Forum - View topicNEWS: Takeshi Nogami Responds to CNN's Rapelay Report
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
rainbowrabbit
 Posts: 95 |
|
|||||
Isn't it also disturbing to imply that a person should kill themselves just because they don't agree with your opinion? Not only do you seem like a hypocrite, but you come off as being arrogant. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||
Look, if you start calling others' opinions "BS," so can others call yours the same way. You achieve nothing except that nobody would take your words seriously from now on. |
||||||
|
||||||
BrightxRingxFirefly
 Posts: 156 Location: Kentucky, US |
|
|||||
|
The thing that strikes me as the most truly offensive about this whole mess is that the major news outlets here in the U.S. care enough to expend so much energy on "protecting" fictional characters from harm, yet not enough to spend as much time reporting on the light sentences actual rapists get, the huge backlog of rape kits sitting on shelves, ignored, in police departments, or how under-reported actual rape is in this country.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
bolfotha
Posts: 18 |
|
|||||
|
CNN has an agenda to push. It's just what all kinds of media do.
The media is not supposed to be impartial. it is supposed to influence and sway people. That's why we have "left" and "right" and even so called "independent" media. Everyone has their own goal to push. They also need viewership and which do you think will generate more hype? Some foreign rape game or actual material dealing with real life rape? But their recent efforts do seem blatant. I've seen their poll on Rapelay for the third time. The previous two didn't end the way they hoped for. The majority voted for No to any form of censorship or ban. They're having yet another poll, but isn't that like re-rolling a dice until it gives you the number it wants? Not sure if I would use that as propaganda material. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Annf
Posts: 578 |
|
|||||
For whatever reason, you made a brand new account to post in this thread, so it's possible you're just playing around, hoping for entertaining reactions. But I'll humor you just in case you're serious. I wish I could get inside the mind of someone who thinks the way you do and see how it works, find out how a person can conclude that make-believe can be "wrong." I mean, I could pause here for a moment right now and daydream about something incredibly horrible--say, burning an innocent person to death in graphic detail, laughing as I do it--and it would mean absolutely nothing. Nothing about my life would change in any way for having imagined that. So naturally I tend to assume that people in general are the same. And yet, for some reason, you don't. I wonder what the difference between you and me is. Have you experienced something in your life that makes you feel that way? Do you feel that something "poisoned" your mind, and thus you naturally worry it can happen to others? I don't think there's much to say about what you've said here, because all you've done is express raw emotion. You repeated the word "wrong" a lot, made the ambiguous statement "poisons the mind" (What does that actually mean?) and dismissed the idea that it's possible to make any kind of scientific analysis of the topic, apparently thus leaving your opinion to be treated as fact by default. Obviously, your emotions are your own, and they can't in and of themselves be wrong or right--I wouldn't dream of telling you that your feelings on the matter are "incorrect." ...Though that's exactly want you want to do to others: deny them freedom of emotion. Deny them ownership of their own minds. Perhaps the more relevant question is--do you support legal penalties for people who enjoy "bad" fantasies, or are you content with shunning them socially and making it clear to others how much it disgusts you? |
||||||
|
||||||
Tomibiki
 Posts: 834 |
|
|||||
|
CNN just found out Japan's fucked up? Hella late guys
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
The_Q
Posts: 57 |
|
|||||
Don't forget rap music in the early 90! I think there was a song called "cop killer" that sparked a backlash. And I love how they interview Equality Now, a notorious radical feminist, anti- free speech organization. keep in mind that they cheery pick their info they present. The quotes on their site were from trolls on Sankaku, and any criticism they received is disregarded as "hatemail". Maybe CNN should have interview a non-psychotic feminist group, such as Feminist for Free Expression, and get their take on the matter.Well, at least this initial report was slightly kinda sorta less bias with the English couple at the end (don't you feel offended as a women?...No. Heh,pwned). You know, the only ones with common sense. And if they were trying to get more sympathizers, that may have backlashed. Sure, you may get more some, but you can also draw the eye of anti-censorship peoples and organizations. Plus, this reporter is Korean, so there is the potential for a racial bias to this whole report. However, there is a good chance that this is an isolated incident. The reason I say this is because this whole raplay story has yet to surface on any other news site. And when you have a bid scandal, every damn site in the world will post something on it. Given the this is currently not the case, I predict that this may be swept under the rug. Plus, the biggest international news that hitting every news outlet is about the Church and it's sex scandals over the years. So that should preoccupy many international eyes. Finally, I'm glad that Nogami actually responded to this BS. We have bias, misconceptions and flat out lies in the report (CP has been outlawed in Japan for over a decade, someone send CNN the memo), and it's good to see a Japanese citizen actually defend himself, something they should do a bit more often 
|
||||||
|
||||||
RestLessone
 Posts: 1426 Location: New York |
|
|||||
Actually, I think they were referring to possession (didn't they clearly state possession?) which, unless there is some new law, I think is still legal: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST35097220080808 Basically, you can't make it or sell it, but just possessing it wont get you in trouble... 
