Forum - View topicNEWS: Creators Decry Tokyo's Proposed 'Virtual' Child Porn Ban
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ashen Phoenix
 Posts: 2917 |
|
|||||||||
Took the words right outta my mouth, comrade. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
NGK
Posts: 244 |
|
|||||||||
|
Finally. The natives are finally standing up against western fringe extremist feminist/christian groups living in Japan to get tokyo to comply with pro-censor, anti freedom of speech/expression legislation!
This legislation is an attack not only on a multibillion dollar business... but an attack of japanese culture! |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||
Do you know how tough the Japanese are today? If you are an adult male saying "hello" to a stranger girl you'd be labeled as a "sex offender." Yet, Japanese girls keep selling their bodies, and start at earlier and earlier age.
Do you know what's the "good morals" Japanese girls really need? The courage to BE HERSELF, even if others may laugh at you or even bully you just because you don't have the newest Louis Vuitton or Gucci bag. Not many Japanese girls have the courage to say "I'm not going to sell my body just for that expensive crap" if 2/3 of her classmates are in the "business." |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
manga1
Posts: 31 |
|
|||||||||
|
I feel this would stiffle the industry, these kinds of broad giant club mentality sorts of legislation are always abused to a degree or another, like the patriot act as mentioned.
I think that the context should be taken into effect when deciding what to ban and what not to. or how the said sexual nature is worked in. Nudity itself is not evil, you know you go around other contrys and the statues of the old roman empire are nothing but naked and on every corner, yet its historical example of the art trumps any claim to sexual nature. If you want to be technical about christianity, We belive that God created the human form in his own image, that of which is perfect something that praises that is just fine even if its nude, but something that would lower that is where it becomes trouble. Seriously though The japanese anime is most often aimed at a japanese viewership and what is reguarded as ok for nudity is more a cultrural question then what not. This just like sin in the catholic church all depends on intention and context to decide where guilt is. Also I do belive that anything that would kill a good anime that has a good lesson in it would be a mistake as the anime most of the time is far better and edifying then say family guy or the junk they show on adult swim and other channels of entertainment today. signed Jeremy Manga1 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Sam Murai
 Posts: 1051 |
|
|||||||||
Of course, what I laid out is subjective in some respect. However, the basic point I'm conveying is specific, in that the line should be drawn at something like high school-age. Yet even so, it is hard to deny that something like child porn is a problem, and one that needs to be confronted, including in its virtual form (soft- or hardcore). Yes, we have the right to express ourselves and our opinions, even racially and sexually, for example. However, that doesn't bar certain forms of expression from being deplorable or just morally wrong, such as hate and sex crimes, where it chiefly causes harm or exploits someone, a group, or that right itself. Concerning the topic, visual, sexualized depictions of children or child-like characters shouldn't be treated lightly just because it's not real or made "OK" because of freedom of speech. Like it or not, there are things that should and have to be defended against, and when you get down to it, you can make the same argument that people are expressing their own freedom of speech by doing so, essentially cancelling one another out. Like in court, even the indefensible should have their day there and have all of the rights as anyone else. That doesn't mean their actions were suddenly "right," either. Freedom can be absolute, but there are inevitably consequences that can naturally arise, as well, such as its exploitation and abuse. In the end, there is nothing "free" about freedom, somebody is bound to get the wrong end of the stick. And once "a problem" appears, it will have to be addressed. In essence, freedom doesn't mean that everything should be accepted as being right absolutely. That doesn't mean we should all be in bondage, either, but there are still things that are or become flatly wrong and not right, and lines are drawn. What is right in such depictions as the topic is concerned and where does it become completely unjustifiable, especially if there is a problem because of or an abuse of them? That's when freedom has to be regulated in some respect. It is beyond a "disliking" of it. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
sburstall
Posts: 178 Location: Ohio, USA |
|
|||||||||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia (I know Wiki isn't the best source for facts, but it's a start) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
ninjapet
 Posts: 1517 |
|
|||||||||
Just think Negima! would lose it's fanservice based comedy charm ;-; and it would be a battle manga all the time. As much as I love the fighting parts of the manga it's the comedy part I like. I would be pissed off if the manga has to tone down things or change things all together |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||||||
How does confronting something fictional battle something real? Or more to the point, are you saying that allowing sexually explicit artwork increases real child abuse? Many conservatives have tried to make the exact same argument with regards to porn and rape, introduce obscenity and sex-related legislation, and the overwhelming facts turned out to be the completely opposite (And why is it that people have orders of magnitude more tolerance for violence than sex anyways..)
