Japanese Poll: 87% Accept Manga Child Porn Regulation

indreamsiwalk

with you...
Apr 8, 2007
950
1
Though one must keep in mind that this is only the error margin for the sampling and doesn't factor other biases like the ones I mentioned (including nonresponse bias... 23% is not that good and the while the rest of non respondents may be less likely to introduce bias, it's still a possibility) and I think do apply and in some cases even more than I thought.

True. The explanation appended to the methodology details did in fact mention that the margin of error can be greater in a stratified random sample, and also mentioned that "other factors" can raise the margin of error. In the case of non-response, as I said, this was a two-part survey, and the first part was about cancer treatment strategies. The provided information does not say whether or not the people were told what the survey was about before or after they were given the choice to decline. It is possible that they were simply asked to participate in a government survey, and did not learn that half the survey was about "harmful information" until the cancer survey was finished. In fact, the wording of the questionnaire suggests that this might be the case, because it begins, "Now I would like to ask about another current problem, 'harmful information.'" (話は変わりますが、次に時事問題として「有害情報」についておうかがいします。)

E.g the intro text frames the pro-'regulation' (another thing is regulation is not defined: I think health care, for example, should be regulated but that certainly doesn't mean I want to ban it... should be understood as an euphemism for criminalising I suppose... "regulating like CP", was it?) side as being reasonable and well thought but the opposing side as being only ideologically based and, to many, extreme. There's not only the viewpoint that no information should ever be regulated but that banning non coercive outlets for things that cannot themselves be regulated out of existence leads to perverse incentives, etc. Not going to repeat the arguments here, but you get my drift: it's pretty one-sided.

Agreed. I was thinking that as I translated it. After describing in some detail the case for regulation, the preface summarizes the anti-regulation argument in one brief line as a concern about freedom of expression. Any one of us could probably write a more balanced summary. How much this affected the outcome is anybody's guess. My own guess is that a differently-worded preface might have affected the outcome a few percentage points, but that the result would still be strongly "pro-regulation." The Japanese word I translated as "regulation" (kisei 規制) is as ambiguous as the English word "regulation." It implies control, but not necessarily a ban. This goes back to my original argument--that you would probably get similar results in the U.S.--because it's easy to support "regulation" of anything, "just to be on the safe side." Hell, Americans willingly gave up considerably more rights than the right to draw naked children when they passively allowed the White House and Congress to pass the Orwellian-named "Patriot Act." :frozen: I think in general people only become passionate about "rights" when they feel their own specific rights to be threatened in a concrete way. People love the general idea of "freedom of expression," but only a handful actually complain when that freedom is curtailed. :dunno:

But that age group is the one that is least favorable to "regulation" amongst women too... I don't think that explains it. I think it's also simply that young men are more likely to like the stuff than women.

Good points.

This made zero sense to me when I first read it (both result and interpretation.) Thankfully you provided the result table... that should read "41.7% of men in their 20s believe such material should not be regulated". And now your interpretation makes sense.

Sorry about that. I noticed I had left out the crucial "not" and edited it afterwards. :bow-pray:

BTW, the first six questions on the questionnaire were:

(1) How much do you know about what the government is doing about the problem of harmful information? Choose only one of the following. (Yeah, stupid question. How the hell can you answer that? Even if you know pretty much about the subject, you don't know how much you don't know! :sigh:)
(2) What do you think should be done to protect children from harmful information in magazines, DVDs, videos, and video games? Choose only one of the following.
(3) What do you think about the degree of regulation to protect children from harmful information in magazines, DVDs, videos, and video games? Choose only one of the following.
(4) What do you think about the nation enacting regulations in order to keep children from being exposed to harmful information on the Internet? Choose only one of the following.
(5) Do you know about "cellular phone filtering" that prevents the viewing of harmful sites with a cellular phone? Choose only one of the following.
(6) What do you think of also regulating by law the simple possession of child pornography. Choose only one of the following. (This question, like question #7, also had its own preface.)

All were multiple choice, and the choices were rather limited and simple. "None of the above" was not a choice. If you didn;t like any of the answers provided, your only alternative was "I don't know," which makes it sound as if you cannot make up your mind or are ignorant.

This is a basic conundrum of surveys. If they are not simple, the response rate will be low. If they are simple, the response rate will be high, but the data will be of questionable value. It is rare to see a truly well-written survey that has a low margin of error and also provides reliable, thorough, interesting information. Long, thorough Internet surveys are often the best constructed, but they suffer from the fatal flaw of not being random samplings. By their nature, respondents are self-selecting, and therefore not representative of the population as a whole. :dunno:
 

guy

(;Θ_Θ)ゝ”
Feb 11, 2007
2,079
43
One thing that may affect the accuracy of the polling is recognition of precedence. While the vast majority of internet data passes in and out of the hands of Japanese netizens without any significant impact on society (lolicon material included), some material has caused some major incidents, such as the Sasebo Slashing which arguably could have been prevented with some rudimentary content filtering. Compare thousands of "oddball" lolicons who harm nobody to an 11 year old who committed murder, and you're definitely going to remember the latter. So the results may simply reflect more of an interest in preventing tragic incidents from happening, rather than outright criminalization of content which, while objectionable to some, is otherwise legal. After all, Japan doesn't need another Junko Furuta murder.
 

wotaku

wota-kun
Mar 8, 2008
165
0
One thing that may affect the accuracy of the polling is recognition of precedence. Compare thousands of "oddball" lolicons who harm nobody to an 11 year old who committed murder, and you're definitely going to remember the latter. which, while objectionable to some, is otherwise legal. After all, Japan doesn't need another Junko Furuta murder.

That's a good point. Though directly it's more of a bias in how humans process information than in the actual polling, it's important to consider that a poll, even if it's representative, only represents the opinion at a specific point in time and public opinion itself can fluctuate rapidly. Yet a widely publicised poll that's inaccurate and/or taken at a high point can significantly influence opinion and future poll results, making it seem as if the poll was accurate all along (response bias / spiral of silence.)

some material has caused some major incidents, such as the Sasebo Slashing which arguably could have been prevented with some rudimentary content filtering.

