>The city of Minokamo in Gifu Prefecture, Japan thought it would be a good idea to try to boost tourism with anime posters. One in particular, however, will not be used.
>The poster in question features a character named Kocho Yoshida (above) from the anime and manga No-Rin. Originally a light novel, No-Rin is a fan-sevice heavy comedy set in Gifu that centers around farming.
>This isn’t a first. In the past, the city has featured characters from the show in posters to promote various events.
>The city has been holding several No-Rin stamp rallies in which visitors go to different locations in the city and collect stamps. However, the latest event’s poster received complaints.
>According to Livedoor News, people called the prefectural office and complained online, calling the poster “unsightly,” “sexual harassment,” and even “a human rights violation.” It seems the issue wasn’t so much that an anime character was used, but rather, that the portrayal appeared gratuitous.
>Because of the criticism, the city has decided to remove the poster. The incident has even made national news media.
Thoughts on this, lads?
I'll post the offending poster next.
>>14429104
The offensive poster in question
>>14429109
I can't read japanese but I don't see why this would be offensive
>>14429116
The huge cleavage, m8
>human rights violation
>>14429109
>>14429116
It is literally the current year shitlords. What made you think this was ok?
It's everyone's right to be offended by things. Censorship is one thing but citizens presumably get to decide what their local government should be explicitly endorsing.
Really I can't imagine why anyone uninvolved would give a shit about this story.
The real reason is that Japan has finally seen the light. Fuck cowtits, DFC is, and has always been patrician tier taste.
You go Japanese people.
>>14429121
what's wrong with it? I see no problem in a 2D cleavage
>>14429144
There's a whole lot of people all over the world whose entire purpose for living is getting involved in business that has nothing to do with them.
>>14429155
let's not forget that they wanted to censor DFC and lolis
>>14429162
To be fair, loli shit should be flat out banned
>>14429170
Leave
>>14429170
Nah
>>14429104
>Gifu Prefecture
>>14429161
Clickbait peddlers and culture warriors should all just die somewhere
>>14429151
>Really I can't imagine why anyone uninvolved would give a shit about this story.
For the same reason people care about any sort of censorship incident even though they're not involved.
>>14429200
>censorship
My local government could put up posters calling you a faggot but their failure to do so is hardly censorship.
Censorship is a human rights violation.
>>14429211
But not letting the government put the poster is definitively censorship. What amazes me more is the scandal they made just to get this removed while almost the entire anime industry thrives on over sexualization.
>>14429221
Murder is a human rights violation.
>>14429109
Ehh, I wouldn't call that a human rights violation, but they could have at least chosen a picture of her that doesn't look like it came off a dakimakura cover. I'm no prude and no SJW, but I'd be kinda embarrassed if I saw that poster in my town. I think busty anime girls should be enjoyed in private.
>>14429223
If the city did in a spectacular display of poor judgment actually put up posters calling you a faggot, taking them down later still wouldn't be censorship.
>>14429232
If they took them later because they were forced to do so by other people, that would be censorship. You should have the right to let everyone know I'm a faggot if you feel like it.
>>14429243
The people who voluntarily put up the poster (the city) have voluntarily retracted it. Unless you can show me where where force or threat of legal action was used, calling it censorship is entirely vacuous.
>>14429252
Well that's how it always goes.
They voluntarily retract things because of pressure by busybodies meddling in other peoples' business. There's never any threats, they just grow tired of the non-stop complaining and get rid of it to shut the complainers up.
It's a simple case of a squeaky wheel getting the grease.
>>14429269
The posters put up by your own city are the business of everyone living in the city. That's how civic society works.
>>14429228
That's still fairly harmless, I've seen way more offensive 3DPD ads in my country and nobody ever gives a fuck, I bet it's the same in Japan.
>>14429269
It's not censorship. It's literally just constituents asking for something and is no different than customers complaining to McDonald's to sell breakfast all day.
>>14429275
>>14429290
I very, very highly doubt that it was the residents making these complaints.
>>14429317
Likely it was a mixture of both.
However, the constituents are well within their right to say what basically can be really summarised (from their perspective) as poor taste.
Anyway, if they collectively agreed to take it down, I really haven't a problem, nor should anyone.
What a non-story.
>>14429138
Anime girls are human too.
>According to Livedoor News
Livedoor News is a news aggregator, not a news site, Ashcraft, you fucking dickweed.
