Can we not cut out anymore story scenes and stop it with censorship in general.

@Laep said in Can we not cut out anymore story scenes and stop it with censorship in general.:

As I said earlier there's no need to rehash the argument on legality as multiple people have already brought up the truths which you ignore and claim are false. You can search through my post history and find the post where I went through every individual country in the global release and checked their laws regarding fictional sexual depictions of children, it's not worth my time to re-post previous research when it exists in my post history.

It's interesting you try to trivialize the scene to "being shown with a bath towel in a bath" when in reality it's a scene where two adults are spying on children that are groping each other in a bath, where one of the children also talked about how they wanted to roll around in the other ones sweat. Just as an example Kohri's behavior towards Al could even be considered a depiction of child sexual abuse, which would be blatantly illegal in the eye of Canadian law due to there already being cases in Canada that set a precedent for arrests and court ordered deletion of such depictions.

While Article 230 does in fact protect Sega from liability for user generated fictional child pornography (such as the pornographic loli symbol arts I've seen some regulars in this thread spam in lobbies and during concerts, and making sexualized child characters) it doesn't protect the generator of or the one who perpetuates said content in any of these countries where fictional depictions of child pornography are illegal. Despite Article 230 Sega still has an obligation to remove said content whether it was originally from them or user generated.

I don't really understand where the age of the game comes into it. As I've said I've played this franchise my whole life and having worked around people who do translate and localize stuff (specifically manga) and hearing their perspective on it I'm understanding of the considerations that are made when it comes to localization.

I went back and looked at the post that you mentioned and I can see why it was ignored. You did not cite any actual laws. You did not cite any actual precedent. Your "research" seems to have been going on Wikipedia and searching what countries allow/disallow fictional child pornography, which is irrelevant to this conversation about the censored content as as said content objectively does not fall under the legal definition of pornography.

As for Canadian law, please do cite the precedential case(s) that are relevant to the censored content. If such a thing exists, I'm sure it would be an interesting read for all of us.

@ApollosAmour said in Can we not cut out anymore story scenes and stop it with censorship in general.:

@MoldyAsp33874 How can they want it removed and not care at the same time?

Really?.... How is it hard to understand what i'm trying to say? Give them a choice and they would have it removed. But they will continue to play the game whether the censorship is there or not. So it's not a gamebreaking problem for them. But they are on the side of wanting it removed.

They want it removed. It doesn't ruin the game for them. They don't care enough to stop playing because of it. Give them a choice to revert the changes- They will choose yes to revert them. They will keep playing the game- and be happier that they can play an uncensored product. Some will even support with microtransactions where they normally would not. Either way- they play. Which is enough for sega.

@MoldyAsp33874 It just sounds like they're indifferent, honestly. I wouldn't say they actually care unless they're out there voicing their concerns. Those of us posting in threads like these are a minority.

@ApollosAmour said in Can we not cut out anymore story scenes and stop it with censorship in general.:

@MoldyAsp33874 It just sounds like they're indifferent, honestly. I wouldn't say they actually care unless they're out there voicing their concerns. Those of us posting in threads like these are a minority.

Indifference would be not caring either way. They're not indifferent- they're in favor of reverting the change. Players don't want less freedom in the game they enjoy. Just really that simple.

Voicing concerns hardly going anywhere- the 5 most popular threads on the forum are all similar and against the censorship yet we still don't have a single response or acknowledgement changes even took place. I don't think more people would really help. First step is finding out if Sega even hears us.. Twitter PR definitely refuses to respond but gets more complaints on this topic than anything else- so Sega is probably refusing to acknowledge it purposely and PR is briefed to not respond about such concerns from the beginning.

But that's not going to satisfy many- so you'll continue to have discussion until there's a shred of evidence they are seeing this. Whether it's bad or good news for either side- I would be fine with an acknowledgement of the change. At least then it wouldn't feel like Sega is trying to hide the fact from the general populace unaware of the changes to avoid a bigger backlash.

