hello.
My friend and my work`s translator Dan kanemitsu up
sentences on his site(http://www.translativearts.com/)I reprint Mr. Daniel's sentences.(already I got his permission.)
-------------------------------------
True Morality and False Security
Thought Police Can't
Protect
Real Children
Dan Kanemitsu
The [National Commission on Obscenity and
Pornography]
recognizes and believes that the existence of sound moral standards is
of vital importance to individuals and to society. To be effective and
meaningful, however, these standards must be based upon deep personal
commitment
flowing from values instilled in the home, in educational and religious
training, and through individual resolutions of personal confrontations
with human experience. Governmental regulation of moral choice can
deprive
the individual of the responsibility for personal decision which is
essential
to the formation of genuine moral standards. Such regulation would also
tend to establish an official moral orthodoxy, contrary to our most
fundamental
constitutional traditions.
Therefore, the Commission recommends the repeal of
existing federal legislation which prohibits or interferes with
consensual
distribution of "obscene" material to adults.
Excerpt from the final report by the US National
Commission
on Obscenity and Pornography published in 1970.
Efforts to expand the definition of child pornography to include
fictional
material-- i.e. manga (comic books,) anime (animation,) and video games
in Japan continue to exist as of April, 2010.
In March of 2010, deliberations were extended regarding a bill
revising
the Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance Regarding the Healthy Development of
Youths
which would have established the catagory of "nonexistent youth" and
thereby
attepted to regulate fictional material that included sexualization of
"nonexistent youth."
These efforts have not been confined to Tokyo, as numerous
legislative
bodies, both local and national, have begun considering either banning
or restricting certain types of creative fiction. A petition campaign by
a Japanese charted entity of UNICEF, the Japan Committee for UNICEF, has
been pushing hard to make fictional graphic depictions of anyone below
the age of 18 engaged in sexual acts to be banned.[2] There are
legislators
that have publicatlly expressed their intention to ban certain types of
fictional material.
I oppose the expansion of the definition of child pornography in
Japna
to include fictional material for the following reasons.
1. It is misguided.
Law enforcement resources would be better allocated going after real
cases of child abuse instead of going after fictional cases. The
Japanese
budget is stretched as it already stands. Money should be directed
toward
better financing of child welfare infrastructure and school counselors.
The banning of fictional depictions of child abuse would likely
be as
meaningless as the banning of fictional depictions of car chasing with
the aim toward reducing motor vehicle accidents in real life.
There are better ways of combating abuse of children than
meddling with
a fictional domain.
2. Its rationale for banning an entire subject matter is flawed.
Child pornography involving real minors is likely to be a byproduct
of actual child abuse.
Content in itself is not the issue--Child pornography has been
outlawed
because the methods involved in production involve real children in
possibly
abusive circumstances. How the material was produced is what makes it
criminal,
not what impression it conveys on the audience.
Movies where members of the cast or the crew are kidnapped to
produce
the film should be banned regardless of the content of the film. Snuff
films are illegal because killing an individual for the sake of filming
the act is illegal and reprehensible.
If content alone was the issue, war footage and horror films
should
be banned as well.
One aim of banning child pornography is preventing the
participation
of children in the sex industry. In part, the foundation of child
pornography
is based on an extension of child labor law, not the purging of a link
between sexuality and minors from human thought.
Child pornography involving real children being sexually abused
is horrid
beyond words. For that very reason, I find it reprehensible to mix
together
such acts of human misery and suffering with illusionary fantasy that
exists
only in the author's imagination. Widening the definition of child
pornography
to include fictional material belittles the gravity of real sex abuse.
3. Its logic of encouraging criminal behavior is absurd.
Many who advocate the banning of fictional erotica featuring minors
claim that the presence of such material wets the appetites for criminal
behavior and makes actual sexual abuse of child acceptable. At heart of
this argument is the assumption that people cannot control their urges
when it comes to sexual material and that the presence of even fictional
child abuse encourages real child abuse. Many cite the confessions by
convicted
criminals as proof of this logic.
By this logic, the Bible should be banned for inciting the
destruction
of entire civilizations and encouraging the genocidal efforts conducted
in its name over the course of human history.
Many convicted criminals also cite the Bible as their inspiration
of
conducting astonishingly savage acts, and yet few would attribute the
Bible
as the root cause of such criminal behavior. Why?--Because free
societies
accept the principle that people are responsible for their own actions.
Some might argue that suggestive sexual material should be banned
because,
while most people are responsible and can differentiate between fantasy
and reality, pedophiles and other mentally unstable people cannot. This
school of thought advocates banning certain material based on how
contact
with provocative material might incite easily susceptible individuals
toward
criminal behavior.
It is very dangerous to restrict the actions and rights of
citizens
based on the principle that some limited number of individuals may act
irresponsibly. This is the equivalent of removing knives from the
household
kitchen because someone used a meat cleaver to commit a crime. Again,
this
logic is unbelievably reckless as well.
Furthermore, crime statistics published by the Japanese police
themselves
show no causality between the proliferation of erotic material and sex
crimes. The crime rate has dramatically decreased since WW2 while the
availability
of erotica and violent fictional entertainment has risen by leaps and
bounds
during the same period.
4. The ban will more than likely be unenforceable and be effective
only marginally.
Unlike in real life, characters in fictional material do not have
birth
certificates.
It is easily imaginable that an endless cycle of accusations and
denials
will unfold regarding establishing the "true age" of fictional
characters.
Authors and publishers will more than likely attempt to proclaim that
the
characters look young, but they are actually above the age of 18.