Awful story, but I'm not sure I understand your point of view. Are you talking about this: "News reported that there were slanders against her on the website and the murder may have been her revenge against Mitarai." or that the (sickening but not really uncommon) adaptation of the murder/murderer into popular culture (may have) lead to (an)other incident(s) or something else? I'm not sure I agree... clearly many 11 year olds are going to be very impulsive and be less equipped to deal with these kind of things, but murder is still not a normal response to cyber-bullying and I find blaming the murder solely on it tends to justify the response and blame the victim. I wish the bullying I was victim of at her age had been limited to words, but it didn't lead me to kill anyone. Not that I don't think it's an important problem that needs to be addressed, but filtering the internet is not going to make bullying on school grounds, etc. disappear and risks only making it less evident, not any less real or common. I think this kind of thing is best dealt with on a case by case basis with cyber-bullying often being an early warning that something is wrong rather than being the whole problem in itself. Also, filters will always be imperfect and let pass things that were intended to be block as well as block things that weren't. Conflict is not always a bad thing and removing non violent means of conflict resolution not only leads to a false sense of security but can actually increase occurrences of violence. I understand the point of view and agree kids should be disciplined in some cases, but I find one size fits all and zero tolerance policies dangerous.

So the results may simply reflect more of an interest in preventing tragic incidents from happening, rather than outright criminalization of content

Yes, an interest in "regulation", which as we discussed is vague enough to make the whole thing not to be very meaningful.

After all, Japan doesn't need another Junko Furuta murder.

This is the kind of thing I wish I could unread... But I'm not convinced it's relevant to the issue at hand. Even if some of the acts were inspired by manga material (something not mentioned in the wiki at least) it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have thought of them or equally horrific things by themselves. Also if you want to avoid giving people ideas, you're going to have to censor not just art, but history, the news, scientific studies, etc. Where does one draw the line?
 

guy

(;Θ_Θ)ゝ”
Feb 11, 2007
2,079
43
Awful story, but I'm not sure I understand your point of view. Are you talking about this: "News reported that there were slanders against her on the website and the murder may have been her revenge against Mitarai." or that the (sickening but not really uncommon) adaptation of the murder/murderer into popular culture (may have) lead to (an)other incident(s) or something else?

Actually, it's not well documented on english websites, but I'm talking about the influence of other material on the girl. Apparently she had visited a website that had some violent images (which I previously uncovered, but do not care to revisit), and was also unusually infatuated with Battle Royale and other violent films. It's not that such things are themselves the cause of crime (video games, for instance, have little correlation to real crime); but it's difficult for a child so young to understand how to rationalize very explicit material. Moreover, the particular website was supposedly linked to 2ch members, and if the explicit content on the english counterpart 4chan is any indication, you can understand how unfiltered content can throw a child's reasoning out of balance.

It was only after the exposure to this content that the girl responded so extremely to a relatively innert comment. And sure, you can dilute the incident down and blame it on poor parenting; but in all likelihood, graphic images probably had a more devastating effect on her psychology than any amount of bad parenting could have ever had.

Even if some of the acts were inspired by manga material (something not mentioned in the wiki at least) it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have thought of them or equally horrific things by themselves. Also if you want to avoid giving people ideas, you're going to have to censor not just art, but history, the news, scientific studies, etc. Where does one draw the line?

The issue I'm suggesting isn't outright censorship of content: content by itself does not cause problems. But it can influence an individual who does not know how to deal with coming in contact with that content. A manga is just a manga, but what do you do about a person who does not know how to separate the illustrated world of a comic book from the real world that surrounds him?

There is a lot of greusome art, history, news, etc; but the reason we call it art/history/news is because there is an environment that surrounds each type of content which allows us to understand that content in a rational manner. We call those environments culture (for art), education (for history), community (for news), and so on. However, the uncensored internet simply doesn't automatically have such an environmental framework. And where it's most pronounced is in its anonymizing nature, such as with 2ch and 4chan. After all, when you see explicit content on 4chan/b/, how do you classify it? It isn't cultural, acadmic, communal, or anything else really. A viewer can make it into whatever they choose, and while most vippers and /b/tards consider it humorous (in a very dark, counter-cultural way), a child would be incredibly succeptible. [You can find a similarity between 2ch's adoption of "Nevada-tan" and 4chan's raiding of Scientology.]

It doesn't mean a mentally succeptible/unstable person should be prohibited from reading manga altogether, or that all manga should be censored for their sake (affecting us all). But it does mean that we would need to develop a framework in which manga can be properly consumed. And we already have some: adult manga cannot be sold to minors, certain mangas are notably violent but regarded and consumed for their artistic merit, and so on. Even here at AO we regulate based on what content is downright illegal or repulsive, and we each maintain our individual standards based on our respective real-life beliefs. These are forms of regulation (and for manga, that means regulating the distribution and consumption, but not the production!). Moreover, the polling doesn't explicitly suggest that the production of lolicon manga should be banned altogether, so I would interpret the 87% as being "all inclusive".
 

wotaku

wota-kun
Mar 8, 2008
165
0
Thanks for the detailed response, you make some very good points and I hadn't realised you were talking more specifically about children. I still don't fully agree however...

It's not that such things are themselves the cause of crime (video games, for instance, have little correlation to real crime); but it's difficult for a child so young to understand how to rationalize very explicit material.

Completely agreed.

It was only after the exposure to this content that the girl responded so extremely to a relatively innert comment. And sure, you can dilute the incident down and blame it on poor parenting; but in all likelihood, graphic images probably had a more devastating effect on her psychology than any amount of bad parenting could have ever had.

I see your point, but as you said it was not merely exposure to a particular manga or specific film in a particular incident, but being "unusually infatuated" with violent content which necessarily happened over a period of time. Without placing the blame entirely on them, to me it still stems from bad parenting as it couldn't have happened without consent of the parents or a gross disregard, lack of concern for and monitoring of her activities. I certainly agree such material has an impact and is generally not appropriate for children and more importantly I agree that it's the lack of a proper framework allowing one to understand it and distinguish it from reality that makes it potentially damaging and that this necessarily relates to education. And therefore parenting... Sure, I also think the State also has a role to play in education and regulation to an extent such as the sale of material to minors.

But the problem I have is that the issue of protecting children from "harmful material" is used to justify censoring the internet for everyone and vague polls like this one are used to promote and legitimise more of the same even though the results do not necessarily point towards that direction as you yourself agree. Not only children uses mobile phones and ultimately I don't think accessing such material is very harmful in itself, it takes long term exposure and a combination of other issues that should be able to be dealt with vigilance. Automated filters enforced by parents with technological help from ISPs and subsidised by the State are acceptable and probably a good thing so long as there is an easy recourse to unblock sites on request (to tutors, if appropriate), but unbypassable filters (legally... technologically it's not even possible to block all content considered harmful) enforced by the State is much too draconian a mesure for me.

After all, when you see explicit content on 4chan/b/, how do you classify it? It isn't cultural, acadmic, communal, or anything else really. A viewer can make it into whatever they choose, and while most vippers and /b/tards consider it humorous (in a very dark, counter-cultural way), a child would be incredibly succeptible. [You can find a similarity between 2ch's adoption of "Nevada-tan" and 4chan's raiding of Scientology.]

This I have to disagree with. Counter-culture is still culture, just not mainstream culture. It's true that it's more decontextualised, but I think never completely even for the more WTFish content. Personally I prefer pseudonymous sites which favors some sense of identity and community, but I also think anonymity has it's place even though I still agree a lot of it is inappropriate for young children. Also while I'm not really into project chanology and think there have been some excesses, I find it mostly positive and the local raid/manifestation at least was civil and I think a positive thing. Some will find it ironic, but it's in part justified by protecting the children from an abusive organisation and I think bringing attention to the CoS is a good thing. Anyway, that's pretty off topic.

Even here at AO we regulate based on what content is downright illegal or repulsive, and we each maintain our individual standards based on our respective real-life beliefs. These are forms of regulation (and for manga, that means regulating the distribution and consumption, but not the production!).

Yes, but that's self-regulation which is an entirely different thing. I myself have reported a few posts breaking the rules and agree with them. But chompy is not a government agent (or at least I hope not :snicker:) and doesn't get to define the rules for other websites. I didn't stick around on k15 however because there were too many rules and the community seemed too schizophrenic, but that's still the beauty of choice. I also don't download what I don't like... I'm not a big erotic manga fan but I do enjoy it occasionally and though I don't like the violent stuff I do enjoy some dark/gothic themes and things I'm sure many people will find repulsive. But each adult should be able to determine where they draw the line so long as no one is harmed in the process and even for minors I don't think perfect enforcement is neither achievable nor desirable.
 

guy

(;Θ_Θ)ゝ”
Feb 11, 2007
2,079
43
I see your point, but as you said it was not merely exposure to a particular manga or specific film in a particular incident, but being "unusually infatuated" with violent content which necessarily happened over a period of time. Without placing the blame entirely on them, to me it still stems from bad parenting as it couldn't have happened without consent of the parents or a gross disregard, lack of concern for and monitoring of her activities. [..]

There will undoubtedly be a difference of interpretation since there simply isn't enough information to understand what really happened to the girl. But to me, each had its part to play; that is, I believe bad parenting was a factor, but not the sole root of the problem. For all we know, the girl may have been just fine watching Battle Royale (and coming to terms that it's just a movie), and the website could have just been the unfortunate tipping point that threw her understanding of violence completely out of balance.

But the problem I have is that the issue of protecting children from "harmful material" is used to justify censoring the internet for everyone and vague polls like this one are used to promote and legitimise more of the same even though the results do not necessarily point towards that direction as you yourself agree.

I wholeheartedly agree about the politicizing nature of these issues, but while there will always be people who use an issue to promote their own agenda, that doesn't mean the issue at stake is illegitimate. It just means it's all the more important to understand what's at stake in order to build a framework (in the case of lolicon material) that neither puts children at risk nor forces censorship. But let's face it: lolicon is not mainstream, and as long as otaku hide in their rooms behind their internet monickers, unwilling to reveal their interests out of fear of shame, it will give people the impression that something about it is inappropriate. I'm willing to bet that if you polled the same people asking whether or not they knew anything substantial about lolicon/manga subculture, you would probably get a result of "No" similar to the original poll.

Not only children uses mobile phones and ultimately I don't think accessing such material is very harmful in itself, it takes long term exposure and a combination of other issues that should be able to be dealt with vigilance.

"Long term exposure" is one of those things that may be true in general, but it is impossible to know how every child would react. For some children, it can be harmful even in small doses, for one reason or another. And like I said, even though a single incident is statistically insignificant, people tend to latch onto them, ignoring what is generally normal.

This I have to disagree with. Counter-culture is still culture, just not mainstream culture. It's true that it's more decontextualised, but I think never completely even for the more WTFish content. Personally I prefer pseudonymous sites which favors some sense of identity and community, but I also think anonymity has it's place even though I still agree a lot of it is inappropriate for young children.

