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.
(facepalm)
Please, Will...stop trolling the thread. You are better than this. You know very well that the material you have been harping on is already covered by laws covering prurient material. This is just "think of the children" bullshit being used to push a bullshit agenda.
And do us all a favor and watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Maybe then you'll understand the actual issues involved.
I really need to get a copy of that for my personal library sometime. Fantastic documentary on this whole issue and the horrors that can go wrong even within a self-regulatory body.
Corrected the movie title. Darren Aronofsky, and it's on Netflix instant streaming?
I'll watch it tonight and see if there's additional insights I can post for this topic.
B:L on
click for Anime chat
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
For the record, the comics code was a voluntary self-policing organization and did not "not allow" anything to be published.
I'm certain those companies who could no longer sell their comics anthologies and had to go out of business because no one would stock their comics due to not being CCA approved took great comfort in that outlook.
wait
a private organization, in response to consumer outcry, created a system in which they would certify certain comic titles to be "fit for children" based on their content
and this is objectionable to you?
Why not? Labeling media as "fit for children" (and thus implying that anything else is not "fit for children") has a direct impact on (a) what is created and (b) how profitable each class of media becomes. Again, you are hand waving the negative aspects of a ratings system because you see a positive in it. It's fine to argue that there is a positive, but there is also a very tangible downside.
And beyond that, I don't really know if I trust any group or individual to tell me what is fit for my children. How do they know? What does "fit for children" mean? Which children? Are all children homogeneous?
you, as a parent, or as a merchant, or as a consumer are free to disregard - or even mock - their recommendations
Please, Will...stop trolling the thread. You are better than this. You know very well that the material you have been harping on is already covered by laws covering prurient material. This is just "think of the children" bullshit being used to push a bullshit agenda.
And do us all a favor and watch This Movie Is Not Yet Rated. Maybe then you'll understand the actual issues involved.
as far as i know, the only changes that this brings to the current law is that it expands the scope of material that could be found objectionable, and removes such objectionable material to adults-only stores.
given what i've seen of media out of japan, it seems like a reasonable law. if i had kids, i wouldn't want them exposed to a lot of that shit.
Just because something sits on a shelf somewhere doesn't mean your kids will be exposed to it. Something existing doesn't mean automatic exposure. To this day, I have never seen tubgirl or lensman. And I never will. And those two things are everywhere, from what I understand.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
i am basically okay with the kinds of "chilling effects" you are talking about. publishers who target the largest audience will need to make sure that their content falls within the domain of their target audience, and niche producers will create products for their niche audiences.
people have the right to whatever artistic expression they want, but they don't have the right to have the products of their expression be carried by all retailers, and they don't have the right to sell it to people who would object to its content under false pretenses.
if L4D2 passed some upper threshold of distubing imagery, i think it's fine that they were asked to dial it back or deal with the consequences of making an AO-rated game.
I completely agree that they nobody has the "right" to publication or to be sold retail. My voice, in this country, cannot actually be suffocated. I can self-publish if I wish. No one "owes" me a spot on their shelf, so to speak. That, to me, is not an aspect of freedom of expression.
But why should an artist feel forced to write for any particular audience? Art shouldn't be compartmentalized.
an artist is never forced to write for an audience
but if they want their work to be commercially viable, it's generally necessary to consider the intended audience
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
as far as i know, the only changes that this brings to the current law is that it expands the scope of material that could be found objectionable, and removes such objectionable material to adults-only stores.
given what i've seen of media out of japan, it seems like a reasonable law. if i had kids, i wouldn't want them exposed to a lot of that shit.
Just because something sits on a shelf somewhere doesn't mean your kids will be exposed to it. Something existing doesn't mean automatic exposure. To this day, I have never seen tubgirl or lensman. And I never will. And those two things are everywhere, from what I understand.
?
Irond Will on
0
Options
SpectrumArcher of InfernoChaldea Rec RoomRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
Spectrum on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Please, Will...stop trolling the thread. You are better than this. You know very well that the material you have been harping on is already covered by laws covering prurient material. This is just "think of the children" bullshit being used to push a bullshit agenda.
And do us all a favor and watch This Movie Is Not Yet Rated. Maybe then you'll understand the actual issues involved.
as far as i know, the only changes that this brings to the current law is that it expands the scope of material that could be found objectionable, and removes such objectionable material to adults-only stores.
given what i've seen of media out of japan, it seems like a reasonable law. if i had kids, i wouldn't want them exposed to a lot of that shit.
Just because something sits on a shelf somewhere doesn't mean your kids will be exposed to it. Something existing doesn't mean automatic exposure. To this day, I have never seen tubgirl or lensman. And I never will. And those two things are everywhere, from what I understand.
we have laws in this country in most states and cities relegating some types of pornographic media to adult-only stores.
do you feel this to be an undue abridgement of citizens' rights?
hell, times square doesn't allow porn stores any more. has this had a terrible effect on the center of the city?