And anime shit should stay the fuck away from any sort of political association anyway, let alone any serious tourist association that doesn't want to alienate tourists instead of attracting them.
Can't believe some township was just about to make shit like the one in my pic an official mascot of an international conference, before it received complains from real life ama.
Anime is really the otaku hobby nobody wants to deal with.
>>14429462
Some cities seem to do just fine
>>14429448
ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ
>>14429496
Sweden はい
>>14429484
Make no mistake, that's only because Ooarai is the setting of the anime
https://twitter.com/minokamo_kanko/status/661712685378240512
The main tweet complaining about it "literally being harassing to women" comes from a person who also tweets more about posters, feminism, "derogatory remarks against homosexuals" and "racism against a black football player"
When will Japan learn these people bring nothing but trouble?
Also, their tweet only has around 60 likes/whatever, and the tweet announcing the power itself only has 1000. Was there really that much of an uproar against this? What, ten people complained in person? This really feels like a forced story played up.
And where was it mentioned on international news? Only site I could find it on was Kotaku, which is garbage.
>>14429527
They picked the most outstanding comments off the net because it's more exciting that way. Next time I hope someone calls it a crime against humanity.
And of course it's not international news, nobody cares but the weeb news clickbait aggregators. It did make the Asahi though.
They should have just used the best girl and everything would of been fine.
Nobody gives a shit.
>>14429142
Fuck off Tumblr.
>>14430557
then don't bump the thread
>>14429448
No one wants you here landwhale.
>>14429104
>japan caring about how women are treated in media
thats a first
Super gaudy. I would have complained too just because it would be embarrassing to have that associated with my town.
Also, Gifu is very much "backwater japan", its very low pop and has a very socially conservative population even by Japanese standards. So this poster was a Bad Idea in all respects.
>>14430769
Everyone knows "backwater anything" is for sexual turism anyway.
>>14429109
Offensively bad shit taste. Tits are way too big. Looks awful.
>>14429104
I hope this does NOT become a trend...
Anime is fine and all on its own.
But walking through and around tokyo is already like being in a an anime with all the ads and posters around.
I do enjoy the anime-less areas of japan a whole lot more!
>>14429109
Well, it IS unsightly.
>>14430948
Is this a Finnish man?
>>14429104
>>14429109
Holstein fanservice was the only decent part of that terrible anime.
It's a web 2.0 "news" outlet and you said
>Thoughts, lads?
I think you should kill yourself, shitposter.
But, as to the subject itself: I don't see the benefit of it, personally.
You see a bunch of outgoing, large-breasted pink-skinned anime women and it contrasts and conflicts heavily with real world Japan. Furthermore, If you would be swayed by anime ads you'll be spending your money on figurines and OVAs and so on, not real life sightseeing.
>>14429109
This is literally every Hardee's/Carl's jr ad in the US. But with anime
How obsessed you are? You repeated this thread on /a/ already.
>>14431965
hey
>the world needs to know how they over sexualized my wifu
is it really that big of a deal that he posit it on /a/?
>>14431990
The deal is that he's copy/pasting links when OP is supposed to start a discussion or image dump.
Screenshots from social media is a major problem for various boards these days:
>What does ___ think of this?
It's asinine and serves no purpose other than to be a not-so-subtle shitpost
>>14429109
her pose has nothing to do with farming
it is objectively in poor taste. if she looked more proud and determined it would be fine
>>14431953
At least they're holding hamburgers and enjoying themselves, not looking like they got cornered by niggers and about to be raped
>>14432109
Just because OP is incapable of writing anything interesting doesn't mean the thread can't fill in.
It's only a problem if the OP is inherently uninteresting and nobody replies, which never happens to stupid news shit.
I literally don't give a shit.
>>14429109
I can see why people would be embarrassed about this poster, especially if you're trying to promote your good wholesome farm town. You're always going to get a few people with extreme comments like "THIS IS RAPE" but I can entirely see how this would be unpopular and wanting to be associated with this.
>>14429484
That's not nearly as suggestive as the OP's poster. They're just wearing swim suits, in a setting where you would be wearing a swimsuit.
No, it's not as much skin, but >>14429109 is basically yaranaika. You can't say yaranaika is less suggestive than realistic swimsuits at a beach.
In context knowing the character it's pretty innocent but at the same time I can understand why it would worry people.