I suppose I need to be more specific. My perspective on counter-cultural phenomenons such as 4chan is that they define themselves according to what they are not, compared to culture which defines itself according to what it is. By non-mainstream culture I would refer to subculture, but not counter-culture. Why the semantics? Because while culture builds upon existing frameworks, counter-culture works to break them down. It's true that the emergence of counter-culture is not decontextualized--it must after all have a culture to respond to. The problem is that in breaking down cultural frameworks, counter-culture does not lend itself to contextualized interpretation (hence the WTF response you get when you "try to classify" or interpret its content). This is fine for individuals who understand the culture and can recognize the larger dialog that counter-culture is making. But for those that don't, it is very dangerous: if misinterpreted, there is little recourse to correcting that misinterpretation (a correction would be a framework, which is what counter-culture wants to break down).

Yes, but that's self-regulation which is an entirely different thing. I myself have reported a few posts breaking the rules and agree with them. But chompy [..] doesn't get to define the rules for other websites.

I don't see why it's an entirely different thing. The Japanese government is not unilaterally banning/regulating lolicon, and most certainly not on an international scale. When you report a post, you're participating in and supporting a larger framework of regulation that we call "the rules at AO". (True self-regulation would be more like 4chan, where there are no rules, and each individual is responsible for how they consume the content.) The poll is nothing more than a way to ask people if a set of rules should be established regarding lolicon within a given community (in this case, Japan). And 87% may very well reflect their misunderstanding of what lolicon is (perceiced dangers therein). But that doesn't mean they're on a witchhunt or that they don't care about freedom of expression; it just means we aren't doing anything to help them understand that lolicon isn't about harming children. And any otaku who hides in their room, only to come out and cry foul when their supply of lolicon is jeopardized, does nothing to help the issue. Again, lolicon is not mainstream, and anything that is not mainstream must face some amount of criticism.
 

wotaku

wota-kun
Mar 8, 2008
165
0
For all we know, the girl may have been just fine watching Battle Royale (and coming to terms that it's just a movie), and the website could have just been the unfortunate tipping point that threw her understanding of violence completely out of balance.

Right, and she made have made a bad fall and suffered brain damage... I should have phrased that to saying parenting was almost certainly an essential enabling factor if long term exposure to such content leading to an important change in personality was indeed a primary cause as your description seemed to imply. I'm generally careful to qualify such statements not to be definitive but I got careless there and you got me...

I wholeheartedly agree about the politicizing nature of these issues, but while there will always be people who use an issue to promote their own agenda, that doesn't mean the issue at stake is illegitimate.

No, and just because an issue is a legitimate concern or a person is well intentioned doesn't make any particular solution effective or devoid of unintended or collateral consequences worse than it's positive effects.

It just means it's all the more important to understand what's at stake in order to build a framework (in the case of lolicon material) that neither puts children at risk nor forces censorship.

That an interesting point you seem to attribute a lot of importance to and I'm wondering if you have anything specific in mind. I'm assuming you are still talking about manga lolicon material and mean a social framework that can be propagated into the mainstream? Because lolicons realising that it's just art, distinguishing between fiction and reality and being able to keep their paws to themselves does not seem to be enough to convince the majority and in many cases being vocal about it seems to be counter-effective. It also doesn't seem to be possible to stop the occasional lolicon from committing crimes without draconian mesures anymore than it is possible to stop every father/uncle/etc circumstantial offender but since it's not really possible to profile the later people will focus on the former and even associate circumstantial offenders with lolicons and blame abuse that has been going for (at the very least) all of recorded history on modern art...

But let's face it: lolicon is not mainstream, and as long as otaku hide in their rooms behind their internet monickers, unwilling to reveal their interests out of fear of shame, it will give people the impression that something about it is inappropriate. I'm willing to bet that if you polled the same people asking whether or not they knew anything substantial about lolicon/manga subculture, you would probably get a result of "No" similar to the original poll.

Agreed, but that's a bit of vicious cycle, don't you think? And of course in countries where the legality of the material is already questionable at best, this is even more problematic...

"Long term exposure" is one of those things that may be true in general, but it is impossible to know how every child would react. For some children, it can be harmful even in small doses, for one reason or another. And like I said, even though a single incident is statistically insignificant, people tend to latch onto them, ignoring what is generally normal.

That's true. Again I wasn't careful enough... "and" should have been "and/or". Children who are particularly vulnerable for various reasons may react strongly to a single exposure to "harmful" content. But while getting physically hurt is generally considered harmful, minor cuts and bruises are actually an essential part of the development of a normal immune system in children. Over-protection is also generally considered harmful and in the case of children who do not have a properly functioning immune system, extra precautions are taken rather than undertaking the asceptisation of the whole world (certainly a ridiculous thought for bacteria as much as for ideas.) Obviously people hate reducing a child to something statistically insignificant, but that doesn't change the reality that it's impossible to protect everyone from everything and if harm reduction/welfare maximisation is the goal, there are countless issues were efforts would be more effective than trying to avoid exposure to any potentially shocking material. People seriously need to stop looking up to Stalin for their understanding of statistics :eek:y:

I suppose I need to be more specific. My perspective on counter-cultural phenomenons such as 4chan is that they define themselves according to what they are not, compared to culture which defines itself according to what it is. By non-mainstream culture I would refer to subculture, but not counter-culture. Why the semantics? Because while culture builds upon existing frameworks, counter-culture works to break them down.

It's true that countercultures define themselves by what they are not by standing in opposition to (aspects of) mainstream culture, but they are still subcultures and counter-cultural movements have become mainstream by replacing elements of the mainstream and being integrated into it. History is not a gradual progression constantly building up on the past but a very chaotic process where old frameworks are constantly deconstructed to build new ones from pieces or make place for entirely new ideas. Criticising mainstream culture for taking itself too seriously and placing too much importance on the individual origin of content and having a sort of personality fetish / identity obsession is different from proning and/or experimenting the opposite only in that it's interpretation is necessarily more contextualised, or considered in relation to the culture it criticises. Counterculture still is culture. That said I think most b/tards would reply to such (or any) analysis with "newfag is new" or something like that and in that I see your point about breaking down frameworks but I don't subscribe to your terminology and think postmodernist may be a more appropriate term here.

