We do not – and will never – delete any comments that are genuinely against our goals and ideals. We believe that it is preferable to respond to these comments in a sincere and polite fashion. However, very few comments of that kind are written in response to our articles. What we do receive, however, are comments that disagree with the means we chose to attain our goals; we get one of these every few weeks. Invariably, such comments vilify Yes to Freedom by criticising its lack of “offensive action” and overall peaceful approach. Some even explicitly request that we hack the websites of organisations that hold views conflicting with ours!

I wish to make it clear once and for all that we will not bother to publish comments of that kind on this blog, let alone write answers to them. Anyone who writes one understands neither the purpose nor the nature of Yes to Freedom. We are in favour of free speech, not inherently against those who are not, and we respect these opponents of ours. And most importantly, we hold the firm belief that our position on these matters will prevail by the use of reason alone – we refuse categorically to let ourselves be swayed by anger, indignation, etc.

Finally, on the issue of “censorship” within a pro-free-speech organisation, the most appropriate answer I can find is also the only one from a purely logical standpoint. That is, this is not an issue for one who understands the concept of “free speech”. That ideology in no way implies one’s right to impede on someone else’s privacy and say anything anywhere, and that we could never say enough. Freedom of expression – in its socio-political meaning which we are using for clarity – only refers to speech in one’s own privacy and in State-governed space. Thus, we fully agree with the right of individuals, corporations and organisations (including ourselves) to choose the content they produce and display.

That is not to be frowned upon from a purely pro-free-speech point of view.

You can view it below, as well as download it here.

Censorship Bans on Art from the Perspective of The Morality of Law

Immigrant88^*

I INTRODUCTION

This article seeks to prove that the current developments in censorship, such as the ban of certain forms of art in anime is not a law in character from the perspective of The Morality of Law. This is because although this ban is law for semantic purposes, it violates the definition of natural law set out in The Morality of Law. It thus violates natural law and is hence not law. Natural Law is acknowledged in law; such as in common law¹.

II WHAT IS NATURAL LAW

As there are many conceptions on what natural law is, this article will use a modern 20^th century concept, that of Professor Lon L. Fuller.

III NATURAL LAW ACCORDING TO PROF. FULLER

Fuller’s conception of natural law can be found in The Morality of Law. Scholars have traced the natural law foundations of the American constitution, and this a piece of evidence that the concept of natural law is behind the legal system². Fuller uses the concept of internal morality of law as an “essential condition of that power itself”³. This “internal morality of law” is a variant of natural law as claimed by Prof. Fuller, and is procedural, governing whether a law is to be “efficacious and at the same time remain what it proports to be”⁴. Thus, “internal morality of law” are a set of rules every law must obey to be effective as law. The use of the word “morality” in no way implies that morality is universal and definite as Fuller explains that this concept “can be said to be neutral over a wide range of ethical issues”⁵. Even if it could be proven that there are universal morals, not all morals used in law can qualify to be so.

Before moving on to explain these procedural requirements, this article would like to highlight that Fuller says that “if a legislator is attempting to remove some evil and cannot plainly identify the target at which his statute is directed, it is obvious he will have difficulty in making his laws clear”⁶. Can “obscenity”, the target of this new wave of censorship, be accurately defined in fixed terms? This article suggests it cannot as there are contradicting standards of “obscenity”. To illustrate this dilemma, this article will use South Africa in the apartheid days in The Morality of Law as an analogy; “the same person may in the result fall into different racial categories under different statutes… the absence of uniformity of definition flows primarily from the absence of uniformity or scientific basis of race classification”⁷. In the same way, how can you define what “promotes violence” or “promotes exploitation” when there is no way to achieve uniformity but to set artificial standards, do you simply ban everything that has the slightest element of “violence” or “exploitation” in it?

IV DOES A BAN ON CERTAIN FORMS OF ART SATISFY THE INTERNAL MORALITY OF LAW”

There are eight elements in Fuller’s “internal morality of law”, but for the purposes of this argument, we will only focus on clarity, observability, and generality as all others are satisfied.

