Tokyo's "Anti-Anime" Bill Sparks Convention Wars

[Danzaivar]

That does nothing to address my comment. Which was that they aren't banning this stuff, just classing it as pornography so kids can't look at it.

Which is a completely sensible move, tbh.

I believe he was actually trying to point you to this [http://dankanemitsu.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/bill-156s-total-scope/] post on that 'blog, which is linked internally. Though I would read both all the way through, dude seems like he knows what he's on about[footnote]Please note that I've never seen this particular 'blog before today, but the combination of linked sources and grammatically correct English dazzled me a bit.[/footnote].

Ah, I thought that guy said they scrapped the anti-loli stuf, my apologies.

In any case, this bill looks like it's "Kids will not be sexualised in anime" and "Erotic anime will not be shown to kids".

I really can't find a reason to oppose those aims. At all.

 

[RagnorakTres]

Ah, I thought that guy said they scrapped the anti-loli stuf, my apologies.

In any case, this bill looks like it's "Kids will not be sexualised in anime" and "Erotic anime will not be shown to kids".

I really can't find a reason to oppose those aims. At all.

And, were this not such terrible legislation, I couldn't either. But I'm a liberal (in the broadest sense of the term) and I don't think it's the government's job to tell me what my kids can or cannot see. Grimrider makes several particularly potent observations in the post directly above your reply to me, so I'm going to take a different tack: From where I'm standing, your position (if I'm understanding it correctly) is idealistic in the extreme, relying on the goodwill of the review board to understand and correctly classify works with which they will likely have little experience.

One of the things I've come to understand here in America is that "my government is corrupt and there is nothing I can do about it." Individual politicians may have the best interests of the country at heart, but they are far outnumbered by the politicians who will say or do anything to advance their agenda. The system is broken, and my understanding is that this is true no matter where in the developed world you go.

This Ishihara character is, as far as I can tell, cut from the latter cloth, maintaining publicly that otaku are "genetically deficient" and that anime and manga are not even art. This bill is simply an attempt by him to control a media outlet that he doesn't like, not an attempt to keep sexualization of minors to a minimum or keep pornography out of the hands of minors (both goals that, were they honest, I would find acceptable, perhaps even admirable).

This is painting in broad strokes, but: "That government is best which governs least." -Henry David Thoreau

 

[Grimrider6]

This Ishihara character is, as far as I can tell, cut from the latter cloth, maintaining publicly that otaku are "genetically deficient" and that anime and manga are not even art. This bill is simply an attempt by him to control a media outlet that he doesn't like, not an attempt to keep sexualization of minors to a minimum or keep pornography out of the hands of minors (both goals that, were they honest, I would find acceptable, perhaps even admirable).

This is my main issue, and thank you for clarifying it so succinctly. My issue is with Ishihara essentially weaponizing this legislation and using it as a cudgel against his perceived enemies in his own version of the kind of "culture war" some think they're waging in the West. The result is legislation that does not clearly think through its own consequences, and having potentially disastrous results down the road.

I'm going to guess this kind of image is what offense Ishihara and his ilk, from "Souleater", a shounen comic targeting the 10 to 18 year old age demographic:

Some might argue that this image is unsuitable for children as young as 10. This is a debatable point subject to cultural points of view, but according to Bill 156, this image alone may grant an AO classification. Will that be to that book alone? To the whole series? Nobody knows! But personally, I feel that putting a comic book with that image in the same classification as hardcore lolita pornography (already restricted without Bill 156's help, mind) is unreasonable in the extreme.

Also keep in mind, an AO rating will effectively cut out the entire target demographic from purchasing the book, potentially resulting in the financial failure of the series. And it will likely be granted after the book is written, inked, lettered, and set for mass production. Input and guidelines are not granted during the creation phase, which means artists have to make the call when drawing the book how far they'd like to go. Classification as AO at that late phase may require re-writing, resubmission to the board, and waiting for judgment again. Deadlines will be missed, and revenue will be lost. In the face of this, studios will be forced to aim low to increase their odds of avoiding the steep revenue loss an AO classification will subject them to.

Thus, by merely threatening an extreme content rating and refusing either input from the industry or guidelines to help the industry comply, they manipulate the comic industry into creating bland, inoffensive pablum to avoid suffering huge revenue loss. This is the kind of cynical, passive-aggressive abuse of authority that elected representatives should not be engaging in.

A much more sane and reasoned approach is to institute a form of rating system already in place for movies and video games, with content notices. Parents can then make informed decisions about whether their children should or should not be reading this particular comic book. The review board should include input from the comic publishing industry, and should publish clear guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable to help the industry cooperate. Additionally, an appeals process should be in place to refer contested judgments to a higher civil authority in a timely manner. As it stands, Bill 156 is an autocratic attack on the industry cleverly disguised as social concern.

