just for some people who argut about france make lolicon illegal , a article by a press ( Le Point) talk about that and a advocat M Malka ( charlie hebdo advocat ) show how the 2007 decision is a bullshit
In a 2007 decision, handed down after the American court's decision, the Cour de cassation, our "Supreme Court", validated the conviction of the authors and publishers of a Japanese manga, considering that the object of the offence [child pornography images] was "extended to any representation". "It can therefore include non-real images representing an imaginary minor, drawings...", the highest French court ruled. Its jurisprudence has never been contradicted since. Is there a great risk, since art is often a matter of representation?
In reality, the jurisprudence seems very annoyed with this text, which absurdly extends the prohibition of child pornography to any "representation", without distinguishing the intention from the representation. There is the conviction decision that you cite, but another judgment, handed down three years later, led to the opposite solution. This time it concerned the contemporary art exhibition "Présumés innocents", presented in 2000 in Bordeaux and attacked for child pornography. I was the lawyer for the general curator of French heritage, who was in charge of the Bordeaux museums. After ten years of proceedings, we obtained a dismissal, confirmed by the Court of Cassation. One can feel that the Court of Cassation is embarrassed; in both cases, its motivations can be summed up in three lines, which is normal since this text is inapplicable.
all article here but in french , you can trad if you want more to know , anyways this week i talk about bastien vives story ( cancel + probably a judgement) in france and how this story maybe change in good the actual law about representation.
for fun 1 another respond by advocat
But in your opinion, banning Bastien Vivès' drawings would not protect anyone?
The complaints against Bastien Vivès are based on Article 227-23 of the Criminal Code. Since 1994, this text has punished child pornography images, their distribution and recording.... The initial purpose of this text is therefore to protect real children, because behind the photos there are horrors that must be prevented. In 1998, the Dutroux affair occurred. The political authorities wanted to react. How did it react? With an emotional law, as usual. On the basis of an amendment by Senator Jolibois, the legislator added the word "representation" to Article 227-23, inspired by an American law of 1996, which had added the same word to an equivalent text, the Child Pornography Prevention Act. Except that this law will be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, under the First Amendment protecting freedom of expression. The Supreme Court, in its ruling of 16 April 2002, stated that the US government could not ban speech because it increased the likelihood of an unlawful act being committed at some indefinite future time; that it could not be envisaged that Romeo and Juliet could one day be banned (one of the two was 13 years old); and that speech suitable for adults could not be banned simply because it might fall into the hands of children. This decision was made in a much more puritanical country than ours. The word "representation", for which Bastien Vivès has now been sued twice by associations, therefore poses a problem of constitutionality. Are we going to sue all French museum directors, starting with the Louvre? Will it be necessary to ban Greek art, ancient Egyptian art, Bronzino and his Allegory of the Triumph of Venus, which shows a small child with a woman? Or the Illustrations of Sade's books in the Bibliothèque nationale de France? What should we do? Do we ban all "representations", including those that condemn rape and paedophilia, and inspire disgust? It all makes no sense. Moreover, no study has ever demonstrated the existence of a continuum, of a causal link between the consumption of a cultural good and criminal acts. What are we supposed to believe? That paedophiles go to the Louvre and buy albums by Bastien Vivès to feed their fantasies? Who can believe that?
in another part of article ;
In all cases, it is about protecting real people. Not fiction.
In a 2007 decision, handed down after the American court's decision, the Cour de cassation, our "Supreme Court", validated the conviction of the authors and publishers of a Japanese manga, considering that the object of the offence [child pornography images] was "extended to any representation". "It can therefore include non-real images representing an imaginary minor, drawings...", the highest French court ruled. Its jurisprudence has never been contradicted since. Is there a great risk, since art is often a matter of representation?
In reality, the jurisprudence seems very annoyed with this text, which absurdly extends the prohibition of child pornography to any "representation", without distinguishing the intention from the representation. There is the conviction decision that you cite, but another judgment, handed down three years later, led to the opposite solution. This time it concerned the contemporary art exhibition "Présumés innocents", presented in 2000 in Bordeaux and attacked for child pornography. I was the lawyer for the general curator of French heritage, who was in charge of the Bordeaux museums. After ten years of proceedings, we obtained a dismissal, confirmed by the Court of Cassation. One can feel that the Court of Cassation is embarrassed; in both cases, its motivations can be summed up in three lines, which is normal since this text is inapplicable.
all article here but in french , you can trad if you want more to know , anyways this week i talk about bastien vives story ( cancel + probably a judgement) in france and how this story maybe change in good the actual law about representation.
for fun 1 another respond by advocat
But in your opinion, banning Bastien Vivès' drawings would not protect anyone?
The complaints against Bastien Vivès are based on Article 227-23 of the Criminal Code. Since 1994, this text has punished child pornography images, their distribution and recording.... The initial purpose of this text is therefore to protect real children, because behind the photos there are horrors that must be prevented. In 1998, the Dutroux affair occurred. The political authorities wanted to react. How did it react? With an emotional law, as usual. On the basis of an amendment by Senator Jolibois, the legislator added the word "representation" to Article 227-23, inspired by an American law of 1996, which had added the same word to an equivalent text, the Child Pornography Prevention Act. Except that this law will be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, under the First Amendment protecting freedom of expression. The Supreme Court, in its ruling of 16 April 2002, stated that the US government could not ban speech because it increased the likelihood of an unlawful act being committed at some indefinite future time; that it could not be envisaged that Romeo and Juliet could one day be banned (one of the two was 13 years old); and that speech suitable for adults could not be banned simply because it might fall into the hands of children. This decision was made in a much more puritanical country than ours. The word "representation", for which Bastien Vivès has now been sued twice by associations, therefore poses a problem of constitutionality. Are we going to sue all French museum directors, starting with the Louvre? Will it be necessary to ban Greek art, ancient Egyptian art, Bronzino and his Allegory of the Triumph of Venus, which shows a small child with a woman? Or the Illustrations of Sade's books in the Bibliothèque nationale de France? What should we do? Do we ban all "representations", including those that condemn rape and paedophilia, and inspire disgust? It all makes no sense. Moreover, no study has ever demonstrated the existence of a continuum, of a causal link between the consumption of a cultural good and criminal acts. What are we supposed to believe? That paedophiles go to the Louvre and buy albums by Bastien Vivès to feed their fantasies? Who can believe that?
in another part of article ;
In all cases, it is about protecting real people. Not fiction.
Last edited:
