Tokyo's Anti-Loli Bill has Passed in Committee.

[ShadowsofHope]

You do realize that this will essentially cripple the japanese anime, manga, and games industries, right?

Industries that are built upon the fictional depiction of the exploitation of children will collapse? Yea, I can live with that.

Last I checked, you cannot "exploit" drawings as though they were physical beings. You cannot harm them, you cannot imprison them, you cannot break the "rights" of something that does not have "rights" to begin with.

Thank fuck!

Can I just say, that Japan has some really, really, really disturbing fetishes on their shelves. RapeLay [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapeLay] is one just example.

I am all for the freedom of expression/speech...but you can go too far. Japan has a history of flirting with the border of sanity with this kind of shit and I am glad that this bill passed.

If you are reading this Japan, I am happy that you have matured a lot in my eyes.

Freedom of Expression/Speech is not whatever you do not find personally offensive to be allowed to be shown. It encompasses every single individual and whatever expressions of speech they may or may enjoy and wish to display to the world. This included loli, whether you like it or not. Maturity has nothing to do with this discussion.

OT: I get iffy around loli as a concept myself, but I will never restrict the freedom of expression and speech for others because I do not personally find what they express to be tasteful. People have to learn that just because they get "offended" by something, or view something as tasteless, is not grounds to restrict it from others whom may definitely feel different.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

You do realize that this will essentially cripple the japanese anime, manga, and games industries, right?

Industries that are built upon the fictional depiction of the exploitation of children will collapse? Yea, I can live with that.

If only because it would force them to do something besides produce wank material. I don't mind that some portion of a given industry endeavors to fulfill this need but if such a substantial portion is working on this sort of thing then it desperately needs a clearing out. I'm quite sure there are concepts that can be explored in manga and anime that do not involve sex, sexual acts, children committing sexual acts, children having sexual acts forced upon them, violence, ultra violence, and the same being committed both by and against children.

This is not because I think there is something inherently wrong with such things. I'm not terribly inclined to accept the arguments that even tangential harm is being done as a result. Rather, this is simply because if an industry is utterly saturated with one kind of thing I have no sympathy when it collapses for any reason.

The industry is gonna be crippled because the bill is worded so vaguely that anything the government finds offensive can be pulled. It's not because there's going to be a severe lack of loli. :/

Art that is never questioned by the establishment serves no one.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I know some people might think this is prejudice. They'll think I'm a bigot who doesn't respect the rights of others. But really, fictional characters shouldn't have rights. Seriously, fuck fictional characters. In the ass with a spiked strap-on if you want. I don't care, they're fictional.

The only time doing something to a fictional character is wrong is if you have to harm a real person to do it. If you dress an eight year old up in a devil costume and then do the spiked strap-on thing, than yeah, you should be tortured to death. But otherwise? They can die in a fire. Hell, if they do it in an entertaining fashion I encourage it.

What if it's based off of a real person? :/

Anime/Manga on it's on merits is completely fictional. Loli does not portray potentially real individuals.. unless you view real individuals as looking like chibi Yu-Gi-Oh characters, now?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Thank fuck!

Can I just say, that Japan has some really, really, really disturbing fetishes on their shelves. RapeLay [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapeLay] is one just example.

I am all for the freedom of expression/speech...but you can go too far. Japan has a history of flirting with the border of sanity with this kind of shit and I am glad that this bill passed.

If you are reading this Japan, I am happy that you have matured a lot in my eyes.

People who fight for rapelay to not be banned in the name of free speech are the same people who've never played it. They compare it to any game where you kill someone. Let me tell you, that game is horrific in ways that no killing game short of playing a realistic SAW (singular victims, emotional reactions) can do. These people don't know what they're talking about.

It is, in my opinion, a terrible game in terms of mechanics (it isn't actually fun to play) and it's theme and narrative (you accost three female's in a train where you grope them using the mouse and then later rape them. Making this worse is that two of the victims are obviously underaged). The product is no better than pornography and even in the company of myriad products that satisfy every fetish imaginable rapelay has gone to enormous effort to be as depraved in ways that make it's peers look like high art.

I myself couldn't understand the controversy until I played it. It has no redeeming qualities. It provides neither sexual thrill nor entertaining gameplay. It does not seek to explore the critical question of why. It seems to have been made precisely to be as universally deplorable as possible.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

[Last I checked, you cannot "exploit" drawings as though they were physical beings. You cannot harm them, you cannot imprison them, you cannot break the "rights" of something that does not

You're going to go with the pedantic argument? Fair enough.

No, you cannot literally exploit a fictional character. But you can depict the exploitation of a fictional character. If you disagree, I suggest you look at the definition of the word depict: "describe: give a description of;" (<a href=http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+depict&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a>source).

Looking back at my post I note that I used the word depict for this very reason. Were I perhaps insane or stupid and thought that fictional characters could by harmed directly I would have used the word "documented".

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Thank fuck!

Can I just say, that Japan has some really, really, really disturbing fetishes on their shelves. RapeLay [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapeLay] is one just example.

