Forum - View topicChicks On Anime - Censorship Part 1
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anymouse
 Posts: 685 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Dargonxtc
 Posts: 4463 Location: Nc5xd7+ スターダストの海洋 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
I thought this would go without saying, but obviously sanctioned events as the one you described wouldn't qualify, since notification and permission was essentially given way ahead of time. You know there a nude beaches and colonies all over the US, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't just randomly walk into a mall naked and expect no repercussions.
I think you are putting two things together here that I never did. And that would be morality and religion. While true the two are closely related, they are not mutually inclusive, i.e. you don't need one to create the other and vice versa. I think it is also a misnomer in one fell swoop to separate the societal good from what is the moral good, since the former almost always has roots indirect or not, with the later. Even such things as speed limits have roots in the societies underlying moral code. Why can't you drive faster than X? Because it is dangerous and you could get someone killed, and as a society we have decided that is morally wrong. What about driving 140 at three AM on a deserted freeway where the only person who could get hurt is you, and maybe a tree? Will you still get pulled over and given a ticket? Yes, because as a society we have accepted that it is morally wrong for a healthy person to kill or intentionally injure themselves. Which is why it is illegal to commit suicide. As you can see, you can not separate what is the moral good from what is the societal good so easily. It's just not that simple, as you can apply the same back to the financial and criminal worlds. Whether the moral is rooted in religion or not is inconsequential, since a moral is still a moral no matter where it came from. As far as the underlined portion. I must say it sounds as if you are saying that laws made by atheists are not founded in any sort of moral system, and therefore congruently because they have none. If this was your intent then I must say I take some offense to that, since I know for a fact that it is not a requirement for atheists to be amoral. As far as comparisons to ancient Babylon, and the Roman empire. We need to realize that morals can and do change. The morals of the Romans before a new religion is no doubt different, but that doesn't change the fact that no matter what the societies laws were before, they were still for the most part based on that societies unique moral structure. I think in the context of what we are talking about, censorship or forms thereof, it is not so important to why laws change, as it is to realize that no matter what the new ones turn to, they will still be based on a societies moral compass. When you say a society is to set up morals as not be a dictating force of the law, it is sort of the same as saying that the politicians should rule over government and not the church. Politicians were smart even back then. However that is not the same as saying that morals are therefore moot and have no effect on the former. It very much still has a great affect on them unless they are not part of that society. And is more in tune with those with power wishing to keep and obtain as much of that power as possible.
I am not sure if your entire post was aimed at me, but I feel only the first part was, sorry if it wasn't. But I am pretty much going to echo what I said above, in that it is not necessary to link morals and the church together in this context. Just that they exist and are pretty much inescapable. It doesn't matter whether they come from the Church of Satan or the nonsecular worshipers of Gaea, there will still be some sort of moral code afloat. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
 Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||||||||||||||
That's a fair point, although I think the number of people who read kiddie manga but don't own child porn, vastly outnumber those who own both. I hope so, anyway. I'm of the school of thought that it's impossible to ban anything, and that banning things simply leads to deregulation-- not the opposite. People who want to read loli will still read loli. That won't change. But rather than buying it from sources that may have already passed through a few rounds of editing (by publishers/editors, etc), banning it would lead to a market where that layer of editing doesn't exist. I wrote a few papers on the "reality," or lack thereof, of anime back in college, and I always argued that no matter how realistic the drawings, the viewer could never put themselves in the scene, unlike a well-shot live-action film. That layer of fiction makes things... safer, I think. Someone who has fantasies of power/forced sex may feel shameful or repulsed watching a live-action porn rendition, but when it's animated, it's no longer real. So while your desires may be satisfied, you know it's not real. It's like drinking soy milk, instead of real milk. ;p Or eating tofurkey. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Cait
 Posts: 503 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Dargonxtc, while I understand your point of view on the issue of "morals," I have to say that I don't think you are quite grasping the actual usage of the word in this context. I was an anthropology major in college and the first thing that was always done when making any cultural case or observation was to define the words that would be used to make those observations. For example, while society generally regards the word "myth" to mean "religious fiction," that is not its actual definition, and when an anthropologist uses the word "myth" he or she will always define it (usually as the "religious fact" of the host culture, regardless of the beliefs of the anthropologist or outside observer).
