The defenders in the video keep saying "there's no evidence child rape manga causes child rape" then they interview an actual pedophile who basically says "I am the evidence." Not surprisingly,...
The defenders in the video keep saying "there's no evidence child rape manga causes child rape" then they interview an actual pedophile who basically says "I am the evidence." Not surprisingly, said defenders were all manga artists themselves. Also child porn possession was legal in Japan until 2014?! What the actual hell?
I've mostly stopped watching anime in my old age, but when I was in high school I was definitely a weeb. Not quite body pillow or plastic figures level, but I wanted to live in Japan and I watched a lot of (non-child!) hentai. I always thought it was crazy just how ubiquitous things like showing little girls' panties were, even in a non-hentai, even when it adds literally nothing to the plot. I also think it's bizarre that Japanese society is so relaxed about child abuse, but at the same time normal porn has to be censored - those two ideals feel like they should clash more.
While there's a number of manga/shows that feature panty flashes and the like, “ubiquitous” feels like a bit of an exaggeration. Most of it is confined to titles that are targeted at grade school...
While there's a number of manga/shows that feature panty flashes and the like, “ubiquitous” feels like a bit of an exaggeration. Most of it is confined to titles that are targeted at grade school and teenage boys (not that this makes it any better), teen-to-adult-oriented “ecchi” titles (though these usually feature physically developed characters), or actual pedo bait material. There’s volumes of material both old and new where one won’t find any of that, though I will concede that the last on that list rears its ugly head in online spaces too often for comfort.
As far as censorship is concerned, as far as I’m aware it’s been fairly well established for a long time that forced censoring of vanilla porn drives demand for more extreme materials. In this way, the US may have caused immeasurable societal damage in Japan when it forced its Christian sensibilities on the country following WWII (which is the root of modern censorship).
It's not entirely the US' fault, it's more murky than that. It is true that Japan's constitution drafted after the war was essentially drafted by the US, and culturally the country became very US...
It's not entirely the US' fault, it's more murky than that.
It is true that Japan's constitution drafted after the war was essentially drafted by the US, and culturally the country became very US centric (which did mean Christian values being forcefully imposed), but that constitution stipulates the existence of freedom of speech and doesn't say anything about obscene material, and the penal code regarding obscene material mimics the same wording found in many other countries, US included I'm pretty sure. It also predates WWII. Here's the relevant article:
A person who distributes, sells or displays in public an obscene document, drawing or other objects shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than 2 years, a fine of not more than 2,500,000 yen or a petty fine. The same shall apply to a person who possesses the same for the purpose of sale.
As you can see it doesn't say anything about having to censor pornography. The biggest issue of this law is not clearly defining what counts as obscene. Thanks to that vagueness, several court rulings/decisions essentially lead to the interpretation of the law (at least when it comes to depictions of sexual acts) as being "so long as genitals are censored it doesn't count as obscene."
So did the US influence Japan's values? Yes. But the law was already written to forbid obscene material and the judges were the ones who came up with this interpretation of obscene that lead to mosaics and other forms of censorship being inplemented. And of course literally no one is going to campaign on changing the penal code to uncensor pornography, so the situation continues.
That's anecdotal. What we need for evidence is studies linking the use of such porn to committing child abuse and establishing a causal link. Let's not relax evidence standards because we think...
That's anecdotal. What we need for evidence is studies linking the use of such porn to committing child abuse and establishing a causal link. Let's not relax evidence standards because we think the porn in question is disgusting or whatever. Freedom of speech is an important right that should only be limited when its expression harms other people's fundamental rights. There needs to be a better standard for that than one guy said so.
Wrong on basically every point. How could a scientist possibly, ethically, study this? And, before you answer that with some hypothetical, it doesn't matter, because this is outside the bounds of...
Wrong on basically every point. How could a scientist possibly, ethically, study this? And, before you answer that with some hypothetical, it doesn't matter, because this is outside the bounds of scientific question anyway. It's a legal, moral, philosophical question.
YOUR OPINION, because that's what you wrote, simply your opinion, is that freedom of speech is more important than criminalizing drawn child pornography. I, and many other people, disagree. It's illegal in Canada, as it should be. What many people fail to realize is every rights based system is a rights and responsibilities system. Your right to free speech comes with responsibility. Libel and slander are already codified most places. So I, and many people, would agree that your right to free speech comes with the responsibility to not draw child porn. And no, this isn't government overreach with a slippery slope to a totalitarian state
Man, does this really need to be said? Did I massively misunderstand something?
I should preface this by saying that I personally believe that drawn child pornography shouldn't be legal. I did some digging, and in the US at least, this is a question that has seemingly been...
Man, does this really need to be said? Did I massively misunderstand something?
I should preface this by saying that I personally believe that drawn child pornography shouldn't be legal.
I did some digging, and in the US at least, this is a question that has seemingly been settled legally with the 2002 SCOTUS case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which struck down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996 for abridging the freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment. The relevant part of the ruling (via Justia):
In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that is itself the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not "intrinsically related" to the sexual abuse of children. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts.
So it seems that until studies can draw a direct causal link, its protected speech.
I understand that there are many places in their world where it isn't illegal. There are places that have criminalized it without impinging free speech. It's not an unsolvable problem but...
I understand that there are many places in their world where it isn't illegal. There are places that have criminalized it without impinging free speech. It's not an unsolvable problem but Americans worship their amendments. Oh well.
Well, they could study the consumption of drawn child porn by people [after all, it's legal in Japan] and see whether it's even strongly correlated with child abuse behaviour. Then refine from...
How could a scientist possibly, ethically, study this?