 

[IamQ]

This is just ridiculous. It doesn't regulate actual porn, it just gives them the opportunity to troll and call anything porn and ban it, as long as it even contain a slight hint of sexuality.

 

[Danzaivar]

Ah, I thought that guy said they scrapped the anti-loli stuf, my apologies.

In any case, this bill looks like it's "Kids will not be sexualised in anime" and "Erotic anime will not be shown to kids".

I really can't find a reason to oppose those aims. At all.

And, were this not such terrible legislation, I couldn't either. But I'm a liberal (in the broadest sense of the term) and I don't think it's the government's job to tell me what my kids can or cannot see. Grimrider makes several particularly potent observations in the post directly above your reply to me, so I'm going to take a different tack: From where I'm standing, your position (if I'm understanding it correctly) is idealistic in the extreme, relying on the goodwill of the review board to understand and correctly classify works with which they will likely have little experience.

One of the things I've come to understand here in America is that "my government is corrupt and there is nothing I can do about it." Individual politicians may have the best interests of the country at heart, but they are far outnumbered by the politicians who will say or do anything to advance their agenda. The system is broken, and my understanding is that this is true no matter where in the developed world you go.

This Ishihara character is, as far as I can tell, cut from the latter cloth, maintaining publicly that otaku are "genetically deficient" and that anime and manga are not even art. This bill is simply an attempt by him to control a media outlet that he doesn't like, not an attempt to keep sexualization of minors to a minimum or keep pornography out of the hands of minors (both goals that, were they honest, I would find acceptable, perhaps even admirable).

This is painting in broad strokes, but: "That government is best which governs least." -Henry David Thoreau

Well if you want your kid to be reading the more smutty anime, then this law simply means you would have to buy it on their behalf. It's empowering you as a parent to make that choice.

It's kind of irrelevant come to think of it, since this law is only going to affect kids in Japan. Our respective countries law won't be changed by this.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Ah, I thought that guy said they scrapped the anti-loli stuf, my apologies.

In any case, this bill looks like it's "Kids will not be sexualised in anime" and "Erotic anime will not be shown to kids".

I really can't find a reason to oppose those aims. At all.

And, were this not such terrible legislation, I couldn't either. But I'm a liberal (in the broadest sense of the term) and I don't think it's the government's job to tell me what my kids can or cannot see. Grimrider makes several particularly potent observations in the post directly above your reply to me, so I'm going to take a different tack: From where I'm standing, your position (if I'm understanding it correctly) is idealistic in the extreme, relying on the goodwill of the review board to understand and correctly classify works with which they will likely have little experience.

One of the things I've come to understand here in America is that "my government is corrupt and there is nothing I can do about it." Individual politicians may have the best interests of the country at heart, but they are far outnumbered by the politicians who will say or do anything to advance their agenda. The system is broken, and my understanding is that this is true no matter where in the developed world you go.

This Ishihara character is, as far as I can tell, cut from the latter cloth, maintaining publicly that otaku are "genetically deficient" and that anime and manga are not even art. This bill is simply an attempt by him to control a media outlet that he doesn't like, not an attempt to keep sexualization of minors to a minimum or keep pornography out of the hands of minors (both goals that, were they honest, I would find acceptable, perhaps even admirable).

This is painting in broad strokes, but: "That government is best which governs least." -Henry David Thoreau

Well if you want your kid to be reading the more smutty anime, then this law simply means you would have to buy it on their behalf. It's empowering you as a parent to make that choice.

It's kind of irrelevant come to think of it, since this law is only going to affect kids in Japan. Our respective countries law won't be changed by this.

You don't think that a law that directly affects the source of anime's and manga's creation will effect people who watch or read said genres, regardless of where they live? If making beverages with an alcohol content over 1% were outlawed in Italy, where would people outside of Italy get Italian wine?

 

[Grimrider6]

Well if you want your kid to be reading the more smutty anime, then this law simply means you would have to buy it on their behalf. It's empowering you as a parent to make that choice.

As long as you ignore the chilling, Orwellian Thought-Police aspects of the law, and the fact that (for the above posted reasons) it seems ideally positioned to indirectly squeeze it out of existence, then yes, this is a very empowering law. [/sarcasm]

 

[Easton Dark]

Well if you want your kid to be reading the more smutty anime, then this law simply means you would have to buy it on their behalf. It's empowering you as a parent to make that choice.

