AFAIK the original Bill 156 actually targeted the awful "Junior Idol" shit alongside everything else but was deemed too controversial and wound back to just the fictitious stuff. It was pretty fucked up.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Japan's ruling party to reintroduce child pornography law revision
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
It bothers me that the oceans are so undecided on the matter.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
World map of child pornography laws
Green - Possession of child pornography legal
Orange - Possession of child pornography illegal
Red - Possession of any kind of pornography illegal
White - Data unavailable
Antarctica and Greenland filthy pervs, confirmed.
These aren't the same things.
Animated porn depicting young girls is a direct expression of that person's sexual urges, not a form of art or general entertainment. They are made entirely for one reason.
Slasher films are genuine entertainment and are not in any way meant to rile up feelings of murder in people.
I am not assuming anything.
The my point is that people who think the cartoon version of a thing is hot, do not necessarily have to think the real version is hot.
Your avatar is a real horse.
That was the point.
lol.
GAF Logic = "If something disgusts me personally, it should be illegal."
The whole point of free speech is that people can draw or write whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't incite violence or directly cause problems. There's no research (or even common sense) to suggest that lolicon/shotacon has any effect on the rate of sexual crimes on children- hell, most child sex offenders aren't even actual pedophiles.
Regardless of how any of us feel about loli on a personal level (and I certainly don't blame anyone for being disgusted by it), it would be an embarrassment to free speech and civil liberties to outlaw drawings on the basis of nothing more than our own knee-jerk emotional reaction to them.
The whole point of free speech is that people can draw or write whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't incite violence or directly cause problems. There's no research (or even common sense) to suggest that lolicon/shotacon has any effect on the rate of sexual crimes on children- hell, most child sex offenders aren't even actual pedophiles.
Regardless of how any of us feel about loli on a personal level (and I certainly don't blame anyone for being disgusted by it), it would be an embarrassment to free speech and civil liberties to outlaw drawings on the basis of nothing more than our own knee-jerk emotional reaction to them.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
The only thing about that I find confusing is sexual urge not being entertainment.
everything in his sentence is wrong
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
fapping is fairly entertaining
What? Why does this not get this person banned?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
And slasher films being "genuine entertainment".
It's all fiction, and it's all meant to titillate. In both cases we don't want it to inspire real world action, and in both cases I don't believe it does.
chickdigger802
Banned
Why would it?
It would infinitely more useful for you to say what you think is laughable. Your comment is pretty useless otherwise, other than to entertain your own egotistical superiority.
These animated shows/movies are made entirely for people who want to see underage girls highly sexualized or performing sexual acts.
Slasher films are not made for murderers.
Thats what the difference is.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
And slasher films being "genuine entertainment".
It's all fiction, and it's all meant to titillate. In both cases we don't want it to inspire real world action, and in both cases I don't believe it does.
It's funny to me how fictionalized violence and gore is the preferable option of the two.
BECAUSE HE'S ADMITTING TO BEING A PEDOPHILE DON'T YOU GUYS SEE HOW SICK THIS IS JUST BAN EVERYTHING AND THROW THEM IN JAIL
lol.
I love when some people on GAF try to make an argument and just end up outing how hilariously uncultured and sheltered they are. Really, I love it. It amuses me.
People want to see gut wrenching things like in slashers or Saw is the same as people wanting to see a bit of soft porn.
A real comparison though can be made between snuff films and real cp.
Well, you're only confirming that you are more worried about acting out your superiority complex than having a discussion, so yea. Thanks for contributing!
People dont watch loli porn for shock value. People dont watch slasher films because they are indulging in their innate desire to kill people.
People DO watch loli porn because they are turned on by young girls and are indulging in their innate desire to see young girls sexualized or perform sexual acts. People DO watch slasher films because of the shock value.
They are quite different things. Some of you think you have some logic down to make this some clear-cut case, when the details are a bit messier than you're thinking.
There's no discussion to be had when you're factually wrong, sorry.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
edit: nvm
Of course there is a difference. Stating that there is a difference isn't an amazing revelation. The argument against violence in media is that it leads to increased violent behaviour in real life. The argument against drawings of minors is that it leads to increased predatory behaviour. Both are using the same medium as a stimulant. The argument is that consuming the stimulant leads to an increased risk of someone getting assaulted either violently or sexually. A pedo will still be a pedo after the ban.
If you want to limit the conversation to sexual urges because reasons, then how about porn in general? Ban porn as it may lead to increased sexual assault. I'd bet all those convicted of sexual assault consumed porn.
And you continue to provide absolutely nothing worthwhile to the conversation. Awesome.