Canadian definition of child pornography, as per Sept. 9 2020 (see C-46 163.1):

a.) A photographic, film, video, or other visual representation , whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

  • (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in sexual activity

b.) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;

c.) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this act; or

d.) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person undre teh age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act

Argentina law 27.436 (modifying article 128):

Anyone who produces, finances, offers, trades, publishes, facilitates, disseminates will be punished with imprisonment from three (3) to six (6) years. or distribute, by any means, any representation of a minor under eighteen (18) years of age engaged in explicit sexual activities

Australia 473.1 "child pornography material" means:

(a) material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person , who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age and who:

(i) is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons); or

(ii) is in the presence of a person who is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity; and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive; or

Czech Republic 205.2 & 205a

205.2) Whoever produces, imports, exports, transports, offers, makes publicly accessible, mediates, puts into circulation, sells or otherwise provides to another a photographic, film, computer, electronic or other pornographic work,

a) which depicts or otherwise uses the child,

205a) Whoever holds a photographic, cinematographic, computer, electronic or other pornographic work depicting or otherwise exploiting a child shall be punished by imprisonment for up to two years.

United Kingdom Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (an amendment to the 1978 Protection of Children Act)

Indecent pseudo-photographs of children

(1)The M1Protection of Children Act 1978 shall be amended as provided in subsections (2) and (3) below.

(2)In section 1 (which penalises the taking and distribution of indecent photographs of children and related acts)—

(a)in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)—

(i)after the word “taken” there shall be inserted the words “ or to make ”, and the words following “child” shall be omitted;

(ii)after the word “photograph” there shall be inserted the words “ or pseudo-photograph ”;

(b)in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1), after the word “photographs” there shall be inserted the words “ or pseudo-photographs ”;

(c)in subsection (2), after the word “photograph” there shall be inserted the words “ or pseudo-photograph ”; and

(d)in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4), after the word “photographs” there shall be inserted the words “ or pseudo-photographs ”.

The 1994 amendment essentially adds on that pseudo-photographs, effectively fictional depictions of children, also would count as child pornography. See both on your own, its too long to post it all.

Hong Kong Cap. 579 Prevention of Child Pornography ordinance

"child pornography" means-

(a) a photograph, film, computer-generated image or other visual depiction that is a pornographic depiction of a person who is or is depicted as being a child, whether it is made or generated by electronic or any other means, whether or not is is a depiction of a real person and whether or not it has been modified;

and includes data stored in a form that is capable of conversion into a photograph, film, image or depiction referred to in paragraph (a) and anything containing such data;

"pornographic depiction" means-

(a) a visual depiction that depicts a person as being engaged in explicit sexual conduct, whether or not the person is in fact engaged in such conduct;

This is just a handful of countries laws where it's illegal, and the case could be made for the scene violating said laws. Additionally a few specific cases in canada that do set a precedence for court action are the cases of Roy Franklyn Newcombe, Daniel Robert McNeill, and Ryan Matheson.

If I went through every countries laws that ban fictional depictions it'd be a lot of the same shit.

@Laep said in Can we not cut out anymore story scenes and stop it with censorship in general.:

Canadian definition of child pornography, as per Sept. 9 2020 (see C-46 163.1):

a.) A photographic, film, video, or other visual representation , whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

  • (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in sexual activity

b.) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;

c.) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this act; or

d.) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person undre teh age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act

Argentina law 27.436 (modifying article 128):

Anyone who produces, finances, offers, trades, publishes, facilitates, disseminates will be punished with imprisonment from three (3) to six (6) years. or distribute, by any means, any representation of a minor under eighteen (18) years of age engaged in explicit sexual activities

Australia 473.1 "child pornography material" means:

(a) material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person , who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age and who:

(i) is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons); or

(ii) is in the presence of a person who is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity; and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive; or

Czech Republic 205.2 & 205a

205.2) Whoever produces, imports, exports, transports, offers, makes publicly accessible, mediates, puts into circulation, sells or otherwise provides to another a photographic, film, computer, electronic or other pornographic work,

a) which depicts or otherwise uses the child,

205a) Whoever holds a photographic, cinematographic, computer, electronic or other pornographic work depicting or otherwise exploiting a child shall be punished by imprisonment for up to two years.

