It's not an "Anime" ban.

[Alpha]

Soldier, I like how you're bringing this back to context.

This must hit a sore spot if you're speaking like this, Alpha.

Speaking like what exactly? I am not in support of real or created images of children which I would consider inappropriate. Beyond that, as I think you've gathered, I'm not entirely sure what I think.

There are reasons why it is illegal. Those reasons, rather than the fact it is illegal, are what should be cited. I think we can all agree that this act is terrible enough to where we don't need to go into the whys and that it stands that it should be illegal, but... I think it's really important to say something should be using an explanation that more or less amounts to "just because."

I didn't think I needed to go into those reasons. I don't explain why murder is criminal when I say it is wrong to kill people. It is illegal; it's wrong, 'just becuase'. I do think that is adequate, not in all cases, but here at any rate.

More relevant to the ban, I think it's necessary to examine the disconnect between reality and the materials that are being put to question. The place where this stuff comes from has a huge following relative to any one western country, yet the crimes for child molestation (as well as anything similar) remain relatively low. On the other hand, there is a high chance that a person living more westward has never even heard of the stuff up until now... if they've even concerned themselves with the legislation, yet the crime rates in some of these countries (including our respective ones, no doubt) are many times higher.

So you're using a cultural argument to say that it appears worse from a Western audience? Call me a cultural imperialist, but I didn't know that trying to prevent sexual images of children was solely a Western concern.

While I can't verify your relative punishment details, may I ask the revlevance? It stands that, generally, this is a practice which is frowned upon. This is why prohihibitve legislation exists at all, in any context.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure that people who look at this stuff could be considered pedophiles. They may be sick by our standards... but perhaps in a different way. The rift between fantasy and reality for the many who view or pen this stuff and the consequences it generates are just surreal. We have people proclaiming that all they need is 2-D (an important distinction, I suppose) and marrying their pillows for ****'s sake.

I don't believe that there is an 'our standards' issue. Children cannot understand such a form of relationship.

I suppose that your main point here is that this is 'simply a cartoon'. I am not sure if I share that view. If it is wrong in reality (who would permit some of these images to actually be replicated?), then it seems to be as though it is wrong when it is imagined. This brings Jin's point about the representation of fights. Fights have negative consequences realisitically, but no one would ban them in fiction. I am willing to agree conceptually, but I don't think it is a fair comparison. Children being sexually abused by adults (for this is what this legislation ostensibly prohibits), whether in ficton or in reality, is not the same as a fight. You also brought this up:

If we can justify violence in a video game by saying that it isn't real, despite the grotesque excesses to which people take it and how we would quickly and angrily condemn it if it were to take place in reality, it's hardly a stretch to say the same about this.

So do we permit the representation of anything within the realms of fiction to uphold the sanctity of freedom of expression - even if it involves the humilating, abusive, sexually explicit images that are proposed for censorship? There's a reason there has never been a child in Grand Theft Auto.

Honestly, if you ever looked at the culture that this material stems from (which isn't pornographic... by their standards, anyway), I think you'd find that things aren't quite so clear cut. Also, I am not referring to Japan itself when I say "culture"... which is another bridge you'd have to cross, as matters of attraction and sex vary across the globe, obviously.

No, I suppose I have been making things too simple to facilitate a simple discussion on my behalf. However, I uphold the belief that children should be protected from exposure to anything that implicates them as sexual objects. And in this context they are objects. Children could not - ever - hold an interactive part in the relationships proposed by Jin to be natural expressions of sexual desire by select adults.

I have no idea where I'm going this, so I'll try to wrap this up. What I'm trying to get across is that things aren't as straightforward as you make them out to be. In your posts, anyway. I would say that the majority of what is being targeted in the bill is not made by pedophiles for pedophiles, or anything remotely like the "graphic outcome" you asserted it to be. Even if you say the effect is the same, I'm not sure the stuff has rooted itself deeply enough within our cultures to where you can draw a correlation from it to child molestation.

The representation of child molestation is exactly what is being banned:

(7) Those acts are—

(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;

(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;

(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;

(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;

(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

If you're asking whether there is a correlation between viewing such images and actually carrying them out, then you're asking the wrong person. Ask Jin: earlier, he claimed that banning it could potentially lead to more carrying it out. As I stated, I found this ridiculous. Without claiming to be knowledgeable, I would suggest a tentaive link between looking at images of something, and actually doing something. I look up information about bands that I like, as well as listening to them. If I found this material enjoyable, would looking at it 'be enough' (I beleive this is an echo of my first post)?

It goes without saying, but unconditional condemnation, especially when based upon suspicion alone, is scary and dangerous shit.

I don't think it is unconditional, although I agree with you, but such issues must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

[Andromeda]

I think more of the concern here is the power that it can grant the government or law enforcement in determining what is and is not acceptable to own. The debate aside about natural or not, I think the general public accepts child abuse in any form to be bad and porn to be especially bad. And I don't think many would end up disagreeing about keeping real children safe from abuse and what not.