A Clarity

The most obvious way a ban on certain forms of fiction can fail to achieve “internal morality” is on clarity. To fail the requirement of clarity means that there is “enactment of contradictory rules”⁸. Fuller splits this general statement to two sections, the “the clarity of laws” and “contradictions of laws”⁹. For the purpose of this section, we will first look at “the clarity of laws”. Using the example of “lolicon art¹⁰”, this article poses a question; for the purposes of art, defines a child? Is it their height? Bust size? Facial features? Is it their mentality? The indefinite nature of this makes this ban impossible to follow without producing injustice in some cases unless you ban all forms of drawn pornography or at least set artificial boundaries; such as the legal age of consent of 18. One would have to wonder whether there is any point of legislating that law with an artificial boundary since it is so easily bent by the artist’s imagination. Fuller writes that “obscure and incoherent legislation can make legality unattainable by anyone, or at least unattainable without unauthorised revision which itself impairs legality”¹¹. Due to the flexible nature on what a “child” looks like, there will be judicial activism and the different interpretations will lead to “contradictions of laws”. This consequential judicial activism spills over to the generality.

The only exception to what has been said regarding clarity is that if you use a common sense standard such as “good faith” and “due care” as Fuller says, “sometimes the best way to achieve clarity is to take advantage of, and to incorporate into the law, common sense standards of judgement that have grown up in the ordinary life lived outside legislative laws”¹². However, this does not mean “common sense” should always be used in all standards. Fuller acknowledges this and cites Hayek who says:

One could write a history of the decline of the Rule of Law… in terms of the progressive introduction of these vague formulas into legislation and jurisdiction, and of the increasing arbitrariness and uncertainty of, and the consequent disrespect for, the law and the judicature¹³.

This is why offending the requirement of clarity is still possible despite using a “common sense” standard. Fuller also writes in an earlier statement that:

it is a serious mistake – and a mistake made constantly – to assume that, though the busy legislative draftsman can find no way of converting his objective into clearly stated rule, he can always safely delegate this task to the courts or to special administrative tribunals. In fact, however, this depends on the nature of the problem which delegation is concerned¹⁴.

Hence, there is likely little excuse for vagueness with regards to the definition of “child” with the case of “lolicon art” especially because of the wide range of ways to draw characters. There is a need to have some kind of legally clear line between what is a “child” or what is an “adult” in art. This should not be done solely by the courts because it will either be uncompromisingly broad or ineffectually narrow if the statute definition is vague. Clarity will only happen if the courts reach some kind of uniform decision, if not there will nevertheless be legal uncertainty. In fact, there will be no clarity before the courts decide on the issue anyway. The problem though is, with something as diverse as art, can you give a legally satisfactory definition of a “child” in art ?

Clarity also requires that there be no “contradictions in the laws”. One of the ways a contradiction can occur is “in the logical sense”¹⁵. An example of this can be found in The Morality of Law. Fuller says:

In a single statute, we may suppose, are to be found two provisions: one requires the automobile owner to install new license plates on January first; the other makes it a crime to perform any labor on that date. Here there seems to be a violation of the law of identity; an act cannot be both forbidden and commanded at the same time.

With the case of “lolicon art”, banning it on the basis that the image “looks like a child”, would cause a “contradiction of laws” with the law that states “all persons legally adults can participate in pornography”. This is especially because there is a whole industry based on “child like” pornography actresses. If images or videos are banned as child porn on the basis that the characters “looks like a child”, then there will be a clear contradiction of laws as some of these “child actresses” really do look “like children” hence materials using them would be illegal and yet legal because they are of the age of consent. This is a clear contradiction. The only way to prevent this contradiction is to legislate that only art which does not include pictures or video of real legal women depicting “child-like” characters are illegal. A question of policy rather than law rises up if this is done: Why should there be a distinction between “child-like” images merely because of their origin? If you wish to ban “lolicon art” on the basis that it encourages child sex abuse, shouldn’t you ban any depiction of children at all regardless of medium? Yet, if you were to go all the way and make even real actresses unable to act because they “look like a child”, one would have to ask what kind of justification they have to discriminate in such a way, depriving the AV actress of her choice of livelihood.

As it is impossible to determine the age of a drawn character, one would have to wonder why is it not sufficient to just require the age of all drawn characters to be claimed as 18 and above since “children” are depicted in mainstream pornography anyway. That would solve the problem of making clear legal definitions and remind viewers the harsh reality that the images they see are not of children without having to cause contradiction problems. As mentioned earlier, this law would have to satisfy “the clarity of laws” and there must be no “contradiction of laws”. Thus, although not necessarily, there is great potential for this law to have no clarity.

