Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday March 09 2020, @08:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the You-say-tomato-they-say-promoting-child-exploitation dept.

What does it mean to "promote child exploitation"? When it's figurines that have been sold for years but now violate Amazon's statutes about promoting child exploitation which resulted in listings being removed. Chuck Gaffney has run a successful Amazon store for years selling anime-related products, up until recently when Amazon started cracking down on anything that could be perceived as "promoting child exploitation".

While it can be difficult for online retailers to represent themselves as selling genuine merchandise — meaning reputation means a lot — this type of behavior from the market owner is very discouraging. In response, the seller blames a "neopuritan crusade" against anime figures.

The characters at the center of this disagreement are: Hatsune Miku and Kaitō Tenshi Twin Angel.

It's a wonder that anything anime-related survives importation to the US from Japan.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mobydisk on Monday March 09 2020, @09:03PM (3 children)

    by mobydisk (5472) on Monday March 09 2020, @09:03PM (#968687)

    You guys reckon anyone's told Amazon

    The problem is law enforcement an the courts. In 2008, United States v. Handley, a guy was given 6 months jail time for possessing a comic book. This is despite that fact that in 2002, the Supreme Court largely struck down the COPA. I believe all that stood is the modification of images so that they are indistinguishable from actual CP.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Monday March 09 2020, @11:41PM (1 child)

    by exaeta (6957) on Monday March 09 2020, @11:41PM (#968749) Homepage Journal
    It was illegal to enforce that law, but the Suprme Court probably didn't think it was worth their time to reverse the decision since it was only 6 months and an isolated incident. If the lower courts made a pattern of ignoring the Supreme Court, I hope they would intervene.
    --
    The Government is a Bird
    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:31AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2020, @04:31AM (#968911)

      "only six months" in jail for an honest man. I sincerely believe the judiciary should have 6 months of jail as part of training.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2020, @11:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2020, @11:59PM (#968762)

    I'm not familiar with that case, but those kinds of images in a book wouldn't be illegal under COPA, they'd likely be illegal under pre-existing statutes. COPA was specific to online activities.