United Kingdom Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (an amendment to the 1978 Protection of Children Act)

Indecent pseudo-photographs of children

(1)The M1Protection of Children Act 1978 shall be amended as provided in subsections (2) and (3) below.

(2)In section 1 (which penalises the taking and distribution of indecent photographs of children and related acts)—

(a)in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)—

(i)after the word “taken” there shall be inserted the words “ or to make ”, and the words following “child” shall be omitted;

(ii)after the word “photograph” there shall be inserted the words “ or pseudo-photograph ”;

(b)in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1), after the word “photographs” there shall be inserted the words “ or pseudo-photographs ”;

(c)in subsection (2), after the word “photograph” there shall be inserted the words “ or pseudo-photograph ”; and

(d)in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4), after the word “photographs” there shall be inserted the words “ or pseudo-photographs ”.

The 1994 amendment essentially adds on that pseudo-photographs, effectively fictional depictions of children, also would count as child pornography. See both on your own, its too long to post it all.

Hong Kong Cap. 579 Prevention of Child Pornography ordinance

"child pornography" means-

(a) a photograph, film, computer-generated image or other visual depiction that is a pornographic depiction of a person who is or is depicted as being a child, whether it is made or generated by electronic or any other means, whether or not is is a depiction of a real person and whether or not it has been modified;

and includes data stored in a form that is capable of conversion into a photograph, film, image or depiction referred to in paragraph (a) and anything containing such data;

"pornographic depiction" means-

(a) a visual depiction that depicts a person as being engaged in explicit sexual conduct, whether or not the person is in fact engaged in such conduct;

This is just a handful of countries laws where it's illegal, and the case could be made for the scene violating said laws. Additionally a few specific cases in canada that do set a precedence for court action are the cases of Roy Franklyn Newcombe, Daniel Robert McNeill, and Ryan Matheson.

If I went through every countries laws that ban fictional depictions it'd be a lot of the same shit.

Those are not links- also you have to read into what terminology means for the sake of the citation. You're not doing that. Are you purposely avoiding linking them because of the definition of the terminology used?.. There's laws like that everywhere that allow you to know what "minor, person, visual depiction,indistinguishable, identifiable" etc- all mean within context of the law and you're just purposely leaving that part out.

identifiable minor (9) “identifiable minor”— (A) means a person— (i) (I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or (II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and (ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and (B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.

indistinguishable (11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

This is an example. Again you're citing CP laws detailing real people and generated images that look identical to a real person that a jury of peers would say "yes- this person is a human being that exists" Person does not mean what you want it to mean in this context. There are laws about artistic representation but you're jumping right to CP laws for the sake of your argument because you know you're wrong. Just face it.

@Laep

Interesting that you decided to cut out certain parts from the laws you provided.

Using your first law as an example (Canada), in 163.1 (1) (a) (i) you removed the word "explicit" from the sentence, fundamentally changing it's meaning.

The actual subsection of the law should read (as per https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-163.1.html) :

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

    (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

    (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

Notice the word explicit there. While one could make a decently compelling argument that the scenes contain sexual activity, they do not contain explicit sexual activity. Therefore, that subsection would not apply. Likewise, looking at subsections b, c and d, none of them would apply to the removed scenes either.

Edit: Also looked up the cases you provided. In the first case, the man had both real and fictional pornography of underage girls. I couldn't find the second case. And in the 3rd case, the man was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. None of these apply to the removed content.

@Yin I didn't intentionally cut out any word, I was hand typing them all over copypasting them to make formatting easier with the quote bars. I'll admit it was a mistake on my part.

Still the point stands that it could be argued it's explicit since they're naked children groping each other and one of them is encouraging said behavior. Keep in mind the definition of the word explicit.

@MoldyAsp33874 Again this is only a small selection of countries laws. You can search up any of them and see exactly that as well as the definitions that correspond to it and how fictional depictions come in. Just face it, there are countries included in the global release where these scenes could be perceived as fictional child pornography and therefore making the scenes be not fit for a global release.

I understand that while you may wish to consume fictional child pornography, but the fact of the matter is that it's not legal in all countries in the global release and in order to abide by local law and increase the reach of the game and countries it may be played in there are certain considerations made localization teams in order to do so. If it bothers you so much that you're not able to consume this scene, which may be argued to be fictional child pornography, you can always go play the non-localized version of the game.

