Wow. I guess I'm acting like a tard and have no valid points, simply because you said so.Chibz said:
Good for you. You're acting like a child. No wonder discussions go nowhere here.
Tokyo's "Anti-Anime" Bill Sparks Convention Wars
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Good for you. You're acting like a child. No wonder discussions go nowhere here.
I understand that completely. And I agree with you. To add that, I would like to emphasis that in all the panic mongering, nothing constructive is being done. The first page was adequate enough to get the complaints across. The problem is that most of the panic mongerers have the narrow outlook of "either for or against". I'm not against the premise of this legislation, but I am sceptical of its balance and equity.boholikeu said:
As such was hoping for constructive discussion on this topic. Sadly so many people have only one shot in their chamber and once it has been fired, that's all they've got. A position of objectivity and reasonableness on this topic is therefore viewed as "invalid" or "retarded" simply because so many participants here can't do more than perpetually circle the same points they read in the article.
Anyway, I very much doubt that non-pornography will be adversely affected by this bill. Japan isn't China. Context and the creators' intent will define the application of the legislation. Japan is as fair and liberal with its media regulation as any other developed, free country. The ban on genitals is the only real difference, yet as I said already, that doesn't affect the incredibly liberal content of Japanese pornography. :O
The legislation is vague but that can be ammended. The attitude I see today, especially in forums, is to throw things away if they aren't "perfect". This is anti-productive. The attitude is reflected in the whole obsession with "Fails" and "Wins", and that an "8" is a failure, etc. The legislation has shortcomings but its intent is not to suppress free speech. Instead of demanding its total dissolution, fans should be EDUCATING the legislators, thereby ammending the language of legislation.
It is not censorship to regulate media content when that content will still be available.
Can you really say censoring anything with sexual stuff will affect you greatly? Sure it might lead to more censoring but does it really need to be there in the first place?
This.Cingal said:
The industry is being oversaturated with immature sexualization. It's high time they killed the ambiguous-gendered tomboys and pretty boys for some actual relatable human beings.
Okay, I'm going to throw my cards on the table and join this discussion. For the record, I both purchase and enjoy lolicon. I fall in the "2d images hurt nobody" camp in justifying the continued legality of my hobby in this country.UberNoodle said:
Now, I will agree that there is a lot of alarmism and, in particular, ignorance about the exact scope and breadth of Ishihara's "Anti-Otaku" bill. That's been covered in enough detail already, thanks to some conscientious posters with the ability to do research. The main point of concern is the apparent motivation behind this bill. It would be wonderful to think this is a spirited attempt by the Tokyo Municipal legislature to protect children from viewing things their parents object to. I'll avoid going into my own views on whether this is either wise or necessary. But given that Ishihara is the creator of this bill, there is ample reason to question his motives in both the creation and execution of this law.
Governor Ishihara has expressed a number of extremely controversial points of view during his tenure. Among them is his noted homophobia, extreme sexism and racism, and a somewhat pathological hatred of "otaku" as is evidenced by his comment that anime fans have "warped DNA". When interviewed or when giving press conferences, his manner of speech and choice of words are beyond disrespectful, to the point of being rude to his detractors and critics. He is very obviously dismissive of criticism. In addition, language in the law actually changed from a prior version that covered all forms of media to specifically target only "animated films, comics, and video games" at Ishihara's request. Based on all this, we have a picture of a legislator with a very biased personal agenda that seems to colour his policy-making.
Now, the implementation of this law. Ostensibly, a panel will be created to review every anime, comic book, and video game (but not live-action movie, novel, or photographic work) created in Tokyo. This panel will decide whether such a work deserves to be classified AO or not. Let's set aside to idea of the chilling effect this may or may not have on the industry as a whole for now. If a given company produces more than 6 AO works over a one year period, they will be referred to an industry regulatory body for "appropriate punishment" (unspecified). If the company continues to offend after that, the Governor may publicly shame (or slander) the company and its works in public, or using the media without fear of any reprisals.
No specifications for the creation of the panel are clear yet, but it is likely that Ishihara will personally select its members. Most commentators believe it will become a cushy job for old government workers who step back from more serious political positions. A panel of elderly bureaucrats, likely friendly to Ishihara's particularly ultra-conservative viewpoint and likely indebted to him for their comfortable position, is barely different from having Ishihara personally direct the censorship himself. In addition, at no point in the process will input from the anime industry be requested or considered. There is no appeals process. This is simply an arbitrary mandate from on high. And given Ishihara's usual response to criticism and willingness to compromise in the face of his opponents, I have severe doubts about him or his allies even listening to requests to adjust the language of the bill.
