We all know from Sancom that some feminist groups amongst other political parties wants to ban certain forms of hentai like loli. So...
Although I have my own theories, what legal basis would you use to oppose such a law should it be passed or why legislating such a law would be illegal if at all?
On a side note, what is the standard of proof for criminal cases in Japan?
I like this thread. I've got an exam in 15 minutes though, so I can't reply now, but I'll check back later and write a good piece.
Ninsheart said:
I like this thread. I've got an exam in 15 minutes though, so I can't reply now, but I'll check back later and write a good piece.
Like it too, though it might turn flame...
Good luck btw Nin
Why is it that every thread I made so far seems likely to become a breeding ground for flaming or trolling? Nevertheless, if it is, it is. I am wondering though, do you have any legal background, Nin? It would help if you did, though it is unnecessary.
Btw, Nin, if you at least have some kind of legal knowledge we could start the Sancom International Legal Team (S.I.L.T.), not to be confused with slit, which can have many... interpretations...
As much as I want to propose it lawfully, it is impossible.
Isn't the law irony?
What do you call blockage of information? Censorship.
Therefore, when you block censorship from happening, it is technically censorship, too.
Though in written law, it's the words that matter.
I don't know how lawmakers will do it, but in most countries, this will be impossible to pull
FoolyDooly said:
I don't know how lawmakers will do it, but in most countries, this will be impossible to pull
Ah, if this were absolutely true, then all Nazi actions were legal as they followed "the letter of law" of Germany. There are a whole set of principles behind making laws or what will qualify as law the layman would not know. I just want to see what people would come up with with as little stimulation as possible.
FoolyDooly said:
Therefore, when you block censorship from happening, it is technically censorship, too.
The abscence of a law on censorship is no law at all, you are not blocking something that blocks. The aim here is to prove illegality, hence invalidate the law, not legislate a law to prevent legislation of a law. In real world application, this would be used in parliamentary debate to prevent a law from being passed, or accepted by a High Court judge's judgement on whether a law is valid or invalid.
FoolyDooly said:
What do you call blockage of information? Censorship.Therefore, when you block censorship from happening, it is technically censorship, too.
Blockage of info. = Censorship
Censorship =/= Info
:P
To oppose censorship I would take over the world, gather up all the feminist groups and then force them to watch everything they want banned for the rest of their lives! Bwuahahaha
Icy-nee-san said:
To oppose censorship I would take over the world, gather up all the feminist groups and then force them to watch everything they want banned for the rest of their lives! Bwuahahaha
What no breeding stock?
But yes i agree with world takover myself just not torture.
There are some things I actually do NOT mind being censored.
But it falls under the heading of fights I am just not interested in fighting.
If tomorrow ANY form of nudity was ruled illegal, I would bitch for maybe 3 days, then I would make damn sure my porn stash was about as secure as humanly possible and just discontinue looking at porn sites.
In short I'd get over it.
But then I suppose my anime would be tricky. No I am not dumping my anime that was originally legally aired on public television.
freedom of speech , though that is a weak statement , then I would talk about how it is good for kids and adults to see nudity , and not fear it , or see it as something unforgivable , for them to see it as art , and normality .
Immigrant88 said:
Why is it that every thread I made so far seems likely to become a breeding ground for flaming or trolling? Nevertheless, if it is, it is. I am wondering though, do you have any legal background, Nin? It would help if you did, though it is unnecessary.Btw, Nin, if you at least have some kind of legal knowledge we could start the Sancom International Legal Team (S.I.L.T.), not to be confused with slit, which can have many... interpretations...
yestofreedom.org
I'm actually a member already. But they only talk about freedom of speech. I may want something with a wider coverage of topics.
as a wise actor once said:
"You can't handle the truth"
without a form of censorship, progress would not happen. we'd just have a whole bunch of stupid people without restraint.
i think you guys just want to censor the stupid majority, to make your voices heard, but you wont acknowledge everyones opinions.
well, way they did it was to invalidate all law, including freedom of speech, and drafted up new ones. They specifically have Censor Bureau to do this, which wasn't called Censor Bureau of course.Immigrant88 said:
Ah, if this were absolutely true, then all Nazi actions were legal as they followed "the letter of law" of Germany. There are a whole set of principles behind making laws or what will qualify as law the layman would not know. I just want to see what people would come up with with as little stimulation as possible.
The abscence of a law on censorship is no law at all, you are not blocking something that blocks. The aim here is to prove illegality, hence invalidate the law, not legislate a law to prevent legislation of a law. In real world application, this would be used in parliamentary debate to prevent a law from being passed, or accepted by a High Court judge's judgement on whether a law is valid or invalid.
Yes, but you have right to call for censoring of something.
Freedom of Speech can cover anything, even on calls on censoring and banning.
If we ban of censoring, we're therefore limiting the Freedom of Speech.
or that's how most Constitutions with "Freedom of Speech" clause reads
FoolyDooly said:
Yes, but you have right to call for censoring of something.
Freedom of Speech can cover anything, even on calls on censoring and banning.
If we ban of censoring, we're therefore limiting the Freedom of Speech.
or that's how most Constitutions with "Freedom of Speech" clause reads
I never thought of it that way, but I would distingush between laws allowing private censorship and outright bans in the public sphere on the grounds of the purpose of the constitution if there is a freedom of speech clause.
My main arguments though would be that these laws fail to meet the requirements of what is a law becaue they are arbitrary, at least in the case of art.
Hayek talks about totalitarianism, so I would use him (though it may become a somewhat political argument) to argue that in democratic countries, censorship is a step towards totalitarianism and defeats the purpose of the constitution which guarantees democracy, meaning that the abscence of censorship is necessary to preserve democracy; although they have the right to call for censorship nevertheless.
Immigrant88 said:
I never thought of it that way, but I would distingush between laws allowing private censorship and outright bans in the public sphere on the grounds of the purpose of the constitution if there is a freedom of speech clause.
My main arguments though would be that these laws fail to meet the requirements of what is a law becaue they are arbitrary, at least in the case of art.
Hayek talks about totalitarianism, so I would use him (though it may become a somewhat political argument) to argue that in democratic countries, censorship is a step towards totalitarianism and defeats the purpose of the constitution which guarantees democracy.
That's the thing... when "banning discussion" happens, side splits, and someone will say "I feel like my freedom is being ripped away" and in essence, it's true. But what's the difference between banning censorship and unable to further suggest censorship?
So what if you no longer believe in something you wrote while ago and wish to destroy it? That's censorship of self, in essence, because you're blocking people from accessing your older writings/information.
This is tricky. I'm not being asshole, just that as social studies' minor I find this one to be tricky to solve.
If it can happen, though, I'm voting that guy president
FoolyDooly said:
So what if you no longer believe in something you wrote while ago and wish to destroy it? That's censorship of self, in essence, because you're blocking people from accessing your older writings/information.
This is tricky. I'm not being asshole, just that as social studies' minor I find this one to be tricky to solve.
If it can happen, though, I'm voting that guy president
If you destroy your previous works, thats not censorship, that's rewriting history.
I never said it was going to be easy as you know yourself, and I believe it can be done; I am in the process of writing an article from a series of planned articles on why, and its nearly done. As to how strong the arguments are, it is debatable.
I don't think you are stopping anyone from further suggesting censorship, you are preventing it from going to upper house or senate or whatever. It is no different than any bill which fails to be passed, they can suggest it all they want, but that doesn't mean it meets requirements.
FoolyDooly said:
If we ban of censoring, we're therefore limiting the Freedom of Speech.
No.
An unfortunately widespread misconception.
Banning censorship (as in, throwing a case calling for censorship out of court by default) is not a violation of Freedom of Speech. It is a defense thereof against those who would violate it.
Now banning talking about censorship, discussing it, or even calling for it privately, that would be a different story. But the moment they take it to court and attempt to publicly enforce censorship, they are in violation of the concept of Freedom of Speech. Not you for stopping them.
A line must be drawn somewhere. Otherwise such lofty ideals of civilization will not last long.
Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance. It is enabling intolerance through inaction.
Splat said:
No.
An unfortunately widespread misconception.
Banning censorship (as in, throwing a case calling for censorship out of court by default) is not a violation of Freedom of Speech. It is a defense thereof against those who would violate it.
Now banning talking about censorship, discussing it, or even calling for it privately, that would be a different story. But the moment they take it to court and attempt to publicly enforce censorship, they are in violation of the concept of Freedom of Speech. Not you for stopping them.
A line must be drawn somewhere. Otherwise such lofty ideals of civilization will not last long.
Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance. It is enabling intolerance through inaction.
But wouldn't banning censorship be in theory the same thing? People are going to question why it's banned. If you can discuss about it, obviously it's going to be appealed.
It's somewhat messy. Laws always have loopholes
You must log in to post.
Senran Kagura Live Action Trailer “Absolutely Cringe-worthy”
Tales of The Rays PV
Charming Aegis Yukata Figure
Shoujo Kara Shoujo e Rather Tame
Nozomi Ero-Cosplay by Rin Higurashi Highly Cheeky