>>14431953
I'd be embarrassed if I worked at a hardees and they had posters like that up. I'd feel like a smut peddler.
>>14432386
Because look at the poster in the second post. It's not at all innocent girl with cowtits.
Why does it even matter
>>14429116
GTFO from /Jp/
>>14429155
>The real reason is that Japan has finally seen the light.
Why don't we have both?
>Fuck cowtits
That what we actually want to do.
If you so naive bastard and only intro ぺったんこ it's only your problem not own.
That's strange, I thought this was an otaku culture thread. But instead, all I see is shitty news media SHIT!!!!!!
go away お願いします
>>14429104
>Thoughts on this, lads?
My thoughts are that you shitposting brit need to fuck off to /v/ with your kotaku shit.
S A G E
A
G
E
>>14429109
Disgusting, they were right to complain.
>>14429104
>Thoughts on this, lads?
Well, whether you consider this >>14429109 offensive for some retarded way or not, the fact that they bent over and removed the poster speaks much more about Gifu's tourism board than the poster itself.
So there's a prefecture I won't be ever visiting. It's clearly a place where no fun is allowed, and whenever someone tries to inject some fun while promoting not only tourism, but agriculture, bitches complain and remove said fun. So fuck Gifu.
>>14437287
>>14429252
"This kind of thing is not a good symptom. Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.
"Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.
"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban."
-George Orwell, prologue to Animal Farm.
>>14437297
While this is all in fact true (no Japanese publisher will serialize manga blatantly critical of the emperor, so it's left to underground distribution channels), it has very little to do with the news story in the OP.
>>14437299
It's all summarized here:
>"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban."
A few old cunts and slimy politicians, which in Japan are almost the only people against sexualization, specially of imaginary characters, pressured the tourism board in Gifu towards censorship.
And my post has lots to do with the post I'm replying to: >>14429252
Whether it was voluntary (which is something bad due to what you're quoting) or not, a piece of art was censored. That is NOT a good thing. And sadly, the closer we get to 2020, we'll be seeing shit like this growing exponentially in Japan.
KILL WHITEY!!
>>14437319
>Whether it was voluntary (which is something bad due to what you're quoting) or not, a piece of art was censored.
If they the city put up a sign saying "murder all Chinese people" or a piece of explicit lolicon pornography, it would probably be retracted after citizen complaints. That's only censorship in the loosest sense because it is literally the responsibility of a government entity to listen to its constituents, including their complaints.
>which in Japan are almost the only people against sexualization
Old cunts currently make up something like half the adult population and accordingly get about half the say.
>Whether it was voluntary (which is something bad due to what you're quoting) or not, a piece of art was censored.
It was un-endorsed by the state. That's not "censorship." Anybody is still free to look at it and display it on their own property if they want.
>>14429170
I agree /thread
>>14437334
>If they the city put up a sign saying "murder all Chinese people" or a piece of explicit lolicon pornography, it would probably be retracted after citizen complaints
Nice hyperbole there, Chaim.
Of course they would remove propaganda promoting violence, and (real) public indecency, as they're upload. But hey, the board of tourism using lolicon - they would never do that. Retard.
>it would probably be retracted after citizen complaints. That's only censorship in the loosest sense because it is literally the responsibility of a government entity to listen to its constituents, including their complaints
You say that as if they'd reinstate it after receiving complaints from different citizens. This is not a matter of public opinion, it's clearly one of censorship of shit that would "make them look bad with the west".
And hey, at least you're now agreeing with it being censorship - and no, no matter the degree, censorship is not a good thing. Censorship IS a human rights violation, specifically of the 19th one.
>Old cunts currently make up something like half the adult population and accordingly get about half the say.
It doesn't mean 50% of the population complained. It was most likely a small lobbying group, mostly or, most likely, entirely comprised of said old cunts - but 20 or 30 tops. Guaranteed.
>It was un-endorsed by the state. That's not "censorship."
It is. Unless it explicitly goes against the law, like your earlier retarded, hyperbolic examples, if the government endorses you at first but then retracts, that IS censorship.
>Anybody is still free to look at it and display it on their own property if they want.
>>14437297
>>14437370
>as they're upload
... I have no idea why I said "upload".
As they're illegal, I meant.
>>14429104
No-Rin was shit so I don't care.
>>14437379
B- but... Yukarin...
>>14437370
>they would never do that. Retard.
