Canadian Charges Against US Manga Reader Dropped

tverbeek writes "The U.S.-based Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and the Canada-based Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund have announced that the Canadian government has withdrawn all criminal charges in R. v. Matheson, a case which involved a U.S. citizen who was arrested and faced criminal charges in Canada relating to manga found on his computer when he entered the country. Customs agents declared the illustrations of fictional characters to be 'child pornography.' The defendant, a 27-year-old comic book reader, amateur artist, and computer programmer, has been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. Despite financial assistance from the CBLDF and CLLDF, he has an outstanding debt of $45K for his defense."

Comments

Drop charges == pay?

[MobyDisk]

If you drop charges from the case then you should pay the legal fees for the defense. Or is this up to the judge?

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[ClioCJS]

That might encourage people to never stop/drop, though, like SCO. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[gl4ss]

sco wasn't a _criminal_ case.

criminal cases ie. public prosecution vs. a private person with criminal charges, of course the state should pay when it loses. but the state didn't lose, it withdrew. like if coppers showed up at your house, intimidated you that they're going to take you to court for things xyz, then you go to a lawyer and ask if there's any merit and the lawyer says no and then the cops don't proceed further to do anything.

I guess it's in this case the state didn't pay because the prosecution dropped the case..? doesn't make much sense, but plausable.. if they withdrew and it never went to court then a judge didn't decide anything on the case, didn't find the prosecution to pay for damages/costs.. pretty fucked up though, he should sue the state.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[sjames]

More like the cops kick your door in, break all your stuff and pile it up in the yard, rip your house down and then after finding nothing of interest "magnanimously" offer to not haul you off anyway and shoot your dog so long as you "agree" that they don't owe you any damages.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[sjames]

How about if you drop charges you pay for the defense to date (and a reasonable compensation for any jail time or lost opportunities) but if you prosecute and fail you pay triple. Just to make sure there's no dirty dealing, if you manage through misconduct to get a conviction you shouldn't have, you get to do the time yourself.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[YesDinosaursDidExist]

I don't know how the Canadian court system works. But, Yes - in Britain if you lose a case -- you pay the winning party's legal fees. In the US - at a federal level attorney fees can be awarded in Civil Rights Cases under the: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976. Additionally, in some civil cases you can request attorney fees be awarded to you...but that is usually only the case if the Court is also awarding punitive damages.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[GodInHell]

Apple, AT&T and Comcast FULLY endorse this. So do all the other big $$$ corporations that would then become effectively immune from anyone without corporation sized pockets to dip into for legal fees.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[sjames]

We're talking about CRIMINAL charges here. Necessarily the prosecution is a government.

In the case of civil court, I agree that a stricct loser pays doesn't work very well for individual vs. corporation cases.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[JustSomeProgrammer]

aka Mr. Taxpayer pays for him.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[Alain Williams]

But, Yes - in Britain if you lose a case -- you pay the winning party's legal fees.

Not always, unfortunately. If the other side is legally aided they can claim if they win, if they loose you cannot claim costs from them. If an employer is taken to court by an employee the employer pays the employee's legal bill if he wins or he looses. The only ones who win are parasitic solicitors.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[Qzukk]

Then maybe Mr. Taxpayer will think harder about voting for the next DA (or if it's an appointment, whoever appoints them).

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[sjames]

If the prosecutor has so little care for justice or the taxpayer, perhaps Mr. Taxpayer should run him out of town.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[Grishnakh]

In addition to this, there should be specific penalties for certain dollar amounts wasted (either from dropped charges, or the treble damages from failed prosecutions). So, for instance, if a DA wastes $1m, he has to pay $100k and stay in jail for a year; if he wastes $10m, he has to pay $1m and stay in jail for a 10 years, etc.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[X0563511]

(or if it's an appointment, whoever appoints them).

I have a better idea. Get rid of political appointments entirely.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be easy to set limits to defence fees. And it's an outrage that we allow, in this day and age, for people to be punished even though they have been officially declared innocent. Any legal system that punishes innocents is by definition unjust.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[Applekid]

But, Yes - in Britain if you lose a case -- you pay the winning party's legal fees.

Not always, unfortunately. If the other side is legally aided they can claim if they win, if they loose you cannot claim costs from them. If an employer is taken to court by an employee the employer pays the employee's legal bill if he wins or he looses. The only ones who win are parasitic solicitors.

When things are fair and equitable, there are going to be freeloaders and abusers. This is far better than the alternative.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[Stubbyfingers]

You can't jail him--but you can bankrupt him and leave him destitute and homeless to freeze to death in the street. Seems like the Government wins either way.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[GodInHell]

I have a better idea. Get rid of political appointments entirely.

OMFG no. Do you really want to elect your garbage man? How about your public defender. Can you image the ads? "Soandso got John Murderer off on a technicality and he went on to murder three police officers and a reverend before being shot down in the street. Don't vote for Soandso, vote for Joe Letemhang for Public Defender. Putting the right amount of work in to make sure those bastards all pay."

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[Pseudonym Authority]

Some places already do this. The result is that everyone down to dog catchers are on the ballot, so everyone just votes party line so they don't have to fill in 500 check-boxes.

Re:Drop charges == pay?

[X0563511]

Then break the elections up into multiple smaller ones, so if you don't know or care about the positions being voted for, just don't go that day.

Be falsely accused, become poor

[i kan reed]

Legal systems aren't any fun to ever get involved with.

Re:Be falsely accused, become poor

[shawn(at)fsu]

This could be the next Universal Health care. Universal law coverage. Except you kind of need medical help when you need it, since your body doesn't care if you have insurance. Being arrested and having to mount a costly legal deference could have been avoided by not arresting him for cartoons.

Re:Be falsely accused, become poor

[tverbeek]

We actually have universal law coverage in the US, Canada, and other countries (at least for criminal charges). It's called a "court-appointed attorney", and it's generally the quality of legal care that you would get by going to a free clinic. It may be adequate if all you have is a throat infection or a laceration on your arm, but pretty much worthless for treatment of your pancreatic cancer.

Re:Be falsely accused, become poor

[NormalVisual]

It's called a "court-appointed attorney", and it's generally the quality of legal care that you would get by going to a free clinic.

In most places in the US, if you have assets of any kind (car, etc.) or even just have a job, you're likely to be denied a court-appointed attorney.

Re:Be falsely accused, become poor

[Anonymous Coward]

1.You get much better service at a free clinic than from the public defender.
2. If you work full-time and make $8 per hour you are too rich to qualify for the public defender.
(In the state of Minnesota at least.)

Re:Be falsely accused, become poor

[Anonymous Coward]

to my friends everything.

to my enemies, the law.

Re:Be falsely accused, become poor

[boef]

Well, I sure as fuck won't play Hangman in Canada. They'll probably charge you with murder (or some weird sex fetish if the stick drawing looks underage...)

Re:Be falsely accused, become poor

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a "court-appointed attorney", and it's generally the quality of legal care that you would get by going to a free clinic.

In most places in the US, if you have assets of any kind (car, etc.) or even just have a job, you're likely to be denied a court-appointed attorney.

No

Justice for those who can afford it.

[Ultra64]

gee, only $45,000 in debt

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[citab]

who says he could afford it? he didn't have a choice but to defend himself.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[tmosley]

Don't you know that you are supposed to roll over when the government tells you to?

You must be a TERRORIST!

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Sir_Sri]

I read Ultra64's post as sarcasm. If he couldn't get 45k in loans what would have happened? to get 45k in loans to pay for criminal charges you have to have assets that will cover that, since you can't guarantee future earnings will be able to make up for 45k.

Sure, in the grand scheme of things 45K isn't that much money, at least, it shouldn't be for someone in the US/canada that is a 'computer programmer'. Lots of programming students face that much in debt coming out of school. But if you don't have it, or can't borrow it what would he have done? Run out of money and ended up in jail having to give up his defence? That hardly seems fair.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[tverbeek]

The actual cost of his defense was $75K. The other $30K was paid by the two legal defense funds.

The defendant's personal statement about the case is worth reading: rather chilling: http://cbldf.org/homepage/ryan-mathesons-personal-statement/

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[mhajicek]

Fair? Ha! This is the US "Justice" System we're talking about, fair has nothing to do with it!

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[jdgeorge]

Fair? Ha! This is the US "Justice" System we're talking about, fair has nothing to do with it!

Except that Canada technically isn't one of the United States. It's more like Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[mhajicek]

Fair? Ha! This is the US "Justice" System we're talking about, fair has nothing to do with it!

Except that Canada technically isn't one of the United States. It's more like Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia.

Not that there's a difference, really.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Ultra64]

>I read Ultra64's post as sarcasm

Yeah, I thought it was incredibly obvious I was being sarcastic.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Ultra64]

I'm a bit confused by "-1, Troll"

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[erroneus]

The real deal-breaker here is that he made a plea bargain. Unfortunately, this is how he lost. I know first-hand how this can go. By making a plea, you are granting the prosecution a free pass on any treatment or unfairness you may experience in the process.

But I feel for the guy. He's young and likely scared. And after almost two years of this crap hanging over his head, misery, depression and paranoia are among the giant mess of emotions he was probably feeling.

Still, it's a lot of money and I would consult with an attorney about the wrongful arrest and try to get some backing by one or more professionals in the field of psychological medicine to support a case based on his pain and suffering he was subjected to over a very long period. And believe me, being charged with something false and having such things hanging over your head and over your future horizons is no small matter.

He should definitely sue. He will probably lose because a judge would not want to cripple his criminal justice system with a precedential ruling in favor of the former defendant, but there's a good chance they might settle with him to keep the profile on the issue down.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Smauler]

Italics from linked statement

The law shouldn’t be based on what you like or don’t like. The people should have their own choice to pursue what they like and avoid what they don’t like.

Here's the problem. He's talking about what the law should and should not be, and not what the law is. There is not a single legal system in the world which allows people to pursue what they like. Drug laws, bestiality laws, incest laws, homosexuality laws, indecency laws, are everywhere, and are different in different places.

Free speech should be absolute, not a pick-and-choose sort of thing.

No, no it should not. Libel, slander, and "Conspiracy to commit murder" laws are restrictions on free speech.

Having said all that, I absolutely sympathise with the guy, and am astonished this case got as far as it did (though, not being able to see the images, makes independent evaluations of innocence difficult. The fact that he wasn't charged speaks for itself though). By the way, Canadian taxpayers, this is your cash funding this. If this guy spent $75000, crap knows how much your government spent on it. If this case had not gone ahead, I guess at leas 100 medium paid Canadians would not have had to pay income tax for a year.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[masmullin]

Yeah, I thought it was incredibly obvious I was being sarcastic.

Are you being sarcastic?

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Endo13]

You took the quotes completely out of context. He doesn't mean what you're implying at all.

For those who don't want to bother RTFA, here's the full paragraph:

Others like me that are interested in comics, manga and anime should become informed about this important issue and stick together. Some people may be tempted to say things like, “Well, I don’t like that type of manga” or “That doesn’t bother me — I’ve never read that title,” but you should step back and take a look at the big picture. The law shouldn’t be based on what you like or don’t like. The people should have their own choice to pursue what they like and avoid what they don’t like. When overzealous governments try to unjustly attack comics and manga, they are attacking all of literature and art as a whole. Free speech should be absolute, not a pick-and-choose sort of thing. This is a very important right that we enjoy every day and we need to stand up for ourselves and protect it!

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we throw YOU in jail and make false accusations (those false charges) and see how you like it. Speech should not be restricted period. Libel, slander, etc only useful if the person doing it has a solid reputation. Conspiracy to commit murder again should not be a crime. It is the act of having committed it that should be a crime. All the conspiracy shit is just another way that those with power can intimidate and abuse the populous.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Ultra64]

I don't know anymore.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the summary? He was charged.

And why should seeing the images make a difference? They were drawings, not evidence of child abuse. Not even slander, libel, conspiracy, etc. I'm sure he assumed that the reader would be able to grasp that context, since he wasn't charged with any of those things, and obviously not talking about them. But then, there are some people who take pride in their ability to not understand things like this; I guess you're one of them.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Grishnakh]

Free speech should be absolute, not a pick-and-choose sort of thing.

No, no it should not. Libel, slander, and "Conspiracy to commit murder" laws are restrictions on free speech.

Yes, but libel and slander have some limitations: 1) the truth is an absolute defense, at least here in the USA; I've heard it isn't in the UK(!). 2) The plaintiff has to show they were materially harmed. So if I say that Smauler raped an alien visitor from the planet Rigel, obviously this isn't true, but a slander case isn't going to go anywhere because no one with half a brain would believe my ridiculous statement.

Also, in all three of those things you mention, there's a victim, and the prosecution/plaintiff has to prove that victim was harmed or was in imminent danger of real harm. There's no victim with manga, it's a cartoon.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Grishnakh]

Libel and slander are already limited based on if the victim was materially harmed (and also if the statements are true or not). If the statements are ridiculous and no one believes them, then there's no real damages. S/L cases rarely go anywhere except for high-profile victims (celebrities) and defendants with money (publishers/tabloids).

