Welp Now I am infuriated, So catching Up on Dandadan. The Episode that everyone was freaking out about which had very little anything in it O no HUMAN FLESH!! Its not that big of a deal anyhow, Watching it dubbed and it starts to get to certain parts and its censored…and not a blur censor. They took the animation and moved it and cut parts out for the dubbed as I finished it in Sub cause I dont support censorship. This is where we are now and I don’t support it
5 Likes
That’s Crunchyroll for ya.
4 Likes
Sony you mean
4 Likes
This is why SONY purchasing Kadokawa is such a bad thing, Modern Sony went work a while back and is out of control with it’s censorship. Creators and IP license holders should be able to pull their IP from these corporations that truly disrespectful of their IP’s. This is why people are going back to pirating anime.
4 Likes
And also why I prefer supporting creators through PHYSICAL merchandise than dealing with these stupid companies. Sailing the high seas is mighty tempting nowadays otherwise.
4 Likes
I believe censorship (in and if itself) is a necessary evil. Uncensored material needs to also be available, with appropriate warning information so as to allow the consumer to make an educated decision when opting to purchase (or not as the case may be). The saddest aspect [least ways in the states] is that the majority or consumers choose to ignore warnings at all times. Worse, when they feel offended by something they forget (or ignore) that they chose to buy despite labels. Moreover having ignored the labels they assume the labels are insufficient for an intelligent consumer to choose intelligently.
3 Likes
Thank God for the First Amendment so we can fight censorship like that.
4 Likes
All clauses of all the bill of rights have limitations…
3 Likes
No, they’re actually pretty cut and dried.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No limitations there. Period.
The Defense rests.
3 Likes
I shall not argue with a mod (right or wrong)
4 Likes
There is no wrong here. I showed you what it says in black and white.
2 Likes
Read case law, if you return this year maybe we can talk
3 Likes
Censorship ruins everything, honestly
5 Likes
Individual criminals having their rights limited because they broke the law is not the same as Congress passing a sweeping law limiting free speech.
Thanks, I’ve been in and around law enforcement for some years. I’ve never heard that case law argument before.
/dripping_sarcasm
3 Likes
The limitation of rights as it pertains to convicted individuals is irrelevant to this conversation. To the best of my knowledge the Supreme Court has upheld at least one exception for every “Right” being waived; to any citizen. The titular example is yelling fire in a crowded theater. Given time and thought, I can prove any right has limits. You have no right to impose your beliefs on others, you may talk of them all day long. You may not force me to follow your canon.
4 Likes
Now you’re talking about actions, not free speech. Two different things. You have the right to yell fire in a theater. The theater has the right to impose its will upon you for your action.
Done arguing with you. You are spewing typical jailhouse BS. Next you’ll tell us all about being a sovereign citizen.
3 Likes
Personal attacks are beneath you, @Beestie, I do agree with you on the BS of sovereign dummasses. Inciting violence is not covered under free speech.
4 Likes
No, no they are not. 
It’s disturbing the peace, not infringing on free speech. Again, 2 different animals.
Go play.
3 Likes
A rose by any other name…
4 Likes