There's a very thick, big line between fiction and reality. Real freedom of speech means exactly that: allowing people to express opinions you find "deplorable or morally wrong". Freedom of speech never forces anything on other people, so such a freedom cannot be held responsible as the root cause of criminal actions.
What you've described absolutely does NOT "cancel" each other out. As I've mentioned above, real freedom of speech never forces anyone to do anything. Basically you're saying that one party (the pro-ban party), in addition to merely expressing their ideological opposition to the other party, now also gets to exert control over them.
Real freedom is free. It always give people choice. It only feels unfree when people have to share it with those of antithetical opinions, ideologies, moralities. And that is actually the only real "problem" people experience. Unfortunately some tend to classify that as the root cause of all the ills of society: "If only *those* people were not free, if only *those* ideas were not free, then *our* society would be better off" How do drawings result in real exploitation and abuse? Does every drawing of a fictional character result in a real child getting abused? How about 1-to-10 instance ratio then? Does every drawing of a fictional teenage character in a sexual situation result in a real person becoming a prostitute? Again, 1:1 for exploitation? If not, how about 1 in 10? or even 1 in 100? The issue with the association is that there is just no tangible connection here, as in a logical implication. That is, If A happens, then B MUST happen. Or you can even say: If A happens, then B MUST happen 75% of the time. Substitute A for "fictional expression" and B for "real harm to real persons". (again the same argument was attempted in that link above about porn/obscenity and rape)
I'm sorry, but people who are driven to "regulate freedom" for the good of society always do so out of some form of dislike. But real freedom doesn't address any kind of absolute right or wrong, nor should it. Rather, it sidesteps those issues of morality, dealing with the more ethically-focused issue of individual liberty instead. As such, there is only one clear, simple, elegant "line" that is drawn and actually defined by such a system, quoting Jefferson: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Despite popularly saying so, there is no "abuse" of real freedom when it is recognized equally. You can look at it more rationally through a black-box test: if you couldn't see what I do, nor even be aware of me, what effects do my actions (that you are unaware of) have on your own or anyone else's liberty and well being? If it actually harms someone involuntarily, then yes it should be addressed, like drunk driving for example, since drunk driving passes both the black-box test and implication test in terms of causing involuntary harm to others. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
dan888
Posts: 115 |
|
|||||||||
Why should the line be drawn there? That is your subjective opinion of where you believe a line should be drawn. Others more conservative believe that the line should be placed at a higher age, what makes this opinion any more or less valid than yours? When you start drawing a line in one particular spot, others will try to move it to make it more restrictive. You can't have a line in the middle, because once you start placing a line based on a subjective opinion, it will move around on the whims of those in power. Also, the reason there are laws against child porn is very simple, because it harms actual children who are harmed in reality. It is not because some people view it as "icky".
When you start limiting speech because the expression is morally wrong, you are on a slippery slope. Rape is an awful crime, and one could make the exact same argument about rape as you are making about virtual child porn. Does this mean that we should ban rape in media? How about murder, which one can make an argument that it is worse than any other crime, it is absolutely horrible when someone is murdered in real life. Shall we ban murder as well? Expressing something does not mean that the subject suddenly becomes "okay", as murder isn't okay just because it can be depicted fictionally. Your line of thinking could just as easily be apply to many other things. After all, like it or not rape and murder are both things that should and have to be defended against in real life. When one's argument is that "I think [insert any subject here] is horrible in fiction, and that people should not support it, I see no problems with that. However it is no longer an experssion of free speech when you are arguing that the government should throw people in jail for certain forms of expression when it does not infringe on anyone else's rights [and no, there is no right to only have stuff you personally accept in the world], because the very nature of that argument is to get rid another's freedom of speech.
There is a difference between fiction and reality, and as argued above, the line of thinking you are using could just as easily be applied to many other subjects as well. Allowing something to exist in fiction does NOT mean that you are approving of it to happen in reality.