However, when it comes down to executing the law and up holding it. I think there could be understandable fear or concern that it goes overboard on what should be safe, but the government does not see it that way. The government ends up trying to cast a very wide net to grab everything remotely threatening and ends up getting innocent ones in the mix. I think that is a very real concern since there are certainly going to be depictions of children naked in anime that are completely rational and safe. Looks a magical girl shows. Wasn't Sailor Moon originally naked in her transformation sequences in the Japan versions? Depending on laws she could be seen as a child, but a rational mind would hardly call it dangerous material. But how would the government view it, which tends to be not always exercise the best judgment?

In an ideal world the government does everything right and thoroughly researches before deciding something is violating the law. Unfortunately, I think it is an honest concern that the government would not do it's proper investigation. Sure it is the media, but look at what happened with Mass Effect when they blow something completely minor up into something far worse than is actually happened in the game.

As I've been saying, I think the concern should be on how this is going to be interpreted during the upholding of it.

[SOLDIER #819]

If anything is out of place or if I misinterpreted something please point it out. I'm in a rush and don't have time to check it over.

Speaking like what exactly? I am not in support of real or created images of children which I would consider inappropriate. Beyond that, as I think you've gathered, I'm not entirely sure what I think.

"****. Now I just used an argument usd by those who say homosexuals are unnatural. I feel dirty."

"Control. Control by those who know better, over children. I'm happy with controlling such behavior to protect children. Afterall, pedophilia is illegal. Why shouldn't graphic outcomes of it not also be illegal?"

I just never expected to hear this sort of stuff from you. But then, everyone has things that they'll fight tooth and nail for. That's normally alright.

I didn't think I needed to go into those reasons. I don't explain why murder is criminal when I say it is wrong to kill people. It is illegal; it's wrong, 'just becuase'. I do think that is adequate, not in all cases, but here at any rate.

Yeah, I understand. I guess it's just something I don't like hearing. Something being "illegal" is never a reason, to me, even if the thing that is illegal is a given in and of itself. Even then, I'd rather just use the given.

So you're using a cultural argument to say that it appears worse from a Western audience? Call me a cultural imperialist, but I didn't know that trying to prevent sexual images of children was solely a Western concern.

Sexual images of REAL children, no question, but not necessarily drawings and various other renderings that may or may not be construed as a child. The whole reason that the legislation in Tokyo was delayed, which apparently is often times used as a method to slowly back away from a failed attempt, was because of the backlash it caused. By who, exactly, I do not know, but it was obviously enough people.

While I can't verify your relative punishment details, may I ask the revlevance? It stands that, generally, this is a practice which is frowned upon. This is why prohihibitve legislation exists at all, in any context.

Regarding acts of child molestation or the drawings, etc.? I am not arguing the former. In fact, my previous post had only to do with the latter. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I don't believe that there is an 'our standards' issue. Children cannot understand such a form of relationship.

Okay, I think the subject of my post must have been hazy. Yeah, drawings, not children. No way. Sorry I wasn't clear. I'll take the next part though...

I suppose that your main point here is that this is 'simply a cartoon'. I am not sure if I share that view. If it is wrong in reality (who would permit some of these images to actually be replicated?), then it seems to be as though it is wrong when it is imagined. This brings Jin's point about the representation of fights. Fights have negative consequences realisitically, but no one would ban them in fiction. I am willing to agree conceptually, but I don't think it is a fair comparison. Children being sexually abused by adults (for this is what this legislation ostensibly prohibits), whether in ficton or in reality, is not the same as a fight. You also brought this up:

So would you be willing to admit that a hierarchy of violence exists? That, sometimes, the pain of one person inflicted with the same atrocity is different from the pain of another? I'm not sure I can believe that. Children are prioritized in our society, perhaps out of a sense of wanting to nurture and care for them, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that depictions of one or the other are "more okay." I feel that is the implication of doing so. You'd no doubt agree with me that violence, particularly that which goes beyond a mere "fight", is never a laughing matter.

So do we permit the representation of anything within the realms of fiction to uphold the sanctity of freedom of expression - even if it involves the humilating, abusive, sexually explicit images that are proposed for censorship?.

Rather, if we didn't, would we know where to stop? Lines must be drawn. I think that it must be stopped before it bleeds into artistic expression, even if people believe it to be the most terrible thing on the planet. That is, unless you can find some sort of solid evidence that shows that it is in fact very harmful.

Just for thought: we really do seem to draw a line between sexual violence and other forms and put the former at the top.

No, I suppose I have been making things too simple to facilitate a simple discussion on my behalf. However, I uphold the belief that children should be protected from exposure to anything that implicates them as sexual objects. And in this context they are objects. Children could not - ever - hold an interactive part in the relationships proposed by Jin to be natural expressions of sexual desire by select adults.

What do you define as exposure? Direct exposure to the material itself? People who have viewed the materials?

Which makes me wonder: what else shouldn't they be exposed to? Hmm...

The representation of child molestation is exactly what is being banned...

Those are just words. Given the inherent abstraction of the human form in some art, how can you deem what is a child and what isn't? To get to the point: there exist certain styles of drawing that render people who are at the age of consent appear to some viewers as children. Should they be made to change their style lest they not draw porn at all? What about people drawn in the same style committing or being on the receiving end of violent acts?

Again, I don't think it's all that simple, particularly to the person who makes the material or those who are aware of the culture behind it. However for someone on the "outside", particularly a continent or two apart, it's very easy to condemn it.