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.
No, I saw that. I just don't really think it has much to do with the bill. Lots of politicians say lots of things that never happen. Many politicians were calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage a few years back in this country. They were serious about pushing it. And it didn't happen.
I realize the political structures of our two countries are probably different (I don't know the subtleties), but you get my meaning. Perhaps we can stick to what the bill actually says instead of using things that haven't happened and might never happen as arguments?
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
For the record, the comics code was a voluntary self-policing organization and did not "not allow" anything to be published.
I'm certain those companies who could no longer sell their comics anthologies and had to go out of business because no one would stock their comics due to not being CCA approved took great comfort in that outlook.
wait
a private organization, in response to consumer outcry, created a system in which they would certify certain comic titles to be "fit for children" based on their content
and this is objectionable to you?
Why not? Labeling media as "fit for children" (and thus implying that anything else is not "fit for children") has a direct impact on (a) what is created and (b) how profitable each class of media becomes. Again, you are hand waving the negative aspects of a ratings system because you see a positive in it. It's fine to argue that there is a positive, but there is also a very tangible downside.
And beyond that, I don't really know if I trust any group or individual to tell me what is fit for my children. How do they know? What does "fit for children" mean? Which children? Are all children homogeneous?
you, as a parent, or as a merchant, or as a consumer are free to disregard - or even mock - their recommendations
Of course. But the problem is that such ratings systems, and labels, and laws, are actively harmful to the creation of art. It is more complicated than simply saying "well, parents can choose to ignore it or not." That is true, sure, but the market shapes itself around these ratings, and expression sometimes shapes itself around the market. A very simple example is the "fuck" rule for PG-13 ratings. There is a semi-hard rule in which you can only have one of the seriously-bad swear words in your film, or it will get an R rating. There is some leeway, if the MPAA board votes a 2/3 majority to allow more than one instance of "fuck" or "cunt" or whatever, but for the most part, there is a 1-word limit for retaining a PG-13 rating.
It's entirely possible to use such words in an artistic manner in a movie that is entirely appropriate for the 13+ age crowd. But a writer, director, and the producers generally won't tempt fate. So they will euphemize, or rewrite, or whatever. Is that a good thing? I don't believe it is.
Also, I'd heard the word fuck so many times by the time I was 13 that such a rule is completely fucking ridiculous to me.
Please, Will...stop trolling the thread. You are better than this. You know very well that the material you have been harping on is already covered by laws covering prurient material. This is just "think of the children" bullshit being used to push a bullshit agenda.
And do us all a favor and watch This Movie Is Not Yet Rated. Maybe then you'll understand the actual issues involved.
as far as i know, the only changes that this brings to the current law is that it expands the scope of material that could be found objectionable, and removes such objectionable material to adults-only stores.
given what i've seen of media out of japan, it seems like a reasonable law. if i had kids, i wouldn't want them exposed to a lot of that shit.
Except that the expansion of the scope is overly broad. Furthermore, the prurient material is already covered by other, properly tailored laws. And it's been shown time and time again that when you restrict access of content for adults, it has a massive negative effect on the production of content for adults.
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.
No, I saw that. I just don't really think it has much to do with the bill. Lots of politicians say lots of things that never happen. Many politicians were calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage a few years back in this country. They were serious about pushing it. And it didn't happen.
I realize the political structures of our two countries are probably different (I don't know the subtleties), but you get my meaning. Perhaps we can stick to what the bill actually says instead of using things that haven't happened and might never happen as arguments?
I believe it's been mentioned that he will appoint the council himself. It's like giving someone like Dana White the ability to appoint judges in a UFC fight against Fedor.
It's not exactly a stretch to imagine how things will go.
B:L on
click for Anime chat
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
For the record, the comics code was a voluntary self-policing organization and did not "not allow" anything to be published.
I'm certain those companies who could no longer sell their comics anthologies and had to go out of business because no one would stock their comics due to not being CCA approved took great comfort in that outlook.
I often worry about whether or not I am hurting the feelings of companies.
Please, Will...stop trolling the thread. You are better than this. You know very well that the material you have been harping on is already covered by laws covering prurient material. This is just "think of the children" bullshit being used to push a bullshit agenda.
And do us all a favor and watch This Movie Is Not Yet Rated. Maybe then you'll understand the actual issues involved.
as far as i know, the only changes that this brings to the current law is that it expands the scope of material that could be found objectionable, and removes such objectionable material to adults-only stores.
given what i've seen of media out of japan, it seems like a reasonable law. if i had kids, i wouldn't want them exposed to a lot of that shit.
