Forum - View topic

NEWS: Tokyo's Youth Healthy Development Council Looks at To Love-Ru Darkness

Just to remind people. It's NOT the nudity people are assuming that the bill is concerned about, it's the subject matter

Again, if it portrays something like a casual acceptance of incest, or actual sexual relationships between high school students, THEN it gets the ban hammer (yes the effect is nearly the same since it's removed then must be republished differently which most publishers have not done, e.g. Aki Sora and a few others)

Recall that Oku-sama wa Shōgakusei, non-graphic, non-explicit gag manga got affected

configspace wrote:

Yeah, I would also bet that bill 156 would affect any manga that say, portrays people under 20 drinking or smoking, like for example not as something "bad" or illegal, but as something "ok" or acceptable, as it is in several countries; or likewise I bet the bill would affect any manga advocating drug legalization; likewise for prostitution, etc

And as was discussed at the time, in a way that's a lot more sinister, because it's in effect telling artists not to publish any works accessible to children that challenge the government's view of moral norms, regardless of whether the work is tasteful, thoughtful, well-considered, or artistic. If it's just about "filth" (as many such laws are), that's actually easier; here you could say that it's more about controlling/directing thought. The concern seems to be that children may grow up to have beliefs that go against their own. But this is rather consistent with the age divide in Japan, and the seemingly-common view that youth are corrupt because they don't conform to traditional Japanese moral values. Tough times ahead...

I like the series, but more importantly, I really like Kentaro Yabuki's art style. I do want to support To Love Ru, but as others have said, Viz Media wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. However, on the flip side I don't want The Daily Mail to brand me a paedophile either.

I think you all are over analyzing this. In my experience censorship bodies are barely consistent, often exist to push someone's political interest, and just want to be around so they can show off and be in charge. You know, like that crappy new middle management guy who comes into the office just to bark a useless order or two.

The fact that it's all vaguely worded is done for a reason. Anything they don't like they can cut off, as long as there's no backlash.

dandelion_rose wrote:

I think you all are over analyzing this. In my experience censorship bodies are barely consistent, often exist to push someone's political interest, and just want to be around so they can show off and be in charge. You know, like that crappy new middle management guy who comes into the office just to bark a useless order or two. The fact that it's all vaguely worded is done for a reason. Anything they don't like they can cut off, as long as there's no backlash.

You poked fun at us anarchists for a bit earlier but you're not that far from us on seeing these things as they are.