You are using the definition of "moral" as synonymous with a general "goodness or badness" of human behavior, and while you are not entirely incorrect, you are missing the actual intent of the use of the word in the context of this thread. If you open up a dictionary and read the definition of "moral" you will see more than just this definition. In fact, much of the definition of "moral" has to do with the psychological and not the tangible effects of human behavior. Your example about speeding relates to the tangible effects of driving too fast (ie, causing an accident and killing someone) and not the "emotional" repercussions of such an act, which I believe is the way in which the word "moral" is being intended in this discussion. And I would even go so far as to argue that the specific reference to "morals" in this discussion are as they relate to the religious perception of sexuality (which in Christian culture is very reserved). While it might not be fair to compare religious conservativism to the moral code of US law, it is in fact directly a result of those religious beliefs that the moral code of this country is as strict as it is (and remains so). However, you are correct that morality and religion are not mutually inclusive, however, in the case of sexual morality in the US, religion does and has played a very large part for much of our nation's history. That stranglehold has been steadily loosening in recent years as we have seen a lax in the government's interest in controlling how people behave in the privacies of their own homes. What we are in right now is somewhat of a transition period between government imposing sexual morality on the people and government understanding that what people do in private (and not hurting or affecting themselves or others with) is not a "moral" threat at all. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
SalarymanJoe
 Posts: 468 Location: Atlanta, GA, USA |
|
|||||||||||||||||
While I agree with the more traditional definition that actual censorship lies with bans, the case in the United States, and probably all of North America and many of the liberal democracies of Europe is that there is not much material truly censored or banned. Editing, for numerous reasons, is more prevalent. However, there are still plenty of means of getting a hold of the original product, so that is where I would consider to be a semantic difference of the two words. Of course, the connotation of the two is still much different. If Jason were to say, we edited this to better meet market demographics it doesn't invoke the same sort of conspiratorial images of black-ops teams composed of former KGB going through and marking up Japanese comics and cartoons and making them "safe" for public consumption. That mushy-middle (which I did not quote), where industry self-edits to influence cash flow and to not make it an issue where the government feels it needs to step in is what is a system more prevalent in our neck of the woods than others. (and in my completely cynical view of government, probably because the money and publicity aren't there to go after foreign or even domestic comics now). Every so often, we get Al and Tipper Gore or Joseph Lieberman or Jack Thompson-types (and their soccer-mom cult following) who decry some such media as being harmful and think of the children and a self-regulated body of industry professionals are formed and begin to outline their products along a community-standards consensus while not stifling the creative pursuits in their industry be creating things like ratings systems or going after different demographics with different products. And the cycle continues.
Just as a quick aside, I also think it is a stylistic choice as well - for some reason, remember seeing nipples depicted much more frequently in anime from the 1980s as opposed to now. This is of course, based on the original versions.