No shit. But in the cast that someone lost their marbles and did, retracting it would be equally censorious; that is to say, pretty much not at all.
>it's clearly one of censorship of shit that would "make them look bad with the west".
Nobody in the West cared; hardly anyone in Japan complained in the context of the West. Ishihara was voted in by a majority of the population, and not 100% of them were subservient American bootlickers.
>It doesn't mean 50% of the population complained.
No shit. Almost 50% of the population doesn't even bother voting once every ~3 years, they're certainly not going to be picking up the phone to complain.
>if the government endorses you at first but then retracts, that IS censorship.
It's literally not. The government is free to change its mind at will.
>Anybody is still free to look at it and display it on their own property if they want.
Orwell is complaining that publishers and editors form gatekeepers. There is yet to be any evidence that publishers and editors are preventing people from viewing the image. Even less so given that major newspaper editors from around the country have openly published it on their websites, and covered opposing views on the issue.
>>14437383
>>they would never do that. Retard.
>No shit. But in the cast that someone lost their marbles and did, retracting it would be equally censorious; that is to say, pretty much not at all.
The sarcasm flew way over your head.
They've done it. A lot. See the pic in that post.
>>it's clearly one of censorship of shit that would "make them look bad with the west".
>Nobody in the West cared; hardly anyone in Japan complained in the context of the West. Ishihara was voted in by a majority of the population, and not 100% of them were subservient American bootlickers.
They don't censor shit in Japan because the west care. They do it because they might care. And again, as 2020 encroaches, that tendency only gets more prevalent.
>>It doesn't mean 50% of the population complained.
>No shit. Almost 50% of the population doesn't even bother voting once every ~3 years, they're certainly not going to be picking up the phone to complain.
And you didn't address my point - it wasn't censored due to public opinion. It was censored, most likely, due to a small lobbying group, almost certainly fully comprised of old cunts who hate everything.
>>if the government endorses you at first but then retracts, that IS censorship.
>It's literally not. The government is free to change its mind at will.
It is.
Here, an example. It's about a publishing house changing its mind and not the government, but it's the same. The one speaking about this particular case of censorship is Christopher Hitchens, by the way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdxTsWXZdFc
This is the book in question. Check out the reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1872197132
>>Anybody is still free to look at it and display it on their own property if they want.
>Orwell is complaining that publishers and editors form gatekeepers. There is yet to be any evidence that publishers and editors are preventing people from viewing the image. Even less so given that major newspaper editors from around the country have openly published it on their websites, and covered opposing views on the issue.
No, you idiot.
Orwell is complaining about the publishers not being man enough to publish what their writers and journalists are giving them. You saying "Anybody is still free to look at it and display it on their own property if they want" is like saying "anybody is free to make copies of his own book and share them on the streets". It's still censorship - the kind of censorship Orwell is discussing there. By the way, that quote is about how publishers refused to print Animal Farm for years because it was "poor form" (to criticize your war allies) - the same reason (poor form, "bad taste" or whatever you wanna call it) why this poster was removed.
>>14437419
>They've done it. A lot. See the pic in that post.
That's pornography? Is this Victorian England?
Plus that's the Akihabara tourism board, which is obviously selling a different image than Gifu - if it is even an actual city function and not just an industry association (or, at even lower level than that, it could just be the Ichigo Mashimaro people printing tourism-themed advertising posters.)
>They don't censor shit in Japan because the west care. They do it because they might care.
Really? Got any sort of source for that?
>And you didn't address my point - it wasn't censored due to public opinion.
The public was given free reign to comment on it. Many disapprove. Hell if it it were in my city I would disapprove, I just don't really give enough of a shit to do anything about it.
>It's about a publishing house changing its mind and not the government, but it's the same.
Governments have an obligation to listen to their citizens' complaints. Publishing houses don't.
I'm not spending 17 fucking minutes to watch something I don't give a shit about. Link an article.
>Orwell is complaining about the publishers not being man enough to publish what their writers and journalists are giving them.
IE, that they are gatekeepers, which is exactly what I said.
>>14437370
are there really tourists who would go to japan and buy untranslated ichigo marshmallow DVDs as presents for their friends back home
there has to be some sort of irony involved here
>>14437441
>That's pornography? Is this Victorian England?
I already addressed your pornography example. Of course they can't use that in tourism posters - it's illegal. It's public indecency.
