Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Irond Bill 156] - The Japanese Anime, Manga, and Video Game Holocaust

1235789

Posts

  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    B:L wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    (btw, the fact that alcohol is sold only in dedicated stores in boston has in no way destroyed the market for booze)
    That's a terrible analogy.

    In this case, it's as if there's no correlation between consumption of alcohol and actual crimes, with alcohol having little to no effect and is allowed for minors.

    Then introducing a bill that requires you to go to an adult only store to buy microbrew beer because they're arbitrarily deemed harmful. While other alcoholic beverages like absinthe are still sold in general stores.

    In the end the only beer left is DOMESTIC.

    look - you're saying that you see no harm to incest or pedophelia or rape cartoons, and you have no problems with the kinds of creepers who obsessively go in for that sort of thing

    i understand this. this is a statement that appears to be central to your personal identity.

    but it seems that a sizable number of japanese people disagree - enough so that a politican can make this a central campaign element.

    and these people, apparently, would like to see these cartoons removed from general stores to specialty stores that can only be accessed by adult creepers

    it is likely that they do not want to see their children grow into the types of adult creepers who would purchase rape animes, and they hope that limiting access to these materials might reduce the possibilities.

    now, in my opinion, it's unfortunate that the broad concepts of homosexuality is lumped in with these other deviancies in the minds of the japanese public, but i guess it also doesn't really frustrate me that japanese parents want more control over what their kids are exposed to.

    if there really are enough creepers to keep a market open for rape cartoons, then there will be producers and specialty stores and exports for your consumption. they don't need to be sneaked in with the kiddie cartoons.

  • SlicerSlicer Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Based on this reading of the bill this does look like a silly law.

    Mostly, I don't see how the original wording of the law that defined harmful material as
    Any material that may be detrimental toward the healthy development of youth because of their capacity to be sexually stimulating, encourages cruelty, and/or may compel suicide or criminal behavior.

    didn't cover what this added wording says:
    Any manga, animation, or pictures that features either sexual or pseudo sexual acts that would be illegal in real life, or sexual or pseudo sexual acts between close relatives whose marriage would be illegal, where such depictions and / or presentations unjustifiably glorify or exaggerate the activity.

    The biggest difference with the addition that I'm noticing is the "unjustifiably glorify or exaggerate" part, and it doesn't even sound like that big of a difference.

    Which doesn't sound too bad to me, it's a bit vague but even with that vagueness I can't say I'm overly concerned anyways. There's silliness present in the bill but I can't say it's the sort of silliness that would make me stand up in rage. Or even sit down in rage. Heck, in the absolute worst case scenario the bill only affects the Tokyo region anyways so most companies would find ways around that I'm sure.

    It definitely would be nice to see a non summarized version of the bill, the summaries tend to raise lots of questions Like for example in that link you gave I am a little concerned about #3 since the wording is really awkward to the point that I can interpret it in many different ways and it would be nice to have it clarified, though I suspect the correct interpretation would be that it punishes companies that don't label their stuff correctly. It would be really helpful to see the full language though since that's mostly a guess on my part based on what the law is trying to accomplish.

    (On a side note I am actually more concerned about #7 on that link than anything, the fact that parents have to justify why they would want to remove cell phone filtering for their kids sounds a bit unsettling, though I'll definitely admit I don't have much of an idea how different the situation is over there).

  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited December 2010
    Slicer wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Based on this reading of the bill this does look like a silly law.

    Mostly, I don't see how the original wording of the law that defined harmful material as
    Any material that may be detrimental toward the healthy development of youth because of their capacity to be sexually stimulating, encourages cruelty, and/or may compel suicide or criminal behavior.

    didn't cover what this added wording says:
    Any manga, animation, or pictures that features either sexual or pseudo sexual acts that would be illegal in real life, or sexual or pseudo sexual acts between close relatives whose marriage would be illegal, where such depictions and / or presentations unjustifiably glorify or exaggerate the activity.

    The biggest difference with the addition that I'm noticing is the "unjustifiably glorify or exaggerate" part, and it doesn't even sound like that big of a difference.

    Which doesn't sound too bad to me, it's a bit vague but even with that vagueness I can't say I'm overly concerned anyways. There's silliness present in the bill but I can't say it's the sort of silliness that would make me stand up in rage. Or even sit down in rage. Heck, in the absolute worst case scenario the bill only affects the Tokyo region anyways so most companies would find ways around that I'm sure.

    It definitely would be nice to see a non summarized version of the bill, the summaries tend to raise lots of questions Like for example in that link you gave I am a little concerned about #3 since the wording is really awkward to the point that I can interpret it in many different ways and it would be nice to have it clarified, though I suspect the correct interpretation would be that it punishes companies that don't label their stuff correctly. It would be really helpful to see the full language though since that's mostly a guess on my part based on what the law is trying to accomplish.

