Tokyo passes law that limits Anime, Video Games

[bunny: spider bitten]

I wanted the opinion of the board member that actually lives in Japan, and would thus know the difference between something that's for show and something to worry about. Seems like this law is the former.

Except the law reflects the will of the current Governor that pushed the bill. And the manga publishers are already reacting to it.

[Kanami]

Except the law reflects the will of the current Governor that pushed the bill. And the manga publishers are already reacting to it.

That's not surprising really, I mean if this were the US I'm sure you rights waving idiots people would be waving their rights around to block such a bill. "I have the freedom to express myself, I loved my sister as a kid and want to make a show about a horny guy wanting his sister" or something to that extent. While not in those exact words, I'm sure someone will start waving rights around in Japan as well.

Either way, it's an unwelcome restriction to the Otaku/anime/manga community, so I can understand the lashback it'd be getting. Even after reading the article I don't see a point in such a bill. But I suppose I don't completely grasp the ideology behind the "governor" either. If anything it just seems like a good way to piss off a rather notable size of the population.

@Eclipse

At the moment I'd say it's nothing to worry about, I mean it's unlikely to get anywhere anyway, I've actually done some looking around Japanese sources and while there seems to be opposition and neutrality to the issue, there doesn't seem to be any expectations or support either. (Though that might just be the online community). One interesting post though commented (and links to the OP's videogame comment) how some US games would be prohibited. Grand Theft Auto? And similar games which sort of promote running over civillians, prostitutes and drugs as recreational would likely be removed from open all-age purchase. Since it's clearly in infringement.

Japans rating (PG G M15+ MA15+ R etc) is sort of lax if not near non-existent, so I wouldn't give it much thought beyond the US introducing a MA18+ category. It doesn't say it'll prohibit sales, it just says it'll be moved to another corner. (Less accessbile but still there) and overall wouldn't expect much (if any) repercussions overseas as minor stuff that offend wouldn't make it overseas anyway.

@Panty and Stocking

It's safe, the bill won't take affect until April next year and P&S should be finished by then even if the bill does turn into an abusive tool of oppression XD

[Le Communard]

That's not surprising really, I mean if this were the US I'm sure you rights waving idiots people would be waving their rights around to block such a bill. "I have the freedom to express myself, I loved my sister as a kid and want to make a show about a horny guy wanting his sister" or something to that extent. While not in those exact words, I'm sure someone will start waving rights around in Japan as well.

Just to be clear, in the United States this bill would be flagrantly unconstitutional, so people would be angry with good reason.

[Strawman]

Just to be clear, in the United States this bill would be flagrantly unconstitutional, so people would be angry with good reason.

But you know a lot of people would still support it.

[Le Communard]

But you know a lot of people would still support it.

Culture warriors and nanny-staters perhaps, but under the current definition it wouldn't pass any legal test of constitutionality, and its obvious enough that anyone who believes in free society, weather they have a leftist or rightest interpretation of that, would be in clear opposition.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Le Communard

[Esau of Isaac]

Just to be clear, in the United States this bill would be flagrantly unconstitutional, so people would be angry with good reason.

Kanami has a weird hate for people that strongly believe in rights. And I'm not even wholly joking, either. :V

[Kanami]

Kanami has a weird hate for people that strongly believe in rights. And I'm not even wholly joking, either. :V

Close, but not completely correct. I have a "weird" hatred for people who cite "rights" as an automatic conclusion to an argument. I just think if "rights" contradicts common sense, rights should be thrown out the window. Clearly I don't believe strongly in them, and most of you probably value your rights more then I do.

Using a really basic example anyone would understand, a man kills another man. (Under whatever circumstances). Just looking at the event generally it's murder, but the circumstances could make it manslaughter, self defense, etcetc. Rights in the same sense need to be applied and considered accordingly.

Rights = I'm not going to think, I win = Kanami not likey.

[Esau of Isaac]

You can easily argue the logic or lack thereof behind any rights, but the reason many defend them so viciously is for the need of objective guidelines with which to follow. That's hard to have in a moralistic system of any sort, because of the innately subjective nature. If you set down a subjective ideal such as "It is wrong to kill someone," and treat it as objective, the system then becomes manageable. It makes it more comforting and simple, rather than approaching absolutely everything in a case-by-case basis, unsure of your own procedure.

I'd say that's one of the reasons, of course. There are countless. Hell, another easy possibility is for oneself to be physically safe. If a society doesn't believe everyone has the right to life, then the people are not sure they themselves have a right to life (I've been trying to word this sentence better and can't). It endangers their safety, so they support a safer system.

[Kanami]

What your explaining to me is the need for rights, and as much as I hate to admit it, they're neccessary, but they're nothing more then a guideline for something should be handled. I don't really support this policy so it's not exactly a good example, but if someone wants to express their love for pedophilia via manga, they have the right to do that. That doesn't automatically make everything concerning it okay. (For example moving it to the 18+ section).

"It is wrong to kill someone" does mean the person has committed wrong, but the law isn't so simple that the "act" automatically leads to a result. Factors need to be considered on a "case-to-case" basis. That's where the "logic or lack thereof" can be balanced and a solution/conclusion can be attained.

Comparing Safety/Life to things like expression/firearms makes little sense to me. But that aside, your post clearly stated I have a hatred for "People that strongly believe in rights" Opposed to "People having rights."

My "hatred" for "people" that advocate rights as the end of an argument mainly stems from freedom of speech.

"**** you all! You're all idiots and have no idea what your talking about"

By right, I can say that, by rules (of SF) I can't. So which one takes priority? Are rights so fragile that they can be taken away that easily? No? But I have rights.... it's a stupid argument, and that's how I perceive most of the "rights" people. Rights aren't absolute, and it shouldn't be overturning the "logic/illogical" balance solely because people prefer a more simple system.

[Hero]

EDIT: And the truth comes out. As I thought, most of the brohaha is exaggeration, but without a strict definition this can only be bad.

From this link, this development doesn't look all bad. Although it could turn into a major loss for the incest erotica industry, nothing seems to have been criminalized which could not already be interpreted as illegal and the boundary will now be more clear. What remains to be seen, of course, is whether this will be enforced.

Just to be clear, in the United States this bill would be flagrantly unconstitutional, so people would be angry with good reason.

I don't know that it's so clear at all. You might want to take up the point with one of the thousands serving upwards of five years in maximum security prisons for possession of child pornography in this freest of free countries, if you can get any of them to clear you for visitation.

I'm not saying that a minimalist or libertarian interpretation of the First Amendment is wrong, but these days, at least at the highest levels of legal power and influence, it's not a popular one.