When you start regulating the freedom of expression and freedom of speech when another's rights are not being infringed, then you accept that there is no freedom at all. When you start drawing lines, there is no problem drawing a line in a different location based on the whims of those who are in power. If one accepts freedom of speech to be important, than that will lead to a situation that one is required to accept the existence of speech that they do not approve of. When someone can go to jail because someone in the government does not approve of the fiction that one writes or draws, then freedom of speech has been lost. And for the record, I do not approve of much of the hardcore loli content that is out there, and I think that it is disguising. However just because I (or anyone else) may think it is disguising does not mean that the people who write this stuff should go to jail. Last edited by dan888 on Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
takarada
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||
|
There is this fallacy that looking at pictures of children will make people who get excited about that sort of thing go out and molest children.
This is the basis for this sort of legislation. Looking at pornography leads to satisfaction, not frustration. People with porn collections don't use real people to satisfy themselves. For a pedophile, if he can't get off on child porn then the chances of him molesting a real child would obviously increase. Banning or restricting access to these materials will lead to an increase in pedophile activity, not a decrease. We really need to protect children but instead people are not thinking it through and are increasing the risk of child abuse. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 7580 Location: Wales |
|
|||||||||
It is not that simple. For some personalities (or perhaps disorder would be more correct) rather than satisfaction you have escalation; start with the drawings, when that doesn't satisfy anymore seek out the real stuff, and when that doesn't satisfy anymore... Removing access to the "material" may make no difference, I'm not a psychologist, but you could argue that the best way to stop someone going down the slippery slope is to rope it off. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
shadowblack
Posts: 37 |
|
|||||||||
|
You're right, it's not that simple. In some cases it is as you say. In other cases, however, it is the opposite - some people are not going after the real stuff because they have drawings to satisfy their desires. Remove the drawings and they go after the real staff. In other words in their case it will be like removing the rope that keeps people from sliding down the slippery slope.
Unfortunately there's no way to tell for sure which group is bigger (and thus what the consequences would be). |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
dan888
Posts: 115 |
|
|||||||||
If one is going to based a law that restricts what many consider to be an essential freedom to everyone because of an actual link to real harm, then scientific studies should be the basis behind such a law, not moral outrage. It reminds me somewhat of the game violence situation, some use a similar line of thinking there to make an argument that there needs to be government legislation, and in many cases states have passed laws with a moral outrage justification (although later found unconstitutional). However there have many many studies in the last 15 years that have found no scientific evidence of a direct link between violent video games and actual violent behavior. Now I haven't really pay much attention to studies looking for links between fictional loli and real life child molestation, however I am sure that with the interest many studies have been done, and I am willing to bet that if there was scientific evidence supporting such laws, it would have been publicized long ago and been used to push such laws. Seeing that has not happened however would favor that there is no link that scientific studies have been able to find, and until that happens any basis for laws like these are entirely moral based arguments "we don't like it, we are outrage, it must be banned". |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The Xenos
 Posts: 1519 Location: Boston |
|
|||||||||
|
Good for all these creators. No matter what the content in these books are, it's all still fiction. An attack on any fiction, is an attack on all fiction. I doubt that many of these creators agree with showing the acts portrayed in the books that would be banned, but they recognize that this censorship is a dangerous and blunt weapon against all comics. Once they ban one form of comics for being "harmful" and "noxious", what's to stop them from ruling some scene in your book? Such censorship is disgusting, more disgusting than any fiction drawn on a piece of paper.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
streexanime
Posts: 78 |
|
|||||||||
|
My issue with this is how broad the term "sexually provocative" actually is. More importantly, it doesn't take into the context of the situation.
Plenty of series out there from my knowledge dealing with teen sexuality are in a context and not to sexually entice. They help teens understand themselves and their budding sexual feelings. When I was 13 or 14, they helped me deal with my own confusion coming from a rather conservative area. More importantly, what is the goal of these UN members that are pushing Japan to do this? Is their true goal to help stop child pornography or control everything and anything that might look like a child? Heavily reminds me of Australia's government doing something stupid. If their issue is child porn why not go after what the problem is directly instead of a blanket method that pulls in mediums and others that have nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. Last edited by streexanime on Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group