    (On a side note I am actually more concerned about #7 on that link than anything, the fact that parents have to justify why they would want to remove cell phone filtering for their kids sounds a bit unsettling, though I'll definitely admit I don't have much of an idea how different the situation is over there).

    That last point did seem unusual, basically make sure it stays filtered by making it just enough of a pain to get unfiltered that you wouldn't bother.

    Yea I agree though, overall it doesn't sound like the doom and gloom most places make it up to be. The current law certainly doesn't seem to be held to hard and fast so we'll have to see how this one is handled when it comes into place.

    tvsfrank.jpg
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Booze? Sorry, can't sell that except in bars.

    I know this is from a page back but I wanted to mention all the liquor stores in my area are required to only allow people 21+ to enter.

    I think what he's trying to get at is that it would be the equivalent of, say, banning a Grocery store from carrying beer, wine and other assorted hard drinks if children can enter the store

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • B:LB:L Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Also, why does this whole thing about gay novels keep coming up? The language in the bill doesn't explicitly say that and until we know exactly how the government is going to deal with the wording, perhaps everyone should back off of that particular point.
    I see you missed my post about the Governor explicitly stating that it is his mission to remove homosexuality from popular media in relation to this bill.

    Irond Will wrote: »
    look - you're saying that you see no harm to incest or pedophelia or rape cartoons, and you have no problems with the kinds of creepers who obsessively go in for that sort of thing
    Yes, I have no problem with all that rape stuff which is ALREADY in adult only sections and away from children. Why, Will, do you think stuff like bondage porn should be outright outlawed?

    It is especially telling that Japan ranks so low on the child pornography list. There are a huge list of other problems pervading that culture, including subway groping, but that is completely unrelated to the matter at hand, just like how you discussing porn is completely unrelated to the matter at hand. Please stay on the topic of censoring non-porn materials.

    Irond Will wrote: »
    but it seems that a sizable number of japanese people disagree - enough so that a politican can make this a central campaign element.
    Please cite where a sizable number of Japanese people agree with this bill. From what I've read, this bill was defeated before and was pushed through extremely quickly. It was not exactly a campaign element and more of the fact that the youth don't vote. There is a pretty large write-in campaign against this bill and the Prime Minister himself even displayed dissatisfaction with its passage.

    Besides, even given your proposition that people agree with his office about how old women are sinners by living, how the Rape of Nanking never happened, how mountains are eating our children, and how homosexuality is wrong, it doesn't make it right. Things like Prop 8 and Joe Arpaio deserve to be mocked and argued against, not argued for on the thinnest of logic.

    10mvrci.png click for Anime chat
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Booze? Sorry, can't sell that except in bars.

    I know this is from a page back but I wanted to mention all the liquor stores in my area are required to only allow people 21+ to enter.

    I think what he's trying to get at is that it would be the equivalent of, say, banning a Grocery store from carrying beer, wine and other assorted hard drinks if children can enter the store

    which many locales do

    including my entire state!

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Everyone's talking now like this is about porn. It's not. It's about anything considered 'harmful to children'. With incredibly vague definition. We're not talking about dudes boning - we're talking about them being gay at all.

    We're not talking about little girls being molested - we're talking about romance manga featuring high school students, which may or may not note the fact that sometimes teens have sex even if they don't show it.

    Porn is already 'for adults' - this isn't going to do a thing about the kind of hardcore stuff you guys are talking about.

    Indeed.

    To point: If this was just about drawn and animated porno, I don't think we'd see publishing houses telling their authors "Yeah, you can't have school uniforms in your romance manga anymore"

    Or see major publishers like Shueisha (do they even publish adult materials? I'm only familiar with the Jump line of manga) or Kadokawa Shoten boycotting anything to do with Tokyo.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    you are conveniently jumping around, b:l. there are 3 things you find objectionable in this bill

    1) you don't like the potential expansion of what is considered inappropriate for kids

    2) you don't like the really objectionable stuff being removed from general stores to specialty stores

    3) you don't like this particular politician

    i was addressing your objection number 2 in my post, and your response seems to be "olol but what about everything else"

  • SlicerSlicer Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Everyone's talking now like this is about porn. It's not. It's about anything considered 'harmful to children'. With incredibly vague definition. We're not talking about dudes boning - we're talking about them being gay at all.

    We're not talking about little girls being molested - we're talking about romance manga featuring high school students, which may or may not note the fact that sometimes teens have sex even if they don't show it.

    Porn is already 'for adults' - this isn't going to do a thing about the kind of hardcore stuff you guys are talking about.

    Indeed.

    To point: If this was just about drawn and animated porno, I don't think we'd see publishing houses telling their authors "Yeah, you can't have school uniforms in your romance manga anymore"

    Or see major publishers like Shueisha (do they even publish adult materials? I'm only familiar with the Jump line of manga) or Kadokawa Shoten boycotting anything to do with Tokyo.

    To be fair that school uniform line came from Sankaku Complex. It's a site that's basically yellow journalism mixed with porn. I'm not sure if I'd even give it a grain of salt without seeing another source reporting on the same matter.