B Observability

“Internal morality” requires observability, which means that legal rules will fail if they require the impossible¹⁶. The standard of proof for most criminal cases in countries with an adversarial system; is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not the civil “on the balance of probabilities” so can you truly say, in the case of “lolicon art” that, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, a drawing is that of a child? This “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement can potentially invalidate “common sense judgements” mentioned earlier, depending on the case. What if the character’s personality is that of an adult, doesn’t it make it no longer a child? What if that is not a child but a midget? Drawing simplifies bodily features and makes it near impossible to discern age in all circumstances; so how can you say that it is “beyond a reasonable doubt” a “child” to but the most extreme cases? Perhaps the only non arbitrary case of whether a character is a “child” is if you draw an infant/child to strict anatomical similarity. The likelihood of that happening in the case of anime is nearly nothing. And in the case of banning “extreme pornography” what is the criteria for its definition? Yes, you can give set categories, but these are artificial and not without an extensive grey area. Thus, these laws are attempting to define the indefinite. This will set a precedent for a law, that is impossible to follow at all times because no one will always know whether they are obeying the law; if not already done so. A ban on fiction of this kind that would not have to be arbitrary by definition cannot be achieved unless you ban all drawn pornography. In this social climate, where pornography is in culture; is going to be near impossible because no one would obey.

Furthermore, the demands imposed by an objective test on what is “obscene” or “extreme” mean that no existing test is satisfactory nor can there be one, given their indefinite nature. Definitions of this kind rely on an objective test because a subjective test can be used to warp definitions to whatever the prosecution pleases, unlike matters such as the mens rea (intent) of an alleged murderer to kill which is justifiably subjective. If you argue that the determination of what in fiction is a child or what is extreme is possible and should be that of a reasonable man, on the clapham omnibus (reasonable “ordinary” man); let it be reminded that it is a standard for the tort of negligence, which is civil law, not criminal law. Criminal law usually, if not always, requires higher standards due to the gravity of the crime. This would mean most countries with influences from the English legal system, including countries with influences from the US, like Japan; prima facie (on the face of it) should not use this reasonable man standard even if they already do so. “Obscenities” or “extremes” have no definite, objective meaning. Hence, all that have punished those for “artistic obscenities” have failed to truly satisfy the requirements of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and are only fulfilling artificial legislative requirements or bad precedent as even good defences can fail. Only the most extreme cases such as when the drawing is anatomically accurate to a child and/or the original work has somehow directly asserted that that piece of art is a child by its creator, is “beyond a reasonable doubt” satisfied. Though not entirely objective, it should fit the legal requirement of objectivity.

However, the author advises the reader not to draw a conclusion before reading later arguments. Regarding the example of “lolicon art” being defined, even if there was an artificial set definition, which prima facie (on the face of it) is observable; as art is so flexible this would either result in a law with major loopholes or with unobservable breadth. It may be better to have not to have a law at all regarding this issue. As mentioned earlier in the “beyond reasonable doubt” part of the argument, the only somewhat objective way to stipulate a drawing is that of a child, besides the earlier example of a drawing of a photo-realistic infant/child; is if it is somehow asserted in the piece of fiction that the drawing is that of a child by the artist/creator of fiction and corroborated (supported with different evidence) that there are child like features. The former statement implies that if a drawing looks like a child to the layman and is asserted to be a child by its creator, it is “beyond a reasonable doubt” a child. This is only objective in the most extreme circumstances, as an artist can draw an “adult” and claim it as a “child”, making it no longer an “adult”. This would mean merely claiming an image to be that of a child is insufficient unless supported with other evidence as in the earlier example. One can snidely remark that the only likely objective way to determine “child” in art, is in the case of a photo-realistic “child” anyway. In the case of anime, this is not what it seeks to do. Let it be reminded that even if Fuller’s “internal morality of law” can be proven to exist in this form of law, there still rests the issue of rule of law, not discussed fully in this article.

A counter-argument to the general idea of what has been said so far, in the context of observability, can be found in Fuller’s The Morality of Law itself; which states that law should not cease “commanding the impossible” but rather “define as clearly as possible the kind of activity that carries a special surcharge of legal responsibility¹⁷”. Although it is possible to define the activity, which carries that surcharge unsatisfactorily – for instance, drawing a child is when you draw a person with no pubic hair – Fuller makes a statement later which makes this counter-argument void, even if some of these rules can actually be followed in the following paragraph onwards.

