Translation:
http://2chan.us/wordpress/2010/03/10/translation-yoshitoshi-abe/

They now have this US-congress-centric moral panic crap over there, too?

They always did, you don't hear a whole lot about it 'cause Japanese politicians have a history of being supine and taking no stances on whatsoever issue, in one direction or the other.

So ABe is basically saying, "It's not that these kinds of works are good -- oh, they're evil alright -- but we need them in order for our children to grow up and learn on their how to tell good and evil apart on their own. I think that's why we have freedom of speech."

He spent the entire article talking about how eliminating offensive material would be like creating a sterilized room, and how the presence of offensive material is necessary for people to learn how to differentiate between good and evil. That's nonsense: offensive works should be allowed not because they supposedly make it easier for people to tell good and evil apart, but because, as works of expressive fiction, they infringe on nobody's basic rights. From my admittedly American perspective, this is an open-and-shut case of freedom of speech -- it has nothing to do with teaching our children how to tell right from wrong.

PS: I was paraphrasing ABe, so don't snipe me for mis-quoting. Also, there's a little typo in there from when I was rearranging text, but pay it no mind...

It has to do with freedom of speech AND it has to do with education. In today's world it's no longer enough to simply cite freedom of expression, seeing as most courts simly don't care. He offers extra rationale ON TOP of the freedom of speech one, and that can only be a good thing.

He's not talking about teaching children right and wrong, he's talking about the freedom to portray morally objectionable things in a fashion which does not create a victim. I don't necessarily agree that virtual child pornography should be legal, but what he's saying is that it should be viewed on the same grounds that other artwork which portrays graphic subject matter, like violence or discrimination, should be.

>>7
i suppose i can agree with that, but i just wish he'd emphasize freedom of expression more than the 'sure it's evil, but we need it' angle

The idea of hiding bad things to prevent bad things is pretty freakin' backwards.

If you don't know it's bad, how are you supposed to assume that it's bad?

Some evils are needed to let others know of them. Yes, we've made tasteful movies about them, but guess what, they are based on the event happening.

If something like this passed, it would just cause others to slowly follow suit until we live in a world filled with freedom of censored ideas

>>9

But why should he?

I'm speaking as a naturalized American, and frankly, I don't understand the fascination that Americans have with "natural" rights. "Everyone should have freedom of speech! Everyone should have freedom of religion! Everyone should have freedom of assembly!"

Coming from my perspective, I don't see that those are things that are desirable simply because they are, and I don't see that an argument is any better if it just says "well they're good and that's that." I just flat out don't. In America, you all are so indoctrinated to believe in these freedoms from the bottom of your heart, but that's not the case anywhere else. In other places, there actually has to be a rationale behind giving people freedoms, not just some abstract idea that freedom for freedom's sake is good.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't really understand why so many people (not so many here, but from the people I've spoken to on the subject) are 'disappointed' that someone is giving a legitimate reason for freedom of speech being good rather than simply saying freedom of speech is good just because. How does that make any sense at all?

It's one thing for >>5 to say that Abe should be supporting freedom of speech in general, not freedom to publish bad things to teach our children about good and evil. That's true, he's right. But he's missing the point too. The argument Abe makes isn't in favor of this specific case but of freedom of speech in general related to this specific case.

i like being able to do whatever i want without interference as long as what i'm doing doesn't hurt anyone else. if you think i should not be allowed to do things that don't hurt others, then you're one hell of an asshole.

as for ABe, the only thing that bothers me, really, is that it sounds to me like he's saying 'we have freedom of expression in order to let people learn the difference between good and bad by exposing them to things that most people find evil' when he should be phrasing it more like 'the fact that we can let people learn the difference between good and bad by exposing them to things that most people find evil is just one of many good reasons to support freedom of expression.' it's kind of like he mentions freedom of expression as an afterthought. but freedom of expression isn't just this neat little thing we happen to have that we made up in order to guarantee that people will be exposed to evil things so they can learn on their own; freedom of expression is an important right because it guarantees that what you think is wonderful can't be branded as 'evil' by the majority and used to throw you behind bars for the rest of your miserable minority existence.

so to give you the reason why such freedoms are important, it's like this: freedom of expression is important because it protects people from abuse simply for not being mainstream. there are limits, of course -- i can't incite people to murder dr. x because that'd infringe on dr. x's rights -- but the idea that somebody can throw me in jail just because they think the pictures i took of my naked children playing in the yard in the sunlight on a summer day are child porn sends shivers up my spine. if you don't want to protect my right to do something as benign as that, then what the hell DO you think is worth protecting?

i think americans don't need a reason to defend stuff like freedom of expression because they've had the luxury of growing up in an environment that makes one almost take such freedoms for granted. the reason to protect those rights is to prevent oppression (NOT 'to let people learn the difference between good and evil as they bumble along their lives,' although that's a fine enough secondary reason) but an answer like that is so obvious to most americans that they don't even feel the need to mention it.

>>13
I think that's what he was getting at:

>Simply put, even for characters of a story who do not actually exist, and even those who are portrayed not as minors but as adult figures, sales of works in which the panties of these characters can be seen can be restricted if you have a hunch that they appear childlike [...] As you read more about this, please try and think about whether or not you want to live in a society that can pass these sorts of laws without resistance

The way I see it, he's us warning of the (eventual) outcome of banning relatively innocent material with the intent of getting rid of the "extreme."