So, it's like California's bill to keep children from buying excessively violent video games, but even more general and open to interpretation?

It'd be like keeping pre-teen girls from buying the latest Twilight book man! It just wouldn't be right!

 

[Danzaivar]

Well if you want your kid to be reading the more smutty anime, then this law simply means you would have to buy it on their behalf. It's empowering you as a parent to make that choice.

As long as you ignore the chilling, Orwellian Thought-Police aspects of the law, and the fact that (for the above posted reasons) it seems ideally positioned to indirectly squeeze it out of existence, then yes, this is a very empowering law. [/sarcasm]

Generally people don't apply Orwellian to arguments when it only affects kids. Just saying.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Well if you want your kid to be reading the more smutty anime, then this law simply means you would have to buy it on their behalf. It's empowering you as a parent to make that choice.

As long as you ignore the chilling, Orwellian Thought-Police aspects of the law, and the fact that (for the above posted reasons) it seems ideally positioned to indirectly squeeze it out of existence, then yes, this is a very empowering law. [/sarcasm]

Generally people don't apply Orwellian to arguments when it only affects kids. Just saying.

And if you think this law will just affect kids, then I have a bridge to sell you. Just saying.

 

[RagnorakTres]

As long as you ignore the chilling, Orwellian Thought-Police aspects of the law, and the fact that (for the above posted reasons) it seems ideally positioned to indirectly squeeze it out of existence, then yes, this is a very empowering law. [/sarcasm]

Generally people don't apply Orwellian to arguments when it only affects kids. Just saying.

You're still being idealistic, about both human nature and government. You are underestimating the sheer level of corruption in organized government. Ishihara is a power-hungry xenophobe, anything he doesn't understand is dismissed as "antisocial" or "damaging to minors." He is using the call of "protect the children" to advance his homophobic, moralistic agenda, regardless of long-term consequences.

Here are the myriad problems that I see with Bill 156. These are only the problems I see, I don't doubt that there are more.

1) There are no publicly posted guidelines, meaning publishers have to guess what will be deemed "antisocial" by the board.

2) There is no appeals process. If an image is judged "antisocial," that's it, it's behind the curtain and nothing can be done.

3) Publishers can be publicly ridiculed by the Office of the Governor of Tokyo if they push the envelope at all, regardless of artistic content, resulting in lost sales and likely bankruptcy as fewer retailers carry their works.

4) There is no oversight of the board. They can fuck up as much as they like without any repercussions.

5) There is no gradation, only AO and not-AO.

Now, there are clear corollaries to some of these and I'm not going to insult your intelligence by listing all of them, but remember that government is inherently untrustworthy.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

[Danzaivar]

As long as you ignore the chilling, Orwellian Thought-Police aspects of the law, and the fact that (for the above posted reasons) it seems ideally positioned to indirectly squeeze it out of existence, then yes, this is a very empowering law. [/sarcasm]

Generally people don't apply Orwellian to arguments when it only affects kids. Just saying.

You're still being idealistic, about both human nature and government. You are underestimating the sheer level of corruption in organized government. Ishihara is a power-hungry xenophobe, anything he doesn't understand is dismissed as "antisocial" or "damaging to minors." He is using the call of "protect the children" to advance his homophobic, moralistic agenda, regardless of long-term consequences.

Here are the myriad problems that I see with Bill 156. These are only the problems I see, I don't doubt that there are more.

1) There are no publicly posted guidelines, meaning publishers have to guess what will be deemed "antisocial" by the board.

2) There is no appeals process. If an image is judged "antisocial," that's it, it's behind the curtain and nothing can be done.

3) Publishers can be publicly ridiculed by the Office of the Governor of Tokyo if they push the envelope at all, regardless of artistic content, resulting in lost sales and likely bankruptcy as fewer retailers carry their works.

4) There is no oversight of the board. They can fuck up as much as they like without any repercussions.

5) There is no gradation, only AO and not-AO.

Now, there are clear corollaries to some of these and I'm not going to insult your intelligence by listing all of them, but remember that government is inherently untrustworthy.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm wrong.

A lot of that looks like you live in the middle of the desert with a stockpile of guns and you "make your own water because they put fluoride in the piped stuff!". Point 3 is a good one however; though if a company is so damaged by being unable to sell (partially) sexual content to minors that they go bankrupt, then they was on pretty wonky ground already.

All that will happen is companies that dabble in both will just split into two companies, one that does the safe stuff and one that does the risky stuff. If enough people know this law is a ridiculous one, then the A-O sign will probably become a badge of pride.

Then again I guess the Yakuza or someone really aims to benefit from restricting anime, eh!

