XPost: rec.arts.anime.misc
From: robkelk@deadspam.com
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:29:57 -0500, Farix
wrote:
>I'm going to break from netiquette for once and top post because. These
>grubbing about content ratings, as demonstrated below, is a perfect
>example of misplaced hysteria and people not having a clue as to what
>the hell they are talking about.
>
>Let me be blunt, all manga has had a content rating printed on their
>back covers for the last decade. Each company used their own style, but
>the ratings are pretty much the same. So now that TokyoPop published a
>flyer explaining their system, these ratings—which were fine for the
>last 10 or more years—suddenly become a Bad Thing®. This thread is
>nothing more then stupid people complaining because they haven't been
>paying attention. The only difference between now and before the flier
>was published is that we now now the specifics of how TokyoPop applies
>their ratings to their books. But nothing has really changed.
Farix, did you actually bother to read what Dave wrote?
His complaints include:
* manga being given ratings more restrictive than they would have had
if the adaptors hadn't inserted gratituitous coarse language;
* manga beig given 18+ ratings because they mention things that are
mentioned in high-school textbooks (e.g., a clinical reference to
incest); and
* manga being given 18+ ratings because somebody doesn't know the
difference between "nudity" and "sex".
Your response is that he hasn't been paying attention.
The evidence indicates that he *has* been paying attention, but you
haven't...
>Farix
>
>Dave Watson wrote:
>> Galen Musbach wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:17:10 -0500, Dave Watson
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, san, but I stick by my argument--the only manga that currently
>>>> can't be bought by people under 18 is that which contains explicit
>>>> sexuality. That's how it should stay.
>>>
>>> Ah. So you intend to argue that labeling content is
>>> a slippery slope toward restricting it? I think Dark Horse
>>> made the same argument, and I am somewhat inclined
>>> to agree. If a 9 year old goes to buy Negima (16+), and
>>> the clerk sells it to him, does the content label create
>>> a premise of liability?
>>
>> That's a big part of it, yes. This sort of thing tends to lead to more
>> censorship. I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself about which
>> sort of content I'm able to handle seeing, and I get very offended when
>> somebody tries to make those decisions for me. Especially if it's due
>> to a climate brought about by politicians who I don't vote for.
>>
>>> In practice, my local comics store wouldn't sell to children
>>> below an apparent age of 13 without a parent, and tended
>>> to eject them. But I think that was a merchandise damage and
>>> shoplifting concern rather than the notion that kids were too innocent.
>>
>> One of the things about the proposed ratings that makes me mad is what
>> they threw into 18+. Explicit language (which is more often than not
>> the fault of the anime/manga company's own "adapters"), explicit
>> violence, any reference to incest (even if it's not made in a prurient
>> manner), and "explicit fanservice" (AKA nipples and cameltoes) are now
>> in the same category as explicit sexuality? No other artistic medium
>> has these restrictions placed on them, especially live-action movies,
>> which circulate much more than manga does. This must not be allowed to
>> stand.
--
Rob Kelk e-mail: s/deadspam/gmail/
"They were engaged in a calm and dignified discussion of important
issues of the day. No, wait, that was somebody else. *These* two
were all but screaming at each other at the tops of their lungs."
- from "Drunkard's Walk V/Oh My Brother II"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
