When you say “As pointed out above, at least in the West, depictions of the kind we are discussing are already banned here. As well as it being illegal, I also find it offensive (though that is not sufficient reason for me to want something banned).”

There is a subtle thought mixed in there that has a cryptic value attached …

Not as cryptic as you seem to think. I find lots of things offensive but it doesn't mean that I think they should be banned. This thread is discussing things that I find particularly offensive, indeed, sick. Even so, me being offended is not sufficient reason to ban something. We've seen this last week direct attacks on freedom of speech in France, with people being murdered for "offensive" depictions of the prophet Mohammed. I don't particularly like the kind of stuff that Charlie Hebdo published and, even as a non-religious person found some of it "offensive" but I do not agree with those who think it should be banned, much less those who would murder to make people afraid of expressing their own opinions. The right to free speech also includes the right to offend.

This subject though, in my opinion, is much worse than drawing caricatures of a person that we have no idea of their original appearance. It's not like drawing the cliche of "God" as a white bearded old man in the sky. These are cartoons drawn with the explicit purpose of sexual arousal in the readers.

And I thought the BBC mag. was only concerned with how Japan was in acceptance of the cartoons… and “Why is it banned here if it is only a matter of "taste" or "individual freedoms"?

I was answering your comments on "free speech". You introduced that as an argument. The wider implications, though, include vigilantism such as we have seen in the Charlie Hebdo incidents.

It has nothing to do with the political regime of the country, as you seem to be suggesting. I don't think for one minute that the Japanese Prime Minister or Emperor are sitting there saying "I like it and 5 million of my countrymen like it, so it stays". Rather, I think that the wider implications of allowing such depictions has not been looked at seriously in Japan and that perhaps we - those countries that have taken it seriously and decided that we don't want such material in our society - should encourage a debate there on the subject.
I don’t think I am remiss with thinking that Japan might not appreciate a moral crusade imposed on them being lead by--- let’s say A cross???

Just in case you forgot; I'm an atheist. I have no "crusade" to pursue - religious, political or ideological.


I would also say that I make no differentiation between cartoons made from real life - meaning real pictures that have been manipulated to make them look like cartoons - and those drawn from scratch. It is the intention to arouse using images of children that is the issue here.