 

[dashiz94]

Okay yeah, this will NOT fly.

If my understanding of how popular anime/manga is in Japan, this would be the equivalent of the US government trying to censor football because it would be deemed too violent.

 

[Del-Toro]

there's one question I think the entire otaku sub-culture is asking itself over this: would this law make The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya porn?


Also, as a recovering otaku for whom some anime still holds a special place in his otherwise fortress like heart, I have to ask, does this mean that Kannazuki No Miko is porn too? Everyone with even a passing familiarity with the series (I'm referring to the anime, fuck the manga, just fuck it) will know what I'm talking about. I mean, it's not exactly obscene(at worst it's roughly on par with The Simpsons at worst), and frankly it's otherwise more tame than a lot of what is out there. And yet....

 

[Toriver]

there's one question I think the entire otaku sub-culture is asking itself over this: would this law make The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya porn?


Also, as a recovering otaku for whom some anime still holds a special place in his otherwise fortress like heart, I have to ask, does this mean that Kannazuki No Miko is porn too? Everyone with even a passing familiarity with the series (I'm referring to the anime, fuck the manga, just fuck it) will know what I'm talking about. I mean, it's not exactly obscene(at worst it's roughly on par with The Simpsons at worst), and frankly it's otherwise more tame than a lot of what is out there. And yet....

Out of all this, I think you have actually hit the button best as to why we're getting so many freaked-out people here. It's foreign otaku panicking because all of a sudden somebody's holding the manga and anime producers accountable for what they are putting in their products mainly targeted at children. This is what happens when the anime and manga producers know they have an audience of both children and adults who expect very different things out of the same book or movie. So to please the adult audience they throw in a bunch of sexy characters, but to make it relatable to the children, those same sexy characters are 10-16 years old. Then, when your characters start acting like they're 10-16 years old, your adult audience starts feeling a little too uncomfortable because, *gasp!* it reads like a children's comic book! So cue the adult situations and themes to please the otaku.

And thus was fanservice born.

I still don't agree with the black-and-white extremes of the law, but I will keep saying this. This is just as much the problem of the producers and the CONSUMERS as well as that of Ishihara. We adult fans wanted our hobby to grow up with us (a lot like how many want our games to grow up with us as well...), and so in recent times there have been many anime and manga targeted at an adult audience released over the years. Yet despite this, we still seem to attach ourselves to manga and anime targeted to children. So the artists put in fanservice to please the adult fans... and tend to forget in the process that their main audience, if not their most vocal one, is children. Western comics tend to have to fight a dual-front battle for readers as well, but their main problems there are mostly with continuity issues when they attempt to reboot or repair a timeline, and it ends up a jumbled mess. I never really read Western comics because it was all just too confusing to keep track of. (Seriously, it's like a soap opera or something... you miss one issue of ANY comic [because they all tend to appear in everyone's comic] and you miss something vitally important to the story.)

What I'm saying is, the anime and manga producers likely got in trouble because they were trying to write for US adults, not children, in their childrens' series. And they know that if they changed their series to be more child-friendly, they will lose us as consumers because we won't tolerate a children's series being written for, you know, CHILDREN. We can help solve this issue in two ways, I think. Either...

1) "Grow out" of children's manga and anime and stick to adult-oriented stuff
or...
2) Keep reading and watching the children's series we love, but deal with the fact that it might be revamped for a younger audience.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that this law will likely throw the adult-oriented series into onto the same shelves as the porn, which is the problem I have with it (why not just put children's and adult stuff on seperate shelves, or, you know, actually RATE THEM!!!), but hopefully, if we as adult consumers can control our demand for stuff like fanservice out of children's anime and manga, maybe we can help to stop laws like this from spreading to other places and also help solve an important issue this medium is facing (and help improve the image of Japanese media in the world, even a little bit).

 

[Vycoul22]

toriver:
"Out of all this, I think you have actually hit the button best as to why we're getting so many freaked-out people here. It's foreign otaku panicking because all of a sudden somebody's holding the manga and anime producers accountable for what they are putting in their products mainly targeted at children. This is what happens when the anime and manga producers know they have an audience of both children and adults who expect very different things out of the same book or movie. So to please the adult audience they throw in a bunch of sexy characters, but to make it relatable to the children, those same sexy characters are 10-16 years old. Then, when your characters start acting like they're 10-16 years old, your adult audience starts feeling a little too uncomfortable because, *gasp!* it reads like a children's comic book! So cue the adult situations and themes to please the otaku."

"And thus was fanservice born."

Now wait just a second. Can you name some of the anime you are referring to?

