James Kite of Serenity Studios in Sydney, Australia saw the news about a manga censorship case in the U.S. (see “CBLDF in Manga Obscenity Case”), and says comic books should be held to a different standard than photography when it comes to classifying material as pornographic.

What an interesting development.  Here in Australia, we just had a similar case, except ours consisted of a photographer facing accusations of child pornography based on nude photos of actual children (taken a few years back if I recall and recently displayed in a gallery).  The photographer is well regarded in his field, and there was a threat that the gallery would face charges as well.  In the end, our censor board rated the images as PG-13 (or there abouts).  The police had to hand back the photos so they could once more be displayed in the public gallery.  All the while politicians making statements (without reviewing the subject matter) about how evil such images are with little understanding of the basis of art... or what the images were in the first place (Just add children and nudity in the same sentence and let the flames feed themselves).

Whether you agree with the end result or not, the point is that this was a case based on actual photography of real people (though certainly not involving sexual practices).

And now in the great US of A...  Comic images?  You have got to be kidding me.

Seriously, if comic images, even of a sexual nature involving children is cause for jail time (and lets face it, when it comes to the Japanese, you are looking at some pretty hardcore imagery of violation involving virtually everything when it comes to manga, much of it involving female students in high school) then I have to ask...

When do we get to see the hordes of people surfing the Internet who stumble on or actually enjoy those incest based depictions of The Jetsons, The Flintstones, The Simpsons and so many more characters I can only assume are related at some level and clearly underage... When do we see them charged under the indecency act or what ever you call it?

How many comics of recent years have depicted sexual acts (granted not at the same level as the manga in question to be sure), drugs, offensive language (previously hinted at, now used in an attempt to show how edgy a comic company is... kind of sad really), murder, mutilation (and this isn't even the indy scene, it's the major companies at work here... quantity over quality), and a range of other actions that may be seen by someone some where as offensive?  When do collectors have to worry about their collections not meeting the puritanical beliefs of someone else?  If not now, then in the future (The USA seems to have this current belief that laws should be retrospective; if you were not guilty of an action before because it was not illegal back then, you are now, and if you committed it in the past then you get charged.  Scary concept.).

I hear my favorite character of all time, Illyana Rasputin (a.k.a. Magik, The Darkchild) is coming back (finally).  Should collectors be worried that possession of comics involving this character could place them at risk?  What with the demonic link, the fact that she was a kid who aged overnight from standard perspective even though she grew up in limbo and involved in diabolical carnage (Though not sexual in nature, but I guess if Marvel felt the need to prove how edgy it is, such an option may be considered... I miss the old days when story meant so much more than cheap tricks), surely demonic worship is against someones views of legality... better watch out Hellboy (I know I know, this is about as likely to happen as... well, someone being charged for ownership of comics due to offensive material).

Then there is graffiti in the school toilets.  Thinking back to when I was at school, the stick figures (some of which were actually fairly good) that were meant to represent certain individuals (clearly labeled and most certainly children) in acts of a sexual nature.  When do we round up the immature adolescents and charge them as potential threats?

Perhaps the ownership of material of a violent nature should be enough to charge people? (I know I used to draw people being ripped apart.  My fellow students at the time being gutted and dismembered... surely a sign of a potential mass-murdering psychopath... of course these days if the schools find such material you are treated as an evil mass murdering psychopath, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised).

Sorry, but if it was film (video or photo) of real children  of a sexual nature, I would say hunt the culprits down and destroy them.  But a drawing?

Owned by a single person that did not even produce it but has it as part of an overall collection that could be argued by some to be a library covering the depiction of manga in a certain field.

You have to be kidding me (Surely in bad taste, but if bad taste is a criminal offense, then you may as well shoot half the population outright).  As the saying goes... only in America.

On the plus side, I guess such a move provides a target for wannabe artists to strut their stuff and target the actions of those seeking to enforce the law as they perceive it (There is bad art, good art, great art and then there is just crap that thinks it is art).

Oh, well.  It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out... and at what cost.

The opinions expressed in this Talk Back article are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of ICv2.com.