In short, I don't think Ishihara or his ilk have the best interests of the Japanese people at heart in this law. I think they have their own self-righteous indignation in mind. For that reason, I think there are very real concerns about whether or not this law will be fairly and justly enforced. Simply relying on the wise judgment of policy makers, legislators, and other bureaucrats, when there is no recourse or penalty for unjust rulings, is naive at best. There is very real reason to worry that this law will be used as a cudgel, not a shield.
Source: http://dankanemitsu.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/bill-156s-total-scope/
EDIT: Oh yes, it is also worth noting that Ishihara is a writer responsible for some extremely prurient and sexualized novels involving underaged characters. Interestingly, the current law will in no way affect his body of work. However, if any of his novels were re-made as a comic book or anime, it would very likely warrant classification as AO material under these new guidelines. I find this very suspect, and question Ishihara's impartiality as a legislator as a result.
As an interesting aside, the conversion of Ishihara's novels into comic book form is the central point of an upcoming protest doujin event this March.
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2010-12-16/tokyo-governor-novels-inspire-dojin-protest-event
Ahh, the rebellion has already begun...
http://dankanemitsu.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/monkey-business-counterattack-on-bill-156-doujin-style/
http://dankanemitsu.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/monkey-business-counterattack-on-bill-156-doujin-style/
I always find amusing the hypocrisy of people who say "It's okay if they ban THAT, I don't like it" but then turn around and scream at the first sign of infringement upon what they like.
"...and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up."
The slippery-slope argument may be overused, but that does not make it an automatic fallacy. It's often better to err on the side of freedom.
"...and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up."
Aside from this being just a matter of your taste, is it the best idea to have a government start dictating what should or should not appear in creative works at all? Because it's a good bet that there's some bureaucrat with an overstarched collar somewhere just slavering at the chance to swing the banhammer at something YOU like.Cid SilverWing said:
The slippery-slope argument may be overused, but that does not make it an automatic fallacy. It's often better to err on the side of freedom.
Apparently one of the main guys who is pledging this bill is a racist hypocrite who used to write novels, some of which were of some sexual nature. The guy tries to avoid hypocracy by saying that when he was writing novels, he was much younger and less mature.
Even though I'm on the publisher's side of this protest, I'm not sure how seriously the Japanese Government will take this bill, especially considering the fact that the manga/anime industry consists of a good portion of Japan's economy.
Even though I'm on the publisher's side of this protest, I'm not sure how seriously the Japanese Government will take this bill, especially considering the fact that the manga/anime industry consists of a good portion of Japan's economy.
Fine then, as long as they clearly define what they believe to be inappropriate then this bill is good because, in large amounts of anime there are children that are highly sexualised and that isn't really appropriate.Normalgamer said:
What's so "inappropriate" about that?nathan-dts said:
It's just cartoon characters for fuck sake...
Nothing good can ever come from government intervention, outside op protecting life, liberty, and property.
OK, so I had a rather long and well-thought-out response, but the Escapist itself went down to the point of being 404'ed when I clicked "Post" so I lost it.
For the sake of not having to try to remember everything I said, I will post a shorter version:
I am also living in Japan. Here in Japan, there are pretty much only two categories for anime and manga on most manga shop or bookstore shelves: 18+, in its own little back room, and everything else. That means that anything not specifically marked 18+ can be purchased by children. Why? Because to the great majority of people, such things are treated very similarly to cartoons and comics in the West: mostly things for children to read or watch. So hopefully people can understand why parents would be upset to find little Ryosuke reading about some villain violently raping a 15-year old DD-cup girl after hacking her boyfriend's arm off, after the parents bought the comic for him because it was on the same shelf as his favorite less-violent comics, and had a deceptively innocent cover with no clear indication that this was inside. Also, in many stores, manga are sold wrapped in plastic to prevent people reading them in the bookshops without paying, so if they bought it from such a store, the parents could not look through the manga themselves and spot the scene before purchase.
My point is that anime and manga in Japan need a clearer rating system, so consumers are better informed about what they are getting, rather than shoving everything that would be objectionable to parents firmly into the adult section. Obviously, children should not be reading things like what I described above, and I am quite disappointed in the anime and manga producers as well for their rather obstinate reaction, which can be seen to imply that they actually want to sell that kind of shit to children as "art". While it may be art, all art has a target audience that it's meant for. You can't expect to get away with putting things in anime and manga for kids that would be M-rated in other media, and then whine and ***** about it when somebody calls you out on selling overly violent or sexualized images to kids, because in some cases, that's precisely what you're doing. And the whining only gives your detractors proof that you're doing it with full knowledge of it. If they are, that has to change. And I feel a clearer rating system for target audiences rather than "porn or not porn" would be beneficial to that. It would allow stuff that isn't porn to be sold outside the infamous "back room", but would give concerned consumers better knowledge of the nature of the content of that particular anime or manga. So while I do support the purpose behind this bill, I don't support the black-and-white way in which they are going about it. There needs to be some sort of Teen and Mature rating for stuff that isn't explicitly porn to avoid the Porn label being applied to all the adult-targeted stuff, and to also let parents know that what they're buying for little 10-year old Aki is OK for her to read. So I can only hope that, as UberNoodle suggests, this bill will eventually lead to such a rating system. But I am cautiously optimistic that the authorities will not be too heavy-handed in their rating of what does or does not belong in the 18+ section, and perhaps that anime and manga producers will wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that perhaps some of what they're trying to sell to kids really isn't at all for kids.