  • JouleJoule Registered User
    edited December 2010
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Yea I agree though, overall it doesn't sound like the doom and gloom most places make it up to be. The current law certainly doesn't seem to be held to hard and fast so we'll have to see how this one is handled when it comes into place.

    The overall reaction online to the bill is more probably doom-saying than necessary. I have read that much of the criticism from publishers/creators toward this bill is because they had very little input in it. The added specific restriction to these mediums doesn't help either.

    I think you're right in that we'll have to see how it plays out when it's in place (or the responses that publishers will take in the coming months).

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    B:L wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    (btw, the fact that alcohol is sold only in dedicated stores in boston has in no way destroyed the market for booze)
    That's a terrible analogy.

    In this case, it's as if there's no correlation between consumption of alcohol and actual crimes, with alcohol having little to no effect and is allowed for minors.

    Then introducing a bill that requires you to go to an adult only store to buy microbrew beer because they're arbitrarily deemed harmful. While other alcoholic beverages like absinthe are still sold in general stores.

    In the end the only beer left is DOMESTIC.

    look - you're saying that you see no harm to incest or pedophelia or rape cartoons, and you have no problems with the kinds of creepers who obsessively go in for that sort of thing

    i understand this. this is a statement that appears to be central to your personal identity.

    but it seems that a sizable number of japanese people disagree - enough so that a politican can make this a central campaign element.

    and these people, apparently, would like to see these cartoons removed from general stores to specialty stores that can only be accessed by adult creepers

    it is likely that they do not want to see their children grow into the types of adult creepers who would purchase rape animes, and they hope that limiting access to these materials might reduce the possibilities.

    now, in my opinion, it's unfortunate that the broad concepts of homosexuality is lumped in with these other deviancies in the minds of the japanese public, but i guess it also doesn't really frustrate me that japanese parents want more control over what their kids are exposed to.

    if there really are enough creepers to keep a market open for rape cartoons, then there will be producers and specialty stores and exports for your consumption. they don't need to be sneaked in with the kiddie cartoons.

    Irond: What every keeps trying to get at is that the wording of the bill makes it so that it isn't solely restricted to "Tentacle Screw 2040: Purple Tentacle's Nastytime Boogaloo." What people (and, as shown by several publishers reactions) are worried about is that even what stories you and I would consider benign are put at risk thanks to the shite wording of the law.

    Again, we've already seen the chilling effect happen with at least one publisher who told one of their authors (that we know of; I would imagine it was a company wide edict) that certain restrictions would now be put in place on what they will allow to be published because of the law's passing.

    And, personally, I don't think a chilling effect on speech is rarely, if ever, good

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • B:LB:L Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    you are conveniently jumping around, b:l. there are 3 things you find objectionable in this bill

    1) you don't like the potential expansion of what is considered inappropriate for kids

    2) you don't like the really objectionable stuff being removed from general stores to specialty stores

    3) you don't like this particular politician

    i was addressing your objection number 2 in my post, and your response seems to be "olol but what about everything else"
    Yes, I ask you Will, WHAT ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE?

    The really objectionable stuff had already been pushed to adult-only stores by previously established law. The supposed target of this bill is non-pornographic works that may include rape, incest, or homosexuality. And given that Japan has quite a low rate of child pornography when compared to other countries, I'm fine with allowing works about what some would consider immoral themes in order to preserve the freedom of speech. I believe that you can disagree with the content while agreeing with the right to publish that content.

    As has been already said, the bill not only removes the above, it has pressured publishers to refuse works that contain school uniforms and homosexual romance.

    10mvrci.png click for Anime chat
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Slicer wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Everyone's talking now like this is about porn. It's not. It's about anything considered 'harmful to children'. With incredibly vague definition. We're not talking about dudes boning - we're talking about them being gay at all.

    We're not talking about little girls being molested - we're talking about romance manga featuring high school students, which may or may not note the fact that sometimes teens have sex even if they don't show it.

    Porn is already 'for adults' - this isn't going to do a thing about the kind of hardcore stuff you guys are talking about.

    Indeed.

    To point: If this was just about drawn and animated porno, I don't think we'd see publishing houses telling their authors "Yeah, you can't have school uniforms in your romance manga anymore"

    Or see major publishers like Shueisha (do they even publish adult materials? I'm only familiar with the Jump line of manga) or Kadokawa Shoten boycotting anything to do with Tokyo.

    To be fair that school uniform line came from Sankaku Complex. It's a site that's basically yellow journalism mixed with porn. I'm not sure if I'd even give it a grain of salt without seeing another source reporting on the same matter.

    well, here's the original tweet in question:

    http://twitter.com/#!/shoko_takaku/status/13827585075052544
    @shoko_takaku
    高久尚子
    @kayuma_mimu 脇から失礼します。私は先日「都条例の件がありますので、高校生はやめてください」とはっきり駄目出しされました(漫画)。レーベルによってはもう学生服が描けないですね…。

    I can't read it, but Google Translate reads it as
    @ Shoko_takaku
    Naoko high for a long time
    @ Kayuma_Mimu excuse me from the sidelines. I recently "There is a matter of city ordinance, please do not high school" was clearly out useless (comics). I will draw the label anymore ... school uniforms.