Maybe the 4th time will be a charm.
And you're sure of this how? I don't have anything to say the contrary, but I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Is it common sense? An assumption? Or do you have something to back that up?
*edit*
This was posted under the assumption that you are referring to real young girls in the second half of your post. Yes, this actually makes a bit of a difference. So if you respond to this I hope you catch the edit first :/
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
World map of child pornography laws
Green - Possession of child pornography legal
Orange - Possession of child pornography illegal
Red - Possession of any kind of pornography illegal
White - Data unavailable
Allowing the possession of child pornography is not a common occurrence in western society, and allowing it encourages the production of it.
Ok I get this, and thanks for the stats, but I'm talking about where in the law does it state that if someone sends me CP without me knowing it that I wont be punished? Like what if I go to a website and that website collect my email and then uses it to spam child porn to other people?
I'm one of those half paranoid people that thinks about stupid shit like this. Like I just bought a used car from a dealership, but what if I get pulled over for speeding and they find a bag of drugs stuffed up under the dash? They going to blame it on me when I had no idea it was there?
honestly a strong point, I think you've expressed the difference better now as before you we're focusing on the differences of one being entertainment.
and just like that you're throwing away your legitimacy in this discussion...
It would be considered an honest and reasonable mistake, or there would be a lack of intent, depending on whether the law requires mens rea or not. The courts generally try and avoid situations like that.
Chet Rippo
Member
Mermen just don't care.
Is that chart going by under 18 is considered a child or is it going by local laws. Because some of those places have a seriously fucked up definition of an "adult"
World map of child pornography laws
Green - Possession of child pornography legal
Orange - Possession of child pornography illegal
Red - Possession of any kind of pornography illegal
White - Data unavailable
Allowing the possession of child pornography is not a common occurrence in western society, and allowing it encourages the production of it.
They use a similar argument, but for different reasons. They aren't 1:1 like some of you are saying. I've explained how in previous posts, describing how porn and violent movies have different goals. People watch porn to be turned on sexually. Thats the ONLY reason it exists. Loli porn is made specifically to be turned on sexually by young girls. Violent movies are not made to stimulate people's sense of wanting to kill people. Its shock value entertainment. Loli porn is not.
They are different things.
As far as whether or not it would actually help cases of underage sexual abuse, I dont know, and I dont think there would be a study that could be done to prove it either way. It still stands to reason that it should be universally discouraged. To me, at least. Maybe some of you think these people should be catered to, I dunno. My argument would be that they can masturbate to it in their heads if they really have to. I dont see why people should be allowed to make content specifically for them.
Matt_
World's #1 One Direction Fan: Everyone else in the room can see it, everyone else but you~~~
I don't know for sure, but I'm going to assume that the majority that ban child pornography have the age at 18, which is the legal adult age for the majority of the world
If they don't ban it I'm not sure they really care what the age is
Why are you continuing to repeat things that have been proven wrong? For somebody so obsessed with "having a discussion", you seem to be talking to yourself. Rather bizarre.
Some link to a painting that apparently I have to 'get' without any bit of context whatsoever.
Yea, you are most definitely just acting out some pretentious superiority complex and this will be the last time I respond to you. Seriously, in the future, just say what you're trying to say instead of acting short and condescending, as if explaining anything to me is so absolutely not even worth your time that you just feel its better to post 'lol' or some or other vagaries, even after repeated attempts to illicit a useful response.
Geez man.
Because no harm no foul? I'm not seeing the crime or the victims of 2D lolicon porn. If there are any then I could be persuaded. What you're saying is essentially is that you want people to be shamed for something that is not any of your business and would presumably not effect you in any way.
It's an art movement (although it's not exclusively loli, mind, loli is just a part of it), not a painting, lol. Holy shit.
Now that you can click links, try reading them.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
Exactly.
Young, fictional, drawn girls. These are not real girls, no matter how much you want to conflate the two. Being aroused by one doesn't mean being aroused by the other. I'm not sure why you think this is the case.
"It stands to reason" is not a good argument for anything.
This last sentence is really telling; all it says to me is that you have a personal problem with loli porn so you don't see why anyone should be allowed to draw it.
I ask because the legal age of consent in Mexico is 12 and the consider it illegal.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I can see how a slaher flick isn't directly about the fantasy of wanting to be a slasher, but tons of mainstream media is about the fulfillment of a fantasy that we should hope no one ever carries out. Grand Theft Auto?
It's a trite discussion: violent games. But it's just an example of how the desire to ban cartoon porn is not very far off from what Jack Thompson was trying to save us from. He thought "monkey see, monkey do".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked