Let’s talk about Christopher Handley for a minute. I don’t really want to, as I don’t much care to advertise my views on the matter. But there seems to be, as Anime Almanac’s Scott VonSchilling notes, a bit of an imbalance in popular opinion of the Handley case. Which is fine, of course, but it always bothers me when the underdog side of an argument isn’t standing on a solid foundation, as seems to be the case here.

So, if I may, I’ll make an effort at clearing things up a bit.

Let’s take a look at a few choice morsels from a post by Anime Vice writer Boddington.

In this writer’s opinion, I believe that though the aforementioned titles [Kodomo no Jikan, Strike Witches, Chu-Bra!!] are well beyond the limits of good taste and skirting the edge of being morally repugnant they are not criminal.

I respect Boddington’s admission of his artistic preferences here. Bias is always, always a factor — as Neil Gaiman puts it, “one person’s obscenity is another person’s art” — though obviously there’s more at work in the Handley case than what one finds fappable.

Now, while no children are exploited in the production of hardcore lolicon manga I feel the situation is more complicated than just immediate harm to children who are used in such a way. I apologize if this comes off sounding condescending, but people often forget that all things operate on complex systems. Good and evil, black and white, toast and jam are all just far too simplistic ways to meaningfully view the world. My point here is that in the short term, while no children were victimized to make these titles, lolicon porn manga still promotes the practice of pedophilia and it’s not an immense leap to see how these titles can set the gears in motion leading to the real molestation of children. [emphasis mine]

I’ve hacked this bit into three major claims that, in my estimation, need to be addressed.

Should we consider anything more than whether children were harmed in the making of the doujins in question? Well, yes, I’d say — not that this renders irrelevant the fact that no children were harmed in the making of the doujins in question. Whether Handley’s money went into an immediately exploitative industry (or, as seems to have been the case, didn’t) makes a difference — if nothing else, we can establish with some certainty that the guy isn’t knowingly supporting child abuse. But, as Boddington observes, there are a few more things to consider.

Now, does lolicon manga “promote” the practice of pedophilia? Not really — or, I should say, not by itself.

I doubt I need to explain the degree to which opinions on media effects can be mixed, even in the fields of media studies and communications — you’ve all run across studies of varying repute on the effects of video games on children, I’m sure, some demonstrating that Grand Theft Auto will be the downfall of human civilization, others showing that violent video games don’t make much difference on child development at all. But, as I understand it, experts tend toward a more moderate position. Violent or pornographic material renders consumers more likely to think about violence and pornography. Does it prompt consumers to commit violent acts in spite of the societal norms that have shaped them since birth? No — but if the consumers in question are already predisposed toward violence, the issue becomes less clear.

Here we come to that leap, immense or no, required to demonstrate that loli doujins can result in child abuse. It’s a leap that, to my knowledge, those who sentenced Handley never bothered to make. At no point was it demonstrated that, given Handley’s psychology and background, drawings of girls under the U.S. age of consent engaged in sex acts might prompt Handley to try the depicted acts himself. Perhaps potential harm to children supersedes free speech, but, in Handley’s case, it never seemed clear that there was ever any real threat of children being harmed.

There is, I’d imagine, viable territory yet to be explored by the anti-Handleyites — the territory of the subtle effects of long-term exposure, and of psychological predispositions and their implications, and of relevant studies published in reputable communications and psychology journals — and I’d like to see these explorations, rather than the reduction of lolicon into sex offender fuel, into the unsavory side of the black/white, good/evil binaries to which Boddington objects.