Physical
attributes vary between widely depending on race and ethnicity, not to
mention fictional non-human characters.
Should all humanoid entities, such as elves and vampires, be
subject
to the same set of standards? What of graphical depictions of angels and
gods? Shall Greek mythology, filled with narratives of sexual encounters
between old and young, gods and humans involved in circumstances that
would
clearly be deemed illegal in real life be treated as illegal as well?
Publishers and authors are extremely proficient in adapting
toward new
regulations. If graphical depictions are banned, then abstract or
comedic
depictions will increase. If visual imagery is banned, then novels and
audio CD dramas will proliferate. If certain key concepts--such as
articles
of clothing or immature speech patterns--are marked as symbols
susceptible
of prohibition, these will be replaced by a new set of symbols.
Either an ever increasing set of symbols will be deemed to be
inappropriate
to be linked to a core human attribute--human sexuality--or the futility
of the ban will lead the law to become impotent over all.
It will join a set of legal tools rarely invoked by the police,
yet
commonly sited as justification for self censorship, not to mention
creating
an environment ripe for corruptive collusion between the police and
industry
groups to come into being.
5. Such a ban will stifle creativity and impoverish the cultural
landscape.
As I have already mentioned, the ban on fictional depictions
involving
minors threaten the existence of numerous works of folklore, mythology,
art, and literature. Libraries would have to remove many books if the
ban
was rigidly enforced. And then there is the question of untold millions
and millions of books that are in private ownership. Should individuals
be penalized for possessing books that they legally bought only a few
years
ago?
The inclusion of a grandfather clause could provide consolation
toward
collectors, but the impact toward the contemporary society would no
doubt
be pronounced.
Banning the fictional depictions of minors involved in sexual
situations
will make a fundamental core human attribute taboo. It will deprive
authors
and artists in their effort to address deep social issues if they wish
to take up the subject earnestly since the ban will penalize those that
take up the issue of age and abuse more severely than those that flirt
around with the subject matter.
Even if the ban is not rigidly enforced, publishers with
reputable standing
will likely enforce more stringent self censorship policies since they
have more to lose compared small time publishers.
Even today, numerous adult manga publications have self
censorship standards
that are mind-boggling. Authors have complained about how some editors
have insisted on having all female characters appearing in their works
be endowed with large breasts because drawing women as they appear more
like in real life was deemed "too childish looking."
While these guidelines vary greatly between publishers and video
game
production houses of anime and video games, but passing any law that
forbids
imagined underage representations will contribute to an ever more warped
representation of the humanity in fiction.
An author's subjectivity should never be driven by fear of
persecution.
Many have argued that this ban is aimed only toward "offensive,
vile,
and exploitive material." Wholesome publications and works of art shall
be exempt, they argue.
Such a faith is foolish at best and self-delusionary at worst.
Who shall judge for the entire population what is offensive or
not?
The value attributed to works of literature and art change over
time.
The works of modern art and literature from the last two centuries are
filled with examples where they were deemed to be vile, corruptive trash
by contemporary authorities, but now these same works enjoy high status
as priceless cultural treasures.
If some find the material to be offensive, they have a simple
choice
of avoiding such material.
If someone feels certain objectionable works are getting too
popular,
they are free to criticize such trends. Ideally, such frustrations
should
be directed toward creating new material that competes and possibly
outshines
what they deem to be offensive.
A culture grows richer through addition, not by subtraction.
6. It will create a dangerous legal precedence and it is far too
extreme.
A prohibition on fictional material dependent on subjective standards
rationalized by unproven causality that will negatively impact the
cultural
landscape pursued for securing imagined gains of safety should make
people
sit up and take notice, but there is an even greater danger embedded
here.
All these concerns pale in light of how the proposed ban would
penalize
individuals essentially for having a rich imagination.
A ban on fictional depictions of minor engaged in sexual
situations
has the very real potential to brand individuals as sex offenders even
though they have had no sexual contact with real people. I believe there
could be no legal justification for destroying people's lives simple
because
they drew doodles on paper, but the proposed ban would create such a
legal
precedence.
If allowing individuals to engage in fictional depictions of
underage
sex is deemed to be too dangerous for society because of its supposed
anti-social
nature, what other depictions of anti-social acts should we ban next?
Shoplifting?
Bullying in school? Rape? Discrimination based on class? War crimes?
In a nutshell, such a ban would be Orwellian.
A ban on manga, anime, and video games simply because it features
underage
characters is a misguided Orwellian policy that will likely produce only
marginal results in exchange for a huge toll on a free society.
I am absolutely certain that history will not look back kindly upon
such a ban, and it will join a long list of colossal failures of
regulatory
policy, such as the prohibition of alcohol in the US between 1920 to
1933,
various sodomy laws, the comic book code, and bans on socialist
literature
in Japan during the prewar era.
It is important to note that all these failed moral crusades were
led
by virtuous and diligent individuals intent on making the world a better
place.
At first, many members of society were receptive to these well
intended
efforts, brushing aside those that raised objections as being alarmists
or extremists. Over time, the regulatory mechanism will form a life of
its own. Regulatory policies encourages the custodians of that policy to
expand the limits of the regulation because their authority is dependent
on the extent of regulation. Sometimes the regulatory regime will morph
into a beast it was never intended to become, and at that stage it will
become extremely hard to reverse such failed policies. Failed regulatory
schemes have a tendency to create burdensome legacies that will tax upon
society for decades to come.
We need not tread upon that path once more.
Notes:
2 - http://www.unicef.or.jp/special/0705/pdf/kodomo_p_paper.pdf
-------------------------------------