But they've used lolicon, as I've showed you.
>Plus that's the Akihabara tourism board, which is obviously selling a different image than Gifu
Whether they're different boards or not doesn't matter - what matters is that both of them accepted a poster, and used it. And believe me, there were complaints about that Ichigo Mashimaro poster, left and right. But the Akiba tourism board had the pants not to censor it, both from Japan itself and from the west, whereas the Gifu tourism board caved it, most likely to a tiny amount of pressure.
And that's where the Orwell quote comes in. The Gifu board is like the publisher that refuses to release Animal Farm during WWII because it might hurt the ruskies sensibilities - though this time it's recanted a poster because it hurt some old cunts' sensibilities, and hell, it might hurt western sensibilities too. And we can't have that. Not when the Olympics are around the corner.
>Really? Got any sort of source for that?
Ever heard an Ishihara speech? Agnes Chan?
>The public was given free reign to comment on it. Many disapprove. Hell if it it were in my city I would disapprove, I just don't really give enough of a shit to do anything about it.
You're still not addressing the point I was making. Yes, the public objected - but it wasn't 50% of the population, as you alluded previously. Again, I would bet it was just a group of 20 or 30 old cunts who hate everything. That's usually the case in Japan.
Also, many disapprove of the removal of the poster. But hey, their opinion doesn't matter, even if they ARE the public to which those campaigns are aimed and the old cunts aren't.
See what I mean? Please take a minute to reason it.
>Governments have an obligation to listen to their citizens' complaints. Publishing houses don't.
This was addressed in my previous post.
>I'm not spending 17 fucking minutes to watch something I don't give a shit about. Link an article.
You just don't give a shit, is the thing.
You're spending your time here, blindly talking about shit you don't understand. Do me a favor and watch Hitchens put my argument much more clearly than I.
But long story short, in '93 an English historian published a book that was researched for decades. No publishing house released it in England, so he published it himself there. But a publisher in 'murica was going to publish it, and in the end they retracted, because the author, who had been a beloved historian for decades, had previously released a book that the american jews hated, and they rose up against the new book. The book discussed in that video is about Goebbels - the author unearthed and documented Goebbels' private diaries.
In the video, Hitchens, himself a jew, fights against a slimy jew about the adverse effects of censorship, and defends this book. Which, as the reviews I linked you to show, is actually fantastic, no matter what side of history you stand at.
>IE, that they are gatekeepers, which is exactly what I said.
And that doesn't address my point either.
It doesn't matter if the publishers are gatekeepers or not. What matters is that, not publishing what your writers and journalists give you, or even worse, what you've already agreed to publish, is censorship. Yes, you can self publish and hang shit on your wall, but that doesn't stop it from being censorship. As explained by Orwell in his prologue to one of the editions of Animal Farm.
>>14437488
>It's public indecency.
Banning public indecency is censorship in and of itself.
>But they've used lolicon, as I've showed you.
If that weren't a picture of Miu wearing a swimsuit at the pool (which takes even an exceptional American prude to complain about), but say, posing with legs spread and an embarrassed look on her face, we might be looking at a different story.
>The Gifu board is like the publisher that refuses to release Animal Farm during WWII because it might hurt the ruskies sensibilities
If you consider that the civic duty of a publisher is to foster free flow of ideas no matter how reprehensible people might find them, sure. The Gifu board has no such responsibility. Their job is to represent the voices of their citizens.
>Ever heard an Ishihara speech?
Got one in mind?
>Again, I would bet it was just a group of 20 or 30 old cunts who hate everything.
I would take that bet, but then, repeating this is entirely pointless since we have no way of actually resolving this bet. At the end you're just repeating a claim.
>What matters is that, not publishing what your writers and journalists give you, or even worse, what you've already agreed to publish, is censorship.
It amounts to censorship if your ideas are kept out of the public space. The collected effect of every major publisher and book retailer refusing to publish or stock a book has that effect. A tourism board choosing not to officially endorse a poster does not.
>>14429462
It's actually very common. When I was in Takayama, Gifu, I saw posters of Hyouka with the city's tourist board stamp (it had barely finished airing when I was there), and when I was in Enoshima I also saw posters of Tari Tari.
I honestly assumed only video-game nerds get a knee-jerk reaction to anime/manga art style and normal people are either fine with it or don't care.
>>14437527
>Banning public indecency is censorship in and of itself.
