Yes to Freedom

Here's a revision of Sycamore's first few points, expanded upon and re-written.

Please d/l instead of edit on the forum, as all the formatting and lengthy notes and potential sources are only in the document itself:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?nmnhwgiitz1

I may have broadened our scope too much, or I may not have. The letter format may benefit from being succinct, but our cause is a wordy one. You be the judge. I'm sleepy.

------------------------------------------------------------

I have become aware that Japan has recently taken to reviewing its laws in regard to child pornography. As a concerned member of the international community who has been made aware of Japan's lax restrictions in that field of law enforcement, I was initially pleased to hear that progress is being made where it is unquestionably necessary.

However, upon discovering that the criminalization of fictional material is presently under consideration for new legislature, I began to fear for Japan's public image as a nation once standing among peers in liberty and justice, now poised to deprive its people of their most fundamental of human liberties, of which we may be historically reminded of in The Potsdam Declaration:

     “Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights..." (Section 10)

"Liberty of thought means liberty to communicate one's thought."
Salvador de Madariaga

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
William O. Douglas

The idea that ownership and production of a work entirely comprised of fiction (written, spoken, drawn, etc.), could be a detainable offense is an absurd violation of human rights as well as freedom of both speech and thought. It is an aimless and impolitic prohibition of ideas themselves. We of the international community cannot help but be reminded of other countries who have violated their citizen's freedom of speech, of whom Japan is standing but months away from joining in rank.

[Line Break]

Prosecuting the production and distribution of authentic child pornography is a fundamental and necessary legislation. It is a menace that harms our children mentally, physically and emotionally, and cannot be pursued strongly enough, to the full extent of law.

It is the unfortunate, but solemn democratic responsibility of this document to illustrate why prurient fiction (written, spoken, drawn, etc.), regardless of the ideas it presents to the legally consenting consumer, is:

     (1) protected in the Japanese Constitution as a freedom of speech, thought, and a fundamental human right and civil liberty
     (2) the only consequence-free outlet for natural taboo-breaking fantasies available to healthy, law-abiding citizens
     (3)(a) a proven therapeutic aid in cases where victims of abuse could benefit from confrontation-based therapies (such as cathartic treatment)
         (b) a proven therapeutic aid in cases where patients suffering from aggression and/or sexual disorders benefit both themselves and society from having safe outlets to expel anti-social fantasies

-----

During the production, distribution, and ownership of any creatively-derived, fictional pornographic material, there already exists a solid legal barrier to ensure that only consenting adults may take part in such private enterprise.

Nevertheless, there is a growing movement of hysteria that fictionally-depicted crime could incite actual crime by influencing the minds of those who consent to view it. In the case of fictional minors as characters prurient media, the concern would be that it could hypothetically incite child molestation in the real world and therefore contribute to the harm of a real child.

There has never been, nor will there ever be, legitimate evidence that fiction begets crime.

To the contrary, countless studies (such as [fill me] ) show us that [editing bookmark]

------------------------------------------------------------

And the rest is Sycamore's "edit me" revision (sorry I haven't gotten through the rest of it yet... needed a time-out for a bit):

------------------------------------------------------------

Banning material and imprisoning those who posses distribute or create it on a mere hypothesis is illogical. There is no substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that fictional material itself is anywhere near powerful enough to turn someone into a child molester. Consider the sales of the content in question and how many reports of child molestation Japan encounters. Compared to other first world countries Japan has a relatively low child molestation rate (even with the inclusion of the unreported rape statistic included). It is evident with the ever tightening laws in the west, yet an ever increasing rate of child molestation that by making things such as fictional media illegal or censored proves to be completely ineffective or may even encourage the harm of children.

There is also the double standard that would be enforced when banning this material when comparing to violent media such as games, movies, novels and art. This media is sold on a much wider scale yet Japan has a low violent crime statistic. Where usually the counter argument for this would be the genre of fictional children in sexual situations “rewards” the viewer with physical pleasure he or she may or may not  even enact, First Person Shooter (FPS) games always reward players who kill the most, socially with leader boards showing things such as accuracy and killing efficiency . Violent video games have posed little threat in Japan so why should other fictional material be banned? Enforcing such a double standard enforces hypocrisy within the government body itself, and promotes bias when making laws. Creating laws that impede on freedom of speech purely based on biased emotion with no clear facts is a huge violation of human rights.

I'm also concerned about how when debating about what Japan should make illegal one of the main points is “other countries have done it therefore so should we”. Or other countries view this material as obscene. This is a misconception there is quite a wide range and volume of communities who do not believe this material should be banned.

Finally what will making  such content illegal really achieve when it comes to the citizens of Japan? It serves to protect no one, and simply rips freedom of speech from those who have done no harm and shown no intent of doing harm. Japanese citizens have shown their disapproval of such bans over numerous surveys and petitions. All a ban will do is enact witch hunts fooling people into believing they are helping to make Japan a better place when all they are really doing is sending people to prison who have done no harm. With this in mind it also means that the police of Japan will have more things to cover. There is only a finite amount of manpower the police has, surely this time and man power would be better devoted to inhibiting the actual harming of real children instead of those that are purely fictional.

