[EVA] "Banned" and Evangelion (was: & Battle Royale)

[John Hokanson Jr.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Brendan Jamieson [mailto:bjamieson at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 8:51 AM
To: evangelion at eva.onegeek.org
Subject: Re: [EVA] "Banned" and Evangelion (was: & Battle Royale)


"John Hokanson Jr." wrote:
> > However, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently ruled that it
> > only applies to drawing that are "virtually indistinguishable" from
> >real children. Many would argue that anime is exaggerated to the point
> >where it's obviously fake.

> I don't know about that...

Nor do I...but the court decision Carl Horn pointed out would make
an excellent defense for anime distributors, since our legal system
is based largely on common law. Although Manga would still risk
coming under attack from local municipalities and parent groups.

There was also another case that went to the 9th Circuit:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Pornography+Carl+Horn&hl=en&rnum=4&selm=8k
tgsm%24ev8%241%40nntp9.atl.mindspring.net

I used to think it was blatently illegal, but now I'm not so sure.
I generally tend to side with appeal courts over conjecture.

This is an excerpt of the 1st Circuit's decision:

....We take our cue from the legislative record, which makes plain that
the new language was intended to target only a narrow class of images -
visual depictions "which are virtually indistinguishable to unsuspecting
viewers from unretouched photographs of actual children engaging in
identical sexual conduct." S. Rep. 104-358, at pt. I, IV(B). The Senate,
in enacting S. 1237, explicitly stated that the "appears to be" language
"applies to the same type of photographic images already prohibited, but
which does not require the use of an actual minor in its production." Id.
at pt. IV(C). The Senate clearly indicated that, by employing the phrase
"appears to be," it was "extend[ing] [the prohibition against child
pornography] from photographic depictions of actual minors engaging in
sexually explicit conduct to the identical type of depiction, one which
is virtually indistinguishable from the banned photographic depiction,"
and no further. Id. (Emphasis added).


> >The scene with Asuka in the hospital bed might be problematic, but
> >then again it might not.
>
> There is more questionable stuff in EoE than Asuka's breasts (though the
> entire hospital scene in general is walking a thin line). Misato's
> overtures to Shinji, and the shot of Rei and Shinji in LCL land would
> raise more than a few eyebrows.

Misato's overtures to Shinji is a minor detail. You could scarcely
accuse her of soliciting sex to a minor because it's obvious she
wasn't serious, as confirmed by her untimely death (which she knew
was coming). I personally thought the scene with the kiss was very
sweet. I don't think there exists a very strong case here, although
I admit there hasn't ever existed a case to specifically test this.

> > This isn't just a US matter.
> Protesters are one thing - actually banning the work as illegal is quite
> another.

They haven't banned it (yet), nor will they probably ever unless it's
specifically categorized as child pornography. Plus, I think Bochan Bird
pointed out that Gainax and the TV studios made cuts to Eva because of
pressure from Japanese parent groups.

- John