The problem is that in breaking down cultural frameworks, counter-culture does not lend itself to contextualized interpretation (hence the WTF response you get when you "try to classify" or interpret its content). This is fine for individuals who understand the culture and can recognize the larger dialog that counter-culture is making. But for those that don't, it is very dangerous: if misinterpreted, there is little recourse to correcting that misinterpretation (a correction would be a framework, which is what counter-culture wants to break down).
In the case of /b/, I think any interpretation taken too seriously is a misinterpretation and I suppose can be dangerous. But I'm not sure where you're going with this...

I don't see why [self-regulation is] an entirely different thing.

It's different because the rules only apply to a specific website which allows individuals to choose who they want to associate with and a general kind of material they want to be exposed to without enforcing their choices on everyone else. I think it's highly related to your talk of building a framework that allows one to rationalise and contextualise the content. For example I agree (and would respect regardless) that the jr. section here is not the place for nudity but that doesn't mean I want to ban nudist beaches or family pictures taken in such events (which themselves operate under a different framework in which things that are banal here are not normal.) It's "self"-regulation (self here referring the community and not the individual... I suppose auto-regulation would be a better term) in the sense that it's the operators of the site (with the help of moderators and general users) who perform the regulation and is not imposed from a higher power. Most importantly it's fundamentally different in that it cannot be a regulation of production but only of a specific channel of distribution and that the penalty for breaking the rules does not include the suspension of unrelated freedoms.

The Japanese government is not unilaterally banning/regulating lolicon, and most certainly not on an international scale.

Not currently, but there is always the possibility that this may happen in the future. Of course Japan doesn't have the ability to enforce it's laws outside it's territory but I'm sure you understand how regulation in Japan affects the rest of the world in terms of production. While that of course doesn't mean outsiders should get to decide I don't see anything wrong with outsiders interpreting the situation and expressing an opinion.

True self-regulation would be more like 4chan, where there are no rules

You're forgetting about rule #34 :evillaugh:
More seriously, 4chan has lots of rules is also auto-moderated in the same sense that the site operators will remove CP and such and although the faster paced / throw away nature of the chans make it harder than on AO and the rules used to be more seldom enforced than they are now, the underlying principle that you can't really prevent people from posting whatever they want on a public board and moderation therefore happens after the fact by deleting some content is the same and is not different from law where crimes can only be punished after they occur (unless you want to delve into thought crime and automated censorship and I cannot stress enough how much I oppose this.)

The poll is nothing more than a way to ask people if a set of rules should be established regarding lolicon within a given community (in this case, Japan).

I'm not saying it's unacceptable to even consider, but I see a big difference between a community and a society and arguably between a society and a country. Furthermore, while this discussion is interesting and not (all) exactly off topic, what we were originally discussing was more the validity and usefulness of this particular poll. As you said, there already is a degree of regulation so whatever the results the poll doesn't provide any extra information and there are several major problems with the validity of the results themselves. Do 87% support the current limited regulation, do they support just a bit more or a complete ban? Is the actual number closer to 80%, 70% or even lower? Is it a strong support or is it due to a lack of familiarity with the issues involved? It is my understanding that the poll doesn't provide any useful information on what policy, if any, should be adopted yet that it can be used to justify any by opportunists (be they in government or not and Japanese or not) and that more than anything else is what I was arguing.

And 87% may very well reflect their misunderstanding of what lolicon is (perceiced dangers therein). But that doesn't mean they're on a witchhunt or that they don't care about freedom of expression;

Right, and I want to clarify that I am not attacking Japan or even the Japanese government but only criticising a poll and giving my own interpretation of and opinion on the issue. However I do think that a good dose of scepticism of any authority is not only healthy but necessary and that there are elements in the Japanese government and indeed pretty much all world governments who disproportionally value security over liberty and that this can be harmful to the very causes they claim to support regardless of how well intentioned they may (and indeed, at least in some cases, may not) be and that it can also be very dangerous concerning issues which are not directly related.

it just means we aren't doing anything to help them understand that lolicon isn't about harming children. And any otaku who hides in their room, only to come out and cry foul when their supply of lolicon is jeopardized, does nothing to help the issue. Again, lolicon is not mainstream, and anything that is not mainstream must face some amount of criticism.

That's one interpretation and criticism which I think is valid to an extent, but I wouldn't say it explains everything or "just means" that. Still, any ideas to that effect I think would be very welcome. That said, I don't really care for my own supply but more on principle and for the general trend. For myself, it's the future of the jr. idols content I worry about.
 

guy

(;Θ_Θ)ゝ”
Feb 11, 2007
2,079
43
I'm going to venture a guess and say that we're more or less in agreement on the general issues--at least so that these posts don't continue to grow incredibly in length... Besides, I'm willing to yield on account of difference of semantics.
:...:

To focus on the main topic, anytime an incident occurs which harms a community, that community has an instinctual desire to understand what happened in order to prevent it from occuring again. When it comes to lolicon/JrIdol versus child abuse, it's (currently) incredibly difficult for people to agree on where to draw the line. If a person abuses a child, to what extent is that individual alone to blame, and to what extent is extraneous content (not necessarily lolicon/JI, but at least content which people might associate with lolicon/JI, such as CP) responsible? The problem is that a criminal is only identified after the crime, which doesn't help by way of prevention. So without understanding the finer differences between lolicon/JI and more volatile content, people are more likely to mistakingly throw the cat out with the bag.

In reality, I personally consider lolicon/JI about as inert as video games. But video games are much more mainstream, and parents and children alike are familiar with the framework surrounding video games to a far greater degree (ESRB ratings, buying games as rewards for "good behavior", using it to encourage social activity, etc). Lolicon/JI just doesn't have such an understanding.

