Response Regarding Family Project Changes

Renrinken · July 21, 2009, 4:19am

First of all I would like to say I accept Peters explaination and I honestly dont mind. Its a bit odd but nothing that effects the story.

For people who are saying that its not obscene. Your most likely right. Most likely nothing would of happened. But for a erotic company on such a sketchy niche as eroge, they simply just dont want to risk it on “Most likely”. Its called self censorship that most companies do. They censor themselves to negate any hazard they could encounter. Ultimately its up to Jast to determine how far do they want to self censor and from what I see that answer is as little as possible.

AG3 · July 21, 2009, 4:29am

Hmmm, I’m not really happy about the picture censorship, and I don’t agree with the notion that having them in uncensored would cause any legal issues this side of the pond. That said, given the choice of a picture censor or a full character/story rewrite in a story heavy game like this, I think I’d rather go with the picture censorship. I still don’t like it, but well, as long as it gets us one of the (supposedly) best erogames ever in English, I can live with that.

I only relatively recently started playing erogames again after a break from the genre for a couple of years, so I’ve missed out on the whole X-Change 3 censorship debate (and I never played any of them but the first one). I can’t see the huge deal really. I do think that there is the principle of the matter with Peter saying he’ll let people know in advance when this sort of thing happens and he didn’t, which isn’t a good thing to forget. Still, I think some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s annoying that the censorship of something so light is deemed necessary due to the current political climate, and I personally don’t think it’s necessary, but on the other hand I’m not running the company in charge of releasing it who will have to face the consequences if it DOES somehow end up causing trouble, however slim the chance. It’s easy to say “just do it anyway” when you’re risking nothing at all. In that light, I can agree with the decision that despite the very low risk, it’s not worth gambling everything they have on. I know better than to underestimate how anal the U.S “justice” system can be. I don’t like it, not in the least, but I can appreciate that they believe this decision is for the best.

So yeah, that’s my 2 cents. The whole thing about not letting people know in advance could certainly have been handled better, but well, live and learn.

Kabraxal · July 21, 2009, 4:31am

The issue is that he is using his personal view of obscenity. Obscenity is not an objective entity. While people like us, who play eroge games, might not view them as obscene, some uptight moral block-head consistently does. There are always a lot of people moaning about the “sexual deviance” when simply a girl undulating in a bikini is shown… so if the right person gets a hold of such images, it is possible that the issue of obscenity is raised.

Kimuzukashii_MEIJI · July 21, 2009, 4:32am

Sakura:

Kimuzukashii MEIJI:

Sakura:

You still don’t seem to understand the way the law works very well. Why does the Protect Act exist? Because “the Supreme Court struck down a broader law prohibiting any visual depictions of minors engaged in sexual activity”. Are you trying to tell me, that an image with a minor, naked, not even engaging in sexual activity whatsoever, would be found illegal? What a joke.

I could say that you don’t seem to understand the way the minds of these “moral crusaders” works. You seem to think that reason factors in. Take this quote regarding an early “sexting” case:

Somehow, police were made aware of the pictures, and after seizing her computer and finding dozens of naked photographs, they arrested her and charged her with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography, and dissemination of child pornography.

While details are sketchy, one assumes that she’s charged with sexually abusing herself and possessing and disseminating pornographic images of herself, which creates a number of questions. How can someone be charged with exploiting herself (anti-prostitution laws aside), and how can someone be charged with possessing images of herself, regardless of the content?

Does it make sense? It sure doesn’t to me. Granted, a real person is involved, but just look at what she was charged with, simply because of the fervor there is to stamp out child pornography.

Again. Child pornography is completely unrelated. What she did, breaks an already established law. Regardless of how silly it is. Nothing in this game, breaks a law.

My point was two-fold. First, is that reason doesn’t factor in to the minds of these “moral crusaders”. Second, if well established laws are not written well enough to exclude such asinine instances, what hope is there that “moral crusaders” won’t twist a law as vague as “mailing obscene matter” (which is the other charge Handley plead guilty on) to their purposes?

