Well, obviously, this is a complete load of crap. Nobody has the right to tell you what manga you are and aren't allowed to read. Is he projecting these images on a screen for the town to see? No? Then what business did the authorities have at all here?
FYI:
Yes, this is a Loli case. Any other form of obscenity is protected for private possession (but not distribution or acquisition, so in theory, customs could still deny it but they couldn't make an arrest) under
Stanley v. Miller, child pornography is the only exception as it is its own category.
Even so this case is STILL a load of crock. Not that I approve of loli, but a fictional character has no date of birth and therefore they cannot be regulated. Because any character may be depicted at any age, often unstated, the only way to even attempt to do so is visually. And this is frequently unclear, especially to those unfamiliar with the medium. How do you tell the difference in manga between a well-developed adolescent and a flat-chested adult? How do you tell an actual youngster from a wide-eyed art style that makes them appear young? How do you tell a prepubescent from someone who shaves? Not to mention the obvious factor of the amount of detail afforded by the artist and style used. It is entirely too ambiguous for any degree of precision to be applied in what is and isn't allowed. Furthermore, even if you got around all of that (say a particularly obvious image), child pornography laws exist to protect children, and you cannot protect what doesn't exist. The subject matter isn't a person, it's intellectual property.
Oh, and contrary to popular belief, the "PROTECT Act" of 2003 which Handley was charged under does not make any statement regarding fictional characters; it was written to address the presentation of a real-life of-age person as if they are not of-age. EDITS: Well, ALLEGEDLY, this was true, but upon examining the actual text it does state that it is not required that the depicted minor actually exist, so someone pulled a lot of PR bullshit there. This case is based around vague wording, and past amendments to child pornography laws have already been ruled unconstitutional for that very reason, so hopefully the same will happen here. The mention of obscenity in the law is the only reason this case didn't get thrown out earlier. In other words, at current, "obscene" lolicon is illegal while lolicon of "artistic value" isn't. Go figure.
The entire point of that section was supposed to be to allow prosecution of simulated child pornography that is indistinguishable from actual child pornography (CG fakes), to ease the burden in such cases where an offender claims that the government can't prove whether or not it was real (and let's be honest, if you can't tell whether or not the image is real, you shouldn't be looking at it in the first place). Nobody in their right mind would claim that a manga image is indistinguishable from an actual person. Hopefully a judge with any sense will realize that a fictional scenario of any sort falls under protected speech, and that even if obscene it's still protected for private possession as stated above.
Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one’s own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.
-Statement by the Supreme Court at the end of Stanley v. MillerBTW,
issues like
these are not exclusive to the United States, either.
That "it goes against our religion" rant is proof enough that there's no real separation of church and state. They'll always whine that you're going against a religion you never subscribed to in the first place.
1.I feel it necessary to point out that anybody can
say that anything is within/against their religion, regardless of whether or not a single other person on the planet agrees with them. The rants of an idiot(s) who does not recognize free will (nor, in the case of Christianity, the
Parable of the Tares) should never be taken as indicative of the body in its entirety. Such issues are up to individual interpretation.
2. Contrary to popular belief, the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere in the Constitution; it is a quote from a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson, usually taken out of context. What the Constitution says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".