View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
sdhd
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 169
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:42 pm
|
|
|
jtstellar wrote: |
on freedom of speech and expression, it is either everybody defending everyone's freedom of speech and expression anytime, anywhere, always, or it is no one defending any other person's freedom of speech anytime, anywhere. once uneducated persons become distracted and feel the expressions of others they find repulsive have no direct concern on them, freedom of speech and expression is non-existent because anyone else equally uneducated can do those to the first apathetic bunch with not just equal but more relative ease on things that don't concern them because the trends have been set. |
Not picking a fight here. Freedom of speech and expression are only free as long as it is not infringing on another person's beliefs.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nemo_N
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 272
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:47 pm
|
|
|
tempest wrote: | People should really read Dan Kanemitsu's explanation of this bill (linked to in the article). |
Seconding this strongly. It's worth the read and should explain why this is important.
I loved this quote:
Quote: | In every era, authority is enticed by the allure of censorship. Expecting children to grow-up wholesome by putting a lid on unpleasant things is fiction in of itself. It is unfortunate that we can only rely upon "nonexistent politicians" to be wholesome enough to realize that there is a difference between moral standards for right and wrong versus legal enforcement.
- Ehime Shinbun Editorial, March 20th, 2010.[1] |
Also, people must always, always keep in mind that giving any government sweeping powers under the notion that they'll use them wisely is not only hopelessly naive but dangerous. It only takes one moron elected to see all the "good will" vanish. From Dan Kanemitsu's article:
Quote: | Mr. Takashi Yamaguchi, a Tokyo based lawyer very active in opposing efforts to censor manga and anime, has pointed out there is something fundamentally wrong with legislation that assumes that the enforcers of the provision will be benevolent. |
People should always keep this in mind.
|
Back to top |
|
|
RestLessone
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 1426
Location: New York
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:53 pm
|
|
|
So...You're basically saying that an age restriction that's based only on appearance without any research shouldn't be used?
In the US, a minor is considered under 18, which is what obscenity laws are against, and what is considered obscene is decided on a local level. In Canada, wasn't there that one case where a guy got in trouble for having fictional written content on his computer at work because of Canada's law (I don't believe it was the US, though maybe it was)? The law has been abused. Whether it's been widely publicized or not, for someone it has hurt them.
I get what you're saying about the law being vague (it is!) but I don't follow how it has to do with the US, as you originally argued. And the law in Canada calls someone under 18 a minor, correct? In the end, I still just don't see how Japan's proposed bills are any specific country's fault. The UN is pressuring and some associations within Japan, too, but there hasn't been an outcry from much else, really.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nemo_N
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 272
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:53 pm
|
|
|
sdhd wrote: |
jtstellar wrote: |
on freedom of speech and expression, it is either everybody defending everyone's freedom of speech and expression anytime, anywhere, always, or it is no one defending any other person's freedom of speech anytime, anywhere. once uneducated persons become distracted and feel the expressions of others they find repulsive have no direct concern on them, freedom of speech and expression is non-existent because anyone else equally uneducated can do those to the first apathetic bunch with not just equal but more relative ease on things that don't concern them because the trends have been set. |
Not picking a fight here. Freedom of speech and expression are only free as long as it is not infringing on another person's beliefs. |
Problem here is; what constitutes "infringing on another person's beliefs"? If I say "Jesus was a child rapist", doesn't that infringe in other people's beliefs?
|
Back to top |
|
|
GrilledEelHamatsu
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 703
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:54 pm
|
|
|
sdhd wrote: | It seems that the majority of Japanese people worried about the bill because they do not trust their own government. They have every right to feel that way. If the bill is written in this manner, it gives the government the authority to interpret the bill in their favor as what they deem inappropriate.
The bill should be written in a manner that says what criteria are set forth to determine what is lawful or unlawful in regards to sexual explicit, manga and anime child porn. The bill should not give any unintended power to the authority to decide what they say is unlawful. The bill should not be vague. |
The bill is too strict, too conservative instead of regulating animated child porn, it's restricting it. As it stands there's alreay alot of strong opposition against it in Japan, that's why a vote has been delayed. The Parliement needs to adjust the bill by exlcuding lolicon and shotacon, let the people decide. Do the polling, the studying, If they can't do that than the bill with die.