|
||||||
|
||||||
zargas
 Posts: 50 Location: Nebula M78 |
|
|||||
That's because the legal definition of "child pornography" in Japan is very broad, so broad that making it illegal will criminalize a lot of innocent people. Dan Kanemitsu explains this on his website http://www.translativearts.com/nonexist01.html in the last section "Supplemental - What the big deal with child pornography in Japan?" Basically there won't be enough support to outlaw child porn unless the legal definition is more specific and clear, but the people who want to outlaw child porn also want the legal definition to stay as broad and vague as possible. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||
Well, the problem with her report is the context, or lack thereof where she states "The national government is considering making possession of child pornography illegal -- currently it is not." And that's it without any explanation whatsoever, not even what you mentioned about it making and selling. However, the fact is that child pornography featuring sexual activity has been illegal since 1947. It was only until 1999--the current law you cite and she refers to--that producing and selling anything, including things deemed artistic, featuring (real) nude persons under 18 were made illegal. The problem is that there are many nude photo books, pinups, posters that have been made of teen idols and actresses, before the latest law went into effect. In a debate last year the UN/Equality Now rep asserted that the book "Santa Fe" which featured nude photos of famous actress Rie Miyazawa, then 17 years old (now 36) was "child porn", which Miyazawa herself disagrees with, and decried how it was still legal in Japan 
EDIT: Another reason why possession without selling or public distribution is still legal, why it's not as black and white, are the cases of personal photographs, say of a girlfriend and boyfriend sharing nude photos of each other. This is what happens in "our way": http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1 - "A 15-year-old Ohio girl faces felony charges and may have to register as a sex offender for allegedly taking nude photos of herself and sending them to her high school classmates." http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/07/sexting.busts/index.html - "He had just turned 18 when he sent a naked photo of his 16-year-old girlfriend, a photo she had taken and sent him, to dozens of her friends and family after an argument. The high school sweethearts had been dating for almost 2½ years. ... He was sentenced to five years probation and required by Florida law to register as a sex offender." http://montgomerynews.com/articles/2010/04/01/public_spirit_willow_grove_guide/news/doc4bb4f6e231d0b320398818.prt - "County DA says teen sexting will be punished" Anyways the CP thing is completely tangetial to the whole issue at hand and is another thing the reporter just threw in, with no explanation and misleading context, to fan the flames. Last edited by configspace on Sun Apr 04, 2010 3:19 pm; edited 3 times in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
RestLessone
Posts: 1426 Location: New York |
|
|||||
Ah, that explains it (partially, at least); thanks. Still, it's a real shame that no one (or anything with enough power) is attempting to at least get something moving under the first two rules. The third one in theory should work, but it's too vague and easy to exploit. Obviously, people understand what it's supposed to mean, but it's broad enough that a person with a grudge could twist it. I wish someone could do something, even if only for the benefit of the kids who fall under the first two. Then someone could write up a replacement for the third one that's more specific.
Oh, I get what you mean. I would have probably assumed the she meant child porn was legal if I didn't know about the existing laws regarding it. I just wanted to make sure that the claim, while definitely added to excite people, it was technically correct. And, yes, it really doesn't have much to do with this case or the fake stuff; there's a big difference between real and fake. I still wish there would be a ban, regardless of the amount of pre-existing photos, just because it makes more sense in the long run. If worse comes to worse, they could always do a "anything already in existence before this law is not subject to it" thing. EDIT: On the case of the whole sexting thing, I'm not opposed to teens being punished, depending on the case. I just don't think that a girl who sends a naked picture to her boyfriend (who later sends it to all his friends) should be a registered sex offender and be charged with a felony. Provide some sort of counseling, maybe something else/more, but don't treat her like a sex offender. However, I still don't see it as a reason to not ban possession real-life child pornography. Yeah, laws or vague and there are issues, but it's about working past that. Police can nail a distributor, they can capture a photographer, but in the end the customers are still there, and thus the support. Last edited by RestLessone on Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||
I ask of you a response to the following set of related questions: 1) Why? 2) For any general case, what are the conditions necessary for it to be correct to assert that, by your use of the term in the quoted sentences, something is "wrong"? Do these conditions pertain to the person making the assertion or to the object to which this assertion is directed? 3) If one grants that is correct for you to assert that something is "wrong" by your use of the term, by which inference does one conclude that the entity (or set of entities) to which this assertion is directed is to cease to be present in the lives of all persons? You may appeal to any selected ethical theories in response to these. |
||||||
|
||||||
Ojamajo LimePie
 Posts: 765 |
|
|||||
Only because very few people in the US take trains. If trains were as crowded here as they are in Japan, you'd see 'Women Only' cars really quick.
|
||||||
|
||||||
tuxedocat
 Posts: 2183 |
|
|||||
Uh. yeah. and your point is? -I guess the quotation marks and the rolleyes smiley in my post wasn't enough to indicate a level of sarcasm? |
||||||
|
||||||
P€|\||§_|\/|ast@
 Posts: 3498 Location: IN your nightmares |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group