Conspiracy to commit murder should be a crime, but saying "I'm going to go kill that SOB" is not "conspiracy", and at best a threat, and those usually aren't taken very seriously. Conspiracy is not just saying you're going to kill someone, but usually arranging with other people to kill him, and also putting things into place to actually do the deed: collecting weapons or paraphernalia to do the deed and probably hide it too, etc. For instance, that crazy astronaut lady that was going to kill her romantic rival probably should have been charged with this, though somehow she got off; all the tools and actions were there to show she had real intent to commit murder: wearing a diaper so she didn't have to stop on her cross-country drive, murder tools in the trunk, being at the victim's location at the right time (and that location being very far from where she normally hangs out), etc. There wasn't any speech involved there IIRC, as it was just one nutty lady by herself, but it was her actions, considered as a whole, that should have made her eligible for those charges. You shouldn't have to wait until someone's dead before you can press charges against someone, though admittedly the penalty for a successful murder should be much higher than for just conspiring to commit one.

As for abusing the populace, there's a lot of laws used that way, and conspiracy to commit murder just doesn't come to mind when I think of laws that are abused by overzealous DAs and cops. I honestly can't think of any cases of that which look like overzealous prosecution, in fact it doesn't seem to come up that often.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Khashishi]

I think that was his point.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I get what slander, libel, etc are. I also understand how and where conspiracy comes into play. I didn't say we should have those other laws either. Abuse is only part of the problem and you can't have a free society with a real democracy when you can take away the right of any person to vote (which many countries do once convicted), associate (again, you can't say it is ok to convict based on being part of a gang or be prohibited from contact with ex-felons once released from prison, or based on age), speak (there should be no prohibition on what can be published, to whom it may be distributed, or how), or prohibit travel based on unjust restrictions (I'm against a drivers license requirement and license plates- there are other ways to discourage dangerous driving). I was speaking about these particular laws.

I'm not against enforcement of law. I'm against unreasonable restrictions on liberty. Most laws we don't even need and aren't applied the way they were intended in the first place or are used beyond the scope of the intention. A society should not be protected at the cost of liberty. I would rather see terrorists blow things up on a annual basis than lose the freedoms we have already lost. Many of these freedoms were taken long before I was even born or never really existed in practice. We have slowly lessened the restrictions on certain speech while tightening other speech many or even most people find undesirable/dangerous/etc. i don't think that is right.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[tqk]

The real deal-breaker here is that he made a plea bargain.

This is Canada (not USA). I know you US-ians do that sort of stuff regularly, but that's (from what I'm used to) not done here, that I know of.

I still don't understand what to or why he pled the charges; still researching. I'm beginning to feel like a stranger in a strange land, and I live here. This guy shouldn't have needed to plead to anything! WTF is a "non-criminal regulatory offense"? I've never heard of it. Bringing too many cigs across the border?

As part of the deal, the prosecutor withdrew all criminal charges against me. I knew my defense was extremely strong, but I also knew all trials are inherently risky. If I had gone to full trial, the original criminal charges against me posed the risk of a minimum mandatory sentence of one year plus having to register on a sex offender registry in Canada and potentially even in the United States.

Ho. Ly. !@#$.

Lend me a gun somebody?

This case was important to me. Japanese animation and manga are something I hold precious. I first got into anime when I was about eight years old by watching Sailor Moon and Dragon Ball Z that aired on TV at the time.

Sailor Moon. Dragon Ball Z. So, what innocuous hobbies are going to trigger attack dogs on me? ReBoot? Guilty as charged. Take me away!

Ryan, I apologize for my country's actions.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: I was wrong but don't want to admit it.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Altrag]

Sure there is. In Canada we have the awesome Mountie uniforms. Find one of those in Puerto Rico. Well, outside of a Disney show. Since we sold them the trademark. Go us.

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Raenex]

This is Canada (not USA). I know you US-ians do that sort of stuff regularly, but that's (from what I'm used to) not done here, that I know of.

Live and learn, my fellow plebeian to the north:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Canada

"In Canada, the courts always have the final say with regard to sentencing. Nevertheless, plea bargaining has become an accepted part of the criminal justice system although judges and Crown attorneys are often reluctant to refer to it as such. In most Canadian criminal proceedings, the Crown has the ability to recommend a lighter sentence than it would seek following a guilty verdict in exchange for a guilty plea.

Like other common law jurisdictions, the Crown can also agree to withdraw some charges against the defendant in exchange for a guilty plea. This has become standard procedure for certain offences such as impaired driving."

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[tqk]

Sigh. I hate the way this century is unfolding. When I read 1984, it was a work of fiction. Now, if you're not looking over your shoulder and questioning your every intended action, you're remiss and "get what you deserve." Traveling? Don't take luggage or electronics! Don't bring a book with you; buy it at your destination instead, then throw it away before you return. You never know what thoughts (which may be distorted in any manner by authorities) may be buried within it.

Holy !@#$. I ought to go find a cave to hole up in. Is it still legal to think about naked women over the age of consent? Should I be wearing a burka?

Re:Justice for those who can afford it.

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone arrested for terrorism over the completely innocent one-line writing of another...who's life was ruined by his government...well, I only hope you understand just how true your words are.

"Anime and manga"

[bluemonq]

From the press release: "Moreover, they should also be aware that although anime and manga is legal in many areas of the United States and Japan, etc., to possess and utilize..."

The hell? Makes it sound like all anime and manga have naked children in them. Also, Matheson didn't get off scot-free: "Mr. Matheson has agreed to plead to a non-criminal code regulatory offense under the Customs Act of Canada."

Re:"Anime and manga"

[The Archon V2.0]

The hell? Makes it sound like all anime and manga have naked children in them.

A lot of people think they do, or at least some sort of depravity. I've never heard a mainstream show reference Grave of the Fireflies etc. but at least one sitcom has referred to the more... notable... elements of Legend of the Overfiend when discussing "Japanese cartoons".

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Dyinobal]

So he was in debt, no real money for defense and the prosecutor got him to plead guilty to a lesser crime when it saw its case wouldn't hold up in the long run. sounds an awful lot like what happens here in the USA all the time. Lets face it the world doesn't work the way it should, I wish I knew what I could do about that.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[girlintraining]

"Mr. Matheson has agreed to plead to a non-criminal code regulatory offense under the Customs Act of Canada."

Hey look buddy, we know you're going to sue the pants off of us if we don't nail you with something, so our lawyers found this obscure section of the customs code that is really vague and could nail anyone, because heh, that's what it's there for, and anyway, yeah... you're guilty, and your sentence is, er, nothing. But the important thing here is that justice was served: Namely, We Got Our Man(tm). Er, sorry about ruining your life dude... sorta. Okay, not really. Heh heh, eh? Now if you'll excuse us, we have to go watch videos of ourselves beating the crap out of a bunch of illegal immigrants as part of some 'sensitivity training'. It's mandatory, and so the boss made it BYOB. Man this job sucks... they don't pay for the beer. My last law enforcement job paid for the beer... oh .. crap... is this thing still recording?

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee and heres me thinking Canada wasnt in the United States and had a seperarte legal system

Re:"Anime and manga"

[marnues]

You may not believe me, but it works as well as it currently can. The exact same tactic is how Al Capone was finally put into prison. That it can be used against non-criminals in this way is abhorrent. Unfortunately no one has ever found a legal system that catches Al Capone but repays this guy for lost time, money, and prestige. And none of us have the ability to try something new. Your best bet is to find a place that wants your help, and give it your all. You may not be changing the world, but you can be changing _someones_ world.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Princeofcups]

The hell? Makes it sound like all anime and manga have naked children in them.

There's the mistake that everyone makes. The child pornography laws came about as a way to protect children from being exploited, i.e. abused, in the creation of said pornography. How this ever turned into "mind crime" is crazy. Now people accept that the possession of any representation, i.e. drawing, of an child, i.e. under the age of 18, in a sexual fashion is criminal. How did we ever get from one to the other?

Re:"Anime and manga"

[sconeu]

Why do you Hate The Children???

Why won't you THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

Re:"Anime and manga"

[GmExtremacy]

Or, in this case, think of the imaginary children!

Re:"Anime and manga"

[bhtooefr]

And, the way the justice system - at least in the US, not sure about Canada - was originally designed, the designers decided it was worth Al Capone running free, and he would eventually find himself staring down the barrel of one of his victim's firearms, taking care of the problem.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't "thinking of the children" exactly what we are trying to discourage (at least in child porn enforcement)?

Re:"Anime and manga"

[dead_cthulhu]

The tentacle pr0n meme has spread further in the popular consciousness simply because deeper and more interesting titles tend to be dismissed as "mere cartoons," and therefore not worth taking seriously. Now, when the "cartoons" are not so innocent when tentacle beasts are violating schoolgirls, it becomes suddenly amusing enough to spread.

In this guys case, he probably just had a copy of something as innocent as Evangelion on his drive and the mouth-breathing cop freaked-out.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[GmExtremacy]

Better that people like Al Capone run free than innocent people be punished.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry sir, you have committed thought-crime #1 (thinking of imaginary children), we need you to step over here.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

Having done a report on this for my law class, I'll break it down as best as I understand it (and I'm going entirely from about 10 year old memory so I'm probably mistaken on some points). For starters, unlike decisions in the US, the Supreme Court of Canada actually has held that virtual child pornography is still child pornography. The only caveat is that if you produced the images yourself and do not distribute them you're off the hook. One justification for such is that virtual child pornography can be used in conditioning a potential victim. Now, I don't in the least support this decision. In fact, reading the law, it clearly says person and person is defined elsewhere as a real person, so how the devil the Court managed to reinterpret that to be character I have no flipping clue. They try to justify it, and really don't. So, up here we have this highly dubious standard of what is and isn't child pornography now.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[trevelyon]

Shouldn't there be an injured party for it to be a criminal offense? Kind of hard to see who got injured in the making or possessing of a comic book but maybe it's just me.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[roc97007]

I just burned my copy of Pretty Baby (1978) and the entire first season of Glee.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[lightknight]

Indeed. Many of the characters portrayed in Japanese manga are actually of high-school age, but to the border / customs agent's eyes, they look like elementary school kids. The level of derp involved with these people is insane.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[lightknight]

Thank You. I tire of the 'ends justify the means' arguments.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[marnues]

To me, that is a much worse legal system. Al Capone in particular was not in danger of vigilante justice.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[lightknight]

Wonderous. Social policy shaping from above.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[lightknight]

I'm personally waiting for one of our politicians to wander onto national television, declare manga to be offensive, and create an international incident. You and I both know it's only a matter of time before one of them does this, and we also know that it will piss off the Japanese.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument is that it's a distributed-victim crime: the sicko images of children, even imaginary ones, being abused "drives demand" for real child porn and, in turn, real child sexual abuse.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[ratboy666]

Hey, look buddy

Depiction of children having sex is illegal in Canada. Even if you personally wrote it, or drew it.

So, yes, even if a piece of Manga is legal in Japan or the US it may well be illegal in Canada.

As this fellow found out. I figure he got off lightly.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[almechist]

But isn't "thinking of the children" exactly what we are trying to discourage (at least in child porn enforcement)?

Someone should mod parent up, even though there's no way to mod +1 Ironic. Because it's true, this has become a pure thought crime, which leads to some rather ludicrous scenarios.

"Think of the children, the poor children! Er, wait, don't do that, do NOT think about children, no no no, think about anything else but not children, never children, not even imaginary ones..."

Ludicrous.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

I just burned my copy of Pretty Baby (1978) and the entire first season of Glee.

Actually I believe Pretty Baby (1978) with Brooke Shields and Bad Lieutenant (1992 with Harvey Keitel) at least one scene must be cut to be shown in English speaking Canada AFAIK. In Bad Lieutenant it's the scene involving Keitel's character and two teenage girls, whom he demands to simulate fellatio and while he masturbates in front of them (the girls are presuming 16 or younger as the driver doesn't have a license).

Canadian provinces each have their own video / movie rating boards (several copy Ontario's decisions de facto IIRC), but Canadian law is theoretically more aggressive about what is or can be classified as child pornography. Theoretically, an adult actress dressed in a school girl uniform or as a high school / college cheerleader could be "construed" as child pornography as the actress' character is either an adult playing dress-up or an adult actress pretending to be an underage child in a sexual act.

Though Canadian Atom Egoyan's 1994 film Exotica which the leading female character is often seen as dancer who dresses up as a schoolgirl, has not been censored in Canada to date AFAIK. I believe the club it was filmed at is actually called Exotica.

