Forum - View topic

NEWS: Japan's Child Pornography Bill Would Not Restrict Anime, Manga

Whenever I see an article that has "child pornography" and "anime"/"manga" in the same sentence, I am reminded how stupid people really are.

Ignatz wrote:

Whenever I see an article that has "child pornography" and "anime"/"manga" in the same sentence, I am reminded how stupid people really are.

So you would have no problem with pictures of five year olds getting anally raped as long as it's just pictures? You think people should be able to sell that as long as it's just a drawing?

Rahxephon91 wrote:

Ignatz wrote: Whenever I see an article that has "child pornography" and "anime"/"manga" in the same sentence, I am reminded how stupid people really are. So you would have no problem with pictures of five year olds getting anally raped as long as it's just pictures? You think people should be able to sell that as long as it's just a drawing?

As long as you cannot provide research that convincingly indicates that pictures of imagined sex with an imagined child directly or indirectly increase actual harassment, this is purely an ethical argument. Even if it would, there would still be room for lot of debate about where we draw the line with freedom of expression.

You didn't answer his question though. A simple yes or no will do. Do you have any problems with drawings of children being anally rapped.

C'mon man at least have the courage to answer. Remember they're drawings, not real human beings.

So you would have no problem with pictures of five year olds getting anally raped as long as it's just pictures? You think people should be able to sell that as long as it's just a drawing?

I'll answer it, then. I find such drawings reprehensible. *However*, I don't have to like them. The artist is still free to make them, and other people should still be free to view them if they want.

When you say "Do you have any problems", you seem to be purposely conflating two issues: the right of a person to make a particular drawing, and whether he is fine with viewing such a drawing. Just like the free speech saying, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." It's the same with drawings, you can disagree with the drawing, but defend the right of the person to make such a drawing.

Because, as you said, they're just drawings, not real human beings.

I'm not conflating any issues. Had I done that I would have asked WHAT kind of specific problem do you have with such and such pictures. There can be many reasons why one would object to such drawings as your answer showed.

For me, I have definite problems with such pictures and contrary to you think that such pictures should be banned. And yes this means that artists and not only them are to be restricted from drawing them.
In my view living in a society is all about equilibrium or a social contract if you will. I think that there are circumstances were the public good outweights any kind of so-called "individual" freedom. So I don't subscribe to the idea that free expression is without limits. The legislator has a duty to balance the needs and wants of all parts of society. And that means that sometimes you are not allowed to do certain things. Be it "encite racial hate", "deny the holocaust", "be free to subscribe and express the nazi ideology" etc...

Censorship for all h-manga has increased, even if it's a story about two 30 year old adults in a heterosexual relationship for the pure purpose of procreation using the missionary position. It's gone from maybe a few strategic black lines to a ladder of them, if not just fully whiting out or mosaicing it, even in the tank release. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's lolicon, there's just been a massive chilling effect on the hentai industry.

Also, most of the other big monthly publications can have loli content if that's where an artist decides to go.

Rahxephon91 wrote:

So you would have no problem with pictures of five year olds getting anally raped as long as it's just pictures? You think people should be able to sell that as long as it's just a drawing?

So you would have no problem with pictures of five year olds getting brutally murdered as long as it's just pictures? You think people should be able to sell that as long as it's just a drawing?

As long as you cannot provide research that convincingly indicates that pictures of imagined sex with an imagined child directly or indirectly increase actual harassment, this is purely an ethical argument. Even if it would, there would still be room for lot of debate about where we draw the line with freedom of expression.