Well, they could study the consumption of drawn child porn by people [after all, it's legal in Japan] and see whether it's even strongly correlated with child abuse behaviour. Then refine from there.
YOUR OPINION, because that's what you wrote, simply your opinion, is that freedom of speech is more important than criminalizing drawn child pornography.
The legal basis for prohibiting something [especially concerning the limitation of physical freedom, like jail] is that the thing harms or puts in undue risk the rights of others. That needs to be demonstrated.
What many people fail to realize is every rights based system is a rights and responsibilities system.
The responsibility is to not put others' rights to harm or undue risk of harm.
Libel and slander are already codified most places.
That's true, and I ain't against any limitations to freedom of speech. I only insist that harm be demonstrated, as that's what limits the power of the government from abridging your rights to unnecessary degrees.
The defenders in the video keep saying "there's no evidence child rape manga causes child rape" then they interview an actual pedophile who basically says "I am the evidence." Not surprisingly, said defenders were all manga artists themselves. Also child porn possession was legal in Japan until 2014?! What the actual hell?
I've mostly stopped watching anime in my old age, but when I was in high school I was definitely a weeb. Not quite body pillow or plastic figures level, but I wanted to live in Japan and I watched a lot of (non-child!) hentai. I always thought it was crazy just how ubiquitous things like showing little girls' panties were, even in a non-hentai, even when it adds literally nothing to the plot. I also think it's bizarre that Japanese society is so relaxed about child abuse, but at the same time normal porn has to be censored - those two ideals feel like they should clash more.
While there's a number of manga/shows that feature panty flashes and the like, “ubiquitous” feels like a bit of an exaggeration. Most of it is confined to titles that are targeted at grade school and teenage boys (not that this makes it any better), teen-to-adult-oriented “ecchi” titles (though these usually feature physically developed characters), or actual pedo bait material. There’s volumes of material both old and new where one won’t find any of that, though I will concede that the last on that list rears its ugly head in online spaces too often for comfort.
As far as censorship is concerned, as far as I’m aware it’s been fairly well established for a long time that forced censoring of vanilla porn drives demand for more extreme materials. In this way, the US may have caused immeasurable societal damage in Japan when it forced its Christian sensibilities on the country following WWII (which is the root of modern censorship).
Thanks, I had no idea the mosaic was "our fault" and that explains it!
It's not entirely the US' fault, it's more murky than that.
It is true that Japan's constitution drafted after the war was essentially drafted by the US, and culturally the country became very US centric (which did mean Christian values being forcefully imposed), but that constitution stipulates the existence of freedom of speech and doesn't say anything about obscene material, and the penal code regarding obscene material mimics the same wording found in many other countries, US included I'm pretty sure. It also predates WWII. Here's the relevant article:
As you can see it doesn't say anything about having to censor pornography. The biggest issue of this law is not clearly defining what counts as obscene. Thanks to that vagueness, several court rulings/decisions essentially lead to the interpretation of the law (at least when it comes to depictions of sexual acts) as being "so long as genitals are censored it doesn't count as obscene."
So did the US influence Japan's values? Yes. But the law was already written to forbid obscene material and the judges were the ones who came up with this interpretation of obscene that lead to mosaics and other forms of censorship being inplemented. And of course literally no one is going to campaign on changing the penal code to uncensor pornography, so the situation continues.
That's anecdotal. What we need for evidence is studies linking the use of such porn to committing child abuse and establishing a causal link. Let's not relax evidence standards because we think the porn in question is disgusting or whatever. Freedom of speech is an important right that should only be limited when its expression harms other people's fundamental rights. There needs to be a better standard for that than one guy said so.
Wrong on basically every point. How could a scientist possibly, ethically, study this? And, before you answer that with some hypothetical, it doesn't matter, because this is outside the bounds of scientific question anyway. It's a legal, moral, philosophical question.
YOUR OPINION, because that's what you wrote, simply your opinion, is that freedom of speech is more important than criminalizing drawn child pornography. I, and many other people, disagree. It's illegal in Canada, as it should be. What many people fail to realize is every rights based system is a rights and responsibilities system. Your right to free speech comes with responsibility. Libel and slander are already codified most places. So I, and many people, would agree that your right to free speech comes with the responsibility to not draw child porn. And no, this isn't government overreach with a slippery slope to a totalitarian state
Man, does this really need to be said? Did I massively misunderstand something?
I should preface this by saying that I personally believe that drawn child pornography shouldn't be legal.
I did some digging, and in the US at least, this is a question that has seemingly been settled legally with the 2002 SCOTUS case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which struck down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996 for abridging the freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment. The relevant part of the ruling (via Justia):
So it seems that until studies can draw a direct causal link, its protected speech.
I understand that there are many places in their world where it isn't illegal. There are places that have criminalized it without impinging free speech. It's not an unsolvable problem but Americans worship their amendments. Oh well.
You can't criminalise it without impinging free speech. It is a speech prohibition after all.
Well, they could study the consumption of drawn child porn by people [after all, it's legal in Japan] and see whether it's even strongly correlated with child abuse behaviour. Then refine from there.
The legal basis for prohibiting something [especially concerning the limitation of physical freedom, like jail] is that the thing harms or puts in undue risk the rights of others. That needs to be demonstrated.
The responsibility is to not put others' rights to harm or undue risk of harm.
That's true, and I ain't against any limitations to freedom of speech. I only insist that harm be demonstrated, as that's what limits the power of the government from abridging your rights to unnecessary degrees.
Watching Dragon Ball as a kid, I always wondered why we needed to keep seeing Bulma's underwear... Hmmm
Link to video mentioned in article (unavailable in Japan): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky3HqvT3M8E