Flat out denying or not considering local ordinance on the matter of fictional child pornography and how scenes or content may be interpreted is as I continue to say: Intentionally ignorant.

@Laep

No, that is not explicit sexual activity, nor are the characters naked in the scene.

As defined by the supreme court in R. v. Sharpe (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html#par49) :

"Explicit sexual activity" refers to “acts which viewed objectively fall at the extreme end of the spectrum of sexual activity – acts involving nudity or intimate sexual activity, represented in a graphic and unambiguous fashion, with persons under or depicted as under 18 years of age.” This does not include “casual sexual contact, like touching, kissing, or hugging, since these are not depictions of nudity or intimate sexual activity.”

"I understand that while you may wish to consume fictional child pornography"

Really have been trolling this whole time haven't you? ... Well- looks like you've been called out enough and you're unable to provide actual citation that would apply- rather than defending yourself against the proof that what you provided doesn't reflect what is in PSO2- instead of finding a citation that did you simply said "Well there's others! I'm sure somewhere it is bad under law!".. So sounds like you really just can't find anything and don't understand context or terminology.

Well whatever- thanks for playing again. Might want to find a point that doesn't put you into a corner so easily. That can't be disproved with a single link that you refused to even give in the first place so you could intentionally change wording and cut out parts of context.
Yeah- totally honest argument- definitely. I'm rolling my eyes here.

Also- don't assume things about me like that. It's dangerously close to the ToS rules broken by others which resulted in their permabans.

@Laep said in Can we not cut out anymore story scenes and stop it with censorship in general.:

It's just common sense, if you think the scene isn't distasteful I implore you to walk down a busy street in your town and ask everyone you walk by "Do you think it's tasteful for a video game to depict a scene where adults are spying on children that are naked and groping each other in the shower?" Please record it too.

Just look at the international backlash against the new Netflix film Cuties, which also sexualizes children, the general populace doesn't approve of such things despite certain left-wing media groups constantly trying to push a pro-pedophilia agenda. If this was all "normal" there wouldn't be laws and previous cases against this type of stuff in many countries that are now included in the global release.

At the end of the day the localization team had to consider the cultural views and laws of all countries and all potential countries the game would release to, it's a no brainer that a scene like that would be cut.

@Flowen231 That's not a very good argument because it's not like we're playing with people who are under the minimum height, therefore nobody is at an inherent advantage and gameplay is unaffected. If you feel you're getting hit too much because your hitbox is a miniscule amount larger, then you have other issues and should learn to dodge properly.

I hate to break it to you. This is the eastern MMO video game audience we're talking about here not someone on some random street. Why would I go down a street and ask people who probably don't even play video games, watch anime or know very much about Japan and it's culture about what they think of a scene in a Japanese video game? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Of course they are going to give a very 1 sided answer when worded that way. If they actually saw more content from Japan and knew about anime they would have a completely different answer. Even still you have no way of really knowing. Simply pointless.

Cuties has huge backlash because it actually sexualizes children. There's a huge fucking difference. The movie's message could have been made without sexualizing children and going through 600+ auditions of minors doing god knows what in front of adults. I cannot even comprehend how you would even bring that up when we're talking about a video game here.

You keep bringing up laws from other countries all of which say pretty much the same shit as the one in the US. There have been games brought to the US which have content either similar or worse than what is presented in this game and are absolutely fine and also are available in many of those countries you listed. This is why the law debate is debunked completely. If this wasn't the case some of these games would never make it. It's pretty clear none of this shit falls under sexualizing children or containing explicit sexual content.

This guy is trying to treat the scene as if it's something straight out of a child porno. Good grief.

@Laep The files for the bathscenes are in the game's files. That's how people learned the scenes were dubbed. If those were illegal, Sega would have already been sued for running afoul of the law. Anything within the game's files is considered part of the game's content, regardless of its accessibility in game or not, by legal entities and rating boards. This means the game's download from Sega counts as distributing the content. So if it was illegal, then Sega has already ran afoul of the law. If Sega has yet to be sued or taken down, the content is legal.