One of the worst Canadian censor board decisions I remember was the initial ban of Bastard Out of Carolina 1996, featuring Jennifer Jason Leigh even after it had made a splash at Cannes I think it was, by the Ontario Film Review Board.

Canada also had a long running battle between the government (Customs Canada at the beginning) and a lesbian bookstore that had its materials repeatedly seized, even after winning a Supreme Court of Canada decision, that Customs was being discriminatory in censoring material (mostly written, some video from what I remember) at the US-Canada boarder. In fact mostly from a single border crossing in Alberta if I remember correctly. Alberta being Canada's answer to Texas.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[GmExtremacy]

And that's an awful argument.

If they want to make something into law, shouldn't they need to prove whatever they're stating first? Instead, they just make things illegal under the guise of protecting children without any thought going into the process.

And I think things should never be banned because of the actions of a few.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the original definition of pornography was depiction of sexually suggestive behaviour. NOT SIMPLE NUDITY. Therefore, in this interpretation, simple nude depiction of children is not illegal. Only depictions of them engaged in sexuality is. Nudism is not sexual behaviour. Hence those National Geographics with nude villager children depicted are not at all illegal.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

ask your government and the corporations that control them and the "slippery slope" they have reinforced. don't start down any slippery slope, grab your gun and start shooting.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Grishnakh]

Al Capone was also not a real problem; he was entirely created by bad laws (namely, the Amendment that started Prohibition). If the stupid laws hadn't been made, Capone never would have amounted to anything more than a small-time thug at the very most. Instead of having a legal system that creates monsters like him by creating giant black markets, we need a legal system that doesn't create giant black markets.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Grishnakh]

And I thought Canada was supposed to be saner than the US, especially about stuff like this. Guess not.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[girlintraining]

Depiction of children having sex is illegal in Canada. Even if you personally wrote it, or drew it.

Slide 1: Picture of anime character, age 10
Slide 2: Picture of anime character, age 14
Slide 3: Picture of anime character, age 18
Slide 4: Picture of anime character, age 20
Slide 5: Picture of anime character, age 30
Okay, if it would please the court, could the prosecution please point out which of these pictures depicts underage children, and which are of adults? Oh.. you mean it's the exact same artistic style? That there is no difference? Oh... okay.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Grishnakh]

What's weird is that this sounds exactly like something the religious right here in the USA would want enacted into law. I didn't think Canada was that conservative.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh COME ON, the Republicans in Arizona are busy trying to pass a law (it made it out of committee) that gives your employer the right to find out if you buy birth control pills...

Arizona is a state where employers can fire people with no reason, so presumably this is so that employers can fire sluts (or rape them on threat of losing their job)...

In Texas it's now law to stick a ten inch "ultrasound wand" into women's cervix for women who want an early abortion - so you get a very painful rape by the state and then a 2 day waiting period in the hopes that the psychological damage will stop you. ...

They're TRYING TO STOP ADULTS from having sex - so why are you suprised that it's becoming illegal to THINK about sex?!!!

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

See also http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/lsfactum.html
Little Sister's is a book store that sells adult material, and their stuff is frequently seized by Canada Customs.
http://freedomtoread.ca/censorship_in_canada/censor08.asp

In Canada, if you pirate manga, you're far far far safer than to actually buy and ship it, even Manga that is already sold here. If you buy it, you risk Canada Customs seizing it and having what happened to Mr.Matheson happen to you if they think it's kiddie porn. And before someone says "sad excuse for piracy" understand that many english translated adult comics that are legal to buy in the US, are on the ban list, along with several absurd non-adult ones ( see http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~lswong/banned.html )

See also
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/05/17/comic-books-canada-customs/

Canada Border Services Agency's Policy on the Classification of Obscene Material, which lists a set of indicators that may get material flagged or classified as obscene:
Depictions and/or descriptions of:

(a) Sex with degradation or dehumanisation, if the risk of harm is substantial, e.g.
(i) actual or implied urination, defecation or vomit onto or into another person, and/or the ingestion of someone else's
urine, feces or vomit, with a sexual purpose, excluding consensual urine onto another person;
(ii) ridicule and/or humiliation
(b) Sex with pain
(c) Sexual assault
(d) Sex with violence
(e) The taking of a human life for the purpose of sexual arousal
(f) Incest
(g) Bestiality
(h) Necrophilia

Note: Depictions and descriptions of sexual activities involving children and/or juveniles (persons under the age of 18) will generally constitute child pornography.

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/05/17/comic-books-canada-customs/#ixzz1pF1it2qg

Re:"Anime and manga"

[compro01]

You haven't heard some of the Conservative MPs going off when Harper forgets to put their muzzle on. They'd probably prefer to run for the Christian Heritage party if that party wasn't in the same popularity class as the Communist parties and the Libertarians.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Grishnakh]

This really makes me wonder then; after having taken several trips to Vancouver BC, where it's pretty obvious people are not so backwards:
If the US broke apart, and the west coast states (WA, OR, CA (at least the northern half including SF/Bay Area)) decided to form their own country, would the people of BC rather join this new country or stick with Canada? I'd be willing to bet all the Asians in BC would probably rather join the new Cascadia country, given what a giant tech powerhouse it would be.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta remember, we in Canada are just watching our government try to pass a new internet surveillance bill that they hastily renamed into a protecting the children type act. There was only one mention of children in the bill and the MP who introduced it said that Canadians, as a class, could side with him in support of this bill or side with the Child Pornographers. He's a good family man and the bill was meant to protect his and all the children in Canada.

It was only later when he actually read the bill that he realized the mistake he'd made in introducing it in the first place but it's on the books now, going through the committees and it's going to come back and bite either him or his children in the ass in the future since it creates a warrantless search and inspection of just about anything having to do with the internet and not just by the various police agencies but by anyone the current government assigns to the task.

In other words, if you have a political enemy, assign one of your aides to track his internet activities until you find something you can use against him.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[ratboy666]

Slide 1 and 2 - illegal
Others - may well be illegal.

Let me point you to the law:

http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/1631-definition-%E2%80%9Cchild-pornography%E2%80%9D

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years...

A 30 year old posing as a seventeen year old would qualify if engaged in a sexual act. A drawn picture of that also qualifies.

If there is no difference it is simply illegal here.

Revising the above answer -- all of them

Loli Manga? I would argue (as a Canadian) that a one year minimum sentence should have been given -- the Crown was very lenient. I (we) have very little tolerance for this kind of behaviour. I believe Ryan Matheson was given all due consideration, and should consider himself lucky. Given the circumstances, the Crown gave every possible leniency in this matter. As a Canadian, I would call for a 5 year sentence should Mr. Matheson ever repeat this offence.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[compro01]

He's a good family man

Other than the whole "affair and child with the baby sitter, who was of questionable age at the time" incident that lead to his divorce in 2008.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[d3ac0n]

Loli Manga? I would argue (as a Canadian) that a one year minimum sentence should have been given -- the Crown was very lenient. I (we) have very little tolerance for this kind of behaviour. I believe Ryan Matheson was given all due consideration, and should consider himself lucky. Given the circumstances, the Crown gave every possible leniency in this matter. As a Canadian, I would call for a 5 year sentence should Mr. Matheson ever repeat this offence.

Wow. Remind me never to show you my Range Murata artbook collection or anything by Nisheida. You'd probably try to kill me.

And people wonder why I never visit Canada despite having a previous residency AND living minutes from the border. Yeesh!

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Canada is run by fucking idiots, as are you.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[Pseudonym Authority]

Tell that to the DA, see how far it gets you.

Re:"Anime and manga"

[ratboy666]

Right to the ad hominem attack. Skipping all argument, and rule of law.

Buddy, Canada is not the US.

1 - Go to Saudia Arabia, (a country practising Sharia law), and draw a picture of Allah in a police station.

2 - Now go to Canada and draw children having sex in a police station. Compare and contrast the punishment.

3 - Now, go ahead and call me a fucking idiot again, if you can. (I think you may well be dead at step 1). Just drawing pictures, right?

4 - Go to Washington DC, and make drawings of the White House, with details on bomb placements. Bring them to a police station.

5 - Reflect on other cultures and societal norms.

F%%$%$%

[stanlyb]

Now it is time for him to sue the Canadian government for "unlawful and wrongful" prosecution, or whatever the legal term is. I am ashamed. Sorry man, these guys are not representing me. They should be put in jail for waisting so many resources for going after an artist. Anyway, i wish you luck and keep fighting.

Re:F%%$%$%

[omnichad]

You can't do that if you already plead guilty to something. It's either wrongful prosecution or perjury.

Ten years ago

[JazzHarper]

I knew that it would be best to leave my laptop at home when entering Canada. Even the Canadian customs officer, who was very nice, said, "That was a wise decision".

Re:Ten years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it would be a winning business proposition for company to start offering laptops for rental, ready for use, inside of the country being visited to avoid customs enforcement like this.

Provide a secure cloud storage space for them to place their data and a fat pipe for them to download it inside country (encrypted of course) or, offer to make them a heavily encrypted USB stick to take thru customs if they are uncomfortable putting it into the cloud. As part of the service you would transfer their data back to the cloud/USB stick when they're done (temporarily or permanently...) and securely wipe the machine to relevant standards (destroying the HD if that is a customer requirement...).

seems like with some assumption of risk for the security of the data there could be a ton of cash to be made.

Re:Ten years ago

[Cimexus]

What I don't understand is how they are even catching people with stuff on their computers in the first place. The comments on Slashdot (in various stories, not just this one) make it sound like laptops are routinely searched at the border (both in the US, and Canada).

But I've entered both those countries 20, 30 times (I'm Australian). Not once has my laptop been searched; nor have I seen officers request to search anyone else's. They don't seem to pay any attention to electronic devices at all (not surprising, basically everyone travels with a laptop/tablet these days).

So my question is: when and where are these searches occurring? Am I just lucky, or are these searches very rare to begin with (and probably only done if someone is stopped at the border for some other reason first?)

Re:Ten years ago

[rubycodez]

laptops are so cheap why bother to rent? and you can make a usb stick with two partitions, one of innocuous stuff and the other just looks like unformatted random noise that no one could even prove contained any data (TrueCrypt done correctly)

Re:Ten years ago

[rubycodez]

Go with a wife and kids, not much attention paid. going alone, I get more scrutiny.

Re:Ten years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The person's name comes up on an unofficial watch list
or
2) Their age/gender/occupation/behaviour fits a profile

Re:Ten years ago

[Solandri]

While a customs agent can send you to the more thorough search if he's suspicious of anything (how the guy trying to carry out the millenium bombing in the US was caught), they're usually random searches. I crossed the border every day to get to work in Canada for about 3 years. Usually I got through with a quick look at my passport and a wave through. But about once every couple months I'd be diverted to the more in-depth search. That was usually a 30-45 min search - double-check all my papers, search my car, search my bag. Entering the U.S. was a breeze by comparison, probably because I'm a U.S. citizen. My Canadian friends reported the reverse - for them, entering Canada was easy but entering the U.S. was a pain.

I used to keep all sorts of junk in my car - maps, gas receipts, housing development floorplans (I was house shopping at the time), printed emails with driving directions, emergency and first aid kits, a bunch of miscellaneous computer equipment and cables if a friend needed a quick fix, tennis and badminton rackets and balls/birdies, even some magazines I'd never removed after a move. The first time I was diverted to the in-depth search, the agent went through everything. Every paper, every map, every magazine, every flap of the first aid kit, every receipt, unzipped the rackets, opened the ball/birdie cans and took them all out, etc. That inspection took over an hour and after I got home I took everything out of the car which wasn't absolutely necessary.

They only searched my laptop once, but it was cursory (I was just asked to turn it on and login, basically verifying that it was a functional laptop which belonged to me). Although I was entering on a work permit as a software engineer, so they may have given the laptop less scrutiny figuring it was a work tool.

shitty summary strikes again!

[gl4ss]

the important bit from the actual article.
"Mr. Matheson has agreed to plead to a non-criminal code regulatory offense under the Customs Act of Canada. As a result of the agreement, Matheson will not stand trial. The defense of this case was waged by Michael Edelson and Solomon Friedman of Edelson Clifford D’Angelo LLP. The full Notices of Application detailing Edelson’s defense and outlining the outrageous and unlawful treatment Matheson endured are available here: Charter Notice and Jan 15 12 – Matheson Charter Notice."

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[tqk]

the important bit from the actual article.

I beg to differ. The important bit from the actual article:

He was subjected to abusive treatment by police and a disruption in his life that included a two-year period during which he was unable to use computers or the internet outside of his job, severely limiting opportunities to advance his employment and education. ... Matheson was even told by police transporting him to prison that "if you get raped in here, it doesn't count!"

What a !@#$ing travesty, and for a comic book! Sue for malicious prosecution. They admitted their guilt when they dropped it. That it took them two years and $31,000.00 from two advocacy orgs PLUS, is even worse! Both those orgs and Ryan deserve to be compensated for this cluster!@#$.

