stupid question time
10 Jun 2009 01:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouI figure someone on my elist is gonna know the answer to this one. Maybe?
Context: I'm aware that different countries have different laws about what is, and is not, legal. Like the fact that the US considers the demarcation of child pornography to be 18, not 16, as it is in some other countries. Or, perhaps purchases of drug paraphernalia. And whatever else: but essentially, things you cannot just walk into a local store and buy, because of your country's laws. (Cuban cigars, anyone?)
But over the internet, wouldn't that be a different matter? Let's say we're talking about... oh, hmm, like, ebooks. Righto. There's a good example. I order one by going to the publisher's or distributor's site, I put in my c'card -- or I use Paypal -- and within a few minutes, I download the book and read it. If I'm ordering from an international publisher (and yes, I do, actually), then my bank or credit card converts the foreign currency into my local rates based on the most recent exchange and I'm good to go. No extra effort on my part.
And, more importantly, no customs officials to rip open my email or download and inspect it thoroughly. It's true that any computer can track my IP, and that some countries do have domain-wide blocks, but there are oodles of ebook publishers and distributors and they're growing with every month and week. I have real trouble believing that any govt has the capacity to track down all those domains and block them for all in-country IPs -- yes, it can be done, but outside one really notable example, I've not heard of any other country having such major domain-blocks on its citizens' access to the internet.
Without those blocks, I can't see anywhere else -- technologically -- that I could be prevented from purchasing something over the internet that arrives in my email box, or that I then download from a site. If I can see the site, I can interact with it. At least, that's my understanding.
Am I wrong? Does anyone on my flist live somewhere that even online-purchase-and-download is limited or restricted (such as ebooks, or software, or any other kind of completely-electronic money-for-goods exchange)?
I'm not advocating breaking the law, if law it be. But it does seem to me that it's one thing to shy away from purchases that will be shipped internationally and inspected by customs... versus a purchase made in the privacy of your own home, that gets lost in the morass of internet traffic and about which no one would ever freaking know.
Or a better way to put it: if one is so worried about breaking the law by purchasing certain types of electronic materials, wouldn't possession of those materials also constitute breaking the law? Would it really amount to much of a defense if you told the judge that, well, the child pornography was a gift, so it's not like you actually spent money on it. Based on what I've seen of the way the world works, I don't think it makes any difference at all -- so if the laws are such that ordering a book, or a software, or whatever, would be bad, then it would follow that just owning such would also be bad... right?
Anyone?
Context: I'm aware that different countries have different laws about what is, and is not, legal. Like the fact that the US considers the demarcation of child pornography to be 18, not 16, as it is in some other countries. Or, perhaps purchases of drug paraphernalia. And whatever else: but essentially, things you cannot just walk into a local store and buy, because of your country's laws. (Cuban cigars, anyone?)
But over the internet, wouldn't that be a different matter? Let's say we're talking about... oh, hmm, like, ebooks. Righto. There's a good example. I order one by going to the publisher's or distributor's site, I put in my c'card -- or I use Paypal -- and within a few minutes, I download the book and read it. If I'm ordering from an international publisher (and yes, I do, actually), then my bank or credit card converts the foreign currency into my local rates based on the most recent exchange and I'm good to go. No extra effort on my part.
And, more importantly, no customs officials to rip open my email or download and inspect it thoroughly. It's true that any computer can track my IP, and that some countries do have domain-wide blocks, but there are oodles of ebook publishers and distributors and they're growing with every month and week. I have real trouble believing that any govt has the capacity to track down all those domains and block them for all in-country IPs -- yes, it can be done, but outside one really notable example, I've not heard of any other country having such major domain-blocks on its citizens' access to the internet.
Without those blocks, I can't see anywhere else -- technologically -- that I could be prevented from purchasing something over the internet that arrives in my email box, or that I then download from a site. If I can see the site, I can interact with it. At least, that's my understanding.
Am I wrong? Does anyone on my flist live somewhere that even online-purchase-and-download is limited or restricted (such as ebooks, or software, or any other kind of completely-electronic money-for-goods exchange)?
I'm not advocating breaking the law, if law it be. But it does seem to me that it's one thing to shy away from purchases that will be shipped internationally and inspected by customs... versus a purchase made in the privacy of your own home, that gets lost in the morass of internet traffic and about which no one would ever freaking know.