Just because something sits on a shelf somewhere doesn't mean your kids will be exposed to it. Something existing doesn't mean automatic exposure. To this day, I have never seen tubgirl or lensman. And I never will. And those two things are everywhere, from what I understand.
we have laws in this country in most states and cities relegating some types of pornographic media to adult-only stores.
do you feel this to be an undue abridgement of citizens' rights?
hell, times square doesn't allow porn stores any more. has this had a terrible effect on the center of the city?
My honest answer is yes. I think Giuliani's initiative to "clean the city" was pretty obnoxious and the intense amount of excessively shady pressure the city still puts on any Times Square business that dares falls outside of their "squeaky-clean" ideal for the area has actually made it a less pleasant place to be in.
Especially at lunchtime when I have to elbow through millions of tourists just to get a sandwich.
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
Wait what? What if the movie is animated?
...what if it's claymated?!
Or machinima? Posed plastic figures Robot Chicken style?
There's gotta be a loophole in that. Next up on TokyoTV, it's part four of the sixty-third Naruto Movie. Don't miss the exciting conclusion in part five, tomorrow at the same time. And part one of the sixty-fourth Naruto movie will be airing the day afterward.
For the record, the comics code was a voluntary self-policing organization and did not "not allow" anything to be published.
I'm certain those companies who could no longer sell their comics anthologies and had to go out of business because no one would stock their comics due to not being CCA approved took great comfort in that outlook.
I often worry about whether or not I am hurting the feelings of companies.
Or the employees of said companies who no longer have a job.
You could call it similar to the distinction between an R-rating and a MA-rating for movies. Leaving aside the question of whether or not you believe the materials in question deserve this kind of censorship, getting slapped with an MA-rating for a movie is pretty much a death sentence.
Also, there's alot of hyperbole being thrown around as to what the law is targeting. It's certainly not going after "rape/incest porn".
Well it certainly isn't going after legal sex acts between unrelated, consenting partners; since it only targets 'exaggerated depictions or glorification of illegal sexual acts, or sexual acts between close relatives'
Perhaps the lack of understanding here is that we cannot conceive of a child-friendly comic book that is based on any of that. I can't, but I'm willing to hear some examples.
The framing of 'child-friendly' is fairly limiting, to be quite frank. There are many stories that would be suitable for 17 year olds to think about (specifically how you really shouldn't be doing this shit), but who would be blocked under this ordnance. For example, a manga adaptation of the Tale of Genji would certainly not be available.
Additionally, while the wording is going after "glorification or exaggerated depictions", it seems unlikely to me that if it is enforced, they wouldn't go after even negative and/or realistic (and horrible) depictions of such acts as well due to the likely difficulty in proving interpretation.
Not sure if "child friendly" is the term I would use, but the series Koi Kaze had a realistic depiction of the issues surrounding a brother-sister romance. And it was actually brought over to the US.
Thanks, thought I posted this, I apparently did not. "Child-friendly" is, admittedly, a completely subjective metric; but I can't think of any other way to frame it. It is also a terrible generalization, given that the 'children' in question are anywhere from 0-17. Which raises the question: Is there any rating between 'E' and 'AO' in this system?
As to those two series: Does KK, in your opinion, actually 'glorify' their sexual relationship, though? How does Genji run afoul of this regulation?
Of course. But the problem is that such ratings systems, and labels, and laws, are actively harmful to the creation of art. It is more complicated than simply saying "well, parents can choose to ignore it or not." That is true, sure, but the market shapes itself around these ratings, and expression sometimes shapes itself around the market. A very simple example is the "fuck" rule for PG-13 ratings. There is a semi-hard rule in which you can only have one of the seriously-bad swear words in your film, or it will get an R rating. There is some leeway, if the MPAA board votes a 2/3 majority to allow more than one instance of "fuck" or "cunt" or whatever, but for the most part, there is a 1-word limit for retaining a PG-13 rating.
It's entirely possible to use such words in an artistic manner in a movie that is entirely appropriate for the 13+ age crowd. But a writer, director, and the producers generally won't tempt fate. So they will euphemize, or rewrite, or whatever. Is that a good thing? I don't believe it is.
Also, I'd heard the word fuck so many times by the time I was 13 that such a rule is completely fucking ridiculous to me.
i'm fairly indifferent to coarse language in general. if i had kids, i might have a different view (when i hear little kids cursing like sailors it kind of bothers me).
i guess i like the way the ESRB does it - has a blanket rating and then a breakdown of what might be considered objectionable. it seems like a sensible system.
hell, times square doesn't allow porn stores any more. has this had a terrible effect on the center of the city?
You...you do realize that the Disneyification of Times Square (literally in some cases) is still a topic of discontent among New Yorkers, right?