    Sankaku translated it as:
    I was bluntly told the other day “because of the Tokyo ordinance, please stop using high school students [in your manga].” Depending on the label it seems you can’t even draw school uniforms…”

    the other "Boys Love" (Example: Gravitation, which to my knowledge isn't explicit) author mentioned in the article:
    @nekowakame
    カナ子
    どうなることやら。私は4月にコミックスの新装版発売予定がありますが、現在審議中だそうです。性描写激しいし未成年多いし。発売延期になったときからそんな予感はしてましたが、駄目になっても驚きません。
    @ Nekowakame
    child Cana
    We'll see. I have the new edition will be released in April, Comics, seems to currently under discussion. To many young and sexually violent. Feeling that since the sale was postponed I was, and surprised even become useless.
    What’s going to happen? A new edition of one of my titles was due to be published in April, but now it’s under deliberation. It has lots of sex and minors. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s cancelled.

    I would figure, despite the rather... hard time that any automated translator has with Japanese, that their translations weren't too far off.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • Mortal SkyMortal Sky Tails, You're my realest friend.Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Last page you guys were discussing the act of being able to read manga in the aisles. Let me point out that pretty much all manga in Japan is shrinkwrapped. It's pretty much so that people can't do the manga grazing thing you see in the states all the fucking time.
    You can, however, read magazines on the stand, generally including porn.

    And yes, censorship of manga that aren't meant to be necessarily adult is a big fucking deal because of all the perfectly legit series that happen to depict a titty or a sex scene somewhere. Sure it gets a lot of the fucking creepy stuff but it also takes a ton of legitimately good material with it. Even the original run of Dragonball could, in theory, be taken off of shelves depending on how they implement this.

    EDIT I should also here note that you guys really all should read the rest of the bill because it fucks with a lot more than anime and manga The scariest shit is the almost mandatory internet filters for minors.

    Kochikens wrote: »
    oh man I saw an otter with a boner at the seattle one and this kid asked his dad, IS HE EATING A HOT DOG
    and I laughed forever
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    This is probably the most damning thing about the bill:
    In September, a reporter asked Governor about his plans for resubmitting the bill that was rejected in June. “These guys [that draw manga that depict minors in sexual situations], I don’t now if you can call them artists, but if they say they can’t draw the stuff they draw [because of the new restrictions] then they aren’t real authors. I’d have to say, in one respect, they are engaged in a despicable line of work. You look at [their works] where they seem to justify perversity. I suppose there’s a demand for such products because there are people [who like that type of perversity.] Utterly contemptible.”

    Listening to Governor Ishihara describe the stuff that he’s upset over, he keeps pointing to material that won’t be subject to restriction in his new bill, since anything that is classified as an adult title is exempt.

    Remember, the new revision of the Tokyo Healthy Youth Development Ordinance is aimed toward restricting material that is available to minors and not hard core erotica.
    http://dankanemitsu.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-governor-strikes-again-gays-deficient-and-bill-opponents-need-christian-morals/

    EDIT: added the last line in the quote to drive the point right on home

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Irond: What every keeps trying to get at is that the wording of the bill makes it so that it isn't solely restricted to "Tentacle Screw 2040: Purple Tentacle's Nastytime Boogaloo." What people (and, as shown by several publishers reactions) are worried about is that even what stories you and I would consider benign are put at risk thanks to the shite wording of the law.

    Again, we've already seen the chilling effect happen with at least one publisher who told one of their authors (that we know of; I would imagine it was a company wide edict) that certain restrictions would now be put in place on what they will allow to be published because of the law's passing.

    And, personally, I don't think a chilling effect on speech is rarely, if ever, good

    if the law is not an actual censoring of anything and a final byproduct is "a chilling effect on speech" regarding sniggering and erotic portrayals of pedophelia, rape or incest as marketed to japanese children and by proxy american weeaboos, then i guess i find myself indifferent to this effect.

  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    This is probably the most damning thing about the bill:
    In September, a reporter asked Governor about his plans for resubmitting the bill that was rejected in June. “These guys [that draw manga that depict minors in sexual situations], I don’t now if you can call them artists, but if they say they can’t draw the stuff they draw [because of the new restrictions] then they aren’t real authors. I’d have to say, in one respect, they are engaged in a despicable line of work. You look at [their works] where they seem to justify perversity. I suppose there’s a demand for such products because there are people [who like that type of perversity.] Utterly contemptible.”

    Listening to Governor Ishihara describe the stuff that he’s upset over, he keeps pointing to material that won’t be subject to restriction in his new bill, since anything that is classified as an adult title is exempt.

