Three Hentai cases go to trial in New Zealand

Interesting article I came across this morning about three cases going to trial around the download of objectionable material, specifically, hentai.

Censorship inspector Peter Pilley of the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs reported on Wednesday that three cases of possession of “sexualized Manga cartoons (Hentai)” were about to go to trial. Piley talked about his department’s enforcement techniques during a meeting of the Netsafe organization for cybersafety education in Auckland. He cited the use of “proactive R&D” and a peer-to-peer tracking software called Squirrel Hunter to detect what he described as hundreds of instances of these and other forms of allegedly offensive materials. According to Pilley, the software is used in 19 countries in five languages.

Under the Films, Video, and Publication Classification Act 1993 and the later Films, Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Act 2005, the government can prosecute individuals who possess or trade in “objectionable” publications. People convicted of knowingly possessing objectionable materials can face a fine of up to NZ$50,000 (about US$28,000) or a five-year prison term. People convicted of knowingly trading in objectionable materials can face a 10-year prison term. The Department of Internal Affairs hosts a “Content Complaint Form” for citizens to report allegedly objectionable content.

- Source: Anime News Network.

- Full article sourced: Police, DIA boost online child protection programmes, Computerworld.

Interesting because some anime fans could see this coming a few years ago, when the Film, Video & Classification board effectively banned Puni Puni Poemi from being sold or shown here in New Zealand.

Personally I am not upset by this. Hentai as a rule is basically sexualised Japanese animation & comic, and like other adult content should be approached carefully. A lot of hentai often depict characters of questionable age, and this is something I do not agree with or enjoy.

p.s. what classifies as “objectionable”?
It comes across as a very ambiguous term, but the classification board has come up with a sensible reasoning and meaning.