I work in Times Square and I goddamn hate it.
Do I want hookers and drug pushers lurching around Times Square? No, I don't. But what we have now is possibly worse, in the opposite direction.
For instance, I'll take a big fat sex club selling floppy donkey dildos over that horrendous M&M store on the corner that sells M&Ms for like $18 a pound.
Of course. But the problem is that such ratings systems, and labels, and laws, are actively harmful to the creation of art. It is more complicated than simply saying "well, parents can choose to ignore it or not." That is true, sure, but the market shapes itself around these ratings, and expression sometimes shapes itself around the market. A very simple example is the "fuck" rule for PG-13 ratings. There is a semi-hard rule in which you can only have one of the seriously-bad swear words in your film, or it will get an R rating. There is some leeway, if the MPAA board votes a 2/3 majority to allow more than one instance of "fuck" or "cunt" or whatever, but for the most part, there is a 1-word limit for retaining a PG-13 rating.
It's entirely possible to use such words in an artistic manner in a movie that is entirely appropriate for the 13+ age crowd. But a writer, director, and the producers generally won't tempt fate. So they will euphemize, or rewrite, or whatever. Is that a good thing? I don't believe it is.
Also, I'd heard the word fuck so many times by the time I was 13 that such a rule is completely fucking ridiculous to me.
i'm fairly indifferent to coarse language in general. if i had kids, i might have a different view (when i hear little kids cursing like sailors it kind of bothers me).
i guess i like the way the ESRB does it - has a blanket rating and then a breakdown of what might be considered objectionable. it seems like a sensible system.
I think the ESRB does a better job than the MPAA, and I think the MPAA has a near-total disconnect from society anyway, but the ESRB still has its problems.
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
just another piece of evidence, in my opinion, that the law is BS and has no real intent of doing what it claims to do.
EDIT: Also, it's Books and Live-Action media, not "movies"
EDIT: ah, already addressed in the post below mine
Lanz on
0
Options
SpectrumArcher of InfernoChaldea Rec RoomRegistered Userregular
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
Wait what? What if the movie is animated?
...what if it's claymated?!
Or machinima? Posed plastic figures Robot Chicken style?
There's gotta be a loophole in that. Next up on TokyoTV, it's part four of the sixty-third Naruto Movie. Don't miss the exciting conclusion in part five, tomorrow at the same time. And part one of the sixty-fourth Naruto movie will be airing the day afterward.
The distinction was actors vs animated, sorry if that wasn't clear.
As to those two series: Does KK, in your opinion, actually 'glorify' their sexual relationship, though? How does Genji run afoul of this regulation?
I would imagine that a manga of Genji, if a new one was made true to the source, would potentially fall under this law due to the RAEP by the protagonist. A movie, of course, would be exempt.
Spectrum on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Please, Will...stop trolling the thread. You are better than this. You know very well that the material you have been harping on is already covered by laws covering prurient material. This is just "think of the children" bullshit being used to push a bullshit agenda.
And do us all a favor and watch This Movie Is Not Yet Rated. Maybe then you'll understand the actual issues involved.
as far as i know, the only changes that this brings to the current law is that it expands the scope of material that could be found objectionable, and removes such objectionable material to adults-only stores.
given what i've seen of media out of japan, it seems like a reasonable law. if i had kids, i wouldn't want them exposed to a lot of that shit.
Except that the expansion of the scope is overly broad. Furthermore, the prurient material is already covered by other, properly tailored laws. And it's been shown time and time again that when you restrict access of content for adults, it has a massive negative effect on the production of content for adults.
And finally, society is not your babysitter.
the jury is still out on whether the scope is "too broad" in the first place, and there is legitimate and reasonable disagreement on what should or should not be covered in the second place.
and if the people of tokyo want laws making it harder for their kids to get porn or other objectionable material, who are you to spout sophistry like "society isn't your babysitter" to them?
face it, at the end of the day all you guys care about is making sure that your pipeline of schoolgirl adventures doesn't get cut off.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
just another piece of evidence, in my opinion, that the law is BS and has no real intent of doing what it claims to do.
my ladyfriend watches a lot of japanese movies (mostly horror films, admittedly)
i don't remember rape or incest or pedophelia being a really central theme in any of them
is it possible that the law was tailored to the specific types of media where the problems were occuring?
Irond Will on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
For the record, the comics code was a voluntary self-policing organization and did not "not allow" anything to be published.
I'm certain those companies who could no longer sell their comics anthologies and had to go out of business because no one would stock their comics due to not being CCA approved took great comfort in that outlook.
I often worry about whether or not I am hurting the feelings of companies.
Or the employees of said companies who no longer have a job.
