Forum - View topicNEWS: Canada Outlines Which Anime Can Cross Border
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
_V_
 Posts: 619 |
|
|||||
|
Many anime series feature adolescent characters who are technically underage;
Evangelion stars 14 year olds; it has no explicit on-screen sex acts involving these characters, there's occasional nudity but its not sexually suggestive. how would this new law in Canada affect the transmission of Eva and other similar shows? |
||||||
|
||||||
Dakaran
 Posts: 347 |
|
|||||
Doesn't affect. Misleading or bad intentions would be a problem but there is none. Unless a lawyer smack me for this statement, that's how laws usually are sanely applied in my country. We don't over do it like the states. We always check the circumstances around it. |
||||||
|
||||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10461 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||||
You misunderstood the article. There's no new law. These laws have been in effect for a long time, its just the guidelines (which are not themselves "law") for the border guards that are being publicly published for the first time. Additionally, you seem to have missed this part of the guidelines: "only if characters are explicitly depicted as children involved in sex acts." The examples you gave don't apply. The actual laws contain similar verbiage that effectively differentiates between casual nudity and pornography. -t Last edited by Tempest on Fri May 07, 2010 10:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Nemo_N
Posts: 272 |
|
|||||
Wow. |
||||||
|
||||||
Shay Guy
 Posts: 2324 |
|
|||||
|
Isn't it illegal to depict people with pubic hair at ALL in Japan?
|
||||||
|
||||||
DerekTheRed
 Posts: 3544 Location: ::Points to hand:: |
|
|||||
|
Anyone know what "secondary sexual characteristics" are?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
JuicyB
Posts: 278 |
|
|||||
|
Damn, why are all these countries so authoritarian? Throwing someone in prison for looking at a drawing is just plain wrong.
|
||||||
|
||||||
jmfsilenthill
 Posts: 1863 Location: Chinese cartoons are srs biz |
|
|||||
From Wikipedia:
Also, does this mean I should be wary about buying anything from Icarus Publishing? Last edited by jmfsilenthill on Fri May 07, 2010 11:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
rinmackie
 Posts: 1040 Location: in a van! down by the river! |
|
|||||
|
I'm assuming genitalia.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dakaran
Posts: 347 |
|
|||||
Like I said in another thread, unless it's a freaky looking 10 years old having sex nobody gonna bitch at you for looking at a 16-19 years old flirting "with less clothes" unless it's outrageously disgusting and the like which would then be sexual acts directly done and implied such as pornography. Even less if you're close to her age, and yes as stated we look at circumstances, which includes the age of the reader. If you're 2-3 years above it normally nobody cares but if you're 15 years above you're screwing yourself up because now that's really badly seen in Canada. Around here, a 20-21 years old can go out with a 16 years old no problem almost all the time given his respect is OK to his girl so it's accepted kind of but still subject to parents approval... well, not like the girl cares if she wants the 20 years old guy more mature etc, but still applies in the end. (So having the family liking you and backing you is of good manner) If, for some reasons, it completely comes out from the picture in a book, manga and others, as being disrespectful to older teens such as bad treatments someone will act and then complain but at least the line is drawn clearly. Showing stuff that just screams "I wanna slap your daughter and bondage her" is one thing pushing morality to its limit that is not accepted but reasonably looking like 18 girls just charming looks shouldn't have problems. Last edited by Dakaran on Fri May 07, 2010 11:22 am; edited 6 times in total |
||||||
|
||||||
Daemonblue
 Posts: 701 |
|
|||||
No it's not, maybe at one time pubic hair was censored, but it isn't right now and that's what matters. That said, I still don't agree with that Canadian law and it's one of the few reasoins I dislike Canada, though their PM throwing out suggestions from the public on copyright reform in favor of fast tracking changes to it recently might go on that list... |
||||||
|
||||||
dewlwieldthedarpachief
 Posts: 751 Location: Canada |
|
|||||
|
But violation of cartoon children that is non-sexual is still cool, right?
|
||||||
|
||||||
vashfanatic
 Posts: 3495 Location: Back stateside |
|
|||||
This. Thank goodness for this! This clause alone protects most anything of true merit and utility. If this is applied fairly, very little would actually be outright illegal. It also forces officials to deal with things case by case rather than applying broad censorship. That this kind of provision has been lacking in recent Japanese legislation is my primary problem with them. And as for "secondary sexual features," I'd guess they're mostly talking about breasts and pubic hair. If a female character is flat as a board and hasn't got a lick of hair on here, you don't get to pretend that she's 18. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dakaran
Posts: 347 |
|
|||||
Ya, South Park was fine with its gore and blood pouring off Kenny's head who knows how many he was killed but that was part of the main attraction of the show which was done in humour it didn't hurt anybody so it went fine with teens. We were like," damn, he killed Kenny!" and laugh it off. Our pet peeve above children molested or abused is because of Aurore who was martyr and similar stories, and ugh... read the book about a real story that's disturbing in too many ways. If it even gets close to that and sexual abuse, deprives a child from a healthy growth then our laws shut it down. Otherwise, it says whatever, who cares and enjoy your shows since it does no harm to anybody. Last edited by Dakaran on Sat May 08, 2010 7:12 am; edited 4 times in total |
||||||
|
||||||
GhstDreamer
 Posts: 134 |
|
|||||
|
This reminds me that being an arts teacher, I was going to show my 12 year old students Spirited Away because as part of the art curriculum, they need to do a comparison between Disney and Japanese animation. I figure Spirited Away contains important messages that can promote class discussion and it would've also keep the students' attention since many of them has never been introduced to animation besides American animation. However, administration told me it's not an appropriate movie to show children and this came down from the district board office. The scenes are too frightening and there's smoking in it.
|
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group