Sakura · July 21, 2009, 4:33am

Honestly, it’s like I’m talking to children. Do you not know the law of your own country? The censored content is not in any grey area. A judge can’t decide something is illegal just because he feels like it, it still has to break a law, and the censored content breaks no law. What about this is so hard to understand? ‘Sexual deviance’ is not illegal. Please read the law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html

zalas · July 21, 2009, 4:34am

If you read the first post in this topic, Peter is offering to give unconditional refunds to anyone who bought the game and felt gipped.

Sakura · July 21, 2009, 4:35am

If you are claiming the law is vague then you clearly have not read the law. I’ll post it again http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html
A nude image does not in any way violate this law. She is not engaging in sex, she is not doing anything sexual.

Lancer-X · July 21, 2009, 4:40am

Mushushu:

Hey there,

Sorry but I’m just confused about one thing.
At this page:

http://jastusa.com/family/

It clearly states that Matsuri is 18 years old. If they have already stated that every character in the game is at least 18 years of age or older, what was the point of censoring various parts of the game?
If she’s not that current age during the entire duration of the story, shouldn’t this information be reflected more accurately?

I personally would’ve interpreted this information as the character being 18 years old from the beginning of the game. At least, that’s how the game seems to be advertising itself.

If the story involves having the protagonist properly waiting for such a character to become of legal age, it should say something like “17 years old” instead correct?

Oh jeez, not the ages again >_>
I think the correct answer is that the characters in Kazoku Keikaku should not be assigned numerical ages. I mean, didn’t the ages spawn an argument before which resulted in them being removed from the g-collections page? But, for some reason, they’re back again.

Also, the protagonist isn’t waiting for her to become of legal age, but instead waiting for her to be ready for that kind of relationship. Difference there, and it doesn’t rely on her being a particular numerical age to work!

Sakura · July 21, 2009, 4:41am

Vister1:

Sakura:

Vister1:

It may not break and existing law but it is in enough of a gray area that in turbulent political and moral times it could come under fire. All it would take is one judge agreeing with those people who say its wrong and then there is trouble. Precedents CAN be over turned.

Kabraxal:

The issue is that he is using his personal view of obscenity. Obscenity is not an objective entity. While people like us, who play eroge games, might not view them as obscene, some uptight moral block-head consistently does. There are always a lot of people moaning about the “sexual deviance” when simply a girl undulating in a bikini is shown… so if the right person gets a hold of such images, it is possible that the issue of obscenity is raised.

Honestly, it’s like I’m talking to children. Do you not know the law of your own country? The censored content is not in any grey area. A judge can’t decide something is illegal just because he feels like it, it still has to break a law, and the censored content breaks no law. What about this is so hard to understand? ‘Sexual deviance’ is not illegal. Please read the law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html

Law in the states is subject to interpretation. Interpretation means there is room for variance based on opinion, peer pressure, and other outside influences. Thats why enough moral block-heads as kabraxal put it can influence the law. Thats where liberal and conservative come into play.

Again, you clearly do not understand the way the law works in the US. The way the law can be interpreted is very clear. If there is no sexual conduct, it cannot possibly be considered against the law. The censored scenes contain no sexual conduct. You cannot somehow stretch that law out and say the scenes break it. It doesn’t matter if all the judges in the US are against the content, they can’t determine something illegal if it does not break a law.

zalas · July 21, 2009, 4:42am

Not to say whether you’re wrong or anything, but I just want to go off on a slight tangent to clarify that simply reading the letter of the law is actually not enough to determine whether you are liable for some offense in the US. The US operates under a “common law” system where the deciding factor is based on a body of precedence. Basically, once a certain precedence-setting court has ruled that a certain wording of the law is supposed to mean X, it pretty much sticks (until invalidated) and the other courts have to follow along with this interpretation. Hence, it is important for lawyers here in the US to be familiar with pretty much all the previous cases in their area of expertise. Do note that since the Handley case didn’t actually go to trial, the result isn’t binding.

Sakura · July 21, 2009, 4:44am

zalas:

Sakura:

Honestly, it’s like I’m talking to children. Do you not know the law of your own country? The censored content is not in any grey area. A judge can’t decide something is illegal just because he feels like it, it still has to break a law, and the censored content breaks no law. What about this is so hard to understand? ‘Sexual deviance’ is not illegal. Please read the law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html

Not to say whether you’re wrong or anything, but I just want to go off on a slight tangent to clarify that simply reading the letter of the law is actually not enough to determine whether you are liable for some offense in the US. The US operates under a “common law” system where the deciding factor is based on a body of precedence. Basically, once a certain precedence-setting court has ruled that a certain wording of the law is supposed to mean X, it pretty much sticks (until invalidated) and the other courts have to follow along with this interpretation. Hence, it is important for lawyers here in the US to be familiar with pretty much all the previous cases in their area of expertise. Do note that since the Handley case didn’t actually go to trial, the result isn’t binding.