I missed the part where they are owed jobs doing that. Are you seriously suggesting, Beel, that there is a great injustice in people losing their jobs when nobody wants to buy or stock their company's product? Think carefully before answering!
Hilariously, though, this is not actually what happened in the comics code case anyway. All of one company was serious affected by the Comics Code - EC, whose stock in trade was marketing extremely graphic shock and horror comics (with a dollop of risque sexuality) towards children - and their publisher and employees went on to much greater fame and financial success a few years later with MAD Magazine anyway.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
SpectrumArcher of InfernoChaldea Rec RoomRegistered Userregular
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
just another piece of evidence, in my opinion, that the law is BS and has no real intent of doing what it claims to do.
my ladyfriend watches a lot of japanese movies (mostly horror films, admittedly)
i don't remember rape or incest or pedophelia being a really central theme in any of them
is it possible that the law was tailored to the specific types of media where the problems were occuring?
Yeah, I mean, because your ladyfriend doesn't watch a movie containing it or you can't remember it, that means there's totally nothing there.
There's graphic AO shit on regular JP TV that isn't being affected, as compared to the broad based stuff that this law is targeting. It's incredibly vaguely written.
Spectrum on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
just another piece of evidence, in my opinion, that the law is BS and has no real intent of doing what it claims to do.
my ladyfriend watches a lot of japanese movies (mostly horror films, admittedly)
i don't remember rape or incest or pedophelia being a really central theme in any of them
is it possible that the law was tailored to the specific types of media where the problems were occuring?
Yeah, I mean, because your ladyfriend doesn't watch a movie containing it or you can't remember it, that means there's totally nothing there.
There's graphic AO shit on regular JP TV that isn't being affected, as compared to the broad based stuff that this law is targeting. It's incredibly vaguely written.
so if there is routinely offensive AO stuff being pushed on kids on japanese tv
For the record, the comics code was a voluntary self-policing organization and did not "not allow" anything to be published.
I'm certain those companies who could no longer sell their comics anthologies and had to go out of business because no one would stock their comics due to not being CCA approved took great comfort in that outlook.
I often worry about whether or not I am hurting the feelings of companies.
However, I often worry about whether or not a policy hurts the livelihood and expression of artists producing works that do not harm people or the public and get demonized wrongly for society's ills, as well as the harm done to an artistic medium as a result of that witch hunt. Which one could argue the CCA did to the comics industry.
Sure, the underground comics scene arose for those artists but I'd like to ask this: Should it have been their only viable venue?
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
Wait what? What if the movie is animated?
...what if it's claymated?!
Or machinima? Posed plastic figures Robot Chicken style?
There's gotta be a loophole in that. Next up on TokyoTV, it's part four of the sixty-third Naruto Movie. Don't miss the exciting conclusion in part five, tomorrow at the same time. And part one of the sixty-fourth Naruto movie will be airing the day afterward.
A correction I should have noted earlier I believe the (rather bullshit) exceptions are written books and live-action works. Whether something is a "movie" or not is not a basis for exception
Lanz on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
For the record, the comics code was a voluntary self-policing organization and did not "not allow" anything to be published.
I'm certain those companies who could no longer sell their comics anthologies and had to go out of business because no one would stock their comics due to not being CCA approved took great comfort in that outlook.
I often worry about whether or not I am hurting the feelings of companies.
However, I often worry about whether or not a policy hurts the livelihood and expression of artists producing works that do not harm people or the public and get demonized wrongly for society's ills, as well as the harm done to an artistic medium as a result of that witch hunt. Which one could argue the CCA did to the comics industry.
Sure, the underground comics scene arose for those artists but I'd like to ask this: Should it have been their only viable venue?
Because I don't think it should have been.
That's great! Build a time machine and start the direct market ten years early.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
SpectrumArcher of InfernoChaldea Rec RoomRegistered Userregular
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
just another piece of evidence, in my opinion, that the law is BS and has no real intent of doing what it claims to do.
my ladyfriend watches a lot of japanese movies (mostly horror films, admittedly)
i don't remember rape or incest or pedophelia being a really central theme in any of them
is it possible that the law was tailored to the specific types of media where the problems were occuring?
Yeah, I mean, because your ladyfriend doesn't watch a movie containing it or you can't remember it, that means there's totally nothing there.
There's graphic AO shit on regular JP TV that isn't being affected, as compared to the broad based stuff that this law is targeting. It's incredibly vaguely written.
so if there is routinely offensive AO stuff being pushed on kids on japanese tv
then why is there an outcry about animes?
People pushing an agenda and because people who enjoy anime are considered an acceptable demographic to go after.
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.
No, I saw that. I just don't really think it has much to do with the bill. Lots of politicians say lots of things that never happen. Many politicians were calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage a few years back in this country. They were serious about pushing it. And it didn't happen.
