Forum

U.S. Law notwithstanding, here's the way I see it.

If they had these misgivings about the property, they should have never acquired it. There was absolutely no need for them to acquire this property. It's looking like this is going to cost them...and you'd think they'd have learned from the last time they performed massive edits, IE, the entire Dragon Ball Z fiasco at the genesis of their company.

If someone else had acquired the property and done the same thing, I'd be saying the same thing about them. If you feel the need to edit something due to 'decency' laws or illegality of content, just do not acquire the property.

Funimation has made a huge mistake here. This seems to be on the order of when Geneon and ADV were licensing everything in sight, which contributed a great deal to their demise. A little more of a discerning eye towards acquisitions seems to be required. As it is, they're going to have a lot of unneeded 'fun' trying to square this one away. Let's hope they don't somehow influence the anime creators themselves concerning the rest of the scenes which are supposed to creep out the audience.

Otherwise it's a simple matter for me to just not buy from them. I've done it before, and I see I may have to do it again. They do have imports if I feel the need to have something tangible in my hand, despite the additional cost I will incur for this.

So the loli lobby can see their naked little girls afterall. All's well with the world again.

So let me get this straight. They're more than willing to edit Vampire Bund in its free streaming because of the questionable loli nudity, but they have no problem whatsoever with exposing everyone to the blatant nudity of all the characters in Sekerei (regardless of their age because large breasts therefore = over 18)? Wow, go FUNimation. What about the whole "Do for 1 for for all" thing? If you're going to edit one thing, you might as well call yourself 4Kids and edit them all, right? Nudity's nudity. Regardless of it being questionable or not.

I just don't see the big deal here, and why they're so avid in editing it. I mean, if other characters in other anime who are of loli status are getting streamed in the nude, then why's this one so special? Even Chibi-usa of Sailor Moon ran around the house naked in the SuperS series, and that was aired without any editing (to much of everyone's amazement).

Last edited by configspace on Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:54 am; edited 2 times in total

PetrifiedJello wrote:

configspace wrote:

Remember, even the PROTECT act was ruled unconstitutional when the DA initially attempted to apply it to the Handley case

"Handley pleaded guilty under "Title 18, United States Code, Section 1466A(b)(1)."

The PROTECT Act.

true, but 1466A(b)(1) = obscenity clause,
which in turns relies on the same (terrible) obscenity laws for judgment

tempest wrote:

Only parts of it. His conviction was still under the PROTECT Act.

which is ironic because the parts in the same section that were the most relevant in supporting the DA's case, and which would've resulted in all types of content being banned outright, were the parts struck down as unconstitutional.

Edit:
to clarify, these two parts were ruled unconstitutional:
(interesting, but probably tiresome to some by now...)spoiler[

(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

so it's possible to have something plainly pornographic, like most erotic fan art for example, and still be legal. Applying the PROTECT act then hinges on basically what a particular group of people at a particular time finds 'obscene'.

And strangely, you would think that striking down 2b would also strike down obscenity laws since artistic merit is one of the requirements. But I bet they get around that since obscenity laws don't criminalize the possession or expression itself (i.e. does not ban the ideas), but rather the trafficking of such materials
]

Mohawk52 wrote:

So the loli lobby can see their 300 year old vampires housed in naked little girls afterall. All's well with the world again.

there, corrected Laughing

kthardin wrote:

As it is, they're going to have a lot of unneeded 'fun' trying to square this one away. Let's hope they don't somehow influence the anime creators themselves concerning the rest of the scenes which are supposed to creep out the audience. Otherwise it's a simple matter for me to just not buy from them. I've done it before, and I see I may have to do it again. They do have imports if I feel the need to have something tangible in my hand, despite the additional cost I will incur for this.

Oh, christ! Rolling Eyes

Typical excuse, you don't want imports you want to screw the creators more.

kevin_video wrote:

They're more than willing to edit Vampire Bund in its free streaming because of the questionable loli nudity, but they have no problem whatsoever with exposing everyone to the blatant nudity of all the characters in Sekerei (regardless of their age because large breasts therefore = over 18)? Wow, go FUNimation.