Or a better way to put it: if one is so worried about breaking the law by purchasing certain types of electronic materials, wouldn't possession of those materials also constitute breaking the law? Would it really amount to much of a defense if you told the judge that, well, the child pornography was a gift, so it's not like you actually spent money on it. Based on what I've seen of the way the world works, I don't think it makes any difference at all -- so if the laws are such that ordering a book, or a software, or whatever, would be bad, then it would follow that just owning such would also be bad... right?
Anyone?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 10 Jun 2009 07:43 am (UTC)It doesn't even have to be a real kid - look into the case of Christopher Handley, who was arrested for possession of child pornography because he collected manga, including lolicon and yaoi manga series. (Both genres can involve explicit sex, and the typical manga drawing style means that the characters tend to look pretty young.) All of his collection were legitimately acquired, and perfectly legal in Japan... but the cops in Iowa thought that the characters looked like kids, so into the slammer he went. http://www.yaoi911.com/how-to-keep-manga-fans-out-of-jail/ has a good review of the case, if you're curious.
no subject
Date: 10 Jun 2009 08:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Jun 2009 02:38 pm (UTC)(Which was more than a little distressing when I first heard about it, since we own a number of his books. One day I have a collection of gorgeous coffee-table photography books, the next day I have pornography that I could be arrested for? What? You ask me, things like that should be grandfathered, or something -- because how am I supposed to know the law has changed overnight, or thanks to a single arrest, or whatever?)
Anyway, it's "The Age of Innocence," by David Hamilton, and "Radiant Identities," by Jock Sturges, and both are just AMAZING works of art, especially Radiant Identities -- as an artist, if you can find copies of Sturges' work, DO. You will be absolutely amazed. Here's an article-overview on the two cases: http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/08/news/mn-26778 -- but the upshot is "not obscene" ... so no, not all pictures of naked children are automatically pornography.
Although I'm not sure if the law has truly been changed, or if it's just finding exceptions here-and-there. Last thing I ever heard, taking pictures of your naked toddlers playing in the bathtub could still be considered "child pornography", which is absolutely utterly freaking ridiculous.
But that's a rant for another day, eh?
no subject
Date: 10 Jun 2009 05:07 pm (UTC)"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
If you notice, there is nothing in there that says that the art in question has to be of a real child. And in fact, there is this from the PROTECT Act of 2003 (which is the law he has been convicted of violating):
(b) Additional Offenses.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
So, according to the PROTECT Act, unless Handley could convince a jury full of ordinary Iowans that his manga were "serious works of art", he was up shit creek. This would probably be the main reason why his lawyer convinced him to plead guilty - there's way too many people out there who don't think anything that could be described as "comic books" could be considered real art.
no subject
Date: 11 Jun 2009 01:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Jun 2009 01:50 pm (UTC)Off-topic, actually. I know the US's laws. My question wasn't about that, nor about purchase of physical goods. My question was whether the purchase of electronic materials -- such as ebooks, software, etc -- are restricted by any countries. And I don't mean for underage-pornographic-literature either; I mean just straight up everyday ebooks, software, and other bought-online-and-downloaded items.
The child pornography was only meant as an example of an item that I know full well is illegal no matter what form it was purchased (or given).
no subject
Date: 10 Jun 2009 05:42 pm (UTC)I know that both of those countries have some serious filters going to keep their citizens out of certain social networking sites. I don't know that they could track down every individual e-book and podcast that their people download, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them tried to at least flag the ones that were widely known and track down the people buying them.
no subject
Date: 10 Jun 2009 07:45 pm (UTC)Similarly, there was a time when you weren't allowed to download a certain kind of cryptographic software to any IP number outside of the USA. Not sure if that's still true.
I expect there are many other examples.
no subject
Date: 11 Jun 2009 02:00 am (UTC)That's still true, but that's regulated differently; it's not a matter of say, your country telling you that you can't buy so much as my country telling me that I can't sell it to you. We had all sorts of nightmares when I was in telecomm and dealing with a major AsiaPac project -- which meant potentially sending telecommunications sourcecode, over the internet, to a Chinese contracting company. OMFG you would've thought we'd offered to sell the baby jaysus to satan's minions -- all we were actually sending was the source code for an HTML page. But noooooo, it originated from telecom, so it was restricted. Heavily.
Hell, if you have security clearance and there's word you may have allowed citizens of certain countries access to certain softwares, you could lose your clearance.
But that's not the same as going on versiontracker and picking up a copy of shareware then paypalling your $10USD or 20SEK or whatever to the developer.
no subject
Date: 11 Jun 2009 02:45 am (UTC)That is hilarious.