    Remember, the new revision of the Tokyo Healthy Youth Development Ordinance is aimed toward restricting material that is available to minors and not hard core erotica.
    http://dankanemitsu.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-governor-strikes-again-gays-deficient-and-bill-opponents-need-christian-morals/

    EDIT: added the last line in the quote to drive the point right on home

    adult titles are exempt

    what is damning about this again?

  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Ascension. Ascension. Hallelujah. Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Why IW?

    Why?

    Why must you take my Smegma Princess Tentacle Loli Chronicles from me?

    Raoul Duke wrote:
    There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

    I have a tumblr.
    Check it out.
  • syndalissyndalis Corporate Shill Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I mean, I'll be sad if Berserk goes away.

    Yeah, it has occasional HORRIBLY GRAPHIC moments, but the story is good, and the artwork is haunting.

    kinect22.png
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Bill 156 – The Nonexistent Crimes Bill (Fujimoto’s Analysis Translated)
    Posted on December 5, 2010 by dankanemitsu
    Yukari Fujimoto, Associate Professor at Meiji University, published a simple and concise piece describing the current bill’s problems on her SNS blog. I got her permission to translate and reprint the the entry below. The text in [] are my notes.

    As far as I know, Professor Fujimoto is the first one to coin the expression “Nonexistent (sex) crimes bill” and I must say I think it is wonderful summarization of the the problems invovled in this bill.



    “Nonexistent Youth” Regulation is now “Nonexistent Crime” Regulation

    A new bill to revise the Tokyo Youth Healthy Development Ordinance has come up now and numerous organization have started issuing voices of opposition to the bill.

    The Japan PEN Club http://www.japanpen.or.jp/news/post_248.html
    The Tokyo Bar Association http://www.toben.or.jp/news/statement/2010/1125.html
    Publisher’s Ethics Conference http://www.jbpa.or.jp/pdf/documents/tojorei-hantai.pdf

    The contents of the bill itself has been examined below.
    http://yama-ben.cocolog-nifty.com/ooinikataru/2010/11/post-e3fa.html

    Attorney Yamaguchi has pointed out specific problems of the bill in the link below.
    http://yama-ben.cocolog-nifty.com/ooinikataru/2010/11/post-b4f0.html

    Furthermore, how the Democratic Party of Japan is currently wavering on deciding what to do with the bill has been described in the following blog. (I must warn you, it is a long read.)
    http://angels-pathway.clanteam.com/What_to_do_101123.html

    Now to the question of how I feel this current revision effort should be considered, I believe the current draft has basically focused itself on the expansion of the range of books that can be designated as being harmful publications, and in that respect it is better than the last revision bill where there was a clause included that made it a duty for the citizens of Tokyo to mutually scrutinize harmful material on a voluntary basis, which would have led to a wide spread witch hunt for nefarious books.

    However, the former limitations regarding the character’s age of being 17 and below has been removed, and now any depictions that involve sexual activity which are contrary to criminal codes and stipulations [刑罰法規] or sexual activity between close relatives that cannot marry are all subject to regulation, regardless of the age of the characters depicted, so the range of material that is subject has been undeniably expanded.

    In other words, while the last revision bill was concerned with regulating “nonexistent youth,” this time the bill is unique in targeting “nonexistent sex crimes”. So the logic is that any illegal sex acts that would be subject to penalty should be regulated even when they are only drawn on paper, and frankly that does seem to fit the bill of what kind of ideas law enforcement types might come up with, isn’t it?

    The sexual acts that are specified in criminal codes and other regulations include rape, indecent assault, prostitution, public indecency (such as having sex outdoors) and such, but also includes ordinances that govern the sexual activities of minors (i.e. sex between a minor and an adult), so the former criteria of sexual activities of nonexistent youth is still part of what would be considered subject to regulation. (However, under Tokyo’s ordinances, sexual activities between minors are not subject to penalties, so I really would like them to be more specific regarding just what exactly falls within the category of sexual activity which are contrary to criminal codes and stipulations.)

    However, the designation of harmful books must go through the [Tokyo Youth Healthy Development] Evaluation Panel, the Evaluation Panel’s judgement of what depictions would be considered as “unjustifiably glorified or exaggerated” will could enable a certain degree of limitation on the effectiveness of this regulation in how the designation is actually conducted. (But I do believe a chilling effect would still take place.)

    Another very important thing is that if this revision bill passes, the impact will be particularly concentrated on the BL [Boy's Love theme stories by and for women] genres. I am quite certain that many of you already know this, but rape and incest are common themes within BL material.

    (Now I do not believe that this revision bill was aimed specifically to target BL, and I don’t think the drafters of the bill even had that in mind, but how women, who are considered to be often victims of rape and incestuous relationships, often themselves adopt these themes in their works reveals the complexities and power involved in speech [in the form of narratives and creative fiction].

    In other words, speech is not always about the representations of objects of desire that exist in reality, nor about compelling parties to realize their desires in reality, but [the ability to engage in narrative speech] also provides to individuals who have the potential to be caught in such [abusive relations] with a means of not only simulating and learning how to control such situations, but also helping to heal wounds that were inflicted as a result of such situations.)