Again, Handley’s case featured children actually engaging in sex, bestiality, guro, etc. It was clearly against the law. Please tell me what part of “depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct” is open for interpretation.

Sakura · July 21, 2009, 4:56am

Vister1:

Sakura:

Again, you clearly do not understand the way the law works in the US. The way the law can be interpreted is very clear. If there is no sexual conduct, it cannot possibly be considered against the law. The censored scenes contain no sexual conduct. You cannot somehow stretch that law out and say the scenes break it. It doesn’t matter if all the judges in the US are against the content, they can’t determine something illegal if it does not break a law.

Ok now to bring it all together…

(a) In General.- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that-
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or

Obscene is an opinion. People can gather in large numbers with a similar, stricter, more encompassing definition of obscene. This new sense of obscene moves to include nude depictions of youths, even drawn ones not in sexual situations. They then exert pressure on what is ‘morally right’ on society. Judges and politicians wanting support from the people give in or they may be the ones to start the whole thing trying to get people behind them. Next thing you know new interpretations of laws.

You realise sexually explicit conduct is already defined in the link I posted right? It’s not open for interpretation.

Sakura · July 21, 2009, 5:00am

Yea. The laws out there right now, are defined right now. If this game was released right now with the censorship removed, it would not be considered illegal. If in the future, it somehow was, JAST could simply stop selling it, and at that point sell the censored version.

Kimuzukashii_MEIJI · July 21, 2009, 5:03am

Sakura:

zalas:

Sakura:

Honestly, it’s like I’m talking to children. Do you not know the law of your own country? The censored content is not in any grey area. A judge can’t decide something is illegal just because he feels like it, it still has to break a law, and the censored content breaks no law. What about this is so hard to understand? ‘Sexual deviance’ is not illegal. Please read the law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html

Not to say whether you’re wrong or anything, but I just want to go off on a slight tangent to clarify that simply reading the letter of the law is actually not enough to determine whether you are liable for some offense in the US. The US operates under a “common law” system where the deciding factor is based on a body of precedence. Basically, once a certain precedence-setting court has ruled that a certain wording of the law is supposed to mean X, it pretty much sticks (until invalidated) and the other courts have to follow along with this interpretation. Hence, it is important for lawyers here in the US to be familiar with pretty much all the previous cases in their area of expertise. Do note that since the Handley case didn’t actually go to trial, the result isn’t binding.

Again, Handley’s case featured children actually engaging in sex, bestiality, guro, etc. It was clearly against the law. Please tell me what part of “depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct” is open for interpretation.

I will make one last post, then I’m off to bed.
It seems to me that you linked to that law without carefully reading it. I’m no legal expert by any means, but there is a carefully placed “or” in the law. I will put it in bold in this quote:

Now do you see the danger?
Second, if you click on the link that leads to the legal definition of “sexually explicit conduct”, you’ll see this:

(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated-
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
b lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;[/b]
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means-
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
b graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;[/b]

Which refutes your claim that a simple naked picture doesn’t qualify as “sexually explicit”.

zalas · July 21, 2009, 5:05am

You’re quoting the wrong part of the law to apply to the Handley case. I think what you’re looking for is in part (2). For part (2), what is the definition of “a minor”? Does this mean a specific person in real life or a fictional minor? How does one determine whether a fictional character is a minor or not? How does one determine whether a fictional character looks like a minor? Now, I’m not 100% sure if these are valid, but these are off the top of my head. If you’re really interested in this area, I suggest you talk to a lawyer in the US who practices in this area.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined, but “obscenity”, what the post you were replying to was referring to, is not defined by the law; it was defined via precedence through the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Miller vs. California.

Sakura · July 21, 2009, 5:08am

A new law would have to be made to declare this game illegal, if the censorship were removed. Of course, it is very possible that such a law could be made in the near future. However, JAST would not be responsible, for breaking a law that didn’t exist when it released the game.