No, it isn't. Public indecency is illegal. Removing something illegal isn't censorship.
>If that weren't a picture of Miu wearing a swimsuit at the pool (which takes even an exceptional American prude to complain about), but say, posing with legs spread and an embarrassed look on her face, we might be looking at a different story.
Holstein here >>14429109 doesn't have her legs spread open. Yes, she has a clearly marked cleavage and an embarrassed expression, but that's because it's her character.
Of course, I can see why some old cunts that never had any tits would be offended, though.
Oh, and by the way, I'm just remembering a different Miu poster, also in Akiba, where she was wearing a blue, plaid bikini and had her legs spread, while blowing soap bubbles. Fuck if I'm about to google for it tho.
>If you consider that the civic duty of a publisher is to foster free flow of ideas no matter how reprehensible people might find them, sure. The Gifu board has no such responsibility. Their job is to represent the voices of their citizens.
And not only had they already represented them by making those posters, they're also ignoring the voices that are against their removal.
The Gifu board is representing the voice of only one particular, small group of their citizens. And more importantly: enacting censorship.
>Got one in mind?
Any time he discussed manga/anime/vidya.
>It amounts to censorship if your ideas are kept out of the public space. The collected effect of every major publisher and book retailer refusing to publish or stock a book has that effect. A tourism board choosing not to officially endorse a poster does not.
Again, while I've addressed that point a bunch of times before, just, watch the youtube video I gave you. Hitchens explains it much more clearly. You'll also see your own opinion reflected in someone who... well, you'll see.
>>14437548
>Removing something illegal isn't censorship.
Better criminalize leftism, that way it won't be censorship!
>Yes, she has a clearly marked cleavage and an embarrassed expression, but that's because it's her character.
If you don't know jack shit about her you might find the poster sexual (it certainly looks somewhat erotic to me on first glance). If you don't know jack shit about Miu you'll find the poster sexual if you're either a pedophile or king of prudes.
>The Gifu board is representing the voice of only one particular, small group of their citizens.
They are currently representing all people who didn't want the picture to be the face of their city, even if those people didn't happen to actually phone in. How many is that? Fuck if I know, but it's not 20.
>Any time he discussed manga/anime/vidya.
Got any particular one in mind?
>Again, while I've addressed that point a bunch of times before, just, watch the youtube video I gave you.
The only way you've addressed that point is by repeating "it's censorship." That's not any sort of address at all.
I happen to think Hitchens is a cunt (which I don't need to justify to you) and if you don't have a transcript of the video and are incapable of making his actual point then you can fuck right off.
>>14437571
>If you don't know jack shit about her you might find the poster sexual (it certainly looks somewhat erotic to me on first glance). If you don't know jack shit about Miu you'll find the poster sexual if you're either a pedophile or king of prudes.
Every single perfume ad is sexual.
The fact is, No-rin, whether good or shit, is a great advocate for Gifu, specifically Gifu's agriculture. Kinda like Silver Spoon is a great advocate of Okinawa's. And as the OP clearly shows, the Gifu board of tourism has used the show/mango for a number of tourist activities in the past.
So censoring this particular one, for any reason, as long as it's not due to legal reasons, which in this case it isn't, is a disgrace.
>They are currently representing all people who didn't want the picture to be the face of their city, even if those people didn't happen to actually phone in. How many is that? Fuck if I know, but it's not 20.
While not representing the ones who originally decided on it, and liked it enough to now complain about its removal.
So again, it's not about public opinion. It's about lobbying.
>Got any particular one in mind?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=石原+慎太郎+アニメ
>The only way you've addressed that point is by repeating "it's censorship." That's not any sort of address at all.
Except it is.
And I haven't "just repeated it's censorship". I've quoted Orwell and linked Hitchens' defense of David Irving so you can see I'm not taking those arguments out of my ass, unlike you. I'm quoting people who fought against censorship all their lives.
>I happen to think Hitchens is a cunt (which I don't need to justify to you) and if you don't have a transcript of the video and are incapable of making his actual point then you can fuck right off.
I've made the actual point several times now. I'm just giving you a different example of this kind of censorship.
And I'm not the biggest Hitchens fan either (as an atheist myself, I dislike militant atheists quite a bit, though as with Dawkins, Hitchens tends to be great whenever he's not discussing religion), but the points he presents in the video I've linked you are pretty damn clear.
