Forum

It seems like you really need to have been at this panel to get the full picture - the article summary sounds very... emotion-inducing and urgent, but... so what if text is removed for copyright reasons? Is it also censorship when a mangaka makes their characters go to WcDonald's?

And in the other case mentioned in the article "This censorship often comes directly from the original author" - okay, so the Japanese author is following Japanese laws. Alright.

Correction: Varun Gupta is the CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Manga Mavericks, not the founder. The founders of Manga Mavericks are Siddharth Gupta and Colton Solem.

Also, the "staffer from Kodansha" was Ben Applegate, the Director of Publishing Services at Penguin Random House for Kodansha USA.

Soft censorship is an under considered issue. People often bring it up when legal bans are being done to ask why people don't care about it more, but the ways you help with soft censorship are very different from helping with legal censorship.

Legal censorship is applied by governments and therefore it is simple to support such series financially or oppose such laws. Actually stopping those laws and publishing around them is a very complicated back and forth, but the mission is pretty clear.

Soft self censorship is done by artists and companies who have and should retain the power to do whatever they want with their series. I dislike whenever re-releases or obscenity standards cause changes to the original work, but creating a massive backlash every time they adhere to legal standards to protect themselves or forcing them to adhere to past designs against the current law is a bad idea. Artists and companies ultimately deserve to control how they want to create art and forcing them to make things a certain way will just discourage them from revisiting certain properties and topics more than get them to release things the way we want them to be.

So if we can't force companies and artists to stop self censoring due to wanting to reach the broadest market possible and adhere to required laws, the best thing we can do is create an environment where people are unafraid to create and remove legal barriers to creating media with certain content. This doesn't mean that stories should be free of criticism, just that laws shouldn't restrict content for adults and that people should be judicious with how they criticize things. Make your complaints, but don't be the person that harasses a creator or fan base you dislike, don't be someone that calls for more censorship laws thinking you'll protect someone when it is always used to hide ideas people dislike.

Also, don't be the person that conflates criticism with calls for censorship. We all know there are some people that critique works and take it too far by harassing people, but most of the time when people are upset over the content of the work they are speaking as a consumer of art and not a potential censor. Seeing one person online call for censorship then assuming everyone that critiques it wants to censor, or even assuming that by not taking part in online outrage about the soft censorship (which is harder for them to personally change) that they somehow support soft censorship confuses the conversation. This makes people not want to discuss non-legal censorship at all, and it certainly doesn't help when people equate it with legal censorship while the situations are clearly night and day.

Besides removing the laws that cause artists to self censor, we have even less control over this aspect since there is no political avenue for change. As was said the best thing to do is vote with your dollars so publishers see that controversial or partially banned stories are still worthwhile.

marshmallowpie wrote:

It seems like you really need to have been at this panel to get the full picture - the article summary sounds very... emotion-inducing and urgent, but... so what if text is removed for copyright reasons? Is it also censorship when a mangaka makes their characters go to WcDonald's?

The concern with changing text pre-emptively to avoid potential copyright infringement would be the blurred lines between what is or isn't fair use to depict in printed material. Characters going to "WcDonalds" instead of McDonalds would just be considered parody if it was always an intentional choice but it would be censorship if the author was requested to change McDonalds to WcDonalds because of copyright concerns.

marshmallowpie wrote:

And in the other case mentioned in the article "This censorship often comes directly from the original author" - okay, so the Japanese author is following Japanese laws. Alright.

This was referring to Japanese authors being involved with censorship decisions of their work overseas, not in Japan. For example, Chiaki Yagura, creator of Alternative Self-Liner Note, had prepared a version of the manga with the Nirvana lyrics replaced with music notes in case there were copyright issues. There is also another artist Manga Mavericks is working with who was concerned that their work may have controversial content in it that would make it difficult to publish overseas, though in their case they were reassured that the content is fine and would not need to be altered.

There's a big difference between some out-of-context music lyrics and a corporate logo, IMO.

Imagine people worrying about getting sued by the Beatles estate for ever using the phrase "She loves you"

FishLion wrote:

Soft self censorship is done by artists and companies who have and should retain the power to do whatever they want with their series. I dislike whenever re-releases or obscenity standards cause changes to the original work, but creating a massive backlash every time they adhere to legal standards to protect themselves or forcing them to adhere to past designs against the current law is a bad idea.