Banning certain forms of art for promoting violent or otherwise exploitative behaviour, when accompanied with a jail sentence if disobeyed, implies a strict criminal liability to the artist or possessor of fiction. This kind of law by Fuller’s definition refers to “laws under which a man may be found guilty of a crime though he acted with due care and with an innocent intent”¹⁸. As discussed earlier, the definition of “obscene” or “extreme” is a very flexible concept, with many interpretations. This results in guilt even though one acts with due care because since the definition of what is “obscene” or “extreme” is so arbitrary, the slightest mistake, for example drawing or merely possessing the image of a character “child-like height” can be interpreted as drawing a “child” and thus guilty of the offence, taken that the prosecution can bend the definition of “child” to prove their case. The same goes for “extreme”. Since these definitions are so unclear and indefinite, how can anyone be expected to obey them at all times? Even if you had a list of activities of what is “obscene” or “extreme”, the precise definitions of these activities may escape everyone in the case of fiction. For example, if you are legislating to ban bestiality in art, what defines an animal? What if the artist draws an alien? The lack of a clear definition applicable to all forms of art makes this law require the impossible. Australia’s censorship board decided to deem “A cup” and below “child-like”¹⁹. The problem is how does one distinguish between what constitutes as “A cup” in a drawing and what is not? Variances in art by no means always intentional can make a character, which is intended to have a “C cup” look like they have an “A cup” in certain scenes. If were to follow the Australian standard, simple artistic error, which happened despite due care may cause the possessor or the image, or the artist to be guilty. Hence, censorship law in the form of banning fiction fails the observability requirement of the “internal morality” of law and is consequently not law in character. The problems of the legality of this censorship law in the case of observability spill over into generality.

C Generality

Generality is the element of “internal morality of law” that implies a failure to make a law if it fails “to achieve rules at all, so that every issue must be decided on an ad hoc basis”²⁰. Fuller says that in order for there to be generality “there must be rules of some kind, however fair unfair they may be”²¹. As with observability, the indefinite nature of “extreme”, “violent”, or even “child” will make it difficult to make a rule and avoid deciding “the issue” on an ad hoc (arbitrary) basis. Even if you could categorically list the kind of activities that are “obscene” or “extreme” such as declaring “bondage”, bestiality, or rape as part of either category; the very nature of fiction makes it impossible not to decide at the very least occasionally on an ad hoc basis; making it fail the requirement of “internal morality of law”. This is unless you want to defeat the purpose of having this kind of legislation by leaving plenty of loopholes. For example, again with “lolicon art”; if bust size were a criteria for defining a “child” in art, it is impossible to define “small” hence the only rational standard would be “without pubescent breasts”. The judge would then have to decide whether the said piece of art had “pubescent breasts” on a situational (ad hoc or arbitrary) basis since there can be no set definition. As said before, the various forms of art make it even more difficult not to decide on an ad hoc basis, such as the use of “moe²²” drawings. What kind of general rule can apply to all forms of art? Australia’s censorship board however, has stipulated “A cup” and below as what qualifies as pubescent breasts²³. Then artists would simply need to draw some kind of bust slightly larger than that to escape this rule. This would mean that this law is ineffectual as an artist can simply draw something similar to an “A cup” but larger and thus still effectively draw “a child”. What makes this artificial definition ad hoc as well is the question of how do we determine the cup size of a drawing? We cannot simply measure the character’s bust because it is impossible. Any artistic “calculation” would be mere estimation which is an ad hoc basis, except for perhaps if we had the image was from a 3D model. That will only be applicable for a very specific form of art. Therefore, the law may either be applied laxly or draconian-like, but in any case, ad hoc.

Or let’s say for the case of “rape in fiction²⁴”, the legal requirement of rape is that people, and thus in this case characters, do not give consent to sexual activity. Is it possible to determine consent of a character since not only do they have no true existence? Furthermore, it is impossible that they have any sort of capacity since they are a product of imagination. As the definition of rape in criminal law lies on consent, if it is asserted that drawings have some kind of capacity, that of “no capacity”, as in real children; wouldn’t consensual sex scenes count as rape? What makes it nearly impossible to accurately determine consent is that you cannot question a character like you can a person in a trial. It is thus technically impossible for characters in art to be raped. Let’s say that a character cannot say “no” as a requirement for not encouraging rape. What if the character screams in ecstasy asking for more during coitus despite initial objections²⁵? Does this count as a “no”? If you say “yes”, it still fails generality because the legal definition of rape in criminal law requires that a person not give consent which is determined objectively. If you say “no”, you are no longer applying the general rule, and deciding on an ad hoc basis. What kind of law can satisfy the requirement of generality for something whose definition is so flexible, as in the case of fiction? The endless possibilities generated by fiction makes it hard to avoid judging on an ad hoc basis.