Let me preface this by saying that I Am Not A Lawyer (IANAL) and I don't believe you are either. However, as I read the Constitution that all of the rights granted, particularly the Bill of Rights amendments, the rights while subject to community standards and regulation ("fire in a crowded theater" example) the rights themselves are uniquely individual. Provided I do not fall into the community-standard of obscenity, inciting criminal conspiracy, or violate the established conventions of a private institution where comments may be said, they are considered free speech. No matter what whackjob theory I expose, I am provided the protection of that speech. No one has to agree with it and no one has to respect it; only that the government cannot prohibit it. That differentiation made, I have to say that the first part of this article, on it's own, doesn't stand very well. There is a lack of differentiation of market-influenced editing and government-influenced censorship, In fact, Jason even goes so far as to say:
Jason, I mean no disrespect to your enthusiasm or your publishing accomplishments but I feel there is a strong semantic distinction between the two even if there is little to no market or society-based reality for those two distinctions in America, at least in the United States but most likely extended to Canada as well. This is an admittedly broad definition of the term but I think that was to garner more support by intentionally blowing the whole scenario out of proportion. It's not about a business trying to make extra money (AKA - people doing their job): it's about censorship. Censorship being that buzzword that sets everyone off. Sure, most people will say they're against censorship. Arguably, some of the edits made in localised manga probably do err on the side of caution more than trying to push that line or envelope. But making a few edits, like the Please Save My Earth example, even the panel and at least one forum member have come out and said something along the lines of:
And from the panel:
Jason, and subsequently Sara and Bamboo have a more moderate approach, which is I feel more in spirit of the true purpose of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the ideals of the US's majority rules with minority rights tradition and that is that the 1st Amendment doesn't exist to protect popular expression - it's there to protect unpopular expression. Provided a statement or work could stand the Miller test of expression, which even though I don't like PSME, I think it does, it would be protected, even if it contained the phrase "Eeeww gays, I don't want to get AIDS!". Yes, it's bigoted and a sign of the times in which it was published; no, it's not right; that still doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected. VIZ made a business decision that removing the one line was much less of a hassle, in light of the cries of "OMG CENSORSHIP~!!!one!", than it would have been worth to leave it in. Which leads me to a theory I had concerning a personal reflection I had - even though we may hold views personally, there are instances where those views conflict with something else but we're okay with accepting the results of the conflict despite how contrary it may be to those philosophical beliefs. The parallel drawn is that censorship is the dirty word, using this article's definition of it, but we're okay with censorship or editing when it suits our preferences and beliefs. Again, my contention with the difference between "editing" and "censorship" comes into play heavily here as the end result tends to be vastly different. Under editing, there is a mainstream work or publication is altered either from the original intention or the original publication. Those versions, however, are still available in some fashion. Censorship requires that availability be restricted. Limiting the age on pornography may be seen as an age-based censorship, though porn itself is readily available to individuals who meet the age-requirement (or, are perceived to meet an age-requirement), so, in reality, we are merely "editing" real life by means of restrictive access.
I'm not so inclined to think so. It's an obscenity case, which means ultimately, the Miller test will be applied to the work. If it doesn't pass then he'll be convicted and depending on the contemporary view of the work, sentenced. If it does pass, he'll be acquitted and we can move on from all this ridiculous fear-mongering that's been circulating because of this news. What's worse is that all of this 'could have been prevented' had the parcel been wrapped, as normal pornography is when going through the mail.
But, you neglect to note that communities are formed of individuals and community standards are brought forth from ideas of those individuals. Likewise, individuals may not always agree. I have serious problems with what I see in my local area - such as our retaining Sunday Blue Laws or restrictive land zoning or neighborhood association covenants. However, society as a whole has deemed these practices as a whole acceptable so until a change of law comes into peaceful effect. Compromise between individuals is what establishes the rule of law and aspects of self interest dictate which of those compromises we're willing to make. When individual or, in a larger scale, group of like-individuals expect to have their whims catered to simply because they are the majority, we dissolve the concept of majority-rule-with-minority-rights, which is just as much a basis in our Rule of Law as is many Judeo-Christian traditions. Obviously, I cannot impose my beliefs concerning our draconian, 12th Century styled Blue Laws as we've had repeated attempts to have them released to local control in our General Assembly several times to no success (fingers crossed as I think it's on the docket this year again). But, then again, my inability to purchase alcohol outside of a restaurant on Sunday probably matters not to you if you're trying to point to a dissolution of community standards by "ego-centric" individuals is somehow meant to usurp true crimes like murder and rape, particularly of children, that even us atheists and individualists are supportive of community standards and laws baning those actions. Also, "baaawwwww" @ Ayn Rand. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
njyoder
Posts: 4 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