Is there really legal issues in play here? If they release an uncensored version of Shaman King in America where Chocolove is named Chocolove and has his original lips will the publishers get arrested for a hate crime or something? I figured most cases of censorship are done to avoid backlash from American customers and groups not actual legal threats. Stuff like JoJo's stand names or One Piece calling Zoro "Zolo" being done for potential legal issue I can see but I assume it's more about PR and avoiding backlash from a minority of crazies when they remove offensive or "outdated" content in the American version. Or it's because the people in charge just don't want to endorse content that's in a manga so they remove it

marshmallowpie wrote:

It seems like you really need to have been at this panel to get the full picture - the article summary sounds very... emotion-inducing and urgent, but... so what if text is removed for copyright reasons? Is it also censorship when a mangaka makes their characters go to WcDonald's?

I would say no to the latter one since that's just standard parody and it was originally made with being a parody in mind. Now, if the characters originally go to McDonalds but in the western localization or a re-release in Japan they have to change it to WcDonalds then maybe you can call it censorship but me personally I only consider something censorship if it's done to political or cultural reasons. Copyright changes are still annoying and bad, but I save the word censorship for things done with certain motive in mind. Something like Oda being forced by his editors to change the original Whitebeard flag is censorship. Later volumes of JoJo Part 6 changing Jolyne tellling Foo Fighters she throws like an okama [gay slur] to simply saying she throws like a gay person [non slur] is censorship. America changing Sailor Neptune and Sailor Uranus to cousins or re-coloring Mr. Popo to be blue is censorship.

Zoltan Kakler wrote:

FishLion wrote:

Soft self censorship is done by artists and companies who have and should retain the power to do whatever they want with their series. I dislike whenever re-releases or obscenity standards cause changes to the original work, but creating a massive backlash every time they adhere to legal standards to protect themselves or forcing them to adhere to past designs against the current law is a bad idea.

Is there really legal issues in play here? If they release an uncensored version of Shaman King in America where Chocolove is named Chocolove and has his original lips will the publishers get arrested for a hate crime or something? I figured most cases of censorship are done to avoid backlash from American customers and groups not actual legal threats.

That specific scenario isn't legal issues, but there are cases where people are mad they cut back fan service in something when broadcast standards have changed drastically. Sure you can be Gushing Over Magical Girls if you don't mind staying in a narrow set of time slots, but if you want to have a revival of a major hit Ranma that hopefully reaches many people then you don't want to stick to those time slots so you don't show full nudity.

That isn't a legal issue where they can get fined or sued, but legal regulations are affecting what a studio decides to make and that should always be their right. These cases are very relevant because it seems like 90% of the time when I hear about soft censorship it is about someone scaling back the sex appeal or nudity of a scene or character.

In your scenario, I dislike those changes because I feel like such changes bury the history of what the artist made. That being said, if an author or publisher understands that was a bad thing to do and wants a new edition that is less offensive because they regret the previous depiction, it is hard to blame them. I don't want to sweep caricatures under the rug in a way that hides the history, but if I drew something like that and realized my error later I would be extremely embarrassed. I think the ideal situation would be if someone did mention what changes were made and why rather than just sweeping it under the rug, but even without legal peril companies need to be allowed to make those decisions.

People can raise a fuss all they like but it they were forced legally or by fans to only have the original version they just wouldn't publish it. The hard truth is that no company wants to be known as the people that put out the racial caricature manga and that is a completely normal desire for a publishing company to have. Not only that, I feel like anyone that green lit a comic with racial caricatures would probably be fired for giving the company a bad name. You could say if it's that dicey they should avoid publishing it altogether, but there are almost always more fans that care about getting a chance to own the series they love than there are fans that care about niche issues like caricatures being preserved in new editions.

So no, your specific issue is not related to legal issues, but even in that case fans requesting or harassing creators to leave in caricatures are living in fantasy land. Avoiding that sort of material is not just a matter of PR as in they will deal with a few angry letters, it matters because the reputational cost of publishing a racial caricature will harm all their other publishing ventures which means that there is never a good value proposition for releasing it unedited (especially if they get known specifically as the company that publishes that stuff). They will always choose a book that doesn't have those if that is the standard they are held to and most people would rather we get new editions of a flawed work then it never be published again.

