...aaaaaaaannnd /thread

So, you're taking a psychiatric view, not the standard view used in the media of equating paedophilia with child abuse, yes?

And, before I can answer to your point about using freedom of speech to defend 'child pornography', I'm unsure what you mean by that. What is child pornography in your view? Does it need to have a child involved? For example: is the aforementioned 'Lolita' child pornography? How about a historical novel set in a time where child abuse was not only lawful, but expected in certain circles? Would that be 'child porn' in your view?

Yes, I'm taking the psychiatric view. I don't really see why anyone would take the unqualified view of the media. Not all child abuse is caused by paedophiles, and as I said, child abuse is an act, paedophilia is a quality of the individual who is a paedophile.

Pornography is defined as the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter, for the purpose of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction (according to Wikipedia). add "ivolving children" after "explicit sexual subject matter", and you have child pornography. Lolita wouldn't fit this definition, as it was not written as jerk off material for paedos. Understanding the novel that way only shows a lack of skills necessary to analize literature. As for the historical novel, the purpose is to accurately recreate the respective period. Neglecting such elements would essentially be a rewriting of history, though it happens quite often with historical novels, especially those regarding the Ancient period. Sadly "historical" novels/films often just present current-day ideology in a past setting.

So my short answer would be: neither examples are child pornography (and I already gave a definition of what child pornography would be). If lolicon is material featuring children in sexual situations, and the purpose is to incite sexual responses and lead to erotic satisfaction, then it is child porn.

So, who decides when a piece of work is designed to incite a sexual response, and when it isn't? What excites one person may be seen as insightful commentary about sexuality by a second reader. Who decides how a reader will respond to a piece of work? Who decides that Lolita is art and Lolicon is 'child porn'? They both depict the same acts, after all. Lolita was only 12. Where is the dividing line? How do you define it in law? Can it be defined? Does it need to be?

What of work such as Alan Moore's 'Lost Girls' which even the author himself has described it as porn? Indeed, he purposefully used it, forcing a dialogue about art and porn, and how the lines between the two are not just blurred, but quite indistinguishable.

As a simple example of this: what if two pieces of work were presented to you: in the first, a girl introduces herself as 12, and appears prepubescent; in the second, a girl introduces herself as 18 and appears prepubescent -- otherwise, both works are identical, and include sexual acts. Both are fictional. Both are illustrated.

Is one porn and the other not, even though they are identical in all ways barring a single number (the '2' turned to an '8')?

I love cases like this, and the blame is 100% on this idiot.

Canada and Australia both consider nude/sexual depictions of fictional minors to be child pornography. These laws are available online. Whilst you may argue that these laws are pointless, that is the law. If you wish to protest a law, you should start a petition. What you should not do, is smuggle something that is legally counted as child pornography over the border.

This idiot deserves everything he gets, and I hope the year or two in prison teaches him some common sense.

Readers are able to respond to such works based on their level of education. Obviously an uneducated person won't be able to grasp Lolita, and will just see it as a pervert's ramblings. It's society's job to educate people, not the author's.

As for your example. They both are porn, obviously (unless there's more to them than the sex they present).

australia banned small breasted women in porn for appearing too childlike.

Is the title of the manga known?
I'd like to know what kind of material it is before I say something stupid about Canada. :P

This is a good thing, though not because it makes them look childlike, but because small boobs are uncool.