And I don't even *get* Manga. Holy Kafkaesque, Batman! :-P

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[wrook]

What's incredibly scary for me is that it is easier than people might think to get caught by this. I live in Japan and my friend's daughter (who lives in Canada) asked if I could mail her a manga so that she could practice reading Japanese. Her favorite anime at the time was Inu Yasha.

No problem! I bought the manga, was all ready to mail it off when I thought, "Hey, I haven't read this for a while, maybe I'll just give it a read". Half way through the book, there's a picture of the main character (a 14 years old girl) taking a bath in the lake. Not an erotic scene IMHO, but I guarantee it meets the definition of child porn in Canada.

That's just what I need; to have a record for importing child porn to Canada.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[lightknight]

Eh, the Japanese mentality on nudity / art is different from the Western mentality; as such, what is considered very acceptable in Japan is considered offensive in the US. Given the popularity of manga in Japan, as well as its rising popularity in Western countries, the Canadians were faced with a very nasty choice -> declare the content, under very prudish standards, to be 'child pornography' and risk a international incident (because it would be totally cool for Canada to declare the Japanese to be a bunch of raging pedophiles (extreme sarcasm here)), or realize that their interpretation of what is / isn't offensive might be a little off.

Though, as an avid manga reader myself, it is fairly interesting that a lot of manga (English-translated) now is being slapped with giant "explicit content" warnings, and wrapped in plastic. Like we didn't learn enough with the Salem witch trials, and Prohibition, we need to just keep pushing our retarded standards on people.

Come on people, in the human body, learn to be relaxed with seeing it in print. It's only the year 2012. But I digress, this is a country where talking about "addiction to pornography" is in vogue.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada non-sexualized == Art, not porn.

Canadian btw.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's ok. Just... don't send her something like Boku no Pico.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[hairyfeet]

Well don't forget we now have actual thoughtcrime here in the USA, never thought I'd see the day but we have. There have been not one but TWO people thrown in jail for thoughtcrime, one the writer of the "pro pedo" book which put his thoughts on paper, no pictures, no drawings even (although i think it is bullshit that they can try to charge you for crimes against a child that doesn't actually exist, what's next get busted for a book with vamps or elves in it? they look Lolita) and the other was a guy that was actually told by his shrink to write his fantasies down in a diary so he could sit down with the shrink and discuss them. Both are in jail for thoughts on a page which if that isn't the very definition of thoughtcrime i don't know what is.

basically the whole damned thing has gone insane, its like the red scare all over again. and the worse part is its not doing a damned thing about those that actually abuse children for profit, hell there is an article on wikileaks by a guy that sells CP where he is laughing his ass offf at the whole thing. he talks about what a joke the system is, how easy it is for him to get around it, and how just for fun and to give cops something to do he'll occasionally pay malware writers to dump some CP on some dumbass who gets a bug and point the cops towards it just to watch some random schmuck suffer. You can tell by reading his article he's the type that would throw bricks off a busy overpass just to see some random suffering, a real sick fuck, yet he lives like a king and doesn't worry about shit. sadly talking to a friend that works catching CP for the state crime lab i now know why, the prosecutors have no desire to go after guys like him because it crosses state lines and would mean they don't get the credit or press conferences that advance their career,so in the end its all worthless, just another case of doing "something" no matter how stupid, pointless, nor how many lives it destroys, because "something" gets them elected while "something that works' don't. this whole fucking system is just rotten and foul, no other word for it, foul.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Grishnakh]

I have to keep looking again to see that this is about Canada, not the USA, because it's hard to believe; it sounds more like something from the USA.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Grishnakh]

This is weird, because all the things you say ("this is a country where...", "Salem witch trials", "Prohibition") are things that sound more like the USA. I thought Canada was supposed to be a saner place, but now I'm not so sure.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Taco Cowboy]

He was subjected to abusive treatment by police and a disruption in his life that included a two-year period during which he was unable to use computers or the internet outside of his job, severely limiting opportunities to advance his employment and education. ... Matheson was even told by police transporting him to prison that "if you get raped in here, it doesn't count!"

And to understand that this happened, not in Communist China, North Korea, Sudan, or Iran, but in Canada and the United States !!!

What the fuck happens to the concept of "Liberties" and "Freedom" ???

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[tqk]

This is weird, because all the things you say ("this is a country where...", "Salem witch trials", "Prohibition") are things that sound more like the USA. I thought Canada was supposed to be a saner place, but now I'm not so sure.

This is in the realm of "child porn". There is no right that the authorities will recognize if it's between them and prosecuting paedophiles. "Think of the children!" Welcome to Salem, 2012. An accusation is as good as a conviction.

"Prove you're innocent, blasphemous witch!"

"It's just a comic book!"

"Not good enough."

"But, it's just a comic book!!!"

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pictures of naked children are only okay if they were painted several centuries ago and are on the ceilings of churches or hanging in an art gallery. Having copies of these same pictures on your computer turns them into pornography though so be careful with that.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[X0563511]

They disappeared. That's what happens when someone pushes the "think of the children" button.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Altrag]

Meh, doesn't surprise me one bit. We might be more lax on many things up here (pandering to the copyright cartels for example.. so far..) but child porn isn't one of them.

We completely let go of any concept of logic or reason when CP is mentioned just as fast as anywhere else in the world, including the US (possibly faster now that Harper's ramming his new crime bills down our throats.)

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[gl4ss]

and flat chested women aged 30 are "child" if nude in australia.. doesn't make it right.

that you can make someone guilty of possession by penciling squibbles on his notebook isn't right either.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[gl4ss]

he can't sue, since he was coerced to be guilty of "regulatory offense". of course it's bollocks.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Merls the Sneaky]

In Australia he would have gone to prison. We have "depiction and appears to be under 18 clauses." Thats right cartoons and even legal adults who some crusty old judge deems thinks they look younger than 18 and off to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

United States v Williams
A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means “a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,” post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever,so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography.

Hearing Elizabeth Smart being mentioned on the news and how she was there when Bush signed the PROTECT ACT into law got me searching about these things a couple days ago. Oh what interesting timing.

Would someone please answer if what is mentioned in that SCOTUS opinion is legally standing?

There is a difference between child pornography and child abuse. Child pornography is like the evidence of it, child abuse, having happened. Neither should be legal. But the term "child pornography" is expanding to include things that technically aren't. And it's being done under the guise that if we don't outlaw it, pedophiles will act on their impulses. This would be like GTA encouraging people to go out and murder, hence attempts to ban violent video games in one form or another.

I don't know what pedophiles are thinking. Some say it's about power and children are weak prey, so it's an easy target? How about spending taxpayer dollars on trying to eliminate the problem at its source. Find out if there are any red flags for these people, like when they're younger, and offer free psychological help before they can abuse children. We need to think of these pedophiles not just as perverts, but as victims of a mental disorder as well. And if it is possible to solve their mental disorder before they take action, there is hope one less child is victimized.

We may be able to educate our children to tell an adult or yell, kick, scream when being abused to attract attention, but what about human trafficking? How do we solve that problem?

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

The menality about where you can read it is faily different as well. In Tokyo, you will get people openly reading pornography in cafes, on the subway... I use the word 'reading' lightly.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japanese mentality may be different on nudity but that still doesn't stop millions of Japanese men from becoming aroused by thighs, boobs and half obscured pelvic regions of underaged female, bathing anime characters as depicted by those two phenomena of fan service (shows are often targeted at young men and little girls) and h-manga/erogames. Such depictions arouse millions of Japanese men who buy the stuff up.

I guess there is non erotic nudity in anime/manga and a prime example would be the nudity depicted in Miyazaki's My Neighbor Totoro.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[operagost]

The Salem witch trials had nothing to do with prudishness, or even witchcraft. They were about stealing property.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Applekid]

Non-sexualized to you and me could be very sexual to an overreaching government enforcement goon when it lets them ruin some guys life forever. The idea that drawings are criminal at all is ridiculous.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you people in America are truly fucked.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[tqk]

The Salem witch trials had nothing to do with prudishness, or even witchcraft. They were about stealing property.

We wish. Sadly, not true:

Sarah Good was a homeless beggar and known to beg for food and shelter from neighbors. She was accused of witchcraft because of her appalling reputation. ... Sarah Osborne rarely attended church meetings. She was accused of witchcraft because the puritans believed that Osborne had her own self-interests in mind for she had remarried (to an indentured servant). ... Tituba, as a slave of a different ethnicity than the Puritans, was a target for accusations. She was accused of attracting young girls like Abigail Williams and Betty Parris with enchanting stories from Malleus Maleficarum. These tales about sexual encounters with demons, swaying the minds of men, and fortune telling stimulated the imaginations of young girls and made Tituba an obvious target of accusations (Salem witch trials).

Don't like your neighbours? Sic the TLAs on 'em! That'll put 'em back in line. In Japan, the same thing was described by, "The nail that stands up shall be hammered down."

Civilized yet? Are you sure?

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[cpu6502]

It's a COMIC. There is no child. It's just ink on a page. No victim == no crime has been committed. Same as drawing a murder is not a crime because nobody was murdered.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[hairyfeet]

Actually a friend in the sate crime lab that works the CP section says that a good 85%-95% of the ones they see are what he calls "Social retards" and are about as non dangerous as one could possibly get yet they are the ones given the most time, even over those that have actually raped children! he said the signs are obvious, most have little to no real contact with the outside world, no friends, no sense of what is appropriate and what isn't (one even had a CP screensaver on his fricking laptop for the love of Pete) and most have never even had a conversation with a woman much less actually had sex. he said it becomes an addiction, their taste becomes more twisted as they become more isolated, until in the end they are literally consuming Gbs a day of CP just to even get it up. He said with therapy these guys could be treated and are in fact no danger to society, but because they all end up having a "collector impulse" as he calls it they get found with spindles filled with nothing but beast and CP porn so they get on average 60 years.

So if we were to do as he suggests and put those 85%+ in therapy he and his team could be freed up to go after actual child rapists, but because they often cross state lines prosecutors don't want them wasting time chasing them as they can't get credit for the bust and use it to advance their careers. yet again another case of just doing 'something" that doesn't work or is even productive, all for the sake of politics. Frankly the whole system is so diseased and sick we need to throw it out and start over, its just to self serving, corrupted, and foul.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[tqk]

We may be able to educate our children to tell an adult or yell, kick, scream when being abused to attract attention, ...

What if he's their priest, or a school guidance counselor, or a teacher; the ones you've been brought up to believe have your mortal soul as their first priority? Good luck fighting that, kid.

And what about the falsely accused? "I just wanted to buy the kid a chocolate bar because I thought he was cute. I wasn't touching him!"

Some old rummy did the latter with me when I was a kid. Good thing I wasn't taught to scream when any adult not my parents talked to me.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[meerling]

And men where the majority of the women wear burkas or the like get excited by seeing an exposed ankle.
So what's your point?

Besides, the laws against child pornography (at least in the USA) were written to keep children from being exploited, not pencils/pens. Anyone who thinks a drawing is the same thing as a photograph of a child is utterly insane. Of course, these are the same types of idiots who go after people for having bathtime photos of their infant family members on their phone because their spouse wanted them to experience as much of normal family life as they could while they were stuck overseas.
I suspect if those people get their way, it will eventually end up that children are put in a robotic nursery creche the moment they are born, where they are kept in age and gender separated groups, and aren't released until age 21.

Re:shitty summary strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Far more than two.

I personally was arrested for "TERRORISM" for something written by someone else. That something written was an invitation for out of state people to visit my city. Huge midnight takedown and everything.

The DA didn't even bother with the case, but this was after hiring a good lawyer. They don't come cheap.

There's gotta be WAY more than me.

Drawings != child porn

[Fjandr]

As distasteful as it may be in the case of images produced with the intent to be a form of child pornography, it sickens me to see artificially-produced images classified as child pornography. It opens the door to criminally penalizing people for something which must be judged based solely on opinion. There cannot be an objective judgment that an artificially-produced image constitutes "underage pornography," and criminal penalties should be based as closely on objectivity as possible.

These resources should be directed toward finding and jailing people who produce child pornography using actual children, not those who produce images which require (sometimes highly) subjective interpretation.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[flimflammer]

Won't someone think of the drawn children?!

Re:Drawings != child porn

[betterunixthanunix]

it sickens me to see artificially-produced images classified as child pornography

So you're a pedophile?

(That is the reaction I get when I say such things...)

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

I suddenly find myself wondering if that stance (the one you oppose) could be extrapolated to arrest fans of Twilight for 'intent to commit necrophilia and/or bestiality.'

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

> So are you suggesting that a masterfully done manga of a 4 year old being graphically raped by an older man is *not* child pornography?