A law cannot contradict another law, which is the element of clarity as discussed earlier. Can you imagine an alleged rape victim claiming rape, who initially refused but then was asking for more during coitus? You cannot redefine rape in the context of fiction without affecting criminal law because of the requirement of clarity as mentioned earlier. If there was a rule determining that “all characters must be of the age of consent”, how would you determine this without using an ad hoc method in terms of art? Although it is mentioned earlier that “common sense” can bring clarity, it does not in this case bring the formation of a rule that fulfils generality as different standards apply to different pieces of art. Can you apply the same standard of “child” in CLAMP²⁶ art and “moe” art? No, because the methodology of drawing is highly different. Hence, even the “common sense” standard can have double standards when faced with different styles, making it an ad hoc rule. A ban on certain forms of art thus fails generality. Even if you could erect complex rules that enforce generality, it does not mean it will satisfy the observability element. Also, even if the rule fails the observability element, it does not mean it will satisfy the generality element. This is because of the reasons for failure outlined in this article.

V CONCLUSION

For a law to qualify as a law, it must fulfil the eight requirements set out in the “internal morality of law” in Fuller’s The Morality of Law. Censorship law, in the form of a ban on certain forms of art, potentially fails clarity, and will fail observability and generality. These requirements are too stringent for the indefinite and diverse nature of art. In the unlikely event that there is a law that bans certain forms of art which satisfies these requirements, it is likely to be either full of loopholes and fail to enforce anything at all or so complex and specific that it will only be able to find extremely specific forms of art illegal. If there were to be a law censoring art on the basis that it depicts “children” in sexual situations, on this basis many works seen as masterpieces could be banned by this legislation as it attempts to legislate the use of “children” in fiction. It is not a far leap from art to written works as both are fiction. Once this ban affects classic literature, our rich literary history is under threat. To prevent this, any censorship on art should be opposed before it reaches that depth, perhaps even more so than non fiction.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Trying to access the website, for several hours, yielded nothing but the depressing message:

Error establishing a database connection.

The entire [MySQL] database was wrecked, and thus was reset. Several tables had to be manually re-implemented in part or whole. Please notice us through a comment to this post or email at contact[at]yestofreedom.org if you encounter any problems or anomalies. Additionally, a “Conditional CAPTCHA” plugin has been installed, which will request that you answer a simple question if your comment is thought to originate from a bot.

This website has been growing fast for the past six months, and now receives an average of over 160 unique visitors daily. More than 45 000 people have visited it since its inception, and about 220 letters were sent through our mailing system only. That is far from being anywhere close to having an impact on worldwide policies, but it is still encouraging data taken into account that Yes to Freedom is barely six months old.

This attack demonstrates that we are beginning to have a certain impact on the web. We will need to be much more careful from now on. We thank you for your support over the last 6 months; of course, we always are in need of all the help that we can get.

The current climate of utter misunderstanding, and incidentally of moral panic, that surrounds modern Japanese visual culture is illustrated in outstanding detail in the following story that has been sent to Yes to Freedom by email. As the writer has expressed his desire to remain anonymous, we will refer to him as “John Smith”. The text was furthermore edited with the writer’s permission to improve legibility.

My name is John Smith. I am 22 years old and live in California. This is where I am stationed as I am in the military. I have been for four years now, and in March of this year, my world was turned upside down.

It’s already hard to be a fan of anime [Japanese animation], as that whole subculture tends to be somewhat ignored or frowned upon in the US, it would seem. My interest in anime progressed from seeing my first episode of Ghost in the Shell on Cartoon network to learning the Japanese language by myself and looking up all aspects of anime.

Recently, there has been a wave of moe/kawaii material. From animes like Lucky star to dakimakuras [hugging pillows, often with characters printed on them, mosty anime-styled females] and several other things. As one who likes Japanese subculture as a whole, you can’t help but have something that reflects this trend nowadays.

Anyway, my story starts off while I’m the middle of the Pacific attending to my normal duties. I tried not to show off that I was into anime, being under a rather strict lifestyle. But like the saying, “You can’t help who you love.”

