| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
rubixcubd60
Joined: 13 Mar 2010
Posts: 21
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:42 am
|
 |
|
|
A problem I see with this bill is that it specifically states 18+. How are they going to tell the age unless specifically mentioned? After all alot of hentai feature characters that could be anywhere from 16 to 20, not to mention the thousand year old lolis that show up all the time.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Shenl742
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 1524
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:47 am
|
|
|
| rubixcubd60 wrote: | | A problem I see with this bill is that it specifically states 18+. How are they going to tell the age unless specifically mentioned? After all alot of hentai features girls that could be anywhere from 16 to 20, not to mention the thousand year old lolis that show up all the time. |
Easy fix: Artists and fans go back to lusting/drawing girls that actually look like they're adults?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Xanas
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 2058
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:47 am
|
|
|
|
Arbitrary questions like that end up being based on "common view of age based on appearance" which is still sketchy, but unfortunately I'm doubtful this limits the problems of the bill much.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
rubixcubd60
Joined: 13 Mar 2010
Posts: 21
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:01 am
|
|
|
|
I still think this bill sounds way too vague. After all what is "sexual", is it just graphic portrayals of sex? Some may interpret your average ecchi show as "sexual". I think that if this bill is going to get passed its going to need to be much more specific and spell everything out clearly.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Bento-Box
Joined: 08 Sep 2009
Posts: 1049
Location: Florida
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:29 am
|
|
|
| Levitz9 wrote: | |
politicians are such a pain. |
that about sums it up for me. I'm still not sure how a bill like that would be constitutional.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
egoist
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 7762
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:42 am
|
|
|
|
It just means if you draw a naked women who looks underage on a blank paper at school and that somehow ends up with an underage (that includes who drew it), there will be jail.
Funny. Probably better than UK's "it's illegal to shout at chicken eggs if told by authority not to".
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
rinmackie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 1040
Location: in a van! down by the river!
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:59 am
|
|
|
Wow, only two pages? Guess maybe we got this whole loli/shota debate out of our system. Seriously, though, they're still trying to pass this bill? What a waste! 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
configspace
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 3717
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:29 am
|
|
|
| Quote: | | The revised bill removes the term "nonexistent youth," and the Yomiuri Shimbun paper reports that the revisions avoid specific references to "characters younger than 18" to describe which materials would be restricted. ...
Translator Dan Kanemitsu added, "We have not seen the 'new' bill, and even if what the Yomiuri says is true about the content of the new bill, many are alarmed that this broadens the scope of regulation even more than before." |
I hope this gives more ammunition to the opposition, considering the rationale used last time, actually making it easier to strike the bill down and hopefully for good this time
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Nemo_N
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 272
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:31 am
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Update: Yukari Fujimoto, a Meiji University associate professor who opposed the earlier bill, wrote in her Twitter account that the predicted increased support for the revised bill reflects the government's "wishful thinking." She added that there has been no discussion regarding the revisions among the legislators with whom she keeps in contact.
Takashi Yamaguchi, an attorney who also opposed the earlier bill, considers the Democratic Party of Japan's stance on the bill to be still undecided. He said that there is a high chance that the newspaper article was intended to curry favor in public opinion and lower the opposition's morale. Yamaguchi notes the newspaper's description of the revisions suggests that the bill will be more vague. Translator Dan Kanemitsu added, "We have not seen the 'new' bill, and even if what the Yomiuri says is true about the content of the new bill, many are alarmed that this broadens the scope of regulation even more than before." |
An even vaguer law. That wouldn't be much of a solution.
I hope the opposition to this bill doesn't die down.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Nemo_N
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 272
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:34 am
|
|
|
| Shenl742 wrote: |
| rubixcubd60 wrote: | | A problem I see with this bill is that it specifically states 18+. How are they going to tell the age unless specifically mentioned? After all alot of hentai features girls that could be anywhere from 16 to 20, not to mention the thousand year old lolis that show up all the time. |
Easy fix: Artists and fans go back to lusting/drawing girls that actually look like they're adults? |
And why should someone be forced, by law, to not draw things that make other people uncomfortable?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
rubixcubd60
Joined: 13 Mar 2010
Posts: 21
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:20 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: | | The revised bill removes the term "nonexistent youth," and the Yomiuri Shimbun paper reports that the revisions avoid specific references to "characters younger than 18" to describe which materials would be restricted. ...
|
Crap, I misread that bit about 18+ sorry everyone. But this begs the question, if they're not going by age what are they going by? Going by appearance alone wouldn't work, there are too many loopholes (under/over development immortality etc.) unless of course they specify all of those possibilities. Either way the law is sounding vaguer and vaguer.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
2DOtaku
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 122
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
enurtsol
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14754
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:40 pm
|
|
|
| rubixcubd60 wrote: | | I still think this bill sounds way too vague. After all what is "sexual", is it just graphic portrayals of sex? Some may interpret your average ecchi show as "sexual". I think that if this bill is going to get passed its going to need to be much more specific and spell everything out clearly. |
The same way the US Supreme Court isn't any more specific about the obscenity law: "I know it when I see it." 
| Bento-Box wrote: |
| Levitz9 wrote: | |
politicians are such a pain. |
that about sums it up for me. I'm still not sure how a bill like that would be constitutional. |
Have you read the Japanese constitution?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Ashen Phoenix
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2907
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:55 pm
|
|
|
| Jaymie wrote: | | This is still just as vague. Anyway, I don't see the harm in shota/loli/whatever. It's not like actual children are being harmed. And it's better for pedophiles to read that instead of actual child pornography. |
Agreed.
What happen to that one saying, "While I don't support what you do/say/like/think, I'll defend to the death your right to do/say/like/think it."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
luffypirate
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 3186
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:43 pm
|
|
|
|
As long as I get my Kojika, all's right with the world.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