I realize the political structures of our two countries are probably different (I don't know the subtleties), but you get my meaning. Perhaps we can stick to what the bill actually says instead of using things that haven't happened and might never happen as arguments?
I believe it's been mentioned that he will appoint the council himself. It's like giving someone like Dana White the ability to appoint judges in a UFC fight against Fedor.
It's not exactly a stretch to imagine how things will go.
Yes, someone did mention that. However, I'm pretty sure they said that they think he appoints the council. I would like to see some confirmation of that particular idea before we start talking about it like it's a certainty. Otherwise (like a few other things in this thread), it will be both taken for granted and incorrect.
So...does anyone have confirmation that he will appoint the council?
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
For the record, the comics code was a voluntary self-policing organization and did not "not allow" anything to be published.
I'm certain those companies who could no longer sell their comics anthologies and had to go out of business because no one would stock their comics due to not being CCA approved took great comfort in that outlook.
I often worry about whether or not I am hurting the feelings of companies.
Or the employees of said companies who no longer have a job.
I missed the part where they are owed jobs doing that. Are you seriously suggesting, Beel, that there is a great injustice in people losing their jobs when nobody wants to buy or stock their company's product? Think carefully before answering!
Hilariously, though, this is not actually what happened in the comics code case anyway. All of one company was serious affected by the Comics Code - EC, whose stock in trade was marketing extremely graphic shock and horror comics (with a dollop of risque sexuality) towards children - and their publisher and employees went on to much greater fame and financial success a few years later with MAD Magazine anyway.
There is a very large difference between "nobody wants to buy your product" and "the industry is colluding to prevent you from selling your product", jacob. The CCA's ultimate failure was that Stan Lee would go on to show how toothless that agreement was - other rating systems in the US do have teeth, and have done a lot to constrain what can be shown in popular media.
And if you think the impact of the CCA was restricted to EC alone (and they were barely able to get MAD out from under the thumb of the CCA), take a stroll through Superdickery sometime. A lot of the absolute dreck that DC and Timely/Marvel put out in the 50s and 60s was directly due to the CCA.
Please, Will...stop trolling the thread. You are better than this. You know very well that the material you have been harping on is already covered by laws covering prurient material. This is just "think of the children" bullshit being used to push a bullshit agenda.
And do us all a favor and watch This Movie Is Not Yet Rated. Maybe then you'll understand the actual issues involved.
as far as i know, the only changes that this brings to the current law is that it expands the scope of material that could be found objectionable, and removes such objectionable material to adults-only stores.
given what i've seen of media out of japan, it seems like a reasonable law. if i had kids, i wouldn't want them exposed to a lot of that shit.
Except that the expansion of the scope is overly broad. Furthermore, the prurient material is already covered by other, properly tailored laws. And it's been shown time and time again that when you restrict access of content for adults, it has a massive negative effect on the production of content for adults.
And finally, society is not your babysitter.
the jury is still out on whether the scope is "too broad" in the first place, and there is legitimate and reasonable disagreement on what should or should not be covered in the second place.
and if the people of tokyo want laws making it harder for their kids to get porn or other objectionable material, who are you to spout sophistry like "society isn't your babysitter" to them?
face it, at the end of the day all you guys care about is making sure that your pipeline of schoolgirl adventures doesn't get cut off.
Do we really have to keep going there?
Do we really have to keep undermining the other side of the argument with petty attempts at rug-pulling?
If this law were to actually ensure that the schoolgirls in those schoolgirl-adventures would wear some fucking pants, and maybe that the wind in Japanese drawings of children in skirts would stop blowing directly upward on a regular fucking basis, I would be all for it. But that isn't what this law is.
To address an earlier point regarding graphical depiction of events, please keep in mind that this law is singling out only manga, anime, and video games. It does *not* apply to movies.
just another piece of evidence, in my opinion, that the law is BS and has no real intent of doing what it claims to do.
my ladyfriend watches a lot of japanese movies (mostly horror films, admittedly)
i don't remember rape or incest or pedophelia being a really central theme in any of them
is it possible that the law was tailored to the specific types of media where the problems were occuring?
Yeah, I mean, because your ladyfriend doesn't watch a movie containing it or you can't remember it, that means there's totally nothing there.
There's graphic AO shit on regular JP TV that isn't being affected, as compared to the broad based stuff that this law is targeting. It's incredibly vaguely written.
so if there is routinely offensive AO stuff being pushed on kids on japanese tv
then why is there an outcry about animes?
In this case? Because what came up before in teh thread: The bill came up this summer initially as the "Nonexistent Child" act or somesuch, and dealt with legislating away lolicon anime and manga. It failed to pass. It was then revived as this mutated "Nonexistent Sex Crimes" act.
near as I can tell, it doesn't actually regulate lolicon now, even. It's possible the focus on anime, manga and games is a vestigial artifact of it's original form.