I'm assuming you meant viewing it public, not merely *having* it. I don't see a problem with this, as it's easy to view it without it being in anyone's line of sight. It's not the same as sexual acts in public, as those are clearly on display and people who do that by themselves are likely to be sexual predators or budding sexual predators. As to another point made in the interview, in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that so-called "virtual child porn" is perfectly legal, because it doesn't necessitate actual harm to children, whereas the production of real child pornography requires raping children. I agree with this ruling, because it allows people all possible freedom of speech as per the first amendment, including some perfectly ethical expression that would otherwise be ruled indecent and makes the distinction with actual harm that comes from real child pornography. Just to be clear, I have very strong support of the first amendment, and am only discussing self-censorship, unless otherwise specified. Even extreme pornography, unless it necessitate criminal action (e.g. rape), should be free, because it is a form of expression, even if you find it grotesque and simple minded. Certainly, no one would say the stupidest, most simple-minded play in the world should be legally censored, until they see an erection in it, which is odd. Imminent harm is one of those principles ingrained as an exception to the first amendment - shouting fire in a crowded theater, conspiring to commit crimes, inciting a riot. I'm actually not fond of defamation law, for the most part, but that's a different argument for a different time. Now, onto the self-censorship. As for the issue of "little girls" in manga/anime, I probably see more gray area than most. I think people are often too quick to consider someone to be younger than they, especially based on height. Being very short myself, I notice a lot of the differences in people and have noticed many short people who you can still tell are older. Likewise, I prefer people close to my own height, but have zero interest in children, as the distinction is more mental and I'm more disturbed by mental age disparity than physical age once you get into the mid teens. Of course, with manga/anime, there is less detail in the face and body normally, so height might be the only distinguishing factor visually. While I do think that *usually* they are intended to look (and be MENTALLY) young to appeal to certain audiences, I dont' think it's necessarily to fair to make that ruling without context indicating the character is truly young. Depending on the age of the target audience, self-censorship may be suitable. Given how much porn teen boys are already exposed to, I don't think showing a little fan service of teens their age is bad. Of course, the characters showing fan service should age relative to the target audience, but that's only necessary up to the point where characters are late teens (i.e. adults). And frankly, the biggest creepers will go for the hentai moreso than manga/anime with an actual plot/action, so I don't think it's an issue allowing them to potentially see fan service intended for a younger audience. Someone brought up Honey & Clover, which I think is an interesting case. On the one hand, Honey, an adult character who looks to be about age 8-10, is treated as an adult and isn't at all sexualized, from the parts of the series I saw. On the other hand, she adopts a LOT of child like features. It is actually true that when you reach such an extremity of shortness, you see more people who are willing to adopt such mannerisms, but almost never to that extent. I'm really not sure what to make of honey, but I can't help but think it's appealing mostly to creepers and especially made with creepy motivations. Self-censorship in that case would be suitable, if it would make sense, but obviously you can't erase one of the main characters (Honey) from fiction. As for bigotry, I generally don't think that bigotry should be self-censored in a translation, because that manga/anime represents a microcosm of the time it was created. We can't erase history and this helps understand it. I can understand creating a second, modern edition IN ADDITION TO the original, for pure enjoyment purposes, though. That's ok as long as it doesn't change the feel of it much. I think it's ok to have characters be bigoted, depending on the target audience and whether or not the story line includes a moral lesson. For younger audiences, mid-teens and down, it should have a moral lesson or otherwise present the bigot as doing something bad, even if they're not necessarily portrayed bad as a person. For older audiences, it's almost no-holds-bar. You shouldn't try to pass off bigoted speech as if it's ok (e.g. adding in gratuitous, bigoted jokes where the writer thinks they are truly funny), but having a story line with many bigoted characters, when it makes sense for the plot, is fine. /end huge rant |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
AkiraKaneda
Posts: 61 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Perhaps one of the things that we should talk about -- maybe not here in the forum, since I have a real job I need to get back to rather than writing on this topic any more! -- is what constitutes a "right." Who gives you a right? Is it (gasp!) God-given? Community-given? A right bestowed by the universe? And what is the difference between the right to live (a primary right by virtually all accounts) and the right to buy alcohol when and where you want on a particular day? There's a lot of talk of "rights," but most of them being discussed here have to do with being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without limits. I daresay that some rights are inalienable, as the founding fathers of America said, and some are not. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
AkiraKaneda
Posts: 61 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
ENT, what I am saying is that there is a disconnect between saying that something is morally objectionable and saying that it should still be available to anyone who wants to see/hear/purchase said item. I think to say that something is morally objectionable, meaning that in some way it teaches or glorifies things that are morally perverse with no redemptive value, but not worthy of removal from society is to be impossible. One can say, "I don't like it but I don't think anybody should be stopped from seeing it," without any hypocrisy, in my opinion. But to say that something is truly morally reprehensible yet should not be in some way censored or banned just doesn't make sense.