And I like anime, so naturally that is apparent in some way. For example, I had a folder of desktop wallpapers saved on my workstation computer. It contained depictions of the characters from a variety of shows; series that I’m certain most fans of the genre have seen, like Shakugan no Shana, Kanokon, Asu no Yoichi, etc.

While performing system checks of the ship network, inspectors came across my anime folder and notified command of prurient depictions of children.

All these “children” were entirely fictional characters, several being spirits or other non-human creations born from the imagination of Japanese authors.

But because of this, I got booted off the ship and restricted to base when I got back to my station. I had to go through a long and pointless investigation and of a lot of personnel belongings were confiscated. Meanwhile, I tried to protect my interest in this hobby, everything it is and represents.

It was hard, I really didn’t win, but I didn’t lose either. In the end, it was a compromise of sorts. Of all the charges and looming prison sentence, I walked away with a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and the deletion of all data on my PC, thumbdrive, PS3 and PSP. Even after all this, I’m still waiting to get my things back.

As I am working for the government, I must say that the widespread idea that fans of anime and such are all people who live in their parents’ house’s basement is wrong. I’m a hard working and honest person who puts his life ahead of others for his country and its citizen’s beliefs.

For that kind of material to be censored and controlled is trivial and based on misguided thoughts. I’m not saying that the arguments of all these women’s/children’s rights activists are unjust. But leave it alone, it’s just drawings.

I don’t know how things will work out with the policy changes that are likely to come, but if anime stays only in Japan, then that’s the place I’ll return home to.

I would like to do more to support your cause, but after going through the above it would be bad if I made any more commotion. So thought that at least by telling this story you may be be able to get something out of it, and other readers might find a new meaning.

Sincerely,

John Smith

Active duty/military enlisted USCG

Dear MangaGamer:

In light of the recent events that led to your difficult decision to not censor bishoujo games released under your label, we feel that it would be prudent to formally introduce ourselves. We are known as “Yes To Freedom” and are a grassroots group which has formed out of sheer frustration over the outrageous actions of radicalized pressure groups such as Equality Now, that generate censorship issues all around the world. We applaud your decision to resist the censorship of “offensive” fictional material, and as your message boards make it very obvious, you have the utmost respect and support from our group as well as your customers and fans all across the world.

Apart from this extremely well-deserved words of encouragement, we are writing for a much more important reason. There is no shortage of groups and organizations on this planet that seem to have no purpose in life beyond forcing their own moral codes upon others through whatever means possible, and Equality Now is merely the loudest and most troublesome of these at present. Unfortunately, the number of groups that actively oppose such clusters of overzealous moral crusaders is small enough to be statistically insignificant; those who have formed thus far to defend a person’s right to make their own decisions about what they purchase have just as easily fallen apart due to the intense fear of being labeled as “evil” by their opponents.

Yes To Freedom possesses the resolve that many other groups have been unable to maintain for more than a couple of weeks. We have proven to the Japanese subculture fans’ community – the very community your business relies upon – that we are not a one-shot group which will simply fade to black in a week. The actions that we are taking on a daily basis directly affect your customers. Yes To Freedom’s campaigns may one day make the difference between you choosing not to censor “questionable” eroge art and being forced by law to censor what a small group of loud-mouthed moralists decides is “disgusting”, “sick” or “obscene”.

We do not, and never will, ask for anything tangible from anyone such as money or products. What we need is your support, now and in the future. In order for the “teeth” of Yes To Freedom to become stronger and sharper, we need all the support we can possibly muster. Every single individual is important. Your support will bolster our efforts to keep fictional expression free of unnecessary and Draconian censorship. With your help and the help of others in a similar position, we can provide the sorely needed “push back” against these people and groups that would otherwise take away what the world of modern Japanese visual culture offers, amongst other content they deem objectionable.

Thus, please consider supporting our efforts to maintain the freedoms that you and your fans currently enjoy so that we all may continue to enjoy them tomorrow. We gladly welcome and strongly encourage any communication and collaboration you are able to provide, and we look forward to sharing a bright future in anime, manga, and eroge with you. Thank you for taking your precious time to read this email. We truly appreciate the recent choices your company has made, and eagerly await your response.