It's horrendous, but no actual children were involved, so no. Clear line. Might run afoul of obscenity laws, but even then there it's a gray area as distribution goes.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

The images may be pornographic, and they even be drawings of minors, but...since no actual children were abuse then I think we need to look to the Canadian Constitution and the Criminal Code of Canada to see what's illegal. As the Crown dropped the Criminal Code charges, I think their lawyers probably said it's probably not child porn as described by the act or the guiding principles of the act. Ergo, even if you think it's distasteful, the purpose in outlawing child pornography is because children cannot give consent and so it's harmful to them. Drawings....not so much.

So, what's left? The Constitution Act of 1982. Freedom of speech is protected but not hate speech (basically all constitutions done after WW2 have that worked in) so...to quote Voltaire, though I may disagree with what you say, I defend to the death your right to tentacle porn.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

THINK OF THE FICTITIOUS, NON-EXISTENT, CARTOON CHILDREN!!

oh wait..

the line is clearly drawn between victim or no victim.

you can fantasize about all the little kids you want, draw all the pictures of naked little kids you want, write all the grossest fiction about naked little kids you want. it's all terribly disgusting, but it doesn't actually hurt anyone.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so that film where various people were killed was actual murders? Oh my, life = ruined.

No, just no. It isn't child pornography, it never was a child.
It is a fictional interpretation of a human.
It is as much child pornography as that person being stabbed in the back was murdered by Nicholas Cage. It. is. fictional.
It's like blaming games for unstable retards who go and shoot up a school.

Don't blame the media, blame the education system and medical system for not detecting potentially unstable minds which can lead to unstable psychological reactions to certain stimuli.
These things can be easily detected and corrected when people are young.

Child pornography is sexual acts of a real life person who is legally a child, period.
No, don't give me that "but certain pictures in certain poses" argument, every single person on the planet has unique turn-ons.
People get turned on by damn door-knobs for crying out loud! People can get turned on by someone simply sitting on a seat, just staring at them (the lens) normally.
Those stupid laws are entirely based on who is judging them. Opinions have no damn place in law as much as religion doesn't.
A completely innocent picture can be made sexual by any opinion out of the 7+ billion of us on this planet. That, for one, is an absolute fact.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you confirm the age of a drawing?

Equating drawings of imaginary characters with photographs of human beings is not only draconian; it's delusional.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[tverbeek]

As I understand it, the images he was arrested and charge over were not even of children. They were adolescent/young-adult characters who might have been of legal age or maybe not. This ambiguity is not uncommon in the work of Japanese artists, especially in light of the cultural taboo (I'm not sure if it's still illegal in Japan) against drawing pubic hair. The initial judgment that the drawings were "child pornography" was made by a supervisor who had not even seen them, let alone someone qualified to somehow make that judgment.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[tmosley]

You could go to jail for that, it they are the wrong type of thoughts.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[mhajicek]

You: "I swear, that drawing of a girl is 18."

Officer: "She looks 17 to me, I'm bringing you in."

You: Draws sketch of girl holding up drivers license showing age 18.

Officer: "Well OK then, but I'm watching you."

Should drawings of killings be considered the same as murder?

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Imrik]

Don't forget statutory rape since she's a minor and the vampires are definitely more than 2 years older than her.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. Be careful drawing stick figures on napkins, make sure they are not too short...

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing is there was a relatively large case related to that here in Sweden a few years ago. A known manga translator was busted after his ex ratted him out for his hentai (cartoon porn) collection so that she would get complete custody of their child. The case was appealed and basically half the pictures he were charged for were "cleared". It was pretty obvious from the court itself that they thought it was a ridiculous case but that they had to obey the law. He was fined.

Later on some radio station interviewed random people on the street. Everyone asked was like "lol, is THAT illegal?".

Several high profile people wrote about it and criticized the law and the decision.

The only people who made any noise about supporting the law were:
1: Online anti-porn feminists (the pro-porn feminists I know objected to the law)
2: The swedish minister of law (it's funny because she dropped out of law school)
3: The judge or prosecutor who started the case. Said something like "this is a high priority type of crime".

Even more curious was that even Madeleine Leijonhuvfud objected to the law and she's famous for being anti-pornography.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[rrohbeck]

Hey, corporations are people, so drawn children might be too.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Dixie_Flatline]

Moreover, he claims that the characters in the drawings in question were actually fully clothed.

So pictures of clothed people not involved in sexual acts and not necessarily underage is now 'Child Porn'.

What a travesty. As a Canadian, this is an embarrassing story for our legal system.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Iniamyen]

You are very ill-informed, as others have duly noted. Outlawing kiddie porn is about protecting kids. When you start outlawing representations of it that don't harm kids, however disgusting you may find them, you are outlawing free speech. Please think before you spew verbal diarrhea.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

The objectivity is the least part of the moral problem. The moral problem is that it's a crime to go into a closed room, draw a picture of a child, jack off to the picture, burn the picture of the child and then exit the room. There is no harm to anyone in that scenario, so of course it shouldn't be illegal even if there were an objective way to determine the age of a drawn person. Real child porn isn't that objective either, because there is no objective way to determine if a picture of a child is pornographic or not, and so it goes with most laws - they have to be interpreted subjectively by a judge in some corner cases. That's unfortunate, but there's really no alternative.

The real issue is that people actually want to banish/jail/castrate/murder pedophiles because of the sexual urges they involuntarily feel, even if they never act on those urges. That is the root of these laws - they are not about protecting imaginary children, they are about punishing people for having improper urges. It's like jailing someone for feeling like punching their boss, even if they never actually punch their boss. It's the distinction between liking money and robbing a bank, and failing to appreciate that distinction is just insane, yet apparently it is quite a common ailment when it comes to certain subjects.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Jailbrekr]

The laws are there to protect children. This is true. What is not true is the assertion that no children are harmed in the making of these images. A graphic drawn image of CP may not be the direct result of an abused child, but it will add to the potential of a child being abused. Considering these images as legal only serves to "normalize" this mental illness and predatory behaviour. Anything which dierctly feeds the Pedophiles illness is in of itself dangerous.

If you consider me ill-informed, then so be it. I'd rather be uninformed than a pedophile apologist.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Verdatum]

You will occasionally see this done in commercial translations. In japan the character is 16. In the US translation, dialog is changed such that she's suddenly 18.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[shutdown -p now]

You know what else adds to the "potential of a child being abused"? Having children.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[bhtooefr]

Here in the US, the system is actually designed to make it very easy to let someone not get convicted if a law is found to not be just.

Unfortunately, that's been subverted badly. And, as we export our political problems to Canada, look what happens.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

He was being sarcastic.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ill-informed.
Furthermore, youre making shit up by claiming that drawings of children increase the likelihood that a pedophile will become a child abuser. Its simply not true.
So instead youre a thought-police apologist, on top of being uninformed.
I hope you're happy with that.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[masmullin]

so it's settled then, all parents should be sent to jail for abetting pedophiles.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

During the entire time this case dragged on, why have the pictures in question not surfaced? Or have they? And why is he just describing them, not just posting them or a link to them from elsewhere? I wonder if its for copyright reasons or the images are just that questionable.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[roc97007]

Wow, sarcasm really doesn't work in this venue.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Stoutlimb]

I think a better comparison would be the law treating any violent Hollywood movie as a snuff film and using obscenity laws to make it illegal.

I'm Canadian and I thought the government lost it's mind when it brought through that particular piece of legislation.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[lightknight]

Indeed. I quietly wait for the day when I'll see a group of darkly dressed people quietly exit a car, with only a pair of lightning bolts on their collars to signify what they're here for.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[lightknight]

Indeed. I would pay SO MUCH money for people with this kind mentality to quietly go away.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

artificially-produced images classified as child pornography. It opens the door to criminally penalizing people for something which must be judged based solely on opinion. There cannot be an objective judgment that an artificially-produced image constitutes "underage pornography," ... images which require (sometimes highly) subjective interpretation.

In Canada movies which contains only of legal age actors can still be classified as child pornography is any of the portrayed characters may be perceived as being underage. No more playing dress-up.

This in a nation where a former Prime Minister (then Justice Minister) famously noted that, 'There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation' .

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the only scientific and sociological research on pornography indicates that it REDUCES sexual offenses in the population.

This was borne out in the dramatic and immediate drop in sexual crimes after the legalization of pornography throughout eastern Europe in the 1960s, it was borne out in the Czech republic, when it became the last country in the world to ban child pornography (in 2006) and child sex abuse claims jumped dramatically.

Simply because YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE that way, doesn't make it true.

In fact, evidence suggests it's false.

What is your evidence, other than anecdote or theory based on: "well its really gross, eww!!!".

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, they'd get you for license forgery. I mean might as well eh?

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Fjandr]

Yup, unfortunately that's a common reaction when opposing any political philosophy. You're instantly branded as someone who supports the behavior if you oppose even the most ill-conceived attempt to address it (even if it addresses it in name only, and is a functionally impotent policy).

Re:Drawings != child porn

[archen]

This sounds a lot like the law that was put into place in Britain (or maybe they were just considering it, I can't recall), where the "presumed age" of imaginary characters didn't matter, the likeness to being a child is all that does. Considering anime/manga styles, the difference between a 40 year old woman and a 14 year old girl may only be a matter of which one is wearing a school uniform. Never mind trying to class something like a 300 year old vampire that was bitten at12 years of age when they gained immortality. A lot of people saw how trying to enforce law over fantasy was going to be a big mess, and sure enough it is. Laws are meant to deal with reality, and can't cope with imaginary scenarios. The easy way is of course to just prosecute everyone as criminals. Not surprising that's usually the course taken these days.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

you're under arrest, put your hands on top of your head etc... charges are, thoughts of murder, sentence, life no chance of parole for 75 years. welcome to America / New World Order.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Grishnakh]

Who says that to you? If they're family members, I guess that's understandable; you can't choose your family after all (though you can choose to avoid them as much as possible, but family reunions and the like make it difficult since you may like part of the family and not the other part). If it's friends, you need some new friends.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Fjandr]

Glad I scrolled down through all the comments before posting, as this was exactly what I was planning to post in response.

All evidence points to the availability of pornographic outlets reducing the incidence of sexual crimes.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[dbIII]

the likeness to being a child is all that does

In Australia there was a push to extend that to photographs of real people that could under some circumstances be considered to look a little bit like children. Petite women could could be 35 year old "jailbait" if you had a photo of them. Of course it was thrown out as being far too ridiculous, but some idiots or some sort of faux-puritan control cult are sure to try to impose it another time.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[nightfire-unique]

Should drawings of killings be considered the same as murder?

Bah, it's just murder. Nothing to be afraid of. Sex, on the other hand...

Re:Drawings != child porn

[mikael_j]

The swedish minister of law (it's funny because she dropped out of law school)

Actually, "Tant Gredelin" (AKA Beatrice Ask) never even attended law school, she briefly studied economics...

Re:Drawings != child porn

[wrook]

Drawings are not generally considered to be child pornography in Japan (the only place where I wouldn't be sure is if you were drawing an actual event).

The vast (really vast, vast, vast) majority of manga in Japan contains nothing that would be considered pornographic in Japan. There are certain magazines and books which contain pornography. Some of those contain drawings of children, though AFAICT the majority of those are of high school kids (I'm not an expert!). Some book stores will stock pornographic magazines, fewer of those stock the magazines that regularly have drawings of children. It's not terribly difficult to buy these things, but generally you have to go to a store which specializes in fringe interests. There is a large negative bias in the general population, from my experience.

Where you get into trouble is more mainstream manga/anime which has occasional nudity. Drawings of people bathing are relatively common (Kagome in Inuyasha, said to be 14 is naked in the first volume; Bulma in Dragon Ball, said to be 16 is naked in the first volume; etc). Japanese people think nothing of this, in general. Nakedness isn't unusual.

I hesitate to mention it (for fear that someone will misinterpret it), but in the onsen (hotsprings), fathers often bring their pre-teen daughters with them into the men's side. Nobody bats an eyelid. It's not a big deal. Drawings of the same thing, even if meant to be slightly titilating are not considered to be offensive. But I can imagine getting into huge amounts of trouble owning these drawings in Canada or the US.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[xenobyte]

I've always said this:

It's okay to ban depictions of the results of abuse, no matter the age of the victim. This include non-consensual adult sex, snuff, beastiality etc. - and of course pedophilia.
It's NOT okay to ban written descriptions, drawing and artwork of the very same things. Nobody was hurt during the production and thus it's just art.

The ban on everything even remotely connected to pedophilia is thought policing and should never happen in a non-fascist society. Ban the products of abuse to avoid feeding the producer.

Keep in mind, pedophiles cannot be 'cured' just as it is the case with homosexuality and similar. They can't change and yet we ban even fictional works that might satisfy their urges. The result is continuous harassment of the people unfortunate enough to be pedophiles, and of course the added incentive to not only break the laws and collect pedophilia, but to move beyond that and make it yourself, causing more abuse and misery upon innocent victims - children no less.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Fjandr]

I'm not suggesting it; I'm stating it outright.