Are you stupid? Or just belligerent?

That's it. I'm convinced people don't think longer than three seconds on any particular topic.

Dargonxtc wrote:

kevin_video wrote:

They're more than willing to edit Vampire Bund in its free streaming because of the questionable loli nudity, but they have no problem whatsoever with exposing everyone to the blatant nudity of all the characters in Sekerei (regardless of their age because large breasts therefore = over 18)? Wow, go FUNimation.

Are you stupid? Or just belligerent?

That's it. I'm convinced people don't think longer than three seconds on any particular topic.

Actually I think he makes a valid point. It just goes to show you how concerned people are over appearances alone, perhaps even more so for fictional depictions, whatever the facts may be.

configspace wrote:

Actually I think he makes a valid point. It just goes to show you how concerned people are over appearances alone, perhaps even more so for fictional depictions, whatever the facts may be.

Search the world over and count the number of 10 year old girls with massive breasts. Probably could count them on one hand. Do the same thing with 18 year old women with no breasts at all. There are millions of them.

If you don't understand why FUNi(or any company for that matter) has a reason to be concerned (fictional or not in the light of Handley) then you are being stupid and/or belligerent.

[Mod Edit: This is borderline. Try to refrain from going the route of personal attacks please.]

configspace wrote:

true, but 1466A(b)(1) = obscenity clause,
which in turns relies on the same (terrible) obscenity laws for judgment

Um, you forgot a part, which is interesting given how much text you've pulled from the law itself.

Please don't do this. Present all the facts so readers can be informed accurately.

The correct clause:

Quote:

1466A:(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene

It is my opinion that Handley was charged with (A) only, but won't know unless I see the court documents.

Quote:

which is ironic because the parts in the same section that were the most relevant in supporting the DA's case...

Which shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. I wouldn't classify this as irony but frightening.

The DA purposely went out of the way to bypass the law's intent, which is to prevent the action from being distributed as "art". I assuming that's why the judge had an issue with the obscenity charge, given this case wasn't about an act against a child.

Quote:

to clarify, these two parts were ruled unconstitutional:
(interesting, but probably tiresome to some by now...)

I'm not tired at all, and I really appreciate the fact you're actually taking the time to read the law.

Rather than use the Miller Test, the law was (purposely?) written to remove some elements of it, but instead, leave the determination of obscenity to the community.

I live in Indiana. I'm freakin' boned if someone walks by my house and thinks Popotan is equivalent to child pornography because the community finds nudity obscene.

Quote:

And strangely, you would think that striking down 2b would also strike down obscenity laws since artistic merit is one of the requirements.

Ha! That same definition applies to other sections as well. It should come as no surprise subsection 1466A was written to close any potential loopholes used by real offenders.

Quote:

there, corrected Laughing

Not to be rude, but your correction is just as asinine. For all the reading you've done, this is what you come up with? I'm a little disappointed.

How about this for a correction:
"So the loli lobby can see the uncensored works of artists afterall."

Some people don't see cartoon characters as "little girls" or "vampires". Wink

Dargonxtc wrote:

configspace wrote:

Actually I think he makes a valid point. It just goes to show you how concerned people are over appearances alone, perhaps even more so for fictional depictions, whatever the facts may be.

Search the world over and count the number of 10 year old women with massive breasts. Probably could count them on one hand. Do the same thing with 18 year old women with no breasts at all. There are millions of them.

Yet there are tons of these unrealistic underage girls with massive breasts in anime. And how many people exist in the world that can transform gender at will? How about change appearances, including age at will? How about being part human, part beast? etc.

The whole flaw is in people trying to equate what they see in fiction with what they think of in real life. Why do people compare to real life in one instance but not another? It's the same reason why people point to Strike Witches and say "loli", yet won't ever consider the same for Yoko in TTGL, who's well known to be 14!

But ironically in live action, no matter how young an actor may appear, if they actually are 18+ then no one has any legal recourse in terms of reconciling age and appearance.