I am all for the freedom of expression/speech...but you can go too far.

That's literally what every censor says. You are not in favor of free speech, if you wish to censor things solely because of how disgusting you find them.

No, not quite- because if RapeLay was released anywhere other than Japan, the creators would not be seeing the light of day for a very very long time. Reason, it's as illegal as fuck!

No sir, I am for free speech. However, just like when members of the "Westboro baptist church" started protesting outside the funeral of fallen gay US soldiers chanting "god hates gays" one can easily stray into abusing the articles of "free speech". Yes, you are entitled to your opinions but should it come at the cost of human decency?

I have nothing against Japanese fetishes and or tentacle rape monsters..but I wish they have the decency to not depict minors in sexual situations. If this can only come about in japan through, censorship or regulation..then please, bring it on.

People who fight for rapelay to not be banned in the name of free speech are the same people who've never played it. They compare it to any game where you kill someone. Let me tell you, that game is horrific in ways that no killing game short of playing a realistic SAW (singular victims, emotional reactions) can do. These people don't know what they're talking about.

That was by far, the worst Japaneses export in the history of forever. *shudder*

 

[CheeseSandwichCake]

JAPAN'S ECONOMY CRUMBLES!

I'm just kidding, but seriously.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

-snip-

 

[ShadowsofHope]

[Last I checked, you cannot "exploit" drawings as though they were physical beings. You cannot harm them, you cannot imprison them, you cannot break the "rights" of something that does not

You're going to go with the pedantic argument? Fair enough.

No, you cannot literally exploit a fictional character. But you can depict the exploitation of a fictional character. If you disagree, I suggest you look at the definition of the word depict: "describe: give a description of;" (<a href=http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+depict&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a>source).

Looking back at my post I note that I used the word depict for this very reason. Were I perhaps insane or stupid and thought that fictional characters could by harmed directly I would have used the word "documented".

The end line is, it is a fictional character. Depicting the exploitation of fictional characters is still a moot point, as fictional characters are not people, they do not have rights, they do not have feelings, they cannot express emotion, and they do affect the real world outside of individuals with psychological inclinations that already have a tough time deliberating reality from fiction.

It may be disgusting (I personally think it is, but I am not going to stop others from looking at it if they want, either), but simply being "disgusting" to some people does not give those the people warrant to restrict the rights of others whom do not view it in the same light to view it.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

I consider funeral protesting to be harassment but even if it's not you can't compare the two. The WBC targets someone and tries to annoy them. Rapeplay is something you (for the most part) have to choose to play.

And I don't think human decency is on the line when it's pixels.

Have you ever heard of the Aristocrats joke? Would you want that banned? (serious question).

I consider depicting minors in sexual material illegal and funnily enough, so does the laws of everywhere but Japan (the US, prosecutes under obscenity laws). If by censoring the content, you can uphold the law (much like the child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) then by all means....

Additionally, if you can isolate the concept of human decency to only exist in physical constructs and not see it as a moral and psychological fabric then no, I see very little point in having this conversation with you.

As for the aristocrat's joke. No..don't be a smartarse! When did telling a joke become illegal?

 

[Turbulenssi]

I have to say I'm against this bill because its limits freedom of speech and no goverment should never be allowed do that (and no I'm not into loli, but I do believe that freedom of speech is one of the most important right we have and it should be protect by any means necessary).

 

[captainwillies]

words

the only thing bad about this is when things get banned that use loli but not for sexual purposes. Eg there is an anime/manga called "Dance in the Vampire Bund"(really gay name). But it was fantastic and it happened that a loli was used as one of its main characters.

Throughout the series she is a abused at points but is never total helpless, the abuse stricken on her didn't come from the dark-fantasies of the author but his intellect, he didn't use those scenes to provide satisfaction but to make you feel sickened, to put the reader on the side of the abusi instead of the abuser.

Unfortunately because of a similar ban in the west (more specifically Australia were I am) it is impossible to own a copy of this without it being a crime. And thats just sad

 

[Cain_Zeros]

Put plain, it expands the TMG's ability to deem, in any manga, anime or game (live-action film, novels and works using real-life photos are exempt), any instance of a so-called "virtual sex crime" as "harmful", should a unilaterally-appointed regulating body decide that said depiction is "unjustifiably glorified and exaggerated".

This is like the California thing, only with sex.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

And D&D actually involves devil worship, because otherwise it would never have been looked down on by society, right?

Unless I am very mistaken, no one believes that D&D involves devil worship nowadays. Even if they did there isn't a law preventing D&D being sold at the the games now is there? Since you still can't buy child porn without getting arrested, I guess the social stigma is still there. .

There doesn't need to be a social stigma for a law to be passed all that needs to happen is that the lawmakers sign it into law. Even if most of the populace disagreed they could still do it.

I wasn't talking about a cause and effect relationship there. Instead it's illegal, immoral and unethical..hence the stigma. Also, since laws are generally meant to guide people in following the correct path of action, I don't have any problems with "pretending" that the existence of a law proves that not following it..will be bad.