    Most importantly, this revision bill embodies the extremely dangerous philosophy of regulating even representations of illegal activity. While the current revision bill limits regulation to depictions of “nonexistent sex crimes”, what guarantee is there that this will stop with simply sex crimes. At first glance, the logic of “What’s wrong with regulating acts of criminal activities when they are depicted in a positive light?” does not sound very controversial, but then it would be only natural for this line of thought to lead to calling for the regulation of all depictions of criminal activity. In that case, the regulation of works that features “unjustifiable glorification and / or exaggeration of criminal activity” would lead to the One Piece and Lupin the Third being subject to restriction. I believe the most important thing to keep in mind with regarding to the current revision attempt is how can such trends be prevented from taking hold.

    One more important factor is that the regulations described above are only directed toward manga, anime and video games, and I really question why bill specifically states “live photography and filming are exempt”. So anyone doing any type of illegal sexual acts can get away scot-free as long as it involves live-action [using living actors]? What is going on here?

    Addendum: This entry was updated on Dec.8th, 2010.
    The sections reading “18 and below” should have been “17 and below”. This has been corrected.
    http://dankanemitsu.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/bill-156-the-nonexistent-crimes-bill-fujimotos-analysis-translated/

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • SlicerSlicer Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    I mean, I'll be sad if Berserk goes away.

    Yeah, it has occasional HORRIBLY GRAPHIC moments, but the story is good, and the artwork is haunting.

    Far as I know existing titles won't be grandfathered in.

    And even if that wasn't the case, I'm pretty sure Berserk wouldn't be affected by the law since it'd take a real nutcase to argue that the depictions of rape in the manga are glorifying it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Slicer wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    I mean, I'll be sad if Berserk goes away.

    Yeah, it has occasional HORRIBLY GRAPHIC moments, but the story is good, and the artwork is haunting.

    Far as I know existing titles won't be grandfathered in.

    And even if that wasn't the case, I'm pretty sure Berserk wouldn't be affected by the law since it'd take a real nutcase to argue that the depictions of rape in the manga are glorifying it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Would it fall into the "Exaggerated" aspect though?

    I haven't read Berserk myself, but to my understanding, some of the stuff I've heard about is extremely tragic and disturbing, to say the least.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • syndalissyndalis Corporate Shill Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Slicer wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    I mean, I'll be sad if Berserk goes away.

    Yeah, it has occasional HORRIBLY GRAPHIC moments, but the story is good, and the artwork is haunting.

    Far as I know existing titles won't be grandfathered in.

    And even if that wasn't the case, I'm pretty sure Berserk wouldn't be affected by the law since it'd take a real nutcase to argue that the depictions of rape in the manga are glorifying it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Would it fall into the "Exaggerated" aspect though?

    I haven't read Berserk myself, but to my understanding, some of the stuff I've heard about is extremely tragic and disturbing, to say the least.

    Some of the God Hand and critters associated are exaggerated and monstrous.

    And yeah, there has been a moment of "tentacle rape" or two in the series as a whole.

    But those moments are never painted as good in any light, the monsters committing the act are shown to be monsters incapable of humanity and are the enemy in every sense of the word, and the hero, while a violent and somewhat harsh figure, has made it his life mission to destroy these aberrants.

    It's like literally the only story that has had that element in it where I wasn't immediately turned off when it showed up. I was revolted and saddened, but I keep reading because I want to see Guts win.

    kinect22.png
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?

  • syndalissyndalis Corporate Shill Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?

    Absolutely.

    Were I to have a little syndalis, I would not want him or her flipping through my collection until they were at LEAST 16, probably 18.

    It's worse than most R rated movies at times.

    But that said, I think it should not be "ghetto'd" to adult stores. Just top shelf and shrink-wrap them, and require ID to purchase titles like this, or ones with similar levels of ... ahem... mature content.

    kinect22.png
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?

    Absolutely.

    Were I to have a little syndalis, I would not want him or her flipping through my collection until they were at LEAST 16, probably 18.

    It's worse than most R rated movies at times.

    But that said, I think it should not be "ghetto'd" to adult stores. Just top shelf and shrink-wrap them, and require ID to purchase titles like this, or ones with similar levels of ... ahem... mature content.

    I really can't get behind that at a Government level, however. Store/Company Policy? Sure. Publisher puts an age rating plus a warning label about content? Hell yes. Parent watching like a hawk over their child's media consumption? Part of the responsibilities of parenting. But a law saying "Person of x-years-old cannot buy this" just does not sit well with me on first amendment grounds. It just begins a series of precedents about what can be regulated further down the road and raw emotion begins to overwhelm critical thinking skills for those making the vote to decide what no longer has full free speech protections.

    And while I understand that the first amendment is American law, the principles behind that are something I feel should be respected by any nation and it's laws.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • syndalissyndalis Corporate Shill Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?