Quote:

If you don't understand why FUNi(or any company for that matter) has a reason to be concerned (fictional or not in the light of Handley) then you are being stupid and/or belligerent.

Funi could do with being a bit more belligerent themselves in the face of controversy. (As for "or any company", I don't see MB worrying).

I think we all can see why they might be concerned, it's just that we disagree with the reasons. Funi is not Disney, they don't need to appease everyone; they don't need to back down from the slightest as-yet-unrealized-potential controversy. And the reasons are merely superficial. If you actually look at the details, Handley's case really hardly bears any resemblance or relevance here

PetrifiedJello wrote:

The correct clause:

Quote:

1466A:(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene

It is my opinion that Handley was charged with (A) only, but won't know unless I see the court documents.

(a) only??

The whole reason why I mentioned the parts that's left after striking 2a,b down, applicable of the PROTECT act hinges on the obscenity charge, as per the (a) "and" (b) conjunction required of the PROTECT act. Having sexually explicit materials with depictions of minors is NOT enough, especially with parts 2a and b struck down.

And because in the context of everything, we can assume that we're dealing with 1(a) already, the applicable part is then practically equivalent to an obscenity charge.

Remember previously, it was 1(a) and (b) OR 2(a) and (b)

Quote:

which is ironic because the parts in the same section that were the most relevant in supporting the DA's case...

Which shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. I wouldn't classify this as irony but frightening.

I'm glad 2(a) and (b) were brought up in order to have them ruled unconstitutional at least, since they would immediately cover and criminalize distro of a broader range of works e.g. fan art. At least with 1a,b you would have to defer to an obscenity ruling.

Quote:

Rather than use the Miller Test, the law was (purposely?) written to remove some elements of it, but instead, leave the determination of obscenity to the community.

which is why I've stated that since 1466 clauses 2(a)(b) were struck down, you're left with clauses 1(a)(b) which requires both (a) and (b), which again, as I've mentioned originally above for all that's left, for all intents and purposes = obscenity laws

Quote:

And strangely, you would think that striking down 2b would also strike down obscenity laws since artistic merit is one of the requirements.

Ha! That same definition applies to other sections as well. It should come as no surprise subsection 1466A was written to close any potential loopholes used by real offenders.

.. you mean applying just 1(a) of 1466 alone? Section 1 was written to require (a) and (b)..

Anyways, really the whole thing is unconstitutional IMO and undermines the civil liberties and intent of this nation, likewise with obscenity laws. At most they should be used to limit public exposure and access, NOT to criminalize and penalize people for exchanging their freedom of speech.

Quote:

Not to be rude, but your correction is just as asinine. For all the reading you've done, this is what you come up with? I'm a little disappointed.

erm, of course? I had no intention of turning it into some witty legal quip

(and please stop patronizing me)

Quote:

How about this for a correction:
"So the loli lobby can see the uncensored works of artists afterall."

Some people don't see cartoon characters as "little girls" or "vampires". Wink

kinda kills the humor though

configspace wrote:

I'm glad 2(a) and (b) were brought up in order to have them ruled unconstitutional at least, since they would immediately cover and criminalize distro of a broader range of works e.g. fan art. At least with 1a,b you would have to defer to an obscenity ruling.

Yeah, too bad the plea was taken. I would have loved to have seen this case go to the Supreme Court (which I'd have confidence would have shot down the unconstitutionality of the clauses).

Quote:

which is why I've stated that since 1466 clauses 2(a)(b) were struck down, you're left with clauses 1(a)(b) which requires both (a) and (b), which again, as I've mentioned originally above for all that's left, for all intents and purposes = obscenity laws

My apologies if it seemed I jumped the gun but it looked to me the "=" used was to imply he was charged on obscenity.
Chuck this one up to being Friday and anxious to get home. Wink

Quote:

.. you mean applying just 1(a) of 1466 alone? Section 1 was written to require (a) and (b)..

Sorry, meant 503 on the whole. It just struck me as interesting the near-identical verbiage was used, which lead me to believe 1466 was tossed in to cover all bases.