For the sake of not having to try to remember everything I said, I will post a shorter version:
I am also living in Japan. Here in Japan, there are pretty much only two categories for anime and manga on most manga shop or bookstore shelves: 18+, in its own little back room, and everything else. That means that anything not specifically marked 18+ can be purchased by children. Why? Because to the great majority of people, such things are treated very similarly to cartoons and comics in the West: mostly things for children to read or watch. So hopefully people can understand why parents would be upset to find little Ryosuke reading about some villain violently raping a 15-year old DD-cup girl after hacking her boyfriend's arm off, after the parents bought the comic for him because it was on the same shelf as his favorite less-violent comics, and had a deceptively innocent cover with no clear indication that this was inside. Also, in many stores, manga are sold wrapped in plastic to prevent people reading them in the bookshops without paying, so if they bought it from such a store, the parents could not look through the manga themselves and spot the scene before purchase.
My point is that anime and manga in Japan need a clearer rating system, so consumers are better informed about what they are getting, rather than shoving everything that would be objectionable to parents firmly into the adult section. Obviously, children should not be reading things like what I described above, and I am quite disappointed in the anime and manga producers as well for their rather obstinate reaction, which can be seen to imply that they actually want to sell that kind of shit to children as "art". While it may be art, all art has a target audience that it's meant for. You can't expect to get away with putting things in anime and manga for kids that would be M-rated in other media, and then whine and ***** about it when somebody calls you out on selling overly violent or sexualized images to kids, because in some cases, that's precisely what you're doing. And the whining only gives your detractors proof that you're doing it with full knowledge of it. If they are, that has to change. And I feel a clearer rating system for target audiences rather than "porn or not porn" would be beneficial to that. It would allow stuff that isn't porn to be sold outside the infamous "back room", but would give concerned consumers better knowledge of the nature of the content of that particular anime or manga. So while I do support the purpose behind this bill, I don't support the black-and-white way in which they are going about it. There needs to be some sort of Teen and Mature rating for stuff that isn't explicitly porn to avoid the Porn label being applied to all the adult-targeted stuff, and to also let parents know that what they're buying for little 10-year old Aki is OK for her to read. So I can only hope that, as UberNoodle suggests, this bill will eventually lead to such a rating system. But I am cautiously optimistic that the authorities will not be too heavy-handed in their rating of what does or does not belong in the 18+ section, and perhaps that anime and manga producers will wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that perhaps some of what they're trying to sell to kids really isn't at all for kids.
Wow thats like one of their best non-tech exports. thats like banning all fat tourist from America (EDGEY!!)
I'd relate the finer parts of what quantifies plot devices but I don't think you'd actually understand.Jarrid said:
The flip side of not censoring content is that you literally get people who produce works that contain smut for the sake of smut, or even for sexual gratification.
I'd point out though that laws worded like this would have banned the Cistine Chapel and countless works from classical art and literature because they're depicting naked babies.
And shit, if smut about people under the age of 18 is screwed up, what makes the same but pertaining to babies?
I think (hope) we can all agree that an anti-loli/pedo bill is good.
Vague and poorly written anti-loli/pedo bill: not so good
Vague and poorly written anti-loli/pedo bill: not so good
You apparently haven't looked into the background of Mr. Ishihara, this law's main architect. Sanity and balance are not hallmarks of his rule.toriver said:
This may be distasteful to some, but I fail to see why there is anything wrong with it. A proper rating system and active, involved parenting remedy the risk of children being exposed to material that will irredeemably corrupt them for life, mind, body, and soul.acosn said:
First, this bill is not anti-loli. Loli is already classified AO in Japan. This bill allows the Municipal Gov't to reclassify a broad, unspecific spectrum of "socially harmful" material as AO, arbitrarily and without oversight.Wow they sure are generous with the usernames said:
Second, I do not agree that an anti-loli bill is good. A drawing or a story of a crime is not morally equivalent to a crime. I only agree to laws that prevent crimes and protect victims. Loli involves neither.