The problem in requesting empirical evidence for things that are impossible to thoroughly discover by the scientific method is like asking us to smell the color 9. It is virtually impossible to prove that one particular film will have a specific and direct impact on everyone who sees it. You could include it in a study, but then it could be argued that the data is wrong, that some other film is responsible for X outcome, or that it's only through the accumulated weight of X Y and Z that a bad outcome is forecast. And for film and media in particular, that's impossible. I think you're trying to give too much weight to empirical evidence. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||||||||||||||
The important word here is 'morally'. I am very sure you're aware that this word brings to mind different sets of connotations amongst various members of society. Certainly, the belief within a particular cogniser that X is morally reprehensible would be incoherent with their belief that X can remain in its current form, but for a given X the former belief is not necessarily universally shared amongst those capable of holding such beliefs. This sort difference of opinion is also the case regarding the source of 'rights'.
Some days ago you said, "one does not need a study to see the major change in morality that has occurred even within the last 30 years in this country". Although not numerical, this sort of observation is itself empirical evidence. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
DFBTG
Posts: 385 Location: Hell |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Of course it only takes five people (in the US at least, don't know about other places) to repeal every state's amendments....normally I hate the very thought, but in this case I wouldn't mind....too much. Actually, as much as I wanted to bite the bullet, I probably couldn't force myself. At any rate, I rather enjoyed this. To my knowledge nothing I've really cared about has been discussed in the column so far, but I'm looking forward to part 2. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Sophisticat
 Posts: 165 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This thread being tl;dr, I won't bother doing more than glossing over it.
Now, besides the many factually incorrect claims presented in this article from an armchair lawyer's viewpoint and the Chicken Little fear-mongering, this is getting overblown. The most this guy is going to get is a slap on the wrists and the worst censoring we will observe is a continued ban on the loli porn. The CBLDF is spreading some nice propaganda by inciting fear in everyone that currently tame and perfectly legal series are suddenly going to get banned, which is ridiculous. Also, this thread is derailing itself by going into the "this is the way it should be" argument. I support the idea that no ban should be incurred on anything drawn, but the law is the law and in this case, I'm certainly not against it as it effectively bans child porn. No one is against that, I presume? |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
NoobPatrol
Posts: 1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Well actually, under the court case Miller v. California, the Supreme court states that obscene materials do not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.
Then again 'obscene' is a vague premise and perspective base so indeed it is a gray area. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
nifty507
Posts: 1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
- The average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; - The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and - The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Less vague, but still open to perspective. Don't forget that this only determines whether or not a material is obscene, there are legally obscene materials. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition is another recent case to look at. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
enurtsol
 Posts: 14761 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This commentary about "Govt uses Obscenity Law to stuff up cartoon sex loophole" pertains to a UK case, but it makes good points on both sides of the debate:
The key question is why one should need to do something about such material. That is not to defend it or advocate its possession: rather, it is to highlight concern that the current climate of hysteria over child protection makes it very difficult for our legislators to explore the underlying issues without the risk of having their motives questioned. The first and most important issue is whether this proposed law will make matters better – or worse. Existing laws on child porn have at their core the very reasonable contention that the mere existence – let alone circulation – of photos of child abuse contribute to the further abuse of a child. When it comes to wholly fictitious imagery, there is no direct harm. If the law is not simply premised on a desire to punish, then it needs to demonstrate either that it contributes to a reduction in longer term harm, or that it will do no worse than the status quo. The pictures in question may be odious, but do they "reinforce inappropriate feelings" - or do they act as a substitute for abuse? Moreover, if abusers have begun to collect cartoon images as a safer way to satisfy their fantasies, then could this law actually reinvigorate the market for real porn? Then there's also the question of what constitutes realistic enough in a cartoon depiction. A realistic sketch of kids drawn from pure imagination? A trace of a kiddie-porn photo but tweaked to be more cartoonish? Where to draw the line (pardon the pun)? |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group