Oh and sorry I can't quote you correctly. I'm still getting used to this site.

 

[Lynxan]

The biggest problem with any obscenity law like this is that there is no way to not be vague because there truly is no way that you can unsexualize everything. To some one out there, kids in normal clothing can be sexual, to some your household pet is sexual, and to others it's just feet.

I'm dead against kid porn in real life, but I never could figure out how just a kid naked qualifies as porn automatically. In Dragonball Z you see a lot more of young Gohan then most would like to see, but I'd never call it sexual in the context of the show. Of course the moment they start... doing things that opinion changes, but the transformations in Salor Moon are hardly sex... or if you've seen the DNA Digivolves from Digimon Tamers... I do admit they do stand out in my mind when I see these, but it's more out of surprise that they got away with it more then "ow god, I'm turned on"

Then again you can take a look at it the other way around, they bring up the transformation sequence in Sailor Moon as sexual... and well, it certainly can be looked at that way, but do you really think that there isn't guys just as turned on by the girls before or after the transformation? How about Felicia from Darkstalkers? All she has on is some well placed fur and I've seen her many times looking to be as underage as anyone in Sailor Moon. How does this fall in this law. Another thing you have to remember is that the age of consent in Japan is far lower then most of the world, so a hot 15 year old isn't the jail bait she otherwise is.

I'm all for the protest of this, I'd say that what is really porn tends to get classified as it well enough all ready, the "tentical porn" that I had seen mentioned before is still going to happen since well, they where going for that to be porn anyway and that's all that this law does, expand what Japan calls porn.

 

[Nocturnal Gentleman]

I don't understand why the heck I'm seeing so many people throwing around the words "ban", "censor", and "outlaw" when I can't really see that happening one a huge scale. Manga and anime need to be labeled and separated better based on content. This has been explained again and again but people just want to be dramatic and whine.

It's no doubt that most people getting riled up over this law know it isn't written well. So, how come instead of crying for it to be called off completely why aren't there more people crying for more negotiation? You know, so the labeling is reasonable and everyone can walk away happy? Parents of Japan would be happier with a more defined and clear system for the media, foreign anime junkies wouldn't be bothered, and the kids wouldn't miss the truly questionable content. An added plus would be the folks making money from passing smut as kiddy material would finally face crack down.

The lack of maturity and overabundance of Boo hooing is pathetic at best.

 

[Grimrider6]

Generally people don't apply Orwellian to arguments when it only affects kids. Just saying.

As has been amply demonstrated above, the scope and effect of this law goes far beyond just children. But regardless, when looking at laws, principle trumps subject matter. Careful thought is necessary for all repercussions of the law, and hiding behind "protect the children" to justify the gross excesses of this law is ignorant at best, disingenuous at worst.

A lot of that looks like you live in the middle of the desert with a stockpile of guns and you "make your own water because they put fluoride in the piped stuff!".

If you can't make your points without resorting to insults, sir, perhaps this isn't the discussion for you. We're trying to be civil. Please grant us the same courtesy.

Point 3 is a good one however; though if a company is so damaged by being unable to sell (partially) sexual content to minors that they go bankrupt, then they was on pretty wonky ground already.

Frankly, all the above points seemed good to me. I'd like to hear why you think 1, 2, 4, and 5 are so baseless. But in any case, you're framing the debate under the assumption that these companies are already intentionally selling sexual content, partially or not, to minors. Can you define 'partially sexual content'? Can you cite some example of it? I can almost guarantee you that it'll be very difficult for us all to agree of what qualifies and what does not. Keeping in mind, of course, that anything graphically sexual is already heavily regulated. So, is it big boobs that's unacceptable? Short skirts? Certain poses? Which ones exactly? Answering these questions is necessary to have a clear, unambiguous framework for any kind of censorship law. Failing to have such a framework is simply sloppy and irresponsible.

Then again I guess the Yakuza or someone really aims to benefit from restricting anime, eh!

Could you elaborate more on this point? I'm not quite sure what you're implying.

 

[Grimrider6]

It's no doubt that most people getting riled up over this law know it isn't written well. So, how come instead of crying for it to be called off completely why aren't there more people crying for more negotiation? You know, so the labeling is reasonable and everyone can walk away happy? Parents of Japan would be happier with a more defined and clear system for the media, foreign anime junkies wouldn't be bothered, and the kids wouldn't miss the truly questionable content.

This would be the case if it wasn't already written into law, and if the law's architect (the aforementioned Ishihara) weren't rejecting all calls for further negotiation and ignoring the arguments of his critics.

Hopefully you can see how this is a problem?