This bill both infringes on artists rights and freedoms. In Japan, artists' rights are suppossed to be protected under the pen, not strictly regulated.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gamen
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 256
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:55 pm
|
|
|
rubixcubd60 wrote: |
Quote: | Because I don't really buy the line that people reading this material will never touch a real kid.... |
Let me clear this up for you Pedophilia like any other sexual preference is not a learned trait. Someone won't become a pedophile because they read some loli, in the same way a straight person wont become gay because they read some yaoi/yuri and vice versa. |
To quote Jon Stewart, "Your mind can be changed, your heart can be swayed, your dick is unbelievably stubborn."
|
Back to top |
|
|
RestLessone
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 1426
Location: New York
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:00 pm
|
|
|
Nemo_N wrote: |
sdhd wrote: |
Not picking a fight here. Freedom of speech and expression are only free as long as it is not infringing on another person's beliefs. |
Problem here is; what constitutes "infringing on another person's beliefs"? If I say "Jesus was a child rapist", doesn't that infringe in other people's beliefs? |
I think the better way to phrase it is "rights". Child porn is illegal because it infringes on a child's rights to a healthy, normal life. People can choose to believe in a religion or not, but they can't force anyone to give up their religion/atheism. People can't drink and drive because it infringes on other people's rights to be safe. Etc.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dakaran
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 347
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:07 pm
|
|
|
RestlessOne wrote: | So...You're basically saying that an age restriction that's based only on appearance without any research shouldn't be used?
In the US, a minor is considered under 18, which is what obscenity laws are against, and what is considered obscene is decided on a local level. In Canada, wasn't there that one case where a guy got in trouble for having fictional written content on his computer at work because of Canada's law (I don't believe it was the US, though maybe it was)? The law has been abused. Whether it's been widely publicized or not, for someone it has hurt them.
I get what you're saying about the law being vague (it is!) but I don't follow how it has to do with the US, as you originally argued. And the law in Canada calls someone under 18 a minor, correct? In the end, I still just don't see how Japan's proposed bills are any specific country's fault. The UN is pressuring and some associations within Japan, too, but there hasn't been an outcry from much else, really. |
First of all, at work, c'mon, that's normal around here if it influences or disturbs workers but at home for your own stuff the majority doesn't bring it up. In Canada, and most probably elsewhere there is a do and don't, carrying personal stuff like that using office computers which aren't yours is asking for it. At home, you got to have dawn disturbing things on your computer or disgusting child porn to make an outcry. Nobody's gonna heat up for sexy pics if you're in their age range and it's 16+to 19 unless there is something totally wrong with the photos or you're selling them(BAN) haha, like I said.
Also, I don't remember the case you mentioned. As for the US being pointed out I did that because of the recent case that make snow ball about my favorite anime and other cases I've read, plus Americans are known around me to "sue their neighbors for sneezing next door", to speak. Many of the laws used are too vague and have opened doors that shouldn't be there. ;p
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nemo_N
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 272
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:10 pm
|
|
|
RestlessOne wrote: |
Nemo_N wrote: |
sdhd wrote: |
Not picking a fight here. Freedom of speech and expression are only free as long as it is not infringing on another person's beliefs. |
Problem here is; what constitutes "infringing on another person's beliefs"? If I say "Jesus was a child rapist", doesn't that infringe in other people's beliefs? |
I think the better way to phrase it is "rights". Child porn is illegal because it infringes on a child's rights to a healthy, normal life. People can choose to believe in a religion or not, but they can't force anyone to give up their religion/atheism. People can't drink and drive because it infringes on other people's rights to be safe. Etc. |
I think this is the right approach since there can be those who live under the impression that hurt feelings and revulsion are somehow "harm" in the same way that a physical wound (or even rape) is.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dakaran
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 347
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:11 pm
|
|
|
RestlessOne wrote: |
Nemo_N wrote: |
sdhd wrote: |
Not picking a fight here. Freedom of speech and expression are only free as long as it is not infringing on another person's beliefs. |
Problem here is; what constitutes "infringing on another person's beliefs"? If I say "Jesus was a child rapist", doesn't that infringe in other people's beliefs? |
I think the better way to phrase it is "rights". Child porn is illegal because it infringes on a child's rights to a healthy, normal life. People can choose to believe in a religion or not, but they can't force anyone to give up their religion/atheism. People can't drink and drive because it infringes on other people's rights to be safe. Etc. |
Yes, your case happening at work infringes others privacy and good work environment, so of course, there will be something done about it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
sdhd
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 169
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:14 pm
|
|
|
RestlessOne wrote: |
Nemo_N wrote: |
sdhd wrote: |
Not picking a fight here. Freedom of speech and expression are only free as long as it is not infringing on another person's beliefs. |
Problem here is; what constitutes "infringing on another person's beliefs"? If I say "Jesus was a child rapist", doesn't that infringe in other people's beliefs? |
I think the better way to phrase it is "rights". Child porn is illegal because it infringes on a child's rights to a healthy, normal life. People can choose to believe in a religion or not, but they can't force anyone to give up their religion/atheism. People can't drink and drive because it infringes on other people's rights to be safe. Etc. |
@RestlessOne, you are correct, rights instead of beliefs.
Last edited by sdhd on Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:25 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
Back to top |
|
|
zanarkand princess
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 1484
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:15 pm
|
|
|
Well uh.. Shouldn't they ban possession of real child porn by everyone before they try to ban teenagers from reading Josei and Seinen?
|
Back to top |
|
|
RestLessone
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 1426
Location: New York
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:24 pm
|
|
|
I never said doing it at work was right, just that it happened, and surely people out there would be upset about it (oh, and I believe he had a wife, which must have made things even more awkward), and it was only written, no pictures. I just doubt that the law can ever be abuse-free or has not be abused.
The recent US case only dealt with series that would also be attacked in Canada, though...It was imported stuff that was heavy in sexual content with underage girls. As for the suing thing, maybe that's the outside perception, but a lot of people are more than happy to settle things out of court, or at least that's how it is where I live in the suburbs (how does this pertain to the proposal though?).
zanarkand princess wrote: | Well uh.. Shouldn't they ban possession of real child porn by everyone before they try to ban teenagers from reading Josei and Seinen? |
Probably, yeah. I think more focus should be on getting rid of the real stuff, which takes precedence over regulation of comics at this point. It'd be nice if they could work on both, but with the way things seems over there, it doesn't seem likely.
|
Back to top |
|
|
tuxedocat
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 2183
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:59 pm
|
|
|
My Japanese ex-pat friends see it as Governor Ishihara and his LDP cronies attempts to lassoo those wild fujoshi (yee-haw), who aren't compliantly marrying and bearing children for Japan's future. The child pornography rhetoric is just politically correct packaging, when the real target is BL manga and the women who are buying it. My friends say that anime and manga isn't the problem, it's ultra-conservative dorkwads like Ishihara. Guys like him are all over Japan, and none of the women want to marry them. It also must be mentioned that the LDP rhetoric is anti-gay. They probably believe that some kid seeing any BL or yaoi will immediately be infected with gayness.
From Dan Kanemitsu's page, quoting the bill:
Quote: | Any fiction that features someone identifiable as a minor + involved in "anti-social" sexual and/or sexual like act + depicted in a positive light + which may highly impede the wholesome mental development of youth regarding his/her sexuality => shall be regulated as being harmful content. |
Also from Dan Kanemitsu's page:
Quote: |
Could you be a little more clear about what's being targeted? What have the Tokyo Metropolitan Government said about material they want to go after?
The Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) has been very ambiguous in public statements (which is expected) but documents leading to the creation of the bill and information extracted by Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly members indicate that BL (Boys Love,) Yaoi, Ladies Comics, romantic Shojo Manga, and many publications aimed toward girls and women are being targeted. Risqu? comedy often featured in certain for boys and men's publications also appear to be on the radar screen, but since many of these books could be considered "too erotic," the blunt of the target appears to be aimed more toward "sensual and introspective romance" titles--a specialty of women's and girl's manga.
Why are women's publications more likely to be affected by this bill? Because the common visual style in such material is not as graphic as with men's publications, and therefore "not erotic, but dangerous subject matter" criteria for regulation will probably have an impact of women more than men's manga and anime fiction. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Egan Loo
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1355
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:56 am
|
|
|
GrilledEelHamatsu wrote: | Meanwhile in Japan, most doujinshi artists are protesting this due to the fact that before this, there was never a problem or issue allowing minors to buy hentai it was the parents that made the decision whether or not it was appropiate for them and a could give a clerk consent to sell it to minors. I'm on the side of the opposition, hentai depicting children is fictional,benign,harmless. It does NOT make young teen boys go and want to rape or molest a little girl. All studies have shown that it doesn't hurt the minds of kids. |
Dan Kanemitsu is busy with translation work, but he wanted to respond to this comment. He says that "most dōjinshi artists are protesting this bill revision for reasons that have nothing to do with selling 'adults-only' material to minors." Stores in Tokyo, such as K-Books, have posted notices that state that they will not sell adult materials to minors. Plus, the stores err on the side of caution; the notices state in writing that the stores will not sell adult material to anyone "wearing high school uniforms, even if they are 18." There are no exceptions in these stores — no parent's note of consent and anything similar.
Dan notes that creators have a more fundamental concern:
"Artists are concerned that this will be the first step toward government encroachment and ceding control over what they can draw and who they can draw for. Most dōjinshi authors accept the idea that sexually explicit material should not be accessible to minors, but what constitutes sexually explicit is a personal decision that they have to decide since they are the one that are answerable to the police if an issue comes up."
|
Back to top |
|
|
|