Sincerely,

Yes To Freedom

To our surprise, we received a reply soon after. However, it merely proved our greatest fears to be true:

Dear Yes to Freedom,
Thank you for your interest in MangaGamer. As a company, we seek to provide
English localizations of popular Japanese bishoujo games, of which, some may
contain adult content.
Please do understand that as a private commercial company, we cannot provide
support to a group such as yourself no matter how similar our ideals may
seem. The decision to uncensor was made as an internal policy decision,
not as the statement for freedom of speech that you seek.  Although we
appreciate your support of our decision, we cannot afford to take sides in
the ongoing debate between yourselves and those that oppose you, as we are a
commercial entity and must only remain as such.

Sincerely,
MangaGamer

The first paragraph is already disappointing: it appears to be a staple short paragraph intended to be sent along with “all emails” – and if it is not, then it is quite obvious that they did not read our email… but the second paragraph dismisses the second hypothesis.

They appear to have yet to understand that merely publishing bishoujo games uncensored is in itself a “statement for freedom of speech,” as they are publishing material which, while not actually harming any child in its creation, is nonetheless deemed illegal and categorised as “child pornography” in several countries including Canada, Australia and the UK. Furthermore, being a “private commercial company” in no way means that you cannot take position in an ethical/political debate, especially if your core business relies on the issue of said debate. A perfect example of this would be Microsoft’s “When you program Open Source, you program Communism” poster campaign.

Even worse is the opening statement that seemingly implies that private corporations cannot support external, non-profit organisations. That is such an ignorant statement on both logical and factual planes that the time spent on creating an informative response to it seems pointless, as it would fall on deaf ears.  It should now be obvious to everyone that both those that censor and those that don’t can be equally proficient at using modern “Newspeak.”

It is unfortunate that MangaGamer has chosen this path.  The MangaGamer forums are filled with posts which express a vicious and acerbic customer response to the mere consideration of censoring future MangaGamer releases.  Clearly, the consumers of bishoujo games are strong opponents to censorship, and it is not limited to customers of MangaGamer.  JAST USA, another company which specifically deals in anime-style dating simulation games, experienced a similar customer backlash for the exact same reason: the suggestion that future titles could possibly be censored left a sour taste in the mouths of many fans.

Both companies experienced consumer boycott threats if they went through with the proposed censorship plans.  Both companies buckled under the pressure of a mob of angry fans and made “internal policy decisions” to cancel the planned censorship.  Both companies’ bottom lines are apparently safe for now.

But what of the future?  MangaGamer and JAST USA are blessed with the freedom to make that decision as one of “internal policy” today.  There exists today a series of misguided movements by vehement moralist groups to force their personal morality onto all people using the legislative, judicial, and police powers of governments at all levels, completely disregarding the freedom of other adults to make a fully informed personal decision about the material they purchase and view.  Sadly, the moral hysteria and fear that these groups generate has already seriously degraded freedom in many countries around the world, and not just in terms of what kind of drawings are allowed in a video game.  The momentum is already flowing opposite from the direction of freedom.  If it remains unchecked, MangaGamer and JAST USA will be forced under legal duress to censor their games – an action which their entire customer base will severely punish them financially for taking.

It may be true that – for the moment – MangaGamer refuses to support Yes To Freedom.  However, the freedoms that we must protect are those of their customers and fans of their products.  We do not require MangaGamer’s support to work for your freedom to choose. Take this opportunity to show your support!  Even a short comment on this post helps us to achieve our goal of protecting the freedom of responsible adults to make their own financial, moral, and ethical decisions.

[Clarification update: YES, we are aware that MangaGamer's letter is not outright "refusal to support."  It seems the hyperbole was lost on some readers of the post and they got upset over it.  We get it: most of MangaGamer's staff members support our cause, but they do not wish to say so "officially" due to corporate hazards.  We had to officially ask, they had to officially refuse.  Technically, that is still called a refusal.]

We have named said character Freedom-tan – or, in Japanese, Jiyū-tan (自由たん) - as a clear reference to our goals and ideals. While her rather diminutive frame is somewhat meant as a reference to our campaign on lolicon art, her usual items hold a more mainstream meaning. The pen/brush is a way of defining writing as a “peaceful weapon”. The art palette, on the other hand, stands as a shield – art – against censorship and everything Yes To Freedom opposes. Finally, the feather, official logo of Yes to Freedom, symbolizes both freedom itself, through its link with bird-like features.