It is no more child pornography than a drawing of a person and an animal engaging in intercourse is bestiality.

It is an artificial, fictional depiction. You could call it pornographic art or cartoon porn (or CG porn, as the case may be), since that is the content. No actual child was involved, and if one were then the charge of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor would apply.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Pseudonym Authority]

It happens in Japan too. For instance, in the manga of Ichigo Mashimaro, Nobue was 16, but they thought that a 16 year old who a smoking, drink, lazy, unreliable, (potential) child molester was too much, so they bumped her age up to 20 in the anime.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Pseudonym Authority]

OMG and food could be used by fat-fetishist paedophiles to make kids fat so they can abuse them!!!! Clearly food has got to go!

If you consider me ill-informed, then so be it.

Actually, I, like anyone else with the capacity for abstract thought would, consider you an idiot.

Re:Drawings != child porn

[Pseudonym Authority]

Probably because he doesn't need another legal raping at the hands of a DA who is going to use he former charges (though dropped) against him. And it is always a bad idea to give out information in the middle of a trial, especially when you are being charged with an issue like CP, which would then add a charge of distribution.

More importantly...

[betterunixthanunix]

People have been arrested in the US for the very same offense as the guy from TFA -- possession of illegal manga.

Re:More importantly...

[lightknight]

And that's sad. No manga should be illegal. As it's a book, they're effectively encouraging censorship.

Re:More importantly...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sorta funny that manga with drawings of imaginary characters are illegal while games in which you shoot different imaginary characters in the face are not, and neither are movies where imaginary (and sometimes real) characters, represented by real people, are murdered. It's illegal because a minority enjoys manga, while the majority, who gets to choose laws and rulers, enjoys other forms of uncensored media.

Re:More importantly...

[Altrag]

Child porn is censored in most of the world. Like it or not, that's the way of things.

The only question is defining exactly what constitutes "child porn." Are you guilty if you didn't know it was a child at the time? Are you guilty if its an adult pretending to be a child? What if they explicitly tell the camera that they're over 18 when they're obviously dressing in a manner than implies younger? Where is the line between child porn and art drawn? For that matter, 18 is only the magic number because its bandied around in movies so much and the whole world is addicted to Hollywood -- but there's absolutely no reason some jurisdictions couldn't impose 25 as the limit for child porn. Or 15.

There's lots of questions to be asked, and various countries around the world have answered them in whatever manner deemed appropriate by the whichever group of religious nutballs happened to grab power for a while. The one thing that is never questioned however is that it should be banned (aka censored.)

And to really screw things up, there's many jurisdictions where the age of consent is not the same as the "age of child porn" (I'm sure there's some technical term for that) so you could legally have sex with your 16 year old girlfriend, but if you take a picture or a video of her, you're suddenly among the worst criminals on the planet. Enjoy.

Hell, it wasn't that long ago that the cops were busting kids for taking pictures -of themselves- under zero duress or coercion from adults -- just horny teenagers being well.. horny teenagers. But you know, they needed to be "saved". By giving them a criminal record.

The real problem is that we're no longer persecuting child porn to protect children, we're persecuting child porn because it looks good for the cops making arrests and the politicians making laws. The only time children actually come up in the child porn debate anymore is when we need to invoke a "think of the children" cry in order to fend off logic and reason.

Microfinancing

[marnues]

Most importantly, donate to the CBDL to help pay the bills! http://cbldf.org/

Re:Microfinancing

[marnues]

Bah, meant to check that acronym...CBLDF...it's even in the url...

Re:Microfinancing

[GLMDesigns]

You're absolutely right. You don't have to send much. Imagine you met him in a bar and bought him a drink. Donate 5 dollars for free speach. $3 (if you drink PBR).

Re:Microfinancing

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheque sent.

Canadians can donate to the Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund: http://clldf.ca/

Fined $45K for being innocent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fined $45K for being innocent is the effect of still owing $45K in legal costs for defending yourself. Screwing up your life for some comic book images really sounds a lot like the book 'Fahrenheit 451'. I didn't realize comic books aren't allowed in Canada. What do Canadian children read then?

Re:Fined $45K for being innocent...

[Skidborg]

...regular books?

Misleading headline

[Rix]

He plead guilty, and in exchange the crown allowed a lesser charge.

Does /. really not understand the concept of a plea bargain?

Re:Misleading headline

[sjames]

Yes, we are well aware of how a plea bargain is used as extortion to force people to accept a charge they are innocent of when they cannot afford a proper defense or are afraid of the kangaroo court. Often it's used as an excuse to not pay damages that are ethically owed to the defendant.

Re:Misleading headline

[Meshach]

Does /. really not understand the concept of a plea bargain?

Judging by the comments attached to this story I would say they do not.

Re:Misleading headline

[Rix]

He had quite a bit of money made available to him, so that's not an issue.

Further, Canada is a civilized country that provides a defence for all accused. I understand that Americans may find that novel.

Re:Misleading headline

[Chryana]

Yeah right, I'm sure he didn't mind spending nearly 50 thousand dollars to defend himself from something which most people would not consider to be a crime! As for the defense bit, you will have to elaborate, because it is meaningless. Are you saying Canada gives a public defender more easily? Last I heard, you need to be dirt poor to get one, just like in the US, notwithstanding the fact that the accused is not even a citizen of Canada.

Re:Misleading headline

[bhtooefr]

It sounds like they didn't provide an adequate defense, because he had to hire $75,000 of lawyers.

And, in the US, you can get a public defender, too. Said public defender is usually about as good at defending as Windows Me is at being a stable, modern, secure operating system.

Re:Misleading headline

[sjames]

Given that he's $45K in debt as a result of this, I would guess that he didn't have enough money made available.

Normally, Canada does seem to be more conscientious about this sort of thing, but this seems to have been an exception.

Micro SD Card FTW

[madhi19]

If I had shady or borderline shady data to more around over the border and this is not an admission of guilt I would likely just mail it to myself on a Micro SD card. Hell I know peoples who format their laptop and make a clean install before travelling.

Re:Micro SD Card FTW

[sjames]

Ironically, that doesn't work if you are completely innocent in mind. That is, if you see nothing shady about the data.

Re:Micro SD Card FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait until laptops are small enough to stick up the butt...

Re:Micro SD Card FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wait?

Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[cpu6502]

No crime committed.

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[steelfood]

The victim? There are plenty.

1) This guy, who's now $45K in debt defending himself from fraudulent charges.
2) The customs officer, for having seen these drawings, is now scarred for life.
3) Us, for having to waste time and energy yet again to assert that drawn pictures is not illegal.

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

No crime committed.

While i agree there is no victim and no crime committed in this case, it is also the case in regular child porn downloaded from the Internet, therefore your argument is invalid. A stance against thought crime would be more appropriate. Just be careful to not appear pro-pedophile.

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[GmExtremacy]

therefore your argument is invalid

Non sequitur. Why would his argument be invalid because of that?

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Non sequitur. Why would his argument be invalid because of that?

Because it would also render regular child pornography as legal. You don't want that, do you? Are you a pedophile supporter?

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[GmExtremacy]

Because it would also render regular child pornography as legal.

I'm not seeing how that would render his argument invalid. That might be an uncomfortable situation for you, but that doesn't make his argument invalid.

For all you know, that might be his goal. It's all subjective.

Are you a pedophile supporter?

Guilt by association is a wonderful thing, and so is this mentality. "Children are involved. This makes your arguments invalid!" But I am a supporter of people's rights, no matter who they may be. The "think of the children" arguments remain unconvincing to me.

Unless you're just parodying people who say such things. But I have seen people who really do have such a mentality.

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[cpu6502]

Well if there's a photo of a child in a sex act, clearly there's a victim and a crime has been comitted (by the photographer and whoever else was in the room at the time). But in the case of a cartoon or comic there is NO victim and therefore no crime of any sort.

These governments like Australia that want to outlaw handdrawn sex-art are demented. No victim == no crime. Let freedom of speech, expression, and the press continue unrestrained.

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm hoping number 2 is a joke.

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if there's a photo of a child in a sex act, clearly there's a victim and a crime has been comitted (by the photographer and whoever else was in the room at the time).

What about someone downloading it from the Internet? He did not take the pictures nor took part in the act. Taking part in rape being a crime was not the topic of this discussion, it was about possession of digital images. Please try to keep up.

No victim == no crime. Let freedom of speech, expression, and the press continue unrestrained.

Speaking like a true pedophile supporter... If you go soft in lolicon then you have to be consistent and tolerate child pornography. Are you willing to go that road?

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[cpu6502]

>>>>>No victim == no crime. Let freedom of speech, expression, and the press continue unrestrained.

>>Speaking like a true pedophile supporter... If you go soft in lolicon then you have to be consistent and tolerate child pornography. Are you willing to go that road?

Anonymous Coward:
It's a COMIC. There is no child. It's just ink on a page. No victim == no crime has been committed. Same as drawing a murder is not a crime because nobody was murdered. You sound as stupid as that idiot Santorum who wants to round-up gays and force them into mental institutions so they can be "cured".

.

Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Geeze... do I really need to spell it out for you? It was satire.

At least I think that's the term I want. At any rate, I wasn't being serious, I was trying to point the kinds of arguments those in authority would use.

Bad logic

[betterunixthanunix]

Child sex abuse imagery is illegal because producing it involves sexually abusing children, not because images of child abuse happen to offend most people. If no children are being abused, then what is the logic for making the cartoons illegal?

Re:Bad logic

[Anonymous Coward]

While I strongly disagree with making it criminal, the most common logic I've heard is it will incite pedophiles to an action they wouldn't otherwise have taken.

Just like porn makes you go rape white women.

Re:Bad logic

[marnues]

There is a significant portion of the US population that believes if objects of vice are removed, so go the vices themselves. Removing all kiddy porn real or fake will decrease child sex abuse. I find this completely specious, but it's so difficult to disprove that any attempts to argue otherwise seems to embolden these believers.

Re:Bad logic

[Imrik]

The counterpoint being that without such material available the pedophiles will have to take actions they otherwise wouldn't have taken in order to get their release.

Re:Bad logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, I'm pretty sure I've seen things saying the reverse, at least about porn availability vs. violent sexual crimes, which would probably carry over similarly in this case. Don't really feel like looking it up, but it's annoying how people think that if they ban everything it'll just go away.

Re:Bad logic

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with that argument is the complete lack of evidence supporting it.

Re:Bad logic

[rrohbeck]

While I strongly disagree with making it criminal, the most common logic I've heard is it will incite pedophiles to an action they wouldn't otherwise have taken.

Just like porn makes you go rape white women.

Yeah, all that porn all around us makes people go stark raving mad raping everyone in sight...
While in fact the liberalization of porn in the 70s resulted in a significant reduction of the number of rapes in the US. For obvious reasons... jerking off regularly reduces testosterone levels. It probably also blunts your response. Remember when people got all excited about seeing a woman's knee? Well I guess nobody would because that was like 100 years ago.
So you could argue that giving pedophiles something to jerk off to might reduce sexual child abuse.

Re:Bad logic

[GmExtremacy]

And video games make you into a murderer!

So basically, they want to ban something because of the actions of a few, and without any evidence to support their ridiculous claims...

Might as well ban everything in existence.

Re:Bad logic

[realityimpaired]

I think the concern is more that if people can explore those kinds of thoughts, they're less likely to seek treatment.

The pedophiles seeing a therapist about their thoughts for ways to control them aren't the ones that concern me. The ones spanking off to pictures of kids playing in the park are the ones who do. While the vast majority of them will probably never act on those feelings, some of them will.

While it's debatable whether a drawn picture should be made illegal, there is an understandable logic behind wanting it banned.

A better question is... why would you be stupid enough to cross an international border with something even remotely questionable on your laptop?

Re:Bad logic

[GmExtremacy]

but it's so difficult to disprove

It's on them to prove it.

Not only that, but I don't think we should never ban something just because a few people could abuse it.

Re:Bad logic

[parlancex]

The even better counterpoint is that there are billions of easy obtainable and perfectly legal depictions of fictional murder / violence. If fictional pornography can incite people to commit sex acts I'd be more worried about the millions of movies and video games with people getting their heads blown off.

Re:Bad logic

[digitig]

In the UK the argument was over photorealistic images, giving prosecutors the hassle of determining whether a real child was subjected to whatever is depicted. By outlawing all such images, whether photographed or drawn, the prosecutors are saved that hassle. And it's not limited to photorealistic images because photographs can be cartoonised. That means that I could buy a book over the counter in a high-street book store -- Alan Moore's Lost Girls for instance -- and then end up on the sex offenders register for possessing it. It would all come down to the whim of the prosecutors.