    Absolutely.

    Were I to have a little syndalis, I would not want him or her flipping through my collection until they were at LEAST 16, probably 18.

    It's worse than most R rated movies at times.

    But that said, I think it should not be "ghetto'd" to adult stores. Just top shelf and shrink-wrap them, and require ID to purchase titles like this, or ones with similar levels of ... ahem... mature content.

    I really can't get behind that at a Government level, however. Store Policy? Sure. Publisher puts an age rating plus a warning label about content? Hell yes. But a law saying "Person X cannot buy this" just does not sit well with me on first amendment grounds.

    And while I understand that the first amendment is American law, the principles behind that are something I feel should be respected by any nation and it's laws.
    No, lines do have to be drawn.

    Of course, I am also fine with an ID being needed to buy Grand Theft Auto if you look like a teenager, so this doesn't really feel all that different to me.

    If an industry peddling in violent / obscene content is crippled because underage consumers can't buy it without a parents supervision, that industry deserves to die.

    kinect22.png
  • B:LB:L Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?
    Self regulation can prevent sales of graphic content to children.

    The problem is that this bill restricts the sale to adults by forcing them to be sold in adult only stores, which in effect forces the publishers to stop supporting these works.

    Imagine having to go to an adult store to buy your comic books. It's terrible for the industry.

    10mvrci.png click for Anime chat
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    B:L wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?
    Self regulation can prevent sales of graphic content to children.

    The problem is that this bill restricts the sale to adults by forcing them to be sold in adult only stores, which in effect forces the publishers to stop supporting these works.

    Imagine having to go to an adult store to buy your comic books. It's terrible for the industry.

    Besides getting comic books by mail, where would one go to buy ... say ...a Punisher MAX comic book? A specialty store. You wouldn't find it on Walmart shelves.

    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • B:LB:L Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    B:L wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?
    Self regulation can prevent sales of graphic content to children.

    The problem is that this bill restricts the sale to adults by forcing them to be sold in adult only stores, which in effect forces the publishers to stop supporting these works.

    Imagine having to go to an adult store to buy your comic books. It's terrible for the industry.

    Besides getting comic books by mail, where would one go to buy ... say ...a Punisher MAX comic book? A specialty store. You wouldn't find it on Walmart shelves.
    A specialty store and an adult only store are two separate things.

    If Marvel was told that it can only sell Punisher MAX in an adult only store, they would refuse to publish it.

    10mvrci.png click for Anime chat
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    B:L wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?
    Self regulation can prevent sales of graphic content to children.

    The problem is that this bill restricts the sale to adults by forcing them to be sold in adult only stores, which in effect forces the publishers to stop supporting these works.

    Imagine having to go to an adult store to buy your comic books. It's terrible for the industry.

    i don't buy comic books

    but if i were into rape-themed comic books, or pedophile-themed comic books, i would be fine purchasing them from an adult store

    or a japanese importer, i guess

  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    B:L wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    B:L wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?
    Self regulation can prevent sales of graphic content to children.

    The problem is that this bill restricts the sale to adults by forcing them to be sold in adult only stores, which in effect forces the publishers to stop supporting these works.

    Imagine having to go to an adult store to buy your comic books. It's terrible for the industry.

    Besides getting comic books by mail, where would one go to buy ... say ...a Punisher MAX comic book? A specialty store. You wouldn't find it on Walmart shelves.
    A specialty store and an adult only store are two separate things.

    If Marvel was told that it can only sell Punisher MAX in an adult only store, they would refuse to publish it.

    probably not. back in the 80s, marvel spun off epic and DC spun off Vertigo in order to separate their adult lines from their children's lines.

    if there's enough of a market for panty shots of 12 year-old or tentacle rape (and judging by my experience this forum, there absolutely is), publishers will fill it.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    B:L wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    oh, I know that about the series, but I mean, that's kind of what we're getting at here: Under an interpretation of the bill, it seems that it doesn't have to glorify the acts; if the acts are, for lack of a better term, terrible enough, wouldn't it fall under the regulation?

    but if the acts are graphic and terrible enough, isn't it reasonable to pass a law restricting it from sale to children?
    Self regulation can prevent sales of graphic content to children.

    The problem is that this bill restricts the sale to adults by forcing them to be sold in adult only stores, which in effect forces the publishers to stop supporting these works.

    Imagine having to go to an adult store to buy your comic books. It's terrible for the industry.

    Besides getting comic books by mail, where would one go to buy ... say ...a Punisher MAX comic book? A specialty store. You wouldn't find it on Walmart shelves.

    the analogy falls apart though because the specialty store selling Punisher Max is not prevented from letting children into the store. It's only a "specialty" store in that it's primary wares are comics, not from the fact that it regulates who can and cannot purchase it's wares.