The character was designed and drawn by Deth with help from an exterior artist, ATOM-ix, as well as our community for insight and the overall concept. She is licenced under Yes to Freedom’s own licence as are all original creative works authored by its members for the organisation.

Here are the basic versions. Click on them to see them in full size. Several more accessories, poses and clothes will be added later to create a complete persona.

This is what we are doing – we are beginning to tell the world our message in a way they understand.

No matter whether you are a hardcore otaku or grandparent, policeman or convict your words will help: every little thing counts. Show the world what we believe in the only way possible. That is, through the raised voices of a million normal people like you and me, fighting for freedom. Help us by joining, by sending letters to politicians and congressmen, presidents and prime ministers, clergymen, friends and family: get the word out that as a race, we will not stand by and watch our freedom be trampled.

You may use this pre-written code to include the buttons.

HTML, small button:

<a href=”http://yestofreedom.org”><img style=”border: 0px solid ; width: 125px; height: 25px;” alt=”Small YtF Button” src=”http://yestofreedom.org/files/public/ytf_button_small.png”></a>

HTML, large button:

<a href=”http://yestofreedom.org”><img style=”border: 0px solid ; width: 200px; height: 50px;” alt=”Large YtF Button” src=”http://yestofreedom.org/files/public/ytf_button_large2.png”></a>

BBCode, small button:

[url=http://yestofreedom.org][img]http://yestofreedom.org/files/public/ytf_button_small.png[/img][/url]

BBCode, large button:

[url=http://yestofreedom.org][img]http://yestofreedom.org/files/public/ytf_button_large2.png[/img][/url]

Actualy [sic] by all logical means.
Equality should support hentai as hard as they could.

But they don’t think logicaly [sic] do they?

So now, do radical feminists think “logically”? The normal, reactionary answer of most readers of this very post would be that “such people can’t be logical”, that they “obviously are acting on the impulse of emotion”.

I beg to differ. Most women – and men – that militate among organisations such as Equality Now, the very kind Yes to Freedom is fighting against, are in no way short of intelligence and logic. Equality Now’s past campaigns hint to this quite conclusively.

But then, why would they go astray to the point of launching an attempt at large-scale censorship? The answer lies within the answer, “large-scale” being the key. And such is the logical reasoning that it implies: if one thing is censored as objectionable widely enough, it will be seen as plain immoral, and thus the number of people that it appeals to will diminish considerably. As prurient fiction depicts immoral conduct, it should be banned just as the material it depicts, otherwise the first reasoning cannot work to the extent it should.

That is indeed logical. However, logic does not imply truth. For example:

All men have blue skin.
Socrates was a man.
Thus, Socrates had blue skin.

In this regard, the former reasoning has several flaws:

1. The fact that one thing is widely considered immoral does not mean that it is “immoral”, let alone that it should be.
2. Nothing proves that making something “immoral” lessens the amount of people that it appeals to. This presupposition confirms the reasoning, but is not necessarily true.
3. Prurient fiction does not inherently depict “immoral conduct”: morality is something that individuals and/or cultures define.

Consequently, most proponents of censorship do think logically. There are of course some exceptions, just as is the case among our ranks. That is why I support using logical means to attain our goals.

[Rogue editor's note: stop leaving outrageously trollish and stupid comments, I'll delete them even if the other editors approve them.  Thanks.]

As Yes To Freedom’s first two campaigns begin, it is worth mentioning that the future success of this initiative entirely depends on mass participation. Your help is therefore primordial.

Passion alone will have to kindle interest in taking action, as money, fame and such have yet to be on our side. Whether you are an otaku, a fervent advocate of free speech or anything else is irrelevant, as long as you are passionate about reaching the goals we aim to attain.

These goals are: on a long-term basis, the factual recognition of absolute freedom of expression as an unalienable right of every human, and, on a short-term basis, the end of the growing censorship of otherwise criminal behaviour depicted in fictional material.

We believe that through our actions, we will succeed in proving the existence of a sufficient public outcry on the current wave of bans to initiate changes in the attitude of politicians towards fiction, so as to get closer to a world where imagination would truly know no bounds.

Of course, by the very nature of the material we defend, we are destined to meet strong opposition. Controversial issues need however to be reflected upon significantly more thoroughly than any other. Consequently, the mere act of sparking off a sensible debate around these matters is likely to do good to our cause.

]]> http://yestofreedom.org/2009/08/20/the-beginning/feed/ 11