Canadian Charges Against US Manga Reader Dropped

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Charges Against US Manga Reader Dropped

Posted by timothy on Thursday March 15, 2012 @08:36AM from the ok-but-no-more-funny-drawings-eh? dept.

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Defense Fund and the Canada-based Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund have announced that the Canadian government has withdrawn all criminal charges in R. v. Matheson, a case which involved a U.S. citizen who was arrested and faced criminal charges in Canada relating to manga found on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."

39 of 298 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Drop charges == pay? by MobyDisk · 2012-03-15 08:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you drop charges from the case then you should pay the legal fees for the defense. Or is this up to the judge?
1. Re:Drop charges == pay? by ClioCJS · 2012-03-15 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That might encourage people to never stop/drop, though, like SCO. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
  
  --
  -Clio
  Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
  Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
2. Re:Drop charges == pay? by gl4ss · 2012-03-15 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
3. Re:Drop charges == pay? by sjames · 2012-03-15 09:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
Be falsely accused, become poor by i+kan+reed · 2012-03-15 08:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Legal systems aren't any fun to ever get involved with.
1. Re:Be falsely accused, become poor by NormalVisual · 2012-03-15 10:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Justice for those who can afford it. by Ultra64 · 2012-03-15 08:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

gee, only $45,000 in debt
1. Re:Justice for those who can afford it. by citab · 2012-03-15 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  who says he could afford it? he didn't have a choice but to defend himself.
2. Re:Justice for those who can afford it. by tmosley · 2012-03-15 08:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Don't you know that you are supposed to roll over when the government tells you to?
  
  You must be a TERRORIST!
3. Re:Justice for those who can afford it. by tverbeek · 2012-03-15 09:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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/
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
4. Re:Justice for those who can afford it. by jdgeorge · 2012-03-15 09:21 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
5. Re:Justice for those who can afford it. by Ultra64 · 2012-03-15 09:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  >I read Ultra64's post as sarcasm
  Yeah, I thought it was incredibly obvious I was being sarcastic.
6. Re:Justice for those who can afford it. by erroneus · 2012-03-15 10:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
7. Re:Justice for those who can afford it. by Endo13 · 2012-03-15 10:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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!
  
  --
  There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
8. Re:Justice for those who can afford it. by Ultra64 · 2012-03-15 11:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I don't know anymore.
"Anime and manga" by bluemonq · 2012-03-15 08:42 · Score: 4, Informative

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."
1. Re:"Anime and manga" by girlintraining · 2012-03-15 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "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?
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
2. Re:"Anime and manga" by Princeofcups · 2012-03-15 09:20 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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?
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
3. Re:"Anime and manga" by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-15 09:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Or, in this case, think of the imaginary children!
4. Re:"Anime and manga" by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-15 10:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Better that people like Al Capone run free than innocent people be punished.
Ten years ago by JazzHarper · 2012-03-15 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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".
1. Re:Ten years ago by Cimexus · 2012-03-15 13:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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?)
shitty summary strikes again! by gl4ss · 2012-03-15 08:51 · Score: 5, Informative

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."

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
1. Re:shitty summary strikes again! by tqk · 2012-03-15 09:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
2. Re:shitty summary strikes again! by wrook · 2012-03-15 10:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
3. Re:shitty summary strikes again! by hairyfeet · 2012-03-15 12:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Drawings != child porn by Fjandr · 2012-03-15 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Drawings != child porn by flimflammer · 2012-03-15 08:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Won't someone think of the drawn children?!
2. Re:Drawings != child porn by tverbeek · 2012-03-15 09:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
3. Re:Drawings != child porn by tmosley · 2012-03-15 09:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You could go to jail for that, it they are the wrong type of thoughts.
4. Re:Drawings != child porn by mhajicek · 2012-03-15 09:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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?
More importantly... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-03-15 08:55 · Score: 4, Informative

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

--
Palm trees and 8
Where's the victim of this cartoon porn? by cpu6502 · 2012-03-15 09:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

No crime committed.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:Where's the victim of this cartoon porn? by steelfood · 2012-03-15 09:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Bad logic by betterunixthanunix · 2012-03-15 09:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Bad logic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 09:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
2. Re:Bad logic by marnues · 2012-03-15 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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:Misleading headline by sjames · 2012-03-15 09:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Canada is extremely strict in their customs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 12:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.