Lanz on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
If this law were to actually ensure that the schoolgirls in those schoolgirl-adventures would wear some fucking pants, and maybe that the wind in Japanese drawings of children in skirts would stop blowing directly upward on a regular fucking basis, I would be all for it. But that isn't what this law is.
it sounds like the law would make companies a little nervous about gratuitous schoolgirl panty shots in their for-kids titles, because they might find the title in question only sold in adults-only stores
which sounds just fine to me
Irond Will on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
If this law were to actually ensure that the schoolgirls in those schoolgirl-adventures would wear some fucking pants, and maybe that the wind in Japanese drawings of children in skirts would stop blowing directly upward on a regular fucking basis, I would be all for it. But that isn't what this law is.
it sounds like the law would make companies a little nervous about gratuitous schoolgirl panty shots in their for-kids titles, because they might find the title in question only sold in adults-only stores
which sounds just fine to me
What current anime or manga series are people worried about being impacted?
Posts
I'll watch it tonight and see if there's additional insights I can post for this topic.
you, as a parent, or as a merchant, or as a consumer are free to disregard - or even mock - their recommendations
the way i do with these guys
Just because something sits on a shelf somewhere doesn't mean your kids will be exposed to it. Something existing doesn't mean automatic exposure. To this day, I have never seen tubgirl or lensman. And I never will. And those two things are everywhere, from what I understand.
an artist is never forced to write for an audience
but if they want their work to be commercially viable, it's generally necessary to consider the intended audience
?
we have laws in this country in most states and cities relegating some types of pornographic media to adult-only stores.
do you feel this to be an undue abridgement of citizens' rights?
hell, times square doesn't allow porn stores any more. has this had a terrible effect on the center of the city?
No, I saw that. I just don't really think it has much to do with the bill. Lots of politicians say lots of things that never happen. Many politicians were calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage a few years back in this country. They were serious about pushing it. And it didn't happen.
I realize the political structures of our two countries are probably different (I don't know the subtleties), but you get my meaning. Perhaps we can stick to what the bill actually says instead of using things that haven't happened and might never happen as arguments?
Of course. But the problem is that such ratings systems, and labels, and laws, are actively harmful to the creation of art. It is more complicated than simply saying "well, parents can choose to ignore it or not." That is true, sure, but the market shapes itself around these ratings, and expression sometimes shapes itself around the market. A very simple example is the "fuck" rule for PG-13 ratings. There is a semi-hard rule in which you can only have one of the seriously-bad swear words in your film, or it will get an R rating. There is some leeway, if the MPAA board votes a 2/3 majority to allow more than one instance of "fuck" or "cunt" or whatever, but for the most part, there is a 1-word limit for retaining a PG-13 rating.
It's entirely possible to use such words in an artistic manner in a movie that is entirely appropriate for the 13+ age crowd. But a writer, director, and the producers generally won't tempt fate. So they will euphemize, or rewrite, or whatever. Is that a good thing? I don't believe it is.
Also, I'd heard the word fuck so many times by the time I was 13 that such a rule is completely fucking ridiculous to me.
Except that the expansion of the scope is overly broad. Furthermore, the prurient material is already covered by other, properly tailored laws. And it's been shown time and time again that when you restrict access of content for adults, it has a massive negative effect on the production of content for adults.
And finally, society is not your babysitter.
It's not exactly a stretch to imagine how things will go.
I often worry about whether or not I am hurting the feelings of companies.
My honest answer is yes. I think Giuliani's initiative to "clean the city" was pretty obnoxious and the intense amount of excessively shady pressure the city still puts on any Times Square business that dares falls outside of their "squeaky-clean" ideal for the area has actually made it a less pleasant place to be in.
Especially at lunchtime when I have to elbow through millions of tourists just to get a sandwich.
Wait what? What if the movie is animated?
...what if it's claymated?!
Or machinima? Posed plastic figures Robot Chicken style?
There's gotta be a loophole in that. Next up on TokyoTV, it's part four of the sixty-third Naruto Movie. Don't miss the exciting conclusion in part five, tomorrow at the same time. And part one of the sixty-fourth Naruto movie will be airing the day afterward.
Thanks, thought I posted this, I apparently did not. "Child-friendly" is, admittedly, a completely subjective metric; but I can't think of any other way to frame it. It is also a terrible generalization, given that the 'children' in question are anywhere from 0-17. Which raises the question: Is there any rating between 'E' and 'AO' in this system?
As to those two series: Does KK, in your opinion, actually 'glorify' their sexual relationship, though? How does Genji run afoul of this regulation?