Re:Bad logic

[jamstar7]

Because the images of even cartoon kids having sex will so enflame any reader, they'll want to go have sex with kids. It's kind of like that one episode of Penn & Teller Bullshit! where they had this supposed anthropologist, Dr Gail Dynes, giving lectures on porn with the slant that porn will cause rapes. She made a statement on camera condemning porn of women who shave, claiming that men who prefer shaved women 'better not have daughters or there'll be hell to pay', even though she admitted she had no evidence, studies, or even rumors to sustantiate her claims. This in spite of both the 1968 report of the President's Commision on Pornography and Obscenity and the Meese Commission report that said there is no link between porn and any deviant or criminal sexual behaviour.

Re:Bad logic

[DrGamez]

After a four hour search of his laptop the only things the police could come up with are images of fully clothed people.

I honestly don't know how you could even consider this "remotely questionable".

Re:Bad logic

[lightknight]

An argument could be made equally to the opposite. Non-falsifiable conclusions are fun, right?

Re:Bad logic

[the eric conspiracy]

Pedophiles often use such material in the process of recruiting their victims. By showing child pornography images to children, the children are socialized and become more accepting of their abuse.

Re:Bad logic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth pointing out that laws surrounding "mandatory reporting" piercing the doctor-client privlege makes it very dangerous for a pedophile to be honest with a therapist. As a result, the law, designed to protect kids, actually makes pedophiles avoid therapy.

Neat trick eh?

Re:Bad logic

[ae1294]

I think prohibition in the US proved the point nicely. It's a shame that it was so long ago that people don't know anything about it...

Re:Bad logic

[GmExtremacy]

While it's debatable whether a drawn picture should be made illegal, there is an understandable logic behind wanting it banned.

If anyone thinks "for the children" arguments are valid, I fear for them. I don't see the logic behind banning something just because a few people could abuse it. I don't see the logic behind banning cars, and I don't see the logic behind banning images of imaginary children. I don't see the logic behind thought crimes.

But then again, I'm not the type who gets paranoid of pedophiles (which aren't necessarily child molesters) and terrorists lurking behind every corner. I imagine that's the type of person who would be most likely to accept such logic.

Re:Bad logic

[GmExtremacy]

Again, even if true, I don't think that "for the children" argument justifies banning something because of what a minority of its users do. We might as well ban cars, too.

No. Cars don't involve children! When children are involved, 1 + 1 = green.

Re:Bad logic

[GmExtremacy]

Pedophiles often use such material

[citation needed]

And those don't sound like mere pedophiles, but child molesters (not all pedophiles are child molesters, and the amount of pedophiles is very likely unknown).

Re:Bad logic

[realityimpaired]

It's worth pointing out that laws surrounding "mandatory reporting" piercing the doctor-client privlege makes it very dangerous for a pedophile to be honest with a therapist. As a result, the law, designed to protect kids, actually makes pedophiles avoid therapy.

Mandatory reporting only applies if you have committed a crime, or if you are going to commit a crime. If you are not planning to commit a crime, and do not pose an imminent danger, then the therapist does not need to report it to the police.

And no, I'm not a therapist. I have, however, had several of them over the years, and had the mandatory reporting rules explained to me as recently as last week. (no, not for paedophilia... for an lgbt thing... though if you ask certain among the conservative right wing, there isn't a difference between the two....)

Re:Bad logic

[the eric conspiracy]

Citation eh?

Here's one.

Levesque, Roger J. R. (1999). Sexual Abuse of Children: A Human Rights Perspective. Indiana University. pp. p64. ISBN 0253334713

Re:Bad logic

[Nugoo]

PDF here. I wish lawyers would use the study to argue that by criminalizing the possession of child porn, lawmakers are encouraging child abuse.

Re:Bad logic

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that my previous statement was down-moderated by other "child advocates" who are in sympathy with your immoral agendas merely demonstrates the need for honest and freedom loving citizens like myself to point out the Right Wing agendas of people like you. I will also note the unfair fact that your dishonest statement was up-moderated to +5 Insightful. Clearly there are a lot of Conservatives in the world.

I will be keeping my eye on you. And yes, in the REAL world I keep my eye on (the more aggressive) Conservatives by following them around and making sure they don't go unpunished.

Re:Bad logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the concern is more that if people can explore those kinds of thoughts, they're less likely to seek treatment.

They are already unlikely to seek treatment. After all, if you were a pedophile, would you go talk about it with people who saw the effects of child molestation in half of their clientèle?

Re:Bad logic

[the eric conspiracy]

Talk about bad logic. We don't ban cars despite their bad effects because they are very useful.

Child pornography doesn't have this sort of thing going for it.

Re:Bad logic

[GmExtremacy]

Talk about bad logic. We don't ban cars despite their bad effects because they are very useful.

It's not bad logic. I demonstrated that it is absurd to ban things because of the fact that a few people could abuse it. Are you a fan of collective punishment?

Also, I find it extremely arrogant that you seem to think that you get to decide what is and isn't useful. Different things are useful to different people.

I could easily change my example to argue that we should ban children's toys because some people could abuse them or get hurt in some way. To most people (not a fan of tyranny of the majority, here), they might not be "useful," but to some people, they are. And children are typically involved, too. All logic is instantly thrown out the window when that happens.

Child pornography doesn't have this sort of thing going for it.

We're talking about imaginary children here.

Re:Bad logic

[GmExtremacy]

And it's not that I don't see your point about cars being useful (I do think they're useful), it's just that I think that different people find different things useful. It's not just about usefulness, either. It's about freedom.

I can't find a good reason to ban something that certain people don't find "useful" merely because certain people abuse that something. This, to me, is a very, very slippery slope. There are many things that could be banned using this logic. "First they came..."

Re:Bad logic

[Reservoir Penguin]

This is very dangerous logic, IMHO and can be used to ban virtually anything that is used in commitment of a crime, starting with guns of course, then alcohol (can be used to facilitate rape).

Re:Jezus

[GLMDesigns]

Except for the people who voted against and were overruled.

A plus for lolicon

[atari2600a]

Is that good for free speech or bad for...um...potential child rapees or something?

Re:Jezus

[marnues]

Also the people who don't like this outcome, but voted for these guys because they were better than the rest. Unfortunately we don't get to vote for our ideals, only the candidates on the ballot.

Picture vs illustration

[Murdoch5]

I'm confused on how a picture of a naked child is the same as the illustration of a naked child. Can they determine the age of the child exactly in the cartoon, if they can't then who says it can't be a 30 years old asian woman who looks young?

Re:Picture vs illustration

[DrLov3]

Parent, I'm as confused as you are. I thought the whole evil thing behind child pornography is that a child was photographed naked and was not old enough to consent to that since he was not an adult.

But if some1 draws a child, I figured no one was harmed.

Re:Picture vs illustration

[honestmonkey]

Did the drawing consent? HMMMM? Did you think of that? The drawing CAN'T consent. Think of the imaginary children! They can't protect themselves, so we need laws to protect them. Imaginary laws, like the ones this person was convicted with.

Border crossing

[soundguy]

If you're crossing a border with ANYTHING on a laptop besides the operating system, you're just asking for trouble. If you need to work in multiple countries or just like to travel a lot, lease, colo, or home-base your own server and keep your stuff there. When you get to your destination, download and install an SCP client, then access the files you need. Download and install TrueCrypt, create an encrypted file, and use that to store local working copies of things as necessary. Download and install a non-factory web browser and use that to access your own secure web mail system.

Before going back across the border, save any work back to your remote server and delete the SCP client, browser, Truecrypt, and the encrypted file. If you're really paranoid, reinstall the OS from the rescue partition.

The secret to staying out of jail is pretty simple - don't be lazy, don't be stupid, don't poke the bear.

Re:Border crossing

[Anonymous Coward]

The secret to staying out of jail is pretty simple - don't do anything, ever. Now go back to your home citizen, nothing to see here.

Re:Border crossing

[drgould]

Before going back across the border, save any work back to your remote server and delete the SCP client, browser, Truecrypt, and the encrypted file. If you're really paranoid, reinstall the OS from the rescue partition.

Remember, deleting files or even reinstalling the OS doesn't remove the actual data from the disk. Use a utility that overwrites the unused fisk surface with at least random data or preferably to DoD data destruction standards (and run it from a thumb drive if you want to be extra safe).

Overwriting with two or three passes of random data is probably enough. Recovering overwritten data is possible but becomes increasing difficult and overwritting to DoD standards takes a long time, but reasonable people may differ.

Re:Border crossing

[Anonymous Coward]

> Overwriting with two or three passes of random data is probably enough

Hell, overwriting with zeroes is probably enough to stop anyone but the NSA. One pass of random data should be enough to stop anyone. Claims about recovering "ghost bits" have never been backed up outside of laboratories with scanning electron tunnelling microscopes looking for individual bits when they knew where to look and what to look for.

Re:Border crossing

[tftp]

The secret to staying out of jail is pretty simple - don't do anything, ever.

You are not cynical enough. The real secret to staying out of jail is even simpler - you must become a criminal, act as a criminal and think as a criminal. You don't have to do crimes, though. But your awareness of the police society will keep you safe.

Only starry-eyed innocents let themselves be caught with stuff. A man who is in fear of police would have simply mailed the laptop across the border; the computer, with the HDD encryption key in BIOS, would go with FedEx and and the encrypted HDD, without the key, would be sent with DHL, to a different address. There is no way to recover the data unless you know how to put both pieces together and then enter the password to unlock the key.

Re:Border crossing

[isorox]

If you're crossing a border with ANYTHING on a laptop besides the operating system, you're just asking for trouble. ...
The secret to staying out of jail is pretty simple - don't be lazy, don't be stupid, don't poke the bear.

Yeah. The thousands of people an hour that land at JFK, LHR, SIN, even PEK, really do this.

How many times have you had your laptop taken by customs?

Re:Border crossing

[DrGamez]

So to not be thrown into jail for doing no wrong all I have to do is follow these easy 10 steps?

Re:Border crossing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had my laptop inspected twice. I have crossed the border with a laptop 5 times.

The chances are that you won't have your laptop inspected, but there is certainly a high enough chance it will, even if it is like mine where they just had me turn it on and show them it works and isn't a bomb.

Re:Border crossing

[gknoy]

It only takes once to have your life completely upended (for a duration that might be long or short). Perhaps they don't like the photos of your family swimming in that pond you visited. Perhaps they confiscate all your code + work + etc. Either way, you end up with (at the best) missing equipment and data, and in the worst case end up with legal troubles that are Very Large.

It definitely seems like the safest (if not most convenient) way is to travel without personal or business data on your laptop/tablet. When they fire it up, your bookmarks point at Gmail, Google Docs, and your company VPN site, and that's it. Your desktop has "Itinerary.pdf", your "documents" folder has nothing in it. It's sanitized enough not to arouse suspicion, and has clear links to "I work on remote crap" so that people don't think you're hiding something.

Also, it helps to not actually be hiding something. That way, if your machine IS confiscated, all your important data is still safe someplace else, and you're not waiting on your machine to be returned, which will never happen soon enough to be useful.

Re:Border crossing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had my laptop inspected twice. I have crossed the border with a laptop 5 times.

The chances are that you won't have your laptop inspected, but there is certainly a high enough chance it will, even if it is like mine where they just had me turn it on and show them it works and isn't a bomb.

I've crossed 9 international borders this year, about 40 last year (excluding Europe). That includes 6 trips to the u.s one to Russia one to china and two to gaza.

Only once, exiting israel at TLV have I been asked to turn either laptop I carry on. In that case no one but me touched it.

Re:Border crossing

[Anonymous Coward]

Still not cynical enough. You must have rich white parents with strings to pull.

Re:Border crossing

[Anonymous Coward]

Only starry-eyed innocents let themselves be caught with stuff. A man who is in fear of police would have simply mailed the laptop across the border; the computer, with the HDD encryption key in BIOS, would go with FedEx and and the encrypted HDD, without the key, would be sent with DHL, to a different address. There is no way to recover the data unless you know how to put both pieces together and then enter the password to unlock the key.

Your "solution" is actually a pretty bad idea. Almost all customs that I've been through ask you explicitly if you are having anything shipped into the country that you are entering. If you lie to them about your in-transit laptop, you are taking a real risk and actually breaking the law. If you don't lie and tell them about the shipped laptop, you're practically begging them for the "four-hour strip-search treatment" and then a refusal to enter the country (if it's not your home country, of course).

Re:Border crossing

[tftp]

Your "solution" is actually a pretty bad idea. Almost all customs that I've been through ask you explicitly if you are having anything shipped into the country that you are entering.

I'm not traveling much, but when I was returning from Germany about 10 years ago the customs agent only asked me, as an afterthought, if I bought anything abroad. I had not, and that was all.

Besides, let's assume that you say "yes." What will happen next? Will they refuse you the entry because you shipped a heavy item that you couldn't possibly carry? Will they arrest you for a few days until the shipment arrives and they inspect it? Those are ridiculous scenarios. IMO if you say yes then nothing at all will happen.