    This aspect of the problems with the bill is why the games industry was so upset with the M-Rated games bill. It wasn't about not selling it to kids, it was the fact that stores would have to completely segregate the games from where minors* could access them and, IIRC, if they could not segregate them then they could not be carried. It makes it harder to sell the titles to adults because it made them harder to search out overall.

    This of course doesn't touch on the other raised issue that what the Tokyo government finds objectionable may not actually be inappropriate for the target audience of a piece of media. For example, given the wording of the bill and the prejudices of the regulatory body, could a PG-13 love scene between two men be found to be "harmful" to children, thus prevent it's sale to minors despite the fact that it is not explicit?

    *of course, another issue with that kettle of fish meant, near as I could tell, even 17 year olds, despite being allowed under the self-regulatory practices, would be prohibited from exposure and purchase of those titles.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • B:LB:L Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    i don't buy comic books

    but if i were into rape-themed comic books, or pedophile-themed comic books, i would be fine purchasing them from an adult store

    or a japanese importer, i guess
    Well you may be fine with waltzing into an adult only store, but the industry knows that an adult-only rating is a death sentence for sales.

    I still don't think you understand WHY I'm defending these materials that are indefensible. Since the topic of comics have been brought up though, I'll link this article by Neil Gaiman:

    http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html


    You keep bringing up tentacle rape (which ALREADY is adult only and restricted from minors), yet you ignore the fact that publishers are already censoring works that contain such gross icky things as school uniforms.

    10mvrci.png click for Anime chat
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    For goodness sake Irond can you please stop trying to pull the "lol defenders pedotentacle fucking" schtick? It's not really adding anything to the conversation and all it seems to do, in my opinion, is rile up those of us trying to point out that this is a flawed law that solves none of the problems it was supposedly conceived to solve. Problems that are already dealt with by existing laws concerning the sale of adult content to minors.

    We've already pointed out this law does nothing at all to deal with actual adult content, nor have any of us here actually defended such materials getting into the hands of minors.

    EDIT: In the meantime, B:L could we at least remove the MSPaint Hitler-stache from the Tokyo Governor in the OP? it's not really helping anything here, debate-wise.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    I mean, I'll be sad if Berserk goes away.

    Yeah, it has occasional HORRIBLY GRAPHIC moments, but the story is good, and the artwork is haunting.

    This law would effect Beserk?

    sig.jpg
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    B:L wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    i don't buy comic books

    but if i were into rape-themed comic books, or pedophile-themed comic books, i would be fine purchasing them from an adult store

    or a japanese importer, i guess
    Well you may be fine with waltzing into an adult only store, but the industry knows that an adult-only rating is a death sentence for sales.

    I still don't think you understand WHY I'm defending these materials that are indefensible. Since the topic of comics have been brought up though, I'll link this article by Neil Gaiman:

    http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html


    You keep bringing up tentacle rape (which ALREADY is adult only and restricted from minors), yet you ignore the fact that publishers are already censoring works that contain such gross icky things as school uniforms.

    your citation of the school uniforms thing was an isolated reflexive reaction by a single publisher as far as we know. i'm certain that kids stories revolving around "schoolgirls having adventures" would be perfectly legal - as long as they weren't getting raped or whatever else.

    i personally think that adult dudes' obsessions about schoolgirls getting raped is pretty fucking creepy. but if it's legal in japan and they want to restrict the sale of such things to such a degree that they are removing them from kids' comic stores and making them mail-order or adult store-only then i am really 100% fine with that.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    I mean, I'll be sad if Berserk goes away.

    Yeah, it has occasional HORRIBLY GRAPHIC moments, but the story is good, and the artwork is haunting.

    This law would effect Beserk?

    Theoretically.

    Again, that's the problem with this bill: The wording leaves it extremely vague as to what works would be considered and seems, from what I've read, to hinge on the prejudices of the deciding panel

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    For goodness sake Irond can you please stop trying to pull the "lol defenders pedotentacle fucking" schtick? It's not really adding anything to the conversation and all it seems to do, in my opinion, is rile up those of us trying to point out that this is a flawed law that solves none of the problems it was supposedly conceived to solve. Problems that are already dealt with by existing laws concerning the sale of adult content to minors.

    We've already pointed out this law does nothing at all to deal with actual adult content, nor have any of us here actually defended such materials getting into the hands of minors.

    EDIT: In the meantime, B:L could we at least remove the MSPaint Hitler-stache from the Tokyo Governor in the OP? it's not really helping anything here, debate-wise.

    but the pedotentacle thing is germane. it's not that the law does nothing to deal with adult content - it does! the problem that you have with it is that it might possibly catch some stuff in its net that you don't find to be objectionable (and we would very likely disagree on the objectionability of some of these things)

    i mean, there is a lot of really objectionable and weird stuff coming out of japan's animation industry. they are famous for it at this point! if a tokyo politician is pushing to subject it to harsher limits and restrict its sale to adult-only stores, i think that's fine.

    i mean, even the weird stuff isn't going to be banned under this law - it's just going to be restricted to adults. and i think that's reasonable.

This discussion has been closed.