You...you do realize that the Disneyification of Times Square (literally in some cases) is still a topic of discontent among New Yorkers, right?
i'm fairly indifferent to coarse language in general. if i had kids, i might have a different view (when i hear little kids cursing like sailors it kind of bothers me).
i guess i like the way the ESRB does it - has a blanket rating and then a breakdown of what might be considered objectionable. it seems like a sensible system.
I work in Times Square and I goddamn hate it.
Do I want hookers and drug pushers lurching around Times Square? No, I don't. But what we have now is possibly worse, in the opposite direction.
For instance, I'll take a big fat sex club selling floppy donkey dildos over that horrendous M&M store on the corner that sells M&Ms for like $18 a pound.
I think the ESRB does a better job than the MPAA, and I think the MPAA has a near-total disconnect from society anyway, but the ESRB still has its problems.
just another piece of evidence, in my opinion, that the law is BS and has no real intent of doing what it claims to do.
EDIT: Also, it's Books and Live-Action media, not "movies"
EDIT: ah, already addressed in the post below mine
I would imagine that a manga of Genji, if a new one was made true to the source, would potentially fall under this law due to the RAEP by the protagonist. A movie, of course, would be exempt.
the jury is still out on whether the scope is "too broad" in the first place, and there is legitimate and reasonable disagreement on what should or should not be covered in the second place.
and if the people of tokyo want laws making it harder for their kids to get porn or other objectionable material, who are you to spout sophistry like "society isn't your babysitter" to them?
face it, at the end of the day all you guys care about is making sure that your pipeline of schoolgirl adventures doesn't get cut off.
oh yeah. but i don't really care. i like it a lot better than i did.
my ladyfriend watches a lot of japanese movies (mostly horror films, admittedly)
i don't remember rape or incest or pedophelia being a really central theme in any of them
is it possible that the law was tailored to the specific types of media where the problems were occuring?
I missed the part where they are owed jobs doing that. Are you seriously suggesting, Beel, that there is a great injustice in people losing their jobs when nobody wants to buy or stock their company's product? Think carefully before answering!
Hilariously, though, this is not actually what happened in the comics code case anyway. All of one company was serious affected by the Comics Code - EC, whose stock in trade was marketing extremely graphic shock and horror comics (with a dollop of risque sexuality) towards children - and their publisher and employees went on to much greater fame and financial success a few years later with MAD Magazine anyway.
There's graphic AO shit on regular JP TV that isn't being affected, as compared to the broad based stuff that this law is targeting. It's incredibly vaguely written.
so if there is routinely offensive AO stuff being pushed on kids on japanese tv
then why is there an outcry about animes?
However, I often worry about whether or not a policy hurts the livelihood and expression of artists producing works that do not harm people or the public and get demonized wrongly for society's ills, as well as the harm done to an artistic medium as a result of that witch hunt. Which one could argue the CCA did to the comics industry.
Sure, the underground comics scene arose for those artists but I'd like to ask this: Should it have been their only viable venue?
Because I don't think it should have been.
A correction I should have noted earlier I believe the (rather bullshit) exceptions are written books and live-action works. Whether something is a "movie" or not is not a basis for exception
That's great! Build a time machine and start the direct market ten years early.
Yes, someone did mention that. However, I'm pretty sure they said that they think he appoints the council. I would like to see some confirmation of that particular idea before we start talking about it like it's a certainty. Otherwise (like a few other things in this thread), it will be both taken for granted and incorrect.
So...does anyone have confirmation that he will appoint the council?
There is a very large difference between "nobody wants to buy your product" and "the industry is colluding to prevent you from selling your product", jacob. The CCA's ultimate failure was that Stan Lee would go on to show how toothless that agreement was - other rating systems in the US do have teeth, and have done a lot to constrain what can be shown in popular media.
And if you think the impact of the CCA was restricted to EC alone (and they were barely able to get MAD out from under the thumb of the CCA), take a stroll through Superdickery sometime. A lot of the absolute dreck that DC and Timely/Marvel put out in the 50s and 60s was directly due to the CCA.
Do we really have to keep going there?
Do we really have to keep undermining the other side of the argument with petty attempts at rug-pulling?
In this case? Because what came up before in teh thread: The bill came up this summer initially as the "Nonexistent Child" act or somesuch, and dealt with legislating away lolicon anime and manga. It failed to pass. It was then revived as this mutated "Nonexistent Sex Crimes" act.
near as I can tell, it doesn't actually regulate lolicon now, even. It's possible the focus on anime, manga and games is a vestigial artifact of it's original form.
it sounds like the law would make companies a little nervous about gratuitous schoolgirl panty shots in their for-kids titles, because they might find the title in question only sold in adults-only stores
which sounds just fine to me
What current anime or manga series are people worried about being impacted?