Quote:

Anyways, really the whole thing is unconstitutional IMO and undermines the civil liberties and intent of this nation, likewise with obscenity laws.

Now this, I can agree with. I despised this law in its original three forms, and really hated it when they were combined.

I can't remember the actual phrase that was used, but a lawyer pointed out this was passed under the "Witches Hour", and was submitted outside a full assembly to *cough* ensure it would pass.

Don't you just love your elected officials? Wink

Quote:

(and please stop patronizing me)

It wasn't to patronize you, but an attempt to stop the further "edits" which would come. Again. Take no offense in my words.

Quote:

kinda kills the humor though

A duck, horse, and farmer walk into a bar... Sorry, couldn't resist.
I think a break is needed on my part. The FUNimation thread took quite a bit out of me, and that was just reading the replies.

Threads like this are like train wrecks. You don't want to witness them, but yet...

(yeah no problemo. I need a break myself)

PetrifiedJello wrote:

Yeah, too bad the plea was taken. I would have loved to have seen this case go to the Supreme Court (which I'd have confidence would have shot down the unconstitutionality of the clauses).

I'd like to see that too, though I'm not quite so sure about the SC.. maybe it would be close amongst the justices... (would be even better if the unconstitutionality of the obscenity laws were decided on in the process too).. but I also cringe at the negative public exposure it may cause, not to mention making Handley's life even more miserable.

Dargonxtc wrote:

If you don't understand why FUNi(or any company for that matter) has a reason to be concerned (fictional or not in the light of Handley) then you are being stupid and/or belligerent.

I'm not going to attempt to argue with you on the matter, or respond to any of your comments (except this one) because your failure to show courtesy and respect to people (not to mention resorting to insults)...

You know, nothing more on this needs to be said, I have this handy REPORT button.

Dargonxtc wrote:

configspace wrote:

Actually I think he makes a valid point. It just goes to show you how concerned people are over appearances alone, perhaps even more so for fictional depictions, whatever the facts may be.

Search the world over and count the number of 10 year old girls with massive breasts. Probably could count them on one hand. Do the same thing with 18 year old women with no breasts at all. There are millions of them.

Wait, what? How does that make any sort of sense at all as an argument?

ZeetherKID77 wrote:

I had the feeling this would happen. Laughing

Quote:

However, FUNimation is — as always — committed to bringing the best anime content to the United States in its unedited form on home video. Therefore, we are evaluating the release of the series in unedited and uncensored form for home video. Since only 7 episodes have broadcast in Japan, final determination must be reserved until all episodes can be reviewed to ensure compliance with current U.S. law

Your not the only one. My friends who watches subs said that whoever license the series in the US WILL have to make edits or face jail time. Also heard that it was the same issue with Strike Witches cause of the " loli " aspect of the series. and that funi statment that i quoted also have me worried as well.

Cause though i haven't seen it,,but I did read the manga cause i am mostly a dubber unless i'm convinced, if it's anything like strike withces or like RIN then i am definately gonna be worried on what the're gonna edit out cause their too chicken footed from facing the wrath of the FTC police.

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Funimation Comments Further on Vampire Bund Edits

Tokyo Revengers TV Anime Gets Sequel, Fairy Tale Mini Anime

The Café Terrace and Its Goddesses Season 1 Anime Series Review

Cyber Attack Delays Kadokawa's Releases, Accounting With Niconico Expected to Stay Offline for 1 Month or More

Baki Hanma vs. Kengan Ashura Anime Special Review

Guilty Gear Fighting Games Get TV Anime

Samurai Warriors 4 DX Game Review

Heavenly Delusion Director Discusses Keeping the Story Straight

Delicious in Dungeon Anime Gets 2nd Season

Kengan Ashura Season 2 Part 1 Anime Series Review

This Week in Games - Summer Games Fest 2024 Wrap-Up

Director Kawata and Producer Hirabayashi of Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess

This Week in Anime - It's Anime Convention Hunting Season

Forum - View topicNEWS: Funimation Comments Further on Vampire Bund Edits

Forum

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Funimation Comments Further on Vampire Bund Edits