"Similar provisions are now required in the rest of Europe, under Article 7 of the European Union Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, approved in April 2004."
Yet another wonderful law funded by the IP lobby. Buying instead of pirating is rapidly becoming indefensible, when the profits are used to buy laws like this.
When corporations bribe politicians to strip you of your rights, they should be considered hostile.
On the other hand, Canada does seem to make some odd laws or judgements, such as the supreme court (or a similarly high court) judge ruling that for the purpose of child pornography laws, "person" includes a completely fictitious character, not based on any real person, and may have extremely abnormal and non-humanlike proportions.
A depiction of a fictional person is still a depiction of a person. Its just that the person being depicted is fictional.
Would you argue that propaganda glorifying the extermination of a community of a real religious or ethnic group, say Jews, would be ok if the community depicted was fictional?
Without really questoning what a "person" is, to get into a debate about abstract and concrete forms, etc. I firstly do not believe the example you have provided is a good counter example or fitting analogy given the intent of child pornography legislation, nor do I believe the material you describe should be illegal.
There is first a key difference in the kind of material I am talking about. You are talking about propaganda, I am talking about even private possession of drawings. Further, I think that it depends on if the cartoon in your scenario acutally calls for violence, or if it is merely a scene drawn in disgusting taste. I would find it disgusting, as would many others - but does that mean it ought to be illegal? To distribute on the street perhaps, but what about privately on the Internet? Or publicly on the Internet?
The key is intent. The intent of child pornography legislation is to prevent its circulation and production, for its production necessarily requires the abuse of a child, and market effects can demand more to be produced, necessitating more child abuse. As such I think it absurd to consider, for the purposes of child pornography legislation, a fictional character to be a "person". What harm is done by drawing on paper? What of keeping that paper to oneself in private? What of giving that paper to your friend? What of selling that paper for a price? What of giving it away for free?
It would be strange, though I accept, that you want the propaganda you describe to be illegal to possess or share. I however cannot agree on that principle, for I view it as a violation of one's rights of freedom of expression. In the same way, illegalising a disgusting pornographic comic I believe is also an infringement.
Finally there is no real victim being hounded in your example. There is no call to violence, threat etc. and I judge it hideous that one would prevent me from owning such material.
Hmm, I can't reply so I'll post here. I don't think bans on child pornography are just to prevent children being abused in its production. I think partly it's because the circulation of such depictions make it more likely for people who enjoy such material to act on their fantasies against real children. It. Institutes incitement.
In other words I think child pornography is a form of propaganda glorifying the sexual abuse of children.
Although I share this concern, I can't really square with the idea of freedom of expression. Because someone may do something, I don't think it's good reasoning. And as far as I know, there's little or no evidence linking drawings of fictional characters having sex to child abuse. I think it's strikingly similar to the argument that violence in video games may cause people to act out similar violence in real life, i.e I don't agree with it.
Until there is sufficient evidence, I will tend to err on the side of freedom. Unfortunately in my country (England) such depictions are illegal and I have campaigned online for the past couple of years for its repeal - though God forbid I do it in person.
I think we are living in a very strange world in which drawings are illegal because they might cause people to do bad things.
With regard to the idea that drawn CP is a form of propaganda, I must disagree. In propaganda there is intent, and there is no intent I can see in lolicon hentai manga to encourage abuse. In fact, many manga contain warning notices saying that such things in real life are hideous crimes.
And even in the instances in which it is propaganda, so what? People must be shielded by the law from propaganda?
The HN mods have put a flag on my account which says that I'm not allowed to post very often because once I was posting in quick succession on a political topic. As such, if you reply to this, my reply may be an addendum to this comment.
That's certainly the argument, but it's not clear at all that the argument is sound. For instance, there's compelling circumstantial evidence that Internet pornography leads to a decline in rape. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201601/ev...) Maybe prohibitions on child porn lead to more sexual abuse of children?
I mean... this could/does literally happen in the US as well. Don't get me wrong, the circumstances are slightly different, but the basic premise is the same:
This article is unclear about whether the RIAA actually executed the raid and on what legal grounds. It says they worked with the Secret Service (which is confusing itself--why would the secret service be involved in copyright violations?) and that people were arrested; I find it particularly hard to believe that the RIAA had legal authority to detain anyone.
I skimmed, but I couldn't find anything that indicates that a civil party can execute the warrant. To be clear, is not interesting that a court can order the forfeiture of property; it's interesting that a civil plaintiff can execute the order.
> I can't imagine the criticism the U.S. would face if it had such a mechanism.
Probably none. The US has civil forfeiture and is barely raises an eyebrow. Hell, Jello Biafra was singing about it in the 1980s about when he had his stuff taken by the sheriff and it was sold before his trial. Regardless of whether you were innocent or not, the cops could sell your stuff.
