Jailed for Japanese anime 'pixie porn'

[Taro Toporific]

pixie-pix.gif

New Zealand man is jailed for three months for watching pixie porn

Ronald Clark was jailed for three months by a New Zealand court

He had been accused of possessing objectionable material

Clark had downloaded Japanese anime cartoons three years earlier

dailymail.co.uk |23 April 2013
A New Zealand man has been jailed for watching cartoon videos of elves, pixies and other fantasy creatures having sex.
Ronald Clark was sentenced to three months behind bars for possessing objectionable material after downloading Japanese anime cartoons three years ago...more...

poking-fairy.gif

anime-porn-pixie.gif

[Kanchou]

The fuck? Really? In jail for something anyone with a pen could draw?

If no actual person/people is/are getting on, it shouldn't be illegal.

[Samurai_Jerk]

The fuck? Really? In jail for something anyone with a pen could draw?

If no actual person/people is/are getting on, it shouldn't be illegal.

A lot of countries have laws like this now. It's fucking ridiculous.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

It's fucking ridiculous.

"It's" referring to the pixie fornication? Or the laws?

[Samurai_Jerk]

It's fucking ridiculous.

"It's" referring to the pixie fornication? Or the laws?

The laws.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

It's fucking ridiculous.

"It's" referring to the pixie fornication? Or the laws?

The laws.

I'd've thought Pixie Sex is just about the epitome of "fucking ridiculous," or perhaps I'm just confusing that with ridiculous fucking, but I can also agree that legislating against it seems kinda silly.
Then again, I'd bring back dwarf-tossing (as in "throwing," not "jacking-off") if I could...

[Samurai_Jerk]

It's fucking ridiculous.

"It's" referring to the pixie fornication? Or the laws?

The laws.

I'd've thought Pixie Sex is just about the epitome of "fucking ridiculous," or perhaps I'm just confusing that with ridiculous fucking, but I can also agree that legislating against it seems kinda silly.
Then again, I'd bring back dwarf-tossing (as in "throwing," not "jacking-off") if I could...

Is dwarf tossing actually illegal or just not socially acceptable anymore?

Anyway, back on point, I don't think visual representations of anything no matter how vile that don't use real people or animals should be illegal in any way, shape, or form. I'm sure the next step will be outlawing written depictions of sexual activity involving underage characters.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

It's fucking ridiculous.

"It's" referring to the pixie fornication? Or the laws?

The laws.

I'd've thought Pixie Sex is just about the epitome of "fucking ridiculous," or perhaps I'm just confusing that with ridiculous fucking, but I can also agree that legislating against it seems kinda silly.
Then again, I'd bring back dwarf-tossing (as in "throwing," not "jacking-off") if I could...

Is dwarf tossing actually illegal or just not socially acceptable anymore?

Anyway, back on point, I don't think visual representations of anything no matter how vile that don't use real people or animals should be illegal in any way, shape, or form. I'm sure the next step will be outlawing written depictions of sexual activity involving underage characters.

Dwarf-tossing is outlawed only in the Land of the Free (well, New York and Florida).

I've got no problem with your stance and concur with your feelings that we're on the way to banning words. (And you still can't see the German influence in the Untied States?) (I shouldn't get stuck into the U.S. so much because Australia does not have Constitutionally protected free speech <outside of the political arena.>) But general apathy -- and manipulation by general types -- has seen us hand over lots of freedoms in a manner I find increasingly alarming.

[Yokohammer]

I've got no problem with your stance and concur with your feelings that we're on the way to banning words. (And you still can't see the German influence in the Untied States?) (I shouldn't get stuck into the U.S. so much because Australia does not have Constitutionally protected free speech <outside of the political arena.>) But general apathy -- and manipulation by general types -- has seen us hand over lots of freedoms in a manner I find increasingly alarming.

Not trying to make a point or anything ... just a pure-and-simple question:

As a citizen of the Land of Oz, do you think your rights and freedoms in general are more secure there or here (with PR)?

Slight thread hijack, sorry, but this has sorta been on my mind lately.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

As a citizen of the Land of Oz, do you think your rights and freedoms in general are more secure there or here (with PR)?

Generalizing here, but....

On paper, Japan clearly offers more protection of rights and freedoms than Australia, where most liberties are mere conventions and not codified by law. Australia stringently punishes hate speech, a laudable act, most would say. The same powers that allowed such a move, however, are now being used to justify levying fines for swearing in public. Australia also has one of the world's most-hawkish Internet speech regulation advocates in government at the moment (and that's the traditionally liberal party: the traditionally conservative Liberals who will be in power later this year are going to be far more stringent when they get a huge mandate).