Overall suggesting a ban on fiction helps no one. It saves no one and most importantly the citizens of  Japan have shown large amounts of disapproval towards such an act against freedom of speech.

Time to make this thread look a little cozier.

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?wmwtzlatty4

Fills 3.5 pages, and you'll notice a note suggesting where there is room for additional points, and ideas as to what they could be (if deemed worth our while).

Be warned this is a political letter. Political letters blur the lines between emotional persuasion and drab factual narrative. If you think it goes too far one way or another, then edit away. I'm passing the conk shell on to the next editor (remember to edit your name and any status text you wish into our official "to do" list here).

To Do:

We need the sources numbered into the text itself (available from the source thread here on yestofreedom.org, or as notes in the OASIS document, or in the nebulous mind of professor Google), then listed en masse at the end of the letter. Footnotes? And, where noted, we have room to expand our points.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have become aware that Japan has recently taken to reviewing its laws in regard to child pornography. As concerned members of the international community who have been made aware of Japan's lax restrictions in that field of law enforcement, we were initially pleased to hear that progress is being made where it is unquestionably necessary.

However, upon discovering that the criminalization of fictional material is presently under consideration for new legislature, we began to fear for Japan's public image as a nation once standing among peers in liberty and justice, now poised to deprive its people of their most fundamental of human liberties, of which we may be historically reminded of in The Potsdam Declaration:

     “Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights..." (Section 10)

"Liberty of thought means liberty to communicate one's thought."
Salvador de Madariaga

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
William O. Douglas

The idea that ownership and production of a work entirely comprised of fiction (written, spoken, drawn, etc.), could be a prosecutable offense is an absurd violation of human rights as well as freedom of both speech and thought. It is an aimless and impolitic prohibition of ideas themselves. We of the international community cannot help but be reminded of other countries who have violated their citizen's freedom of speech, of whom Japan is standing but months away from joining in rank.

[Line Break]

Prosecuting the production and distribution of authentic child pornography is a fundamental and necessary legislation. It is a menace that harms our children mentally, physically and emotionally, and has to be fought to the full extent of law.

It is the unfortunate, but solemn democratic responsibility of this document to illustrate why prurient fiction (written, spoken, drawn, etc.), regardless of the ideas it presents to the legally consenting consumer, is:

     (1) protected in the Japanese Constitution as a freedom of speech, thought, and a fundamental human right and civil liberty
     (2) the only consequence-free outlet for natural taboo-breaking fantasies available to healthy, law-abiding citizens
     (3)(a) a proven therapeutic aid in cases where victims of abuse could benefit from confrontation-based therapies (such as cathartic treatment)
         (b) a proven therapeutic aid in cases where patients suffering from aggression and/or sexual disorders benefit both themselves and society from having safe outlets to expel anti-social fantasies

-----

During the production, distribution, and ownership of any creatively-derived, fictional pornographic material, there already exists a solid legal barrier to ensure that only consenting adults may take part in such private enterprise.

Nevertheless, there is a growing movement of hysteria supporting the idea that fictionally-depicted crime could incite actual crime by influencing the minds of those who consent to view it. In the case of fictional minors as characters in prurient media, the concern would be that it could hypothetically incite child molestation in the real world and therefore contribute to the harm of a real child.

There has never been, nor will there ever be, legitimate evidence that fiction constrained to an adult viewership is capable of begetting crime.

During their formative years, it has been proven that children are at risk of imitating aggressive behavior into adulthood if exposed to it habitually throughout their youth. Adults exposed to the influence of media do not fall into this category. Free societies are founded on the ideology that every citizen is responsible for his or her own actions. If we were to open the floodgates of blame displacement, it would corrode the value of self-responsibility in our culture.

According to one study by Nagayama Hall, Hirschman & Oliver, more than 25% of normal men reacted to under-age female stimuli. This is a conservative figure, as the study did not include homo-erotic stimuli or ephebophiliac stimuli, bringing the likely ratio of males presently functioning on a normal level in society who nevertheless experience erotic thoughts about minors considerably higher than one out of every four.

What this substantive category of people need is a venue to convert unacceptable impulses into a more acceptable form. Prurient fiction is the only available means to sublimate sexual impulses without actually committing them, and is therefore too necessary an element of societal health to suddenly and aimlessly prohibit. Without fantasy to expel the taboo-breaking impulses of at least one out of every four men, what remains?

And how does such a ban account for viewers of prurient fiction whose purpose for consumption has no counterpart in reality? We are talking about a ban on fantasy after all. How silly would it look to the international community if Japan were to outlaw romantic depictions of elves, angels, faeries, aliens, or any number of other impossible beings whose physical features are traditionally those of ageless youth? Imagine police breaking into the apartment of an 18 year old hard working student because he bought a romantic comic book about mythological beings, and sending him to prison for precious years over nothing. It would be ludicrous, shameful proof of an unprincipled Constitution-desecrating political system. It would be an outrage. It would also be following Japan's new child pornography laws to the letter.