FishLion wrote:

So if we can't force companies and artists to stop self censoring due to wanting to reach the broadest market possible and adhere to required laws, the best thing we can do is create an environment where people are unafraid to create and remove legal barriers to creating media with certain content.

I strongly disagree that fans should consider your broadest market mindset acceptable. People rightfully get pissed when big corpos rake people over the coals for an extra buck. This is the exact same thing. They're watering down the product in an attempt to chase the money, and people have every reason to be turned off by that.

I've removed a post. Please stay on topic. -W

SilverTalon01 wrote:

FishLion wrote:

So if we can't force companies and artists to stop self censoring due to wanting to reach the broadest market possible and adhere to required laws, the best thing we can do is create an environment where people are unafraid to create and remove legal barriers to creating media with certain content.

I strongly disagree that fans should consider your broadest market mindset acceptable. People rightfully get pissed when big corpos rake people over the coals for an extra buck. This is the exact same thing. They're watering down the product in an attempt to chase the money, and people have every reason to be turned off by that.

You seem to think I am saying anime should strive to be advertiser friendly in an effort to attract as many fans as possible.

I am saying nothing of the sort, I am saying that some anime are literally made for specific markets. GOMG doesn't mind being late night, Ranma is trying to reach a broader audience than a late night slot reaches and has to choose between visually censoring nudity or airing when they don't want to. Ranma is a big enough property that there was no way they were going to air late night. That means if they wanted to make it in a feasible way they are legally required to censor certain things.

Please don't associate me pointing out that certain productions are aiming for certain markets and therefore have to make some changes with "watering down the product in an attempt to chase the money, and people have every reason to be turned off by that." I even literally said we should remove legal barriers to creating media with certain content so companies self censor less, how do you turn that into my saying we should water down properties for mass appeal?

FishLion wrote:

SilverTalon01 wrote:

FishLion wrote:

So if we can't force companies and artists to stop self censoring due to wanting to reach the broadest market possible and adhere to required laws, the best thing we can do is create an environment where people are unafraid to create and remove legal barriers to creating media with certain content.

I strongly disagree that fans should consider your broadest market mindset acceptable. People rightfully get pissed when big corpos rake people over the coals for an extra buck. This is the exact same thing. They're watering down the product in an attempt to chase the money, and people have every reason to be turned off by that.

You seem to think I am saying anime should strive to be advertiser friendly in an effort to attract as many fans as possible.

I am saying nothing of the sort, I am saying that some anime are literally made for specific markets. GOMG doesn't mind being late night, Ranma is trying to reach a broader audience than a late night slot reaches and has to choose between visually censoring nudity or airing when they don't want to. Ranma is a big enough property that there was no way they were going to air late night. That means if they wanted to make it in a feasible way they are legally required to censor certain things.

Please don't associate me pointing out that certain productions are aiming for certain markets and therefore have to make some changes with "watering down the product in an attempt to chase the money, and people have every reason to be turned off by that." I even literally said we should remove legal barriers to creating media with certain content so companies self censor less, how do you turn that into my saying we should water down properties for mass appeal?

Unfortunately, attitudes change and "old habits die hard".

There was a long standing concern that natural human intimacy and seeing the natural human body in Japan was fading, with bathhouses closing and older Japanese customs being lost due to "modernization". That's true.

As what Answerman said as well, "when America sneezes, everyone else catches it too". I'll try to be brief about it but the 1990s being the decade of the spoiled college douchebro and vapid diva really tainted exercised and honed human beauty due to lack of accountability for their actions and with mass live action media giving them fat heads thinking they could be easy celebrities on reality TV. And when that sentiment that "beauty = shallow cruel spoiled assholery", that really affects society at large. For historic references, look up the San Antonio Spurs Controversy and OJ Simpson.

It's why today, we can't stand actual trained and honed beauty out in the states- because it has been co-opted by greedy and ill raised bastards and their greedy and ill raised families. This is what happens when irresponsibility takes hold, what becomes so, it becomes anathema.

Back to the point, while there's also many other reasons, that's sort of why what was okay back in the day in the anime world- unrestrained violence, T&A, sexual humor -is dwindling.

I have my reservations, but this conversation isn't the place for it. I will say that if you wanted, you can and you should express what you want to entertain, and responsibly, but what's going on beyond what I've stated is not the disease- It's a symptom.

