Author Topic: J-Bill 156  (Read 2368 times)


  • Ridiculously relevant
« on: December 21, 2010, 11:31:31 PM »
"Mario is your oyster." ~The Chef


  • Paid by the word
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2010, 11:52:49 PM »
Before this gets overblown like it has nearly everywhere else:

Tokyo is not the entirety of Japan. This will not severely affect the production or proliferation of anything except for ceasing its sale in Tokyo and Tokyo alone. In practice it's probably going to mean mega-censored versions come out there while the normal editions continue to be released elsewhere in the country.

« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2010, 01:18:11 AM »
Sucks to be you.

« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2010, 03:06:42 AM »
Eh. The bill's vagueness is indeed worrisome, but anything that combats the proliferation of lolicon (read: drawn child porn) is fine by me.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur


  • Paid by the word
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2010, 06:32:41 AM »
Okay, let's pretend for a second this actually does matter, and go ahead and take a look at what this bill actually would entail. If it mattered. If it affected anyone outside of Tokyo.

Anything involving same-sex couples? Gone. Congratulations! The entire Boy's Love genre is now considered "adult." (As noted in the article, this seems to be one of staunchly-anti-gay Ishihara's goals.)

"Minors" does not mean "six-year-olds." It means "from birth to age seventeen." "Sexual content" does not mean "intercourse." It's so vague they could decide it means "her underwear is visible on-screen." The industries affected (who all love their high school girls and panty shots) would suddenly be reduced to putting H-game-esque "all characters depicted are above the age of eighteen" disclaimers in most of their works - and then they'd probably get shoved in the 18+ corner anyway.

While this stuff is happening to video games, anime, and manga, oh look, live-action television is fine! So are novels!

The level of vagueness in the wording of the bill and the rather unfair targeting of particular media are exactly the problems we have over here with the California bill that would require 18+ labels to be slapped on "deviant" violent video games (and, you'll note, will actually have an effect on the entire nation in the unlikely event the Supreme Court rules in the state's favor). Their wording in that bill is so vague it could even hit a few E-rated games. Meanwhile, some of the stuff being targeted would get by in a PG-13-rated movie with no problem, and while a teenager would no longer be able to walk into a store and buy, say, a Tom Clancy FPS, they would be able to walk into a book store and buy the novel without anyone batting an eye.

In fact, that's the only real reason anyone here should care about Bill 156: because we can compare it to the California bill.