So what kind of framework would help "protect" children and preserve freedom of expression for lolicon/JI? I think a good place to start is to differentiate legal from natural. It's natural for a child to encounter sexuality: it's part of their maturation, thralls of puberty and all. What is illegal is the explotation (abuse) of that sexuality. But people tend to assume that because sexuality is illegal, it must therefore also be unnatural. The point is to say that people who read/view lolicon/JI content understand (perhaps better than most people) both sides: they can appreciate the artistic side of a manga that depicts a child's natural oncoming sexuality, and yet they are fully aware that such behavior in the actual society is inappropriate. Hence developing an understanding that lolicon/JI is the illustration of that which is natural (in an artistic sense), and not the promotion of that which is illegal.

Of course, that is a far cry from a comprehensive framework, and I don't even think lolicon/JI will ever get a proper framework. If people still second guess video games every time a violent crime occurs, they certainly won't be more sympathetic towards lolicon/JI. Moreover, there is quite a bit of lolicon that pushes the lines of "artistic", and that just makes the issue stickier. But as long as people start to understand that lolicon/JI does not promote breaking the law (and more importantly, that even if 100 people read a manga and 1 person abuses a child, that it doesn't mean the other 99 will also abuse children), I think we'll be making progress.





In the end, I don't think the poll itself is harming anyone. It only says what everyone already thinks. The real harm is if everyone continues to think that way, to the point that they end up supporting and passing censorship legislation. To that end, the poll serves as a pretext for everyone to come together to seriously discuss child protection versus freedom of expression. And at the end of the day, since lolicon/JI makes up such a small community, it makes it all the more important that such fans help people better understand their interest.

Also, despite the high percentage, I still don't think "regulation" implies "censorship". As taboo as lolicon/JI may be, I believe most people do understand how damaging censorship can be, and that there really isn't a definitive correlation (let alone causation) between lolicon/JI and child abuse--at least not nearly enough to ban the production of lolicon/JI content.
 

wotaku

wota-kun
Mar 8, 2008
165
0
If a person abuses a child, to what extent is that individual alone to blame, and to what extent is extraneous content (not necessarily lolicon/JI, but at least content which people might associate with lolicon/JI, such as CP) responsible?

Factors that do not directly contribute to the acts do not matter in respect to assigning blame legally. Everyone is entirely responsible for their own actions unless factors outside their control are at play (acting under threat of force, etc.) Attenuating factors can be slightly more flexible but they are not a consideration in assigning blame but in assessing future threat to society and such. That said, if watching CP or "virtual CP" can never be a defense for a person's criminal acts, how can it be use to blame the content creators for crimes they did not commit (rather than only the ones they did in case of CP)? It doesn't make sense and the issue is not one of blame but of harm reduction. Semantics again but yes I'm big on semantics and think it's an essential distinction without which it's impossible to show that the material is not socially harmful. In this framework if the content helps more people control fantasies they have regardless than it encourages weak willed people to focus them and pass to act, it's not socially harmful and actually works towards prevention. This can be demonstrated with a pretty good level of certainty using statistics to see if the content being (more) accessible is correlated with an increase in crime and vice-versa (without needing to demonstrate causation which would be impossible with the current biological and psychological knowledge.) In the blame content creators framework, any abuser that was exposed to any related material can be used to show that the material is harmful and even though that's a logical fallacy, it's simply undeniable that such people exist.

So what kind of framework would help "protect" children and preserve freedom of expression for lolicon/JI? I think a good place to start is to differentiate legal from natural.

Except this is a very weak argument and leaves the door wide open to huge restrictions on the content. What is natural and at what age does it become natural? Is only masturbation natural or does it also include sex? Is it just sex between underage children/teens which is often legal too but illegal to depict? Since you've already defined abuse as unnatural, any fictional depiction of remotely coercive/manipulative acts becomes off limit. Only brushing the subject (is fury natural?) but that leaves very little wiggle room and in fact opens the door to outright bans because many simply do not consider any underage sexuality to be natural (although not many scientists working in related disciplines will agree, but juges only need to find a modicum of controversy to redefine natural. I find sticking to the reality vs. fiction distinction much more reasonable, unless you also want to ban movies involving suicides by minors and any other act than can be subjectively define as unnatural.

The point is to say that people who read/view lolicon/JI content understand (perhaps better than most people) both sides: they can appreciate the artistic side of a manga that depicts a child's natural oncoming sexuality, and yet they are fully aware that such behavior in the actual society is inappropriate.

I think arguing that lolicons understand "better than most people" that child sexuality is "natural" is going to make a whole lot of people very uncomfortable and not help your cause very much. Better forget about arguing about real children completely, that's not what's this is about. Stick to fiction is fiction for manga and to beauty, naïve seduction are not necessarily sexual and something that suggests sexuality to a particular viewer does not make it a sexual act for JI.

Hence developing an understanding that lolicon/JI is the illustration of that which is natural (in an artistic sense)

Natural in an artistic sense? I'm not following you at all...

In the end, I don't think the poll itself is harming anyone. It only says what everyone already thinks.

That's the key issue for this thread and I completely disagree on both counts. I have strong reasons to believe that the poll is actually very representative of the population and that even if it was the results to do not tell us what people think, yet such polls do influence public opinion. Humans, being social animals who derive their self-esteem largely from the perception of their peers, do have a strong tendency to rally to the (perceived) majority opinion, especially when they are not particularly informed about the subject and do not already feel strongly one way or another. Even more so when the majority is very large and (is perceived to) feel strongly about this view. This was all argued to fairly great lengths with IDIW and I again summarised the issue for you but since you haven't addressed any of the arguments before dismissing them we'll unfortunately have to agree to disagree. Not to offend, but merely restating an opinion which you have already expressed is not very useful...

