Showing posts with label Misshitsu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misshitsu. Show all posts

Saturday, June 16, 2007

More on Obscenity



Though not Japan related, I felt this piggy-backed nicely on my posting yesterday about the obscenity conviction regarding MISSHITSU.

This morning I heard an interesting interview on NPR Morning Edition Saturday about recently discovered unreleased obscene recordings from the 1890s(!). Producer David Giovannoni and writer Patrick Feaster talk with John Ydstie about their new CD collection "Actionable Offenses: Indecent Phonograph Recordings from the 1890s".

Here's a description from Amazon.com:

New York City, 1896. A man walks into a bar. He sits down, orders a beer, and laughs long and hard at the bartender's newest story. It's a good tale, though too bawdy to repeat at home. The next day he goes into the same bar, gets his beer, and drops his change into a phonograph. He's listening through rubber tubes to a man telling a story similar to the bartender's. Without warning Anthony Comstock's defenders of decency charge into the bar, push him aside, destroy the record, and escort the bar's proprietor to jail for promoting indecency. The records on this CD are the few that Comstock's men missed. Scarcity and suppression have kept them silent for a century. Put aside the modern myth of a more genteel era: these late-Victorian performances are indecent even by--especially by--today's standards. And while not for mixed company, they spoke to many in the coarse language and crude humor of daily experience. They were stories told readily in the bar; yet they became legally actionable offenses when fixed in wax and played on a phonograph in that same bar. These newly-discovered recordings play like soundtracks to the moving images of prize fighters, scarf dancers, and kissing lovers flickering on the kinetoscope--the other nickel entertainment in the bar. The records and films were produced in the same years, in the same studios, by the same people. They were enjoyed in tandem by the same audiences. They were accused of violating the same standards of decency in communities where they were profitably exhibited. And together, they presaged the clashes between morals and mass media that would erupt regularly during the century to follow. This CD presents these extraordinary recordings in their unexpurgated entirety. It allows us to hear uncut and uncensored what new technology made possible and the protectors of public morals made illegal: "indecent" performances driven out of business, off the public stage, and into the privacy of unmixed company in the home.

I think this is interesting for several reasons: First, it proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that the infant recording technology of the phonograph (and the wax cylinder) was also harnessed by the rude and crude for their 'shock jocking'. This is, of course, similar to what happened with early photography and film and more recently with Betamax and the Internet.


Second, in response to this obscene material Anthony Comstock (famous for his run-in with play write George Bernard Shaw) and his crusade for public decency-- a bane for civil liberties group and anyone else who found government sponsored meddling in their private affairs to be offensive-- was essentially successful in eradicating this small genre of prurient recordings.

This is continued proof that the pattern of history repeats itself as they say, but this cycle of debate and crusade against what is viewed as objection and inappropriate for public consumption (within the media) is something that societies will debate for continuously-- in the US or abroad.

As a final note, the interview on NPR, which I highly recommend listening to for its historical perspective. (I couldn't stop thinking about DEADWOOD and the debate over its copious use foul language.) Fascinatingly, they also mention a new 'lost' word they rediscovered, which had been essentially lost to time: "Scrouge" (or 'scrowdge' not sure of the spelling). Literally it means to 'fit into a small place.' But its colloquial use is 'to copulate.' (That's expected, right?)

Friday, June 15, 2007

The Manga Publisher of MISSHITSU Fined for Obscene Comic


This is interesting-- and somehow ties into my Ike Reiko posting from earlier today. As hyper sex obsessed as Japanese society is, in some sense, it's easy to forget that there are still strict morality laws governing pornography.

Publisher fined Y1.5 mil over obscene comic

Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 07:03 EDT

TOKYO — The Supreme Court ordered a comic book publisher to pay a fine of 1.5 million yen for distributing obscene comic books containing sexually explicit scenes, upholding a lower court ruling, legal sources said Friday. The top court dismissed an appeal by Motonori Kishi, 58, president of publisher Shobunkan Corp.

The district court had sentenced Kishi to one year in prison, suspended for three years, saying, "We cannot overlook the fact that the defendant brought about a harmful influence on sexual morality" by distributing the comic. According to court rulings, Kishi distributed about 20,000 copies of the "Misshitsu" (Honey Room) comic book containing graphic sexual scenes to 16 companies in April 2002. (Kyodo News)
Link

Article 175 of the Japanese Penal Code is known as the 'Obscenity Law'. It is the only case of open contradiction within the 1947 Japanese constitution, wherein under article 21, censorship is strictly forbidden. However, a hold over from the 1880 penal code governing Waisetsu (or obscenity) has helped lay the groundwork and the current confusion as to what constitutes obscenity (the following definition has changed several times since its implementation in 1907):

"...any person who distributes, sells or publicly displays an obscene writing, picture or other materials shall be punished with penal servitude for not more than two years or be fined not more than two million and a half yen or minor fine. The same shall apply to any person who possesses the same with the intention of selling it."

The history of obscenity and censorship in Japan is, of course, enough to fill up a semester's University course and I won't (nor wouldn't dare) go into it. Suffice it to say, for those who want to know more, this article is far more authoritative and detailed in its scholarship.

What follows is an excerpt from the article in describing the stakes and situation surrounding MISSHITSU (aka. Honey Room):

Nevertheless, in April 2002 a manga Misshitsu (Honey Room) was taken to court for the first time charged with obscenity causing a massive commotion and starting a public debate on freedom of expression and the ubiquitousness of manga with sexual content all over the country. In January 2004 the Tokyo District Court passed sentence and punished the editor of the manga Motonori Kishi with one year in prison for violating article 175 of the Penal Code for selling and distributing obscene literature. In this instance the president of the jury declared that the manga was far too graphic. Given the large variety of pornographic material found in all sort of formats and sold all around Japan, the court decision caused some amount of incredulity. Kishi made an appeal to the Tokyo High Court alleging a violation of freedom of expression. The sentence imposed by the Tokyo District Court was reduced in June to a fine of 1.5 million yen by the Tokyo High Court. Nevertheless, the presiding judge rejected any allegations made by the accused that Article 175 is unconstitutional as it violates freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

At any rate, it is agreed that the current obscenity laws are highly fluid -- if not arbitrary -- and the decision for the government as to whether to prosecute is most likely politically motivated. (Depending on the way the winds are blowing... Hey, why should it be any different then in the US?) In the case of MISSHITSU, it has been greeted with great debate. While certainly NOT the most offensive item out on the shelves, with today's decision it was made an example of to threaten all other peddler's of -- what no one can quite agree how to define once and for all -- obscenity.