Imprisoning those who posses, distribute or create fictional crime is a straightforward example of gratuitous preemptive incarceration. It  does not in any way reflect the harm caused by passively communicating such fiction. It is unapologetically confinement of a law-abiding citizen under the pretense that doing so will help to prevent the thought, the fiction, from becoming reality. Society has a duty to protect the safety of all its law-abiding citizens. Every single person within categories (2), (3)(a) and (3)(b) of page one of this document (regular citizens seeking safe alternatives for expelling commonplace anti-social impulses, victims of abuse seeking confrontation therapy, patients seeking therapeutic aid) would be classified as criminals were this legislation to become law. This is regardless of their intent to ever actually commit crime. There cannot be a more clear-cut example of abusive and destabilizing legal precedent than the governmentally sanctioned authorization of superfluous imprisonment.

It is evident from the ever tightening laws in the west oblivious to an ever increasing rate of child molestation, that making things such as fictional media illegal or censored proves to be completely ineffective and could be reasonably interpreted as a correlative factor that is presently encouraging the harm of children. Compared to other first world countries, Japan has a relatively low child molestation rate (even with the inclusion of the unreported rape statistic included).

With a national crime reporting statistic of 39% (via UN International Crime Victims' Survey year 2000) and rape rate of 0.177% (Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, 1998 – 2000), this would mean that Japan has an official estimate of 0.285 rapes per 100 people. Even giving the United States of America the handicap of a 100% crime reporting rate, this means that Japan, presently an endangered safe haven without fictional obscenity prohibitions, sets a superior example of how a free society enjoys less sexual crime by roughly a factor of 10.

This is significant evidence that a gentle touch atmosphere in the realm of adult-constrained prurient fiction censorship does indeed correspond with a legitimate decrease in crime. It stands as an indisputably beneficial ingredient in nurturing the homeostasis of humane and hospitable culture. For further perspective, Japan's crime rate has steadily decreased since World War 2, while the availability and variety of its permitted fictional therapeutic erotica has steadily increased (with no limit ever set on the thematic range of obscenity communicated), particularly during the most recent decades. Depictions of violence in media have followed this same trend. Society requires outlets for taboo-breaking fantasies to function safely and humanely. This cannot be restated enough.

There is a double standard that would be enforced when banning this material compared to violent media such as games, movies, novels and art. Such media is sold on a much wider scale, yet Japan has a low violent crime statistic. Where usually the argument against this would be that the genre of fictional children in sexual situations “rewards” the viewer with physical pleasure, First Person Shooter (FPS) games always reward players who kill the most, socially with leader boards showing things such as accuracy and killing efficiency. Violent video games have posed little threat in Japan so why should other fictional material be banned? Enforcing such a double standard enforces hypocrisy within the government body itself, and promotes bias when making laws. Creating laws that impede on one's right to animate their thoughts purely based on emotion with no clear facts is a huge violation of human rights.

There is also a concern about how, when debating about what Japan should criminalize, one of the most common points made is “other countries have done it therefore so should we”. Or other countries view this material as obscene. This is a misconception, as there is quite a wide range and volume of communities who do not believe this material should be banned. [I say we cut this (gently re-edited) paragraph. There are better points to fill this space with, like going into greater depth with (3)(a) and (3)(b) here [Hayami, are you listening? Care to expand on those?], or points 2, 4, or 5 from here]

Finally what will making such content illegal truly achieve when it comes to the citizens of Japan? It serves to protect no one, and simply extracts freedom of speech from those who have done no harm and shown no intent of doing harm. The Japanese populace has exhibited their disapproval of such bans over numerous surveys and petitions. All a ban will do is enact witch hunts deceiving people into the belief that they are helping to make Japan a better place when they are essentially just enabling the saturation of prisons with innocent people.

With this in mind, it also means that the police of Japan will be obligated to waste precious time and resources on chasing comic book lovers whose greatest capacity for danger is toying with the momentary dream of spending a romantic evening with some supernatural character in a storybook. Comical as this scenario may seem at first glance, all it takes is the realization that this is the current future Japan is planning to dump indifferently upon its citizens, and then nauseous disappointment at such disregard for basic human value and freedom settles in. There is only a finite amount of manpower police can have. Surely it ought to be spent responsibly by inhibiting actual harm upon real children instead of those that are purely fictional.

Suggesting a ban on fiction benefits no one. It saves no one, and most importantly the citizens of  Japan have shown large amounts of disapproval toward such unmerited policing of thought and artistic expression.

[There are 11 Sources to be added in footnotes; the ones we've found at present are only viewable in the downloadable .odt file]

Finally made it to version 1.00, just in time for the media fervor to start settling down ^^;

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?zdyjyxdc4nl

You will need Open Office in order to view/edit this file!

About 5 pages, 15 total sources in footnotes numbered intrinsic to each page.

Time for a little relaxation.

Latest version. Just changed a couple trifling things:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?jmdvjidymzd

and the PDF version:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?1xy2izb4mjt