Also, despite the high percentage, I still don't think "regulation" implies "censorship". As taboo as lolicon/JI may be, I believe most people do understand how damaging censorship can be

I agree to an extent, but again that's a reason the poll is problematic. And there's a very important issue of framing here. Addressing a point made by IDIW I was meaning to at the same time, I think one reason people oppose censorship in theory but often don't oppose it in even dangerous particular cases is that they don't consider censorship of things they disagree with (or consider "harmful") to be censorship. Censorship and repression are not subjective terms even though they're often emotionally charged. Some things should be repressed (violent crimes, etc.) and some speech should be censored in specific circumstances (privacy laws preventing public servants / companies from sharing confidential information for example), but most people prefer to deal with this conflict via cognitive dissonance rather than rationally assessing this. I think censorship of art forms and means of expression should always be considered harmful however and I think that's something that should be made explicit and focused on.

and that there really isn't a definitive correlation (let alone causation) between lolicon/JI and child abuse--at least not nearly enough to ban the production of lolicon/JI content.

I'd like it to be the case that most people understand this, but I doubt that's actually true. Also it's important to talk about correlation between the availability of the content and abuse and not between individuals who consume the content and abuse because while I don't have any hard data (though I need to research this more and hope to find some) things seem to point towards a negative correlation in the first case and a positive correlation in the second simply because likely abusers will be more likely to be interested in this type of content regardless of whether it exists or not and be more likely to consume it if it does or find actual children if it does. However as we discussed people often respond more to single cases than balance between crime and freedom they don't think they want to exercise, the nature of empathy being what it is and I doubt talking about there not being "enough" abuse to justify censorship is going to fly very well.

The real harm is if everyone continues to think that way, to the point that they end up supporting and passing censorship legislation. To that end, the poll serves as a pretext for everyone to come together to seriously discuss child protection versus freedom of expression. And at the end of the day, since lolicon/JI makes up such a small community, it makes it all the more important that such fans help people better understand their interest.

At least we can argue on the finality if not the process :dozingoff:
 

guy

(;Θ_Θ)ゝ”
Feb 11, 2007
2,079
43
Everyone is entirely responsible for their own actions unless factors outside their control are at play (acting under threat of force, etc.) Attenuating factors can be slightly more flexible but they are not a consideration in assigning blame but in assessing future threat to society and such. That said, if watching CP or "virtual CP" can never be a defense for a person's criminal acts, how can it be use to blame the content creators for crimes they did not commit (rather than only the ones they did in case of CP)?

But not everyone is tried equally. Mental health is always a determining factor in an individual's actions, and it's always debatable to what extent the individual has control. I'm not saying that a content creator must be fined or censored for another individual's criminal actions, but if there is a risk that someone might abuse content to ill end, then some amount of regulation is appropriate. Saying that the entire system should be lasse-faire is like saying gun sellers ought to be able to sell guns to whomever they choose because they have no control over what a gun-buyer is going to use a weapon for. That doesn't mean gun prohibition altogether, but regulation by way of background checks and application procedures.

Semantics again but yes I'm big on semantics and think it's an essential distinction without which it's impossible to show that the material is not socially harmful.

I disagree. Content alone is not harmful, but if introduced into a society that does not know how to handle it, it can be devastating. It has happened time and again in history with one culture clashing upon another, and now in our globalized world, between mainstream and sub-cultures. Taking lolicon as an example, some people think it's okay, some people think it has no place in their society: it polarizes groups of people that would otherwise be peacible in other respects of life. But that does not mean it's strictly either-or: the two must be tempered with respect to each other. Unfortunately that usually means a trial-by-fire among proponents, but it is simply impossible for any society to operate on ideals/oughts/universals--everything must be judged in reference to the current and past state of affairs.

A better illustration is that while lolicon manga may remain perfectly legal in Japan (a society in which there is no indicative correlation between content and child abuse), it will most likely continue to be censored in America (which has been "plagued" with child abusers). That doesn't mean that the same lolicon manga in America causes crime, but that Americans are simply much more sensitive to the issue, and they must first figure out what's wrong with their priests and kidnappers before they can liberally allow free artistic expression for lolicon manga.

In this framework if the content helps more people control fantasies they have regardless than it encourages weak willed people to focus them and pass to act, it's not socially harmful and actually works towards prevention. This can be demonstrated with a pretty good level of certainty using statistics to see if the content being (more) accessible is correlated with an increase in crime and vice-versa (without needing to demonstrate causation which would be impossible with the current biological and psychological knowledge.) In the blame content creators framework, any abuser that was exposed to any related material can be used to show that the material is harmful and even though that's a logical fallacy, it's simply undeniable that such people exist.

You're taking my argument to the other extreme. First, your argument can easily be distorted to say that people shouldn't be having those fantasies in the first place, and that while the content does not necesarily cause crime (or is even correlated to its frequency), it does nothing to help or "cure" sickened people. In fact, it would simply be an easy way to identify people who have "ill" fantasies (even without commiting crimes), and would moreover lead to discrimination and mistrust. But I would never believe such an argument (it's careless), just as I would never argue that a content creator is solely responsible for someone else's actions. The only thing I've suggested is to allow for a basic framework that prevents content from getting into the wrong hands.

Except this is a very weak argument and leaves the door wide open to huge restrictions on the content. What is natural and at what age does it become natural? [..] Since you've already defined abuse as unnatural, any fictional depiction of remotely coercive/manipulative acts becomes off limit. [..] many simply do not consider any underage sexuality to be natural (although not many scientists working in related disciplines will agree, but juges only need to find a modicum of controversy to redefine natural. I find sticking to the reality vs. fiction distinction much more reasonable, unless you also want to ban movies involving suicides by minors and any other act than can be subjectively define as unnatural.

First, I did not define abuse as unnatural, I defined it as illegal. I take no stance on whether or not abuse is natural (that is, "right" or "wrong"), besides the fact that it does happen in society and some artists choose it as their subject of expression (the same goes for suicide).

