Just when you thought it was safe to possess a pen and paper, we hear about the disturbing case of Manga collector Christopher Handley’s prosecution and guilty plea (disappointing the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund) for violating the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The maximum sentence is 15 years. It’s likely that Handley pled that down significantly. What did he possess to get him in so much trouble? Depictions of cartoon children being sexually abused.
Some call him sick for collecting such things. Some feel he should be locked up. They feel that sick things should be prohibited. What is this really a case about? Sexuality? Pedophilia? Puritanism? Regardless, there has been an uproar in the comic book community, and the point I made last December is being reiterated. My “underage” stick-figure sex depiction (daring someone to prosecute me) has been, in a variety of ways, repeated.
Where’s the victim? The ink? The paper? Are the prosecutors the type of people who believe that fictional characters have feelings or rights? And why isn’t everyone who has a copy of Nabokov’s Lolita (in book or movie form, or, heck, is there a graphic novel?) currently being prosecuted? Heck, why isn’t the government clamping down on Amazon and Barnes & Noble for selling both artistic and literary depictions of underage sex, rape, and torture? If you think it doesn’t exist, if you think it’s not purchasable by the general public, perhaps you’re the myopic kind of person who would cheer to see Handley thrown in jail while you simultaneously forgive the Catholic Church for harboring men who actually stuck their penises in the mouths and anuses of the innocent boys in their care.
Was that statement too obscene for you? Funny, because it really happened to real children by real priests (and lots of other people who don’t even know what Manga is). Why on earth would a man like Handley, who merely possessed drawings of things you don’t like, be subjected to more years in prison than the men who perform the acts you cannot bear to read upon REAL CHILDREN? That, not Handley, is what is disgusting in this society and world. Perhaps if Handley suddenly found Jesus he would be treated with real justice in a nation that touts its freedom of thought while failing to practice what it preaches.
Worth reading is the BoingBoing post about Handley’s unfortunate situation. Also some of the comments are right on target, and I’m going to quote a few of my favorites right here:
-verde-
Thought Police at the door sir:
-Have you ever in your head pictured an infant being raped?
-No.
-Not even now that we brought up the subject?
-Well, mmm I guess so.
-Could you come with us?
—
-spazzm-
And who exactly decides what is artistic or immoral?
Erotica is artistic, porn is immoral, smut is illegal.
Erotica is what excites me, porn is what excites you, smut is what excites them.
—
-anonymous-
One of the questions I have is why the assumption is that such content serves the sole purpose of titillation or arousal for the reader. Yes, its principle intent may be that, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the reader views it that way. I have books of Toshio Saeki’s work that I have brought back from Europe in the last ten years (and not without concern they would be confiscated at customs or worse). His work is *extremely* difficult to look at, and often incorporates children in sexual situations with adults. I do not find this at all arousing, and in fact, I find it shocking and disturbing. But I find his work incredibly beautiful, challenging and it inspires me to ask questions of myself as I look at it. So, where is that part of it? We must be allowed to examine the work of others that we ourselves may not agree with or even like…And I don’t want to live in a world where we’re not allowed to express even the darkest parts of our psyche…which no one is above. Some just keep it to themselves better than others.
Spare the whole “it inspires others to act”. Pete Townsend has a quote about that.
Then there’s that whole problem of suppressing thoughts and artistic expression. You know. That kinda poses ongoing problems. Telling people what they can / can’t think / express / consider doesn’t really work so great.
And, I highly agree with what was said earlier about cultural misunderstandings related to the taboo depiction of pubic hair making these characters appear to be children.
This is tragic. Very scary, very sad that he pled guilty without proper counsel. (I’m a mid-30’s white female, btw).
—
-anonymous-
Wow. I guess I better get ready for prison. I drew a picture of myself having sex with a cartoon girl (…after cutting her cartoon head off). By this standard, I’m guilty of sex crimes against children. I didn’t even get to “play doctor” as a kid. 
If we really wanted to protect children, the US Catholic Church should be (temporarily) shut down and have all the clergy FBI checked and registered (fingerprints and DNA, you pervy bastards). Let’s start with the real criminals. Remember the psychologist in Happiness who was a pedophile? He jerked himself off to a male teen magazine in the back of his car (one of my all-time favorite cringe comedy moments). Those are the PEOPLE you should be worried about having pictures fuel their desire. It won’t be the loli.
I am a victim of child sexual abuse in two ways. I was abused as a teen, and my first attempt at intercourse was destroyed by my adult partner’s sobs of physical and psychological pain. She had been raped as a young girl. I carried that crushing guilt with me for several years after that.
Show me comics/drawings of someone’s fantasy/nightmare of raping and killing children, I may enjoy it. I may abhor it. I might fantasize about killing the person who made it. I might masturbate to it and cry afterward. In the privacy of my home and in my mind, I should be able to do anything I want with it.
Should I go to jail for thoughts?
In the meantime, I’m going to be renaming all of my folders “midget porn.”
—
-Redsquares-
In other news, millions arrested for owning copies of Gauguin’s works and early sketches.
I’d hate to see what happens to Scheile collectors.
God dammit, under this sort of law, my paper on Bellmer I wrote for art history is enough to throw most of that class in jail. Dude drew bisected nude girls, in a clearly sexualized nature. Damn good drawings, aesthetically and technically: well done, good composition, and were done to fuck with the Nazis to boot, but still… what does that prove?
It’s obvious you are a sick fuck, no matter what the hell you do. Someone, somewhere, is against it for the pure purpose of being against it, the only question is: can they convince others to be against it too?
—
-blueelm-
What a strange situation. It was my understanding that the posession of photographic child pornography was illegal because it encouraged the assault and mistreatment of the children in the picture. In other words it is documentation of abuse.
It is a strange and tough argument about manga and I don’t know exactly how I feel, but while our children are fetishised to a large degree in the US there is a distinction between a predatory pedophile, your nasty uncle, and people who collect drawings of little girls being split in half by squid with hardware. I’m not sure that the latter influences the former, as the person molesting one’s child is more likely to be a good friend or spouse than a sexually-frustrated comic collector.
I think the Gacey clown of pain model sticks in people’s heads, but remember that he actually interacted with kids… not drawings of them. Secondly while we may be stigmatizing our kids by putting them in beauty pageants and American Apparel ads, the objective of some one who compulsively rapes small children is not to worship the adult-like beauty of a little girl but rather to have sex with her because it fufuls a compulsive need. As far as sympathy for them, I’m not sure about these teach-a-lesson type laws, but I see no problem with confining a serious enough offender from the rest of society, but some one with some drawings? Really?
By the same token it makes me sad that there is probably some one who has actually raped a little girl who will serve less jailtime than this guy will for having some troubling drawings. As far as the drawings, as an artist, I can’t help but think that these things must be tolerated.
—
Okay, that’s enough for now. Check out the BoingBoing comment thread and KOS for a lot more on both sides of the issue.
If you have some extra money, donate it to CBLDF. If you know someone who is about to get in trouble for possessing cartoons (or a book, etc.), refer the person to CBLDF and the ACLU.