Just remember though:

Fish Lion wrote:

Besides removing the laws that cause artists to self censor, we have even less control over this aspect since there is no political avenue for change. As was said the best thing to do is vote with your dollars so publishers see that controversial or partially banned stories are still worthwhile.

This is what got Pokemon and Toonami back in the day to really get anime in the US conscious, and that was when anime was "Japanese boobie cartoons because cartoons are for kids".

Murder, She wrote:

Gupta had a different example of soft censorship on a title he worked on: replacing lyrics from Nirvana's “Heart-Shaped Box” to avoid potential copyright issues (this would have been the time to make a JoJo reference, but no one did).

Here's a couple Jojo references, issues courtesy of Anime News Network:

Jojo's Anime, Manga Sales Halted Due to Islamic Images

JoJo's Manga Part 3 Republished in Revised Edition

FishLion wrote:

SilverTalon01 wrote:

FishLion wrote:

So if we can't force companies and artists to stop self censoring due to wanting to reach the broadest market possible and adhere to required laws, the best thing we can do is create an environment where people are unafraid to create and remove legal barriers to creating media with certain content.

I strongly disagree that fans should consider your broadest market mindset acceptable. People rightfully get pissed when big corpos rake people over the coals for an extra buck. This is the exact same thing. They're watering down the product in an attempt to chase the money, and people have every reason to be turned off by that.

You seem to think I am saying anime should strive to be advertiser friendly in an effort to attract as many fans as possible.

I am saying nothing of the sort, I am saying that some anime are literally made for specific markets. GOMG doesn't mind being late night, Ranma is trying to reach a broader audience than a late night slot reaches and has to choose between visually censoring nudity or airing when they don't want to. Ranma is a big enough property that there was no way they were going to air late night. That means if they wanted to make it in a feasible way they are legally required to censor certain things.

Please don't associate me pointing out that certain productions are aiming for certain markets and therefore have to make some changes with "watering down the product in an attempt to chase the money, and people have every reason to be turned off by that." I even literally said we should remove legal barriers to creating media with certain content so companies self censor less, how do you turn that into my saying we should water down properties for mass appeal?

Ranma literally aired after midnight though?

I dislike when people use "the creator approved of the changes" line to excuse censorship or any other kind of changes to an IP such as a Hollywood live-action adaption of a series. What they really mean is the creator approved of the changes being made to an foreign version made for a market they don't have to ever acknowledge or interact with. The fact creators never try to retroactively change the original work to match the overseas localized version seems evidence enough they don't think the changes were for the better or that they we're wrong for the way they originally handled things. They just know overseas markets are more restrictive so signing off on some changes means they can get their paycheck.

Although we've also seen cases where the creator was not aware of changes made to their work overseas so as to how common that statement truly is seems debatable. Perhaps they merely sign off on a generic "the company can make the changes it feels are necessary to ensure success in this foreign market" statement rather than being presented with every change being made and checking off each one. The latter sounds like a lot of work and too involved for most creators to bother with.

Forum - View topic
The Legal and 'Soft' Censorship Affecting Manga in America

Dandelion Anime Series Review

This Week in Anime - Movie Night Madness

Hands-On Preview: You Can't Play Stranger Than Heaven Like a Yakuza Game

A Gentle Noble's Vacation Recommendation Anime Series Review

Interview: What's New and Different in Resident Evil Veronica

The Greatest Magicmaster's Retirement Plan Light Novels Get TV Anime in 2027

Yoshi and the Mysterious Book Game Review

This Week in Anime - The Stunt Market

Tokyo Revengers Returns to Pony Canyon Stage at AnimeJapan 2026 for 50 Minutes of Fun and Games

Kyousuke Motomi's Dengeki Daisy Shōjo Manga Gets TV Anime by Studio Deen

A Returner's Magic Should Be Special Volumes 4-6 K-Comic Review

EXCLUSIVE: X² - Double X OVA Gets 1st-Ever Digital Release on Crunchyroll, X Japan's Yoshiki Talks to ANN About Work's Significance

The Astronaut Who Loves Anime

Forum - View topicThe Legal and 'Soft' Censorship Affecting Manga in America

Forum

Forum - View topic
The Legal and 'Soft' Censorship Affecting Manga in America