Kimuzukashii MEIJI:

I will make one last post, then I’m off to bed.
It seems to me that you linked to that law without carefully reading it. I’m no legal expert by any means, but there is a carefully placed “or” in the law. I will put it in bold in this quote:

(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

Now do you see the danger?
Second, if you click on the link that leads to the legal definition of “sexually explicit conduct”, you’ll see this:

(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated-
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
b lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;[/b]
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means-
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
b graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;[/b]

Which refutes your claim that a simple naked picture doesn’t qualify as “sexually explicit”.

It’s great that you should mention that, because I did read that. It’s great that an ‘or’ exists there. But it still has to meet both A and B. (See the and there?) The ‘or’ refers to part 2, which the censored parts clearly do not break.
I know what lascivious means. It’s legal jargon for lewd lustful etc. Again, this wouldn’t hold up in court, and if it did, it wouldn’t hold up in supreme court. Even if it did, it clearly refers to the genitals, even though the breasts were censored too.

Sakura · July 21, 2009, 5:10am

zalas:

Sakura:

Again, Handley’s case featured children actually engaging in sex, bestiality, guro, etc. It was clearly against the law. Please tell me what part of “depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct” is open for interpretation.

You’re quoting the wrong part of the law to apply to the Handley case. I think what you’re looking for is in part (2). For part (2), what is the definition of “a minor”? Does this mean a specific person in real life or a fictional minor? How does one determine whether a fictional character is a minor or not? How does one determine whether a fictional character looks like a minor? Now, I’m not 100% sure if these are valid, but these are off the top of my head. If you’re really interested in this area, I suggest you talk to a lawyer in the US who practices in this area.

Sakura:

You realise sexually explicit conduct is already defined in the link I posted right? It’s not open for interpretation.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined, but “obscenity”, what the post you were replying to was referring to, is not defined by the law; it was defined via precedence through the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Miller vs. California.

"“minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years; " Do I seriously need to tell you what a minor is?
While obscenity is vague and open for interpretation, something cannot only be considered obscene, it has to also be sexually explicit. Hence "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and is obscene;

le_nuage · July 21, 2009, 5:14am

First I’d like to at least tanks Peter for this response.

At first, I didn’t really feel ofended by this censorship since it seems it couldn’t be helped…
But some anons here had a point when saying that you can find far worse in some manga (I was also thinking about yubisaki milk tea). So now I wonder what will happens in your next releases (I don’t really car about the lie since Peter offered refunds forthose who are unhappy (I can understand them)). Is it really necessary ? Is the rule of the “they’re all over 18” not enough anymore ?

And the most important : Will you go on and censor everything related to loli nudity ?

Everyone here talk about YMK, but there is another game far more similar to KK : The Sagara family.
Remember the little Ruruka… http://www.peachprincess.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=GC026&Category_Code=
She did things far mor explicit than just showing her nipples and you can assume she is about the same age as Matsuri.

zalas · July 21, 2009, 5:14am

Sakura:

zalas:

Sakura:

Again, Handley’s case featured children actually engaging in sex, bestiality, guro, etc. It was clearly against the law. Please tell me what part of “depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct” is open for interpretation.

You’re quoting the wrong part of the law to apply to the Handley case. I think what you’re looking for is in part (2). For part (2), what is the definition of “a minor”? Does this mean a specific person in real life or a fictional minor? How does one determine whether a fictional character is a minor or not? How does one determine whether a fictional character looks like a minor? Now, I’m not 100% sure if these are valid, but these are off the top of my head. If you’re really interested in this area, I suggest you talk to a lawyer in the US who practices in this area.

Sakura:

You realise sexually explicit conduct is already defined in the link I posted right? It’s not open for interpretation.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined, but “obscenity”, what the post you were replying to was referring to, is not defined by the law; it was defined via precedence through the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Miller vs. California.

"“minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years; " Do I seriously need to tell you what a minor is?

Please at least try to read the rest of the paragraph I wrote.

Ah good, we finally agree on something. What you describe here is common law at work.

That is correct.

Sakura · July 21, 2009, 5:16am

Then what is your point? She is not engaging in sexually explicit conduct, so whether or not it’s obscene is irrelevant.