The Kingdom of Biscotti

So it’s been a long time since I’ve done one of these.  I’ve learned a lot about not only the law in several regions around the world, but societal structure in the creation and upholding of those laws (from my bleeding liberal response to the real-time coverage of the “Little White Butterflies” incident in April of 2010 parts one and two).  In the field of human rights, it takes a strong reasonable and rational approach to change things, and you’re bound to make enemies in those who don’t want other’s to be capable of thinking differently than they do.  It also takes a huge respect for the systems already in place.  Now understanding this, it’s time for a more detailed and organized analysis on this topic.

For a long time I was hesitant to continue writing on this topic because of the strong remarks of radicals and the potential defamation of my own reputation.  It’s easy to stand up against things like human trafficking (including rape and slave labor), all types of genocide, and safety/medical rights – but the domestic issues which have grown humanity to be so amazing today (after the Cold War) are valuable as well.  This is not even something new, it’s not even a fourth generation human right like environmental safety – what I’m talking about was scribed into the UDHR under article 19 (or American adaptation commonly know as the first constitutional amendment) – the freedom of opinion, thought, and expression.  Despite what people might incorrectly assume about me or append to my name, I’ve decided it’s worth the abuse to stand up for the right to expression just as others have stood against genocide and other terrible acts.

When we look at the reality of it, there’s just some people, no matter how hard anyone tries, who are going to see the protection to draw or say what you want as important as fundamentals of life like food, water, or following negative rights (not murdering, not raping, etc…).  Despite that, I think government interests (and UDHR article 29 (b)) should not be restricting Article 19 in the face of today’s communication technology and globalization.

Now, having anime as a hobby for over half my life naturally gives me an inclination to defend other anime fans.  I’ve taken a particular interest in this subset of freedom of expression just because I have known those enjoy lolicon art (lolicons) and found them to be perfectly harmless and extremely productive members of society.  Infact, many of them take a dislike of pedophilia to extreme levels just because they are categorized often with it; when really it’s a different subset entirely (a subset that is no doubt not in poor mental health).  When I heard about the Christopher Handley case in particular, I thought “this could be a number of people I know.”  Here was a perfectly harmless man who was taken to court and imprisoned for nothing other than his choice in entertainment.  He posed no threat to his fellow societal members in anyway.

So, after doing research on the case in America and general law on the topic in several other countries I made a term paper out of the case law with respect to human rights declarations and laws.  I’ve removed some of the personal information pertaining to myself and my professor, but for the most part all the sources are intact.  The paper spans about 17 pages double spaced, and 6 more for bibliographies an annotations.  I’m posting the entirety of the paper below.  The general outline is as follows,

I.  Author Motivation
II.  Christopher Handley bottom-up human right violation analysis, and potential threat analysis.
III.  Why child pornography, in all forms, should be illegal.
IV.  Why lolicon art is not child pornography or possession of aforementioned is not a crime.
V.  United States Legal Analysis, The miller test and it’s HR significance.
VI.  United States Legal Analysis,  The Supreme Court judgement of the CPPA, 1996.
VII.  United States Legal Analysis, the unconstitutional Protect Act of 2003.
VIII.  United States Legal Analysis, the impossible dilemma of current law.
IX.  United States Legal Analysis, Christopher Handley’s sentence.
X.  United States Legal Analysis, the transmission of “obscene” material in the face of globalization today.
XI.  United States Legal Analysis, Scalia’s Opinion of the Court in the United States v. Williams.
XII.  International Legal Analaysis, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
XIII.  International Legal Analaysis, Australia.
XIV.  International Legal Analaysis, Canada.
XV.  International Legal Analaysis, France.
XVI.  International Legal Analaysis, Germany.
XVII.  International Legal Analaysis, Italy.
XVIII.  International Legal Analaysis, Japan.
XIX.  International Legal Analaysis, Mexico.
XX.  International Legal Analaysis, New Zealand.
XXI.  International Legal Analaysis, North Korea.
XXII.  International Legal Analaysis, Norway.
XXIII.  International Legal Analaysis, The Philippines.
XXIV.  International Legal Analaysis, Russia.
XXV.  International Legal Analaysis, South Africa.
XXVI.  International Legal Analaysis, Sweden.
XXVII.  International Legal Analaysis, United Kingdom.
XXVIII.  Conclusion and thesis.
XXIX.  The Protect Act – inconclusive measures for protecting children and needless restrictions of UDHR Article 19.
XXX.  Personal statement, a note on thought crime, and literary reaction by Neil Gaiman on the subject matter.
XXXI.  Bibliography.
XXII.  Appendix.

The full text of the paper is viewable below or down-loadable, here.

The appendix case files have been zipped and are available for download, here.

Other sources are viewable from their links in the bibliography.

Also, it is interesting to note a similar conclusion was found by the American Civil Liberties Union, here.