Another petition introduced to criminalize loli in Japan

I dunno, the UN was pretty instrumental in preventing the Cuban Missile Crisis from turning into WW3. So there’s that. Many have argued that the UN has been more effective at peacekeeping than, say, the US has. So it’s not a totally useless organization. More useful than their shortlived predecessor the League of Nations anyhow. I feel like the UN is kinda in-between a rock and a hard place:

If the UN stays out of most conflicts, they get accused of being useless and ineffective. If they stick their nose into every conflict, they get accused of imperialism.

I feel like they could probably find a cutoff between stopping wars and telling people what comics they’re allowed to read


Nah, for military stuff, we have NATO.

1 Like

At this point, I prefer exploitative conquerors over “saviors” who want to provide “help” to people who clearly don’t want it.

1 Like

NATO is just a certain (though large) geographic area, while the UN is more global

Probably. Idk geopolitics don’t @ me

NATO is looking to defend the rest of Asia from the Chicoms:

Meanwhile, the UN is complicit with the Chicoms:


it’s been submitted again and updated abit. Relentless

This petition is submitted by Constitutional Democratic Party member Ogawara in the House of Representatives and by Ms. Terada Shizuka, wife of Constitutional Democrat Manabu

Japanese society regarding the sexual exploitation of children, and in 2019, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued recommendations to the Japanese government, strongly urging the realization and implementation of measures based on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (OPSC), such as "criminalizing the production, distribution, dissemination, offer, sale, access, viewing and possession of images or depictions of children, or persons depicted primarily to look like children, engaging in explicit sexual activities, or depictions of the sexual parts of a child for sexual purposes.

1 Like

The primary argument frames fictional content as incitement.

Offenders have been found with dolls or cartoons, but there is no way to know that cartoons and dolls weren’t the reason worse didn’t happen. Most who view cartoons or own dolls never offend.

Activists have no evidence.

There cannot be freedom of expression if all that can be framed as incitement without evidence can be proscribed.

Banning things is punishment in itself. It takes freedom away.

Apparently, there are no grammatical errors in my statement, so I asked the AI to rephrase.

Rephrased Statement by AI.

The main argument portrays fictional content as something that encourages or provokes unlawful behavior.

While some offenders have possessed dolls or cartoons, there is no proof that these items were not the reason they didn’t commit more severe crimes. The majority of individuals who consume such fictional content do not engage in any offenses.

Those advocating for restrictions have not provided any concrete evidence to support their claims.

True freedom of expression cannot exist if anything perceived as potentially encouraging unlawful acts, without substantial proof, is subject to prohibition.

Imposing bans on materials is a form of punishment in itself, as it infringes upon personal liberties.

I had to correct things in the rephrased statement.