Youth Ordinace Bill 156 (Update)

[deathlike.livejournal.com]

How many toes are you going to step on Mr. Ishihara?

And We has warped DNA... Doesn't anymore stranger than this.

TL;DR

Under Bill 156, the industry will regulate "manga, anime, and other images" that "unjustifiably glorify or exaggerate" certain sexual or pseudo sexual acts. The government can also directly regulate these images if the depicted acts are also "considered to be excessively disrupting of social order" such as rape.

In the press conference, a representative from the Weekly Asahi news magazine noted that Ishihara said in his 1972 book True Sex Education that "no book of any sort could instigate children toward crime or delinquency and that even if all undesirable books were wiped off the planet, crime would still take place." When pressed about this, Ishihara responded that he was wrong at the time and the world is different now. He then characterized people who read and write the restricted material as "sad people with warped DNA."

The self-regulation clauses of Bill 156 will go into effect on April 1 of next year, and the restrictions on sales and renting will go into effect on July 1. The current ordinance already prevents the sale and renting of "harmful publications" — materials that are "sexually stimulating, encourages cruelty, and/or may compel suicide or criminal behavior" to people under the age of 18.

Ishihara's writings before he became a politician have inspired a dōjinshi (self-published manga and other works) event next year. Opponents of Bill 156 contend that the content in Ishihara's novels, if made into anime or manga, would be restricted by the amendment.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2010-12-17/tokyo-governor/restricted-works-are-for-those-with-warped-dna


More ETA: http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/12/17/ishihara-otaku-have-corrupt-dna/


Previous: http://community.livejournal.com/bleachness/591027.html

Comments

My take 1/2

[nivek01.livejournal.com]

What's "unjustifiably glorify or exaggerate"? or "excessively disrupting of social order"?

Times have changed. The people have not. If someone wants something, there are people who will just go out and take it, even though it's plainly obvious what will happen if they get caught. Banning material that contains gritty scenes isn't going to reduce crime. It'll just make it more original.

Also, while I agree that immortalizing rape or any other heinous crimes is bad, the fact of the matter is that things like that happen. Writing a book about how to rape someone, or telling stories where the protagonist is a serial rapist is not okay. But to completely eliminate that factor from media-and not just rape, mind you, but all forms of dark and disgusting crime-I believe is foolish. As I said earlier, in the real world, bad things happen to good people. A lot. So, if an author writes in his story, the main love interest being raped by the antagonist, that book would be banned? What if, instead of writing rape for the sake of it, the author was trying to show a contrast; While the protagonist would go about the act of sex with care and love, the antagonist takes what he wants, primally getting off on a woman. While limiting-key word, LIMITING- the sale of books, movies, pictures, etc., that have crime and such just for the sake of it isn't a bad idea, the move needs to be more comprehensive-the bill needs to recognize that some cases are the aforementioned glorification, and other times the author/artist just wants to use it as a plot device. The love interest refuses to make love with their previous lovers because she was sexually abused by their parent (something the protagonist could help them through). The main character is a heroine addict because they needed to sell drugs in order to keep there family safe and off the streets, and made a mistake (again, something they can overcome to make themselves stronger).

I'm concentrating on rape, if you haven't noticed, because that's the one actual example given. The bill itself seems very vague, and could easily hurt more then help.

I also feel I need to explain myself; I come from a family of conspiracy theorists, and while I'm probably the most level headed of the four of us, I still have a bad habit of biting at 'Big Brother' (though I myself hate the term) when something like this happens. And though it has nothing to do with my own country, and I don't read anything sexually explicit anymore, I'm afraid that many manga authors and artists who would normally not worry about this might try and keep a tighter hold on their own leashes, possibly degrading their own work.

I've actually found it quite comical, the way Tite Kubo draws practically every female in Bleach, and (as an IchiRuki fan) it helps provide a nice contrast to someone whom I consider the main love interest. In another manga I read, Katekyo Hitman Reborn, one of the current antagonists ( I refuse to call her a bad guy, because I'm positive at the end of the arc she, and many of her comrades, will be allies of the main character) has an disproportionate chest that seems to grow with each chapter (really, they do. They put Inoue's to shame, and make Rangiku proud). I honestly believe that both Kubo-sensei and Amano-sensei (whom I'm fairly positive is another woman, which is strange considering the many things she puts her female characters through) do this not for fanservice, but comic relief. When Ichigo is depressed because his hollow is going out of control or Rukia is no longer in his life, I take a (small) bit of pleasure out of seeing the motion lines around Inoue's breasts, because it's so unnatural. I would hate for this to impede that.