Maybe they changed the rules since then. But this question is like "Are you a member of a terrorist organization?" that you need to answer while you are still on the airplane. No sane person would ever answer "yes". A peaceful person will tell the truth, and a terrorist will lie. The question is there just to accuse the terrorist of lying on an official form once he is caught for something else. You can't throw a book at someone unless the book is thick enough.

If you are unable to lie convincingly, this still may be OK. The border guards may suspect that you aren't truthful, but they will have no factual reason to deny you the entry.

However they may not need facts to kick you out. For that reason you have other options. First, ask a friend to ship those things. His name will be on waybills, and you can honestly and truthfully say that you haven't shipped a thing. You can even ask your friend to ship the item AFTER you cross the border and tell him where you are staying. Then you'd be 100% honest at the border.

Second, you can take your laptop with you. There will be a blank HDD in it, with a fresh install of Ubuntu and a recent visit to CNN.com. They can look at it from every direction but there is nothing suspicious there. Once you cross you can copy your VirtualBox files over the Internet and do your thing. Once done, copy it back and reinstall Ubuntu.

My point is that too many people (and I'm often guilty of that myself) are trusting the government. This is bad for your survival. It is quite antisocial, but if you look at everyone as an adversary (most importantly if you do that toward people of power) then you will live longer and be happier. Paranoia is good for your survival. I wouldn't have said that 20 years ago, but now such conclusion is pretty clear.

The laptop story is just an example. You can be caught in many different dragnets, for fun or profit. You can be stopped on a freeway for exceeding the speed, even if you did not. I know where such things happen and don't ever go there. You can be stopped by CHP hiding behind overpasses and in bushes. I know those places and watch my speed there. Many other possibilities exist that may make your life more difficult. An adversarial approach lets you bypass many of these inconveniences. Criminals practice that approach all the time, necessarily. You don't have to be a criminal; however if you see a police car approaching, don't just hang around. The police doesn't give out cookies; all they give out is arrest records, and the best you can hope for is that they leave you alone. Help them with that.

Re:Border crossing

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, let's assume that you say "yes." What will happen next? Will they refuse you the entry because you shipped a heavy item that you couldn't possibly carry? Will they arrest you for a few days until the shipment arrives and they inspect it? Those are ridiculous scenarios. IMO if you say yes then nothing at all will happen.

If you say "yes", they'll ask you what it is. If you're truthful, you will set off all kinds of alarm bells in their heads. Like I said before, if you are not truthful, you are committing a crime. I didn't say it was likely they'd catch you, I just said that you are committing a crime (but God help you if they do somehow catch you).

If you are unable to lie convincingly, this still may be OK. The border guards may suspect that you aren't truthful, but they will have no factual reason to deny you the entry.

As I mentioned, if you are coming "home" (or you hold citizenship in the country you are entering), then yes, they probably are obliged to let you in. But most countries have no obligation towards visitors, and if they don't like you (or, oh say, suspect you sent your laptop separately to conceal something) they can easily send you back from whence you came.

Second, you can take your laptop with you. There will be a blank HDD in it, with a fresh install of Ubuntu and a recent visit to CNN.com. They can look at it from every direction but there is nothing suspicious there. Once you cross you can copy your VirtualBox files over the Internet and do your thing. Once done, copy it back and reinstall Ubuntu.

This is a much better idea than the one you came up with in your original post.

Re:Border crossing

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't been recovered at all, on modern drives. All those stories are about old drives where the bit were so large that you could almost count them by hand, and head alignment tended to drift. Back then, you could find "ghost bits" between tracks, where the track used to be.

Today, things are so small, and so filled with noise, that drives are using statistical methods and error correction to even guess the current bits. It's amazing that they can read anything at all.

Has anyone looked at the image in question?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read through the documents filed by the lawyers, trying to understand what was confusing the border inspectors. I found it, buried in the document here: http://cbldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Charter-Notice.pdf

I'm not going to post the filename here.. you'll have to dig it out yourself. but I googled it.. and My jaw fell open in astonishment. They threw Matheson in jail for 5 days over this?

It's really time to have that TrueCrypt dual password system installed on all portable devices now. This is crazy.

Re:Has anyone looked at the image in question?

[Anonymous Coward]

buried = p. 15, near bottom.

Re:Has anyone looked at the image in question?

[isorox]

I read through the documents filed by the lawyers, trying to understand what was confusing the border inspectors. I found it, buried in the document here: http://cbldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Charter-Notice.pdf

I'm not going to post the filename here.. you'll have to dig it out yourself. but I googled it.. and My jaw fell open in astonishment. They threw Matheson in jail for 5 days over this?

It's really time to have that TrueCrypt dual password system installed on all portable devices now. This is crazy.

If that image is child pornography, then So's "love is"

Re:Has anyone looked at the image in question?

[DrGamez]

The filename is shijuuhatte-48-positions and if this is child porn then we are all going to hell.

Re:Has anyone looked at the image in question?

[ae1294]

Fuck this scared shit... Here you all go...

http://s582.photobucket.com/albums/ss263/Toxic_Alli101/?action=view&current=shijuuhatte-48-positions-sd.png&newest=1

Enjoy the horrible child rape porn... (fucking sad)

Re:Has anyone looked at the image in question?

[Ambvai]

...And I kind of want to turn those into a set of mini fridge magnets. They're actually kind of cute, in a silly, quirky way.

Re:Has anyone looked at the image in question?

[Anonymous Coward]

In one place in that document it talks about "40 positions", and in another "48 positions". If we're talking about this then wow. How do they decide those are children? The girls are obviously quite sexually mature judging by the comically enormous boobs. And also, the crotch area is covered in each panel.

Also, any computer with access to the internet "has" this document. It's on the damn internet. This is beyond stupid.

Re:Has anyone looked at the image in question?

[ae1294]

...And I kind of want to turn those into a set of mini fridge magnets. They're actually kind of cute, in a silly, quirky way.

I can't believe anyone would ever think that it was remotely child-porn. Something is seriously wrong here...

Re:Has anyone looked at the image in question?

[Lord_Breetai]

Fuck this scared shit... Here you all go...

http://s582.photobucket.com/albums/ss263/Toxic_Alli101/?action=view&current=shijuuhatte-48-positions-sd.png&newest=1

Enjoy the horrible child rape porn... (fucking sad)

It looks like the characters were drawn in the super deformed (chibi) style.

In Canada, cartoons can be child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to realize that many states around the world, including Canada, have banned any depiction of "child-like" or "underage" (as determined by someone, like a judge or police) in drawing and books (ie. *written* content, no pictures or drawings) is considered child pornography. There is special exception for "historical contents", but that's it.

Japan has been deemed "capital of childporn" by people pushing these laws because Japan has stated that a cartoon does not constitute child porn (cartoon does not have "age").

While I believe children must not be abused and people creating and distributing and consuming real child porn should have the book thrown at them, these new laws are a stupid. Their aim is more like the laws under which Assange was charged - where women can scream "rape" for consensual sex.

Not sure there is much difference between Sharia morality laws in Saudi Arabia and many laws in the "free world". There is an old saying from USSR that seems to apply to the "free world" more and more these days (sorry if translation is wrong),

"Find me a man and I'll find you a paragraph to hang him with" (paragraph as in code of law)

Re:Jezus

[mark-t]

Are you serious? Forget to take your meds today? Or do you need to cut down on the dosage?

That's some pretty radical bigotry you got going on there... you might want to talk to a shrink about it.

I'm serious. That's the same sort of mentality that causes genuinely serious atrocities to be committed. Get help, before you really hurt somebody.

Re:Jezus

[masmullin]

Actually, most of us didn't vote for them.

Fortunately...

[dotbot]

Teela from He-Man is supposedly over the age of 16, so 7-10 year olds won't be arrested on their way into Canada.

kill all the retards

[Anonymous Coward]

shit like this should carry a death penalty. they should not get to look at our laptops when we cross borders. everyone supporting this and passing these laws should be hanging from a rope on national tv.

Re:kill all the retards

[DrGamez]

He consented to the search. Not that it makes anything here any better but it wasn't as if they forced him to type in a password.

Re:Jezus

[Anonymous Coward]

Writing this as an American (born and bred) - I find this statement remarkable. I thought that it was just us evil, unreasonable, sociopathic Americans (heavy sarcasm) that the world vilified and that Canadians in general were regarded as kind, reasonable, amiable persons or at least not despised to the point of being wished dead.

Perhaps its a matter of cultural myopia, a distant perspective merging the two areas, but I am still quite surprised by this.

Flaming hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time a child is scanned with the full body scanners at american airports child government, child porn is created. By the US government.

Canada is extremely strict in their customs

[Anonymous Coward]

This is from Ryan Matheson's Statement available here: http://cbldf.org/homepage/ryan-mathesons-personal-statement/

"Canada is extremely strict in their customs and immigration process — probably the strictest in the world — and should exercise extreme caution if you travel there."

I agree! In my pervious job I would travel to Canada from Michigan to approve equipment built in Canada from our specifications. This was usually $500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 USD amount going INTO the Canadian ecomony.

This is how my last three trips went.

1. Entering Canada they pulled me over to be searched. They asked me the same question about 10-15 times trying to get me to say that I was working illegally in Canada without a work permit. I was not and they did not trip me up. They went through all my papers opened every compartment in the car and made a huge mess.

2. For a VACATION to Toronto to spend my own money in Canada I was threatened to be searched and finger printed while I was in the middle of driving about 12 hours after work.

3. On my most recent trip to approve equipment I had no problems. This is because I decided to start over with a new company in the US to build the equipment. If they want to treat me like a criminal then I have no reason to do business there.

As a side note this equipment is destined to other countries around the world so I have some experience with other customs inspections. You can fly to Europe, go to several countries and no one will even ask you why you are there. If you cross to Canada and back from the US expect to be interrogated and searched. BS.

Re:Canada is extremely strict in their customs

[Lust]

This sounds terrible, but Canada is far from the strictest in the world. Your experience crossing back into the US is tainted by holding a US passport. Unfortunately Canadian customs agents have fed off the TSA and DHS power trip. The US has actually had a strong hand in changing how US border control is exerted.

Re:Canada is extremely strict in their customs

[Anonymous Coward]

well shit, welcome to our world, Canadian travelling to the US, shit, about time you guys face what we face everytime we go to an airport to travel to florida.

"..a search of his laptop in 2010.."

[mutherhacker]

I'd like to know exactly how and why they searched his laptop? All foreign citizens who enter canada have their laptops searched? For what? Is this constitutional in Canada?

Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Just do no travel to Canada or other countries full of bigots. The world is wide. If you have to go do not carry any information with you no computer, no books, no magazines, no games, no cards, just money and the passport. I went around the world long ago and enjoyed it. But I would no do it these days. There are plenty of beautiful places in the world where paranoia level is quite lower, as it was not so many years ago when traveling was a pleasure.

Private receipt of pornography is illegal in USA

[Trax3001BBS]

Stupid subject line, ran out of room...

There a story today that could be an submission by itself:

Santorum has promised to crack down on the distribution of pornography if elected.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/

I figured it was cause he was told what his name means, but the article itself has this blurb:
"the government could also prosecute individual citizens who view porn, and already has the legal authority to do it.

“Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected,
it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected,” noted Volokh.
“You can’t prosecute them all but you can find certain types of pornography that are sufficiently unpopular” for easy convictions,
he explained."

So it's illegal (depending upon the meaning of "private receipt") to somehow acquire, and view pornography.

The bottom line being, hope your fetish is a particularly popular one.

The Lesson To Be Learned Is...

[grelmar]

When you have to cross a border, assume that the customs agent is going to be an under-educated, under-paid, bigotted, rule thumping misanthrope with an axe to grind who's job is essentially workfare for the distant relative of a petty bureaucrat.

I've traveled through North America, Asia, and Europe, and the above statement would apply to 95% of border guards/customs officials I've had to deal with.

1. Travel light.
2. Pack no printed material of any sort - if you're traveling for business, fax, email, or Fedex your documents ahead of you.
3. Computers/Laptops can and will be confiscated on the slightest pretext. You will never see it again. It's an early Christmas/Birthday gift for the Customs Official's kid.
4. Learn the etiquette of bribes for the country you are about to visit, especially in the "in some places its really dumb to try and bribe officials, in others it's an insult not to bribe them" sense.

Fake jail for crimes against fake people

[mykos]

They should just draw a picture of him in prison and consider his sentence served.

Maybe a cultural thing...

[mevets]

Despite appearances to the contrary, customs officials are people and at least as prone to moodiness and stereotyping as the rest of us.

Australians are culturally portrayed as sociable, fun loving drunks; and that appears to be consistent with my experience.
Some cultures don't have such a charming profile; and it might be difficult to resist putting the boot to them.

My cultural profile (lazy and drunk) would likely usher them through to avoid talking to them.