded to the this thread, so that part has already been taken care of.
Who is Webster?
I assume you're not talking about Emmanuel Louis or the dictionary guy.
Who is Webster?
I assume you're not talking about Emmanuel Louis or the dictionary guy.
Forum Lead.
Also, inb4lock