Your counter-examples point out exactly the problems in continuing to blur the lines between "natural" and "legal". Everyone is well aware that children start to experience sexuality once they enter puberty, and due to improved health standards, puberty begins at a significantly earlier age (proper diet aids in development of sexual organs and production of horomonal chemicals). The point is not to work backwards and say "this and that are illegal so therefore they are unnatural; and since these other things are unnatural, they must also be illegal", which is precisely what your doubts are saying. My argument is to start by pointing out that certain phenomenons are natural in the sense that they simply occur in a given society sans any sense of legality (children left to their own devices will inevitably encounter sexuality, the anonymizing nature of globalized society will push people to suicide, etc). We can then say, "having established that pubescent sexuality occurs naturally, we will simply agree to limit intercourse to those 18+ only in order to prevent abuse". That way it can be both natural and illegal, which lends itself to the fiction vs reality argument: since it occurs naturally, it is okay to depict it in fiction, but since it is illegal, it is not okay to practice it in reality. It's a roundabout arguement, but...

Most proponents will simply fall back to the fiction vs reality measuring stick, because to them it's the most obvious answer. However, its simplicity is also its weak and danger. What about fictitious content that is hyper-realistic, either by talented artistry or advanced computer generation? What about CP that is simply altered to look less realistic? Illustrated content does not harm any specific child, but CP is illegal because it would otherwise legitimize the crime. Hyper-realistic content would then easily be criminalized even if fictitious. And then people will argue over what constitutes "real". Two eyes, pigtails, randosel, no pubic hair = "real enough". And if reality is illegal, then why shouldn't fiction be illegal as well? You can argue principles, but no one (besides fellow lolicons) will listen.

I think arguing that lolicons understand "better than most people" that child sexuality is "natural" is going to make a whole lot of people very uncomfortable and not help your cause very much. Better forget about arguing about real children completely, that's not what's this is about. Stick to fiction is fiction for manga and to beauty, naïve seduction are not necessarily sexual and something that suggests sexuality to a particular viewer does not make it a sexual act for JI.

I wasn't really saying that it's how people should argue it. But unfortunately you have to argue about real children in order to defend your position that lolicon manga does not encourage real abuse. Most people think "lolicon" is just a slang word for "pedophile", or worse, child molestor. In reality they're two completely different things that may from time to time coincidentally (but not by necessary correlation or causation) be exhibited in one particular person. But most people think they're the same. And since most people are more interested in protecting their children, they will assume that an interest in fictitious "abuse" is a good indicator of willingness for real "abuse". And despite your efforts to convince them that you really wouldn't touch their child, they will naturally assume the worst.

I agree that naive seduction is not necessarily sexual and that a sexual idea does not automatically cause sexual misconduct. But as long as child abuse occurs, no matter how infrequent, lolicon will be a target. And if you continue to insist on free-reign of "artistic creativity", it will only cause people to harbor more mistrust.

That's the key issue for this thread and I completely disagree on both counts. I have strong reasons to believe that the poll is actually very representative of the population and that even if it was the results to do not tell us what people think, yet such polls do influence public opinion. Humans [..] do have a strong tendency to rally to the (perceived) majority opinion, especially when they are not particularly informed about the subject and do not already feel strongly one way or another.

But that is precisely what I argued when I said that "the real harm is if everyone continues to think that way [..]". In other words, if people continue to be uninformed and harbor mistrust against lolicon subculture; whether by their own prejudices based on a false perception of the dangers involved, or their own ignorance on the issue and subsequent willingness to defer to popular thought (as you point out).

I agree the poll is representative of the population. But I still maintain that a lot of those people are probably just uninformed. And no one else is going to help inform those people. So it is strictly up to those inside the lolicon subculture to help others understand that lolicon is strictly divorced from child abuse. And believe me, human beings are more likely to distrust that which they don't understand (and to greater degree); and our own ignorance that "it will just go away" is far more dangerous than any poll.

[..] I think one reason people oppose censorship in theory but often don't oppose it in even dangerous particular cases is that they don't consider censorship of things they disagree with (or consider "harmful") to be censorship. Censorship and repression are not subjective terms even though they're often emotionally charged. Some things should be repressed (violent crimes, etc.) and some speech should be censored in specific circumstances (privacy laws preventing public servants / companies from sharing confidential information for example), but most people prefer to deal with this conflict via cognitive dissonance rather than rationally assessing this. I think censorship of art forms and means of expression should always be considered harmful however and I think that's something that should be made explicit and focused on.

I agree in theory, but as you said human beings don't behave according to theory. There is no self-evident universal that dictates theoretical or practical levels of censorship/repression. Moreover, your idea that "censorship of art forms should always be considered harmful" is itself a problematic ideal because no one will ever agree on what constitutes art. "Means of expression" is even more reckless (or ignorant at best), as r*** could be considered a means of expressing a sort of physical attraction. Ideals are a great place to start a discussion, but they will never get you to the answer.

[..] it's important to talk about correlation between the availability of the content and abuse and not between individuals who consume the content and abuse because [..] things seem to point towards a negative correlation in the first case and a positive correlation in the second [..]

That's just up to differeing interpretation of data which we don't have. One party will skew it to illustrate one trend, another will skew it the other way: it's rhetorical, it's political. I think a better way to present the data is to correlate availability and consumption against abuse, and then separately correlate abuse to other sources (the traditional "uncle", "cousin", or "salaryman"). I would imagine you could find a stronger correlation in the latter that would help ease the doubts of the former.





In the end, I personally am giving faith to the Japanese population despite the seemingly overwhelming results of this poll. Why? Because if they really felt passionate about it, this would have become a central issue long ago. Plus, with anonymous interviews during a (relatively) recent special on the "Junior Idol Boom", people really are divided in arguing both sides (that interest in young girls is "unnatural", and that as long as otaku aren't harming anyone it's okay). Of course a couple of TV stations put their own spin on report, but to their credit, many stations were fair about it, and the general consensus is that JI is okay, there's no need for censorship, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little cautious just so that things don't get out of hand. And under those (general) terms, I don't think artistic creativity and freedom of expression is at stake.