In practice, it's a hard one. I think it's very difficult to argue that Japan has an indpendent judicial system. Japan also has a backdoor system of local government ordinances that can -- and increasingly are -- used to undermine the Constitution on the assumption that they're only local laws (applied in 47 prefectures). Australia, on the other hand, has a powerfully independent judiciary that will defend the conventions to its best ability.

We have both lived through the removal of a democratically elected Australian government by a non-elected official. Rights and freedoms have not been extended since then, but restricted significantly. That should give you something of an idea of how things stand in theory. What happened in Oz (in 1975) is not possible under Japanese law.

[Yokohammer]

Ugh ... The Dismissal ... I was here at the time and only understood what had happened long after the fact. I never connected the dots though, between that and a general compromising of rights and liberties. But now that you mention it ...

It really is difficult to decide what's where and where's what, especially since things can change almost overnight.

Frack.

EDIT: Whoops, I would have been in Boston studying music in '75, not Japan. Either way, I was 20 years old and Australian politics was the last thing on my radar at the time.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I never connected the dots though, between that and a general compromising of rights and liberties.

And that, my friend, is how it nearly always happens. Don't forget the Nazis were kinda voted into power and acted in a legal manner throughout the existence of the Third Reich: under German law at the time, they did nothing wrong.
Look at the freedoms that people have pretty much willingly given away post-Sept. 11 (and I'm referring to the United States, traditionally the fiercest protector of individual liberties).
Oz, meanwhile, has never had those liberties (at least in an enshrined sense), so they weren't really compromised. Oz's rules are definitely not in existence to defend personal freedoms, though. We're lucky we've generally had benevolent governments.
I suspect wagyl may be able to shed more light and greater wisdom on this issue.

I've lost whatever fight I had. Nowadays, I just drink the Kool Aid...

[Samurai_Jerk]

Australia stringently punishes hate speech, a laudable act, most would say.

Not people who believe in civil liberties. I have a problem with hate speech and hate crime legislation in general. Hate speech should be allowed period and a crime should be punished based on it's severity and not on what the reason for committing is. Making an assault a more severe crime because it was inspired by racism and not just because I was having a bad day and you looked at me funny is getting into thought crime territory.

[Coligny]

Not people who believe in civil liberties. I have a problem with hate speech and hate crime legislation in general. Hate speech should be allowed period and a crime should be punished based on it's severity and not on what the reason for committing is. Making an assault a more severe crime because it was inspired by racism and not just because I was having a bad day and you looked at me funny is getting into thought crime territory.

i'm starting to love youze, fucking poopiehead asshole...

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Australia stringently punishes hate speech, a laudable act, most would say.

Not people who believe in civil liberties. I have a problem with hate speech and hate crime legislation in general. Hate speech should be allowed period and a crime should be punished based on it's severity and not on what the reason for committing is.

Yes. That's precisely what I was hinting at by adding the "most would say" qualifier and segueing into an explanation of how the legislation is being abused.
People should be able to say whatever the fuck they like without fear of prosecution. (Which doesn't mean they shouldn't have to face the consequences of their statement.)

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Australia stringently punishes hate speech, a laudable act, most would say.

Not people who believe in civil liberties.

Unfortunately, I have to maintain the conviction that "most" applies.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Australia stringently punishes hate speech, a laudable act, most would say.

Not people who believe in civil liberties.

Unfortunately, I have to maintain the conviction that "most" applies.

In the US I think most people are against hate speech laws for now. They recently don't seem to mind giving up other civil liberties though.

[Russell]

Australia stringently punishes hate speech, a laudable act, most would say.

Not people who believe in civil liberties. I have a problem with hate speech and hate crime legislation in general. Hate speech should be allowed period and a crime should be punished based on it's severity and not on what the reason for committing is.

Yes. That's precisely what I was hinting at by adding the "most would say" qualifier and segueing into an explanation of how the legislation is being abused.
People should be able to say whatever the fuck they like without fear of prosecution. (Which doesn't mean they shouldn't have to face the consequences of their statement.)

SJ: what is going on with you? You have started to make sense lately.

SDH: Fortunately as a Dutchman I can say whatever I like in Oz (as long as it is in Dutch)...

[yanpa]

SDH: Fortunately as a Dutchman I can say whatever I like in Oz New Holland (as long as it is in Dutch)...

FTFY.

[Samurai_Jerk]

SJ: what is going on with you? You have started to make sense lately.

What have I written that's inconsistent with past statements?

[Coligny]

SJ: what is going on with you? You have started to make sense lately.

I thinks his issues have always been aboot anger management, not coherence...

[Samurai_Jerk]

SJ: what is going on with you? You have started to make sense lately.

I thinks his issues have always been aboot anger management, not coherence...

Go fuck yourself.

[Coligny]

Why ? you cancel our tonight's date ?