A transcript... let me see... there doesn't appear to be one online. Not that you'd read it, anyway.
Fuck it. I'm off to make some breakfast. You keep on clamoring for censorship. We're getting boatloads from it in Japan due to the Olympics anyway, so hey, you'll be on the right side there.
>>14437615
>Every single perfume ad is sexual.
And the sliding scale on sexuality ranges all the way from things that ordinary people would find innocent to people that even young people would find over the top.
>While not representing the ones who originally decided on it
The actual decision-makers involved are inside the government, and aren't that many. Of course there are probably thousands of people who think taking it down is a disgrace. Do you have any numbers, though?
>https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=石原+慎太郎+アニメ
Got any particular one in mind?
>I've quoted Orwell and linked Hitchens' defense of David Irving so you can see I'm not taking those arguments out of my ass, unlike you. I'm quoting people who fought against censorship all their lives.
Yeah, that's really great, except that they were fighting in situations where the establishment was preventing their books from being published to the public (and their ideas out of the public sphere), and you're fighting about something that isn't.
>Fuck it. I'm off to make some breakfast.
I was heading off to sleep, so that makes things pretty convenient all around.
>You keep on clamoring for censorship.
You keep on declaring that it's censorship when that's the issue under debate here. If all you want to do is declare definitional victory and leave then go ahead.
Back from making breakfast.
>>14437644
>And the sliding scale on sexuality ranges all the way from things that ordinary people would find innocent to people that even young people would find over the top.
And Holstein in that poster is far from as over the top as some perfume ads get.
>The actual decision-makers involved are inside the government, and aren't that many. Of course there are probably thousands of people who think taking it down is a disgrace. Do you have any numbers, though?
No. I'm going from experience, all I know about this case is ITT. But it's how things usually pan out when it comes to censorship of animu shit on Japan.
>Yeah, that's really great, except that they were fighting in situations where the establishment was preventing their books from being published to the public (and their ideas out of the public sphere), and you're fighting about something that isn't.
Not at all. Orwell could've self-published. Irving did.
The arguments I presented, both in the Orwell quote and the Hitchens video, show why cases like this are cases of censorship. How, as Orwell put it, unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.
>You keep on declaring that it's censorship when that's the issue under debate here
It's not up for debate. It just appears you don't have much of a grasp on the concept, and that exactly is why I quoted that particular Orwell extract. To show how the dude who wrote 1984 is presenting a very similar situation as censorship, and why.
ass
people are seriously discussing this
I'm somewhat disappointed.
>>14438021
This is what you get for inviting newfag crossboarders into your board.
sage
>>14429589
>would of
Why are there people crying about this shit? If they were to come to Comiket and take down doujin circles or to my house to take my BDs I would be upset, but these guys literally went to put suggestive posters of shitty late-night anime (basically softcore porn nowadays) in a place full of normal people. They had all the right to tell them to fuck off.
>>14431021
>top quality keks were had that day
I'm just glad U.S. moral opinions and sensibilities are finally setting into Japan. McArthur did nothing wrong.
>people called the prefectural office and complained online, calling the poster “unsightly,” “sexual harassment,” and even “a human rights violation.”
>a human rights violation
Jesus fucking Christ it never ends does it?
>>14442364
Step 5 in manipulation bruh.
Use loaded words and blanket statements to put the opposition in a corner.
>>14429104
>human rights violation
I don't want to live in the current year anymore
>>14429104
A good advertisement should attract as many potential customers as possible.
I have no idea who is the target audience in this case, but from the looks of it:
a) the first mistake was putting that poster up in the first place and
b) the second one was removing it immediately after getting what seems like a low number of complaints.
So not only they had chose their target audience wrongly (they wouldn't care about the whining otherwise), they made that mistake of theirs obvious after the fact.
State institutions don't work like businesses though, and an act of God in the form of a phone call from a higher-up could cause the same outcome just as well. Which would constitute an act of censorship, I might add, but I sincerely doubt it in this case.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence as they say.
>>14442364
>>14442390
>>14442417
It was a crime against humanity and literally rape.
>>14437766
>>14437615
>>14437548
>>14437488
>>14437419
>>14437370
This weeb woke up early in the morning, and wrote an entire paper complaining about people complaining about indecency.
Let this sink into your head people.
No need to respond, I'm just screencapping this for my friends.
>>14442709
Off yourself.
