July 14, 2006

Cyzo on Irie Saaya

i-cover0607_02.jpgI am not going to go as far as to say I scooped Cyzo, but we are certainly asking the same questions. The July Issue (on sale since June 19th) has a small story investigating whether the new Irie Saaya photo book does not constitute a violation of Japan's relatively new Child Pornography Law (児童ポルノ法). (My original May 17th essay tackles the issue in a bit broader terms.) But aren't you people sick of these Japanese magazines having the audacity to attack Japanese morality? Talk about ethnocentricity!
Posted by marxy at July 14, 2006 11:18 AM
Comments

I know *I* feel vindicated.

Posted by: Adamu at July 14, 2006 11:59 AM

By the way, the story seemed to suggest that the wording of the act is so vague that it is totally unclear whether her pictures would violate the law. Does not sound like it will be inforced much - except in extreme circumstances.

Posted by: marxy at July 14, 2006 2:31 PM

maybe your working for the wrong company?

Posted by: trevor at July 14, 2006 2:51 PM

they shoulda made it a saaya cover instead of ueno juri, just to prove their point, even though juri is cuter.

Posted by: rachael at July 14, 2006 2:54 PM

I'm sure they hold the front page until they see what you're blogging about. You should sue.

Posted by: Momus at July 14, 2006 3:47 PM

They also have a meta "Separated at Birth" parody. Eat that, Spy Japan!

Posted by: marxy at July 14, 2006 4:08 PM

momus: if marxy sued, hed be older than you by the time we got to hear the verdict.

Posted by: Chris_B at July 16, 2006 9:34 AM