Following the announcement of an anime adaptation of the manga “Mii-chan,” the Japan Autism Society published a statement outlining the work’s problems, saying “we have grave concerns.” On 5ch’s “Nanademo Jikkyo G” board, users piled on with reports that a sponsor had pulled out of the anime project and that ads for it had appeared at Sendai Station, while others pointed out that the group supposedly overseeing the manga’s supervision was actually the author’s father. The thread turned into a long-running debate over whether to prioritize freedom of expression or to treat the content as a problem under the “public welfare” clause.
Apparently the sponsor has vanished into thin air.
When people started criticizing the idea of airing this on terrestrial TV, they just scrambled to say 'this manga doesn't promote discrimination against people with disabilities' as an excuse.
Chiikawa does that kind of thing too, no? (Chiikawa is another hit manga/anime known for dark undertones beneath its cute art)
The real hell is just getting started.
Wasn't it more like 'we're having it supervised'?
And then when an actual advocacy group pressed them on what exactly this 'supervision' entailed and who was doing it, this is what came out.
Turns out that 'supervisor' was actually the author's own father.
And in the end, Kodansha went along with those idiots too.
We already established that Kodansha is the one going along with it—why are you so worked up?
To begin with, it's a protection against state power—people who misunderstand that are just being childish.
Even accounting for indirect application, that's still the basic premise.
Freedom of expression exists to guard against things like flag-desecration laws being used to crack down on speech.
That's capitalism.
Conversely, from the Mii-chan side's perspective, sponsors bailing because it's not profitable is also capitalism.
Indirectly complaining to sponsors is also capitalism, isn't it?
They're the ones doing the choosing, after all.
You could also argue it violates the 'public welfare' principle—per the group's statement, there are apparently real cases of kids being bullied and called 'Mii-chan' because of this.
So there's no actual grounds for regulating it.
The ones picking a fight over nothing are the strange ones here.
I'm saying it might violate the public welfare principle—do you not actually know what that concept means?
So it's just nitpicking, then.
'It might' can be applied to literally anything.
Then go ahead and explain this 'public welfare' thing you keep citing.
What about the scene where the character shrieks and attacks high school girls and kids?
And is there really a scene of eating poop too?
It's a story about a child with a congenital disability—why are you mindlessly equating 'disabled' with 'that kind of behavior' without even looking into it?
Not every disabled person is like that, you know.
This is exactly why Mii-chan and 'Yamada-san' are a problem—because more people like you keep showing up in society.
You're literally proving the point.
'It might' can be applied to literally anything.
Go ahead, name a single piece of fiction with zero possibility of causing offense.
Norakuro
One Piece
Phoenix (Hi no Tori)
Dragon Ball
Star Wars
There's an endless list lol
Don't know Norakuro.
One Piece is a non-starter—it's already restricted overseas for depicting smoking and violence.
Anyone who's actually read Phoenix knows it wouldn't fly today either.
Dragon Ball, same as One Piece.
Star Wars also gets restricted for violence.
There, debunked.
I'm talking about Japan here.
Give me an actual case where something was restricted on free-expression grounds over violent content.
With a court precedent, please.
You said Phoenix 'wouldn't fly today,' but it just got a new anime adaptation on Disney+, and you can freely read the books at any library or bookstore lol
Ignorance really is scary.
Look, if it's applied overseas, then naturally there's a 'possibility' it could be applied in Japan too.
Do you not know what the word 'possibility' means?
If we're going by 'possibility,' then literally anything goes, right?
Why strip away the rights of people who want to read it?
Doesn't that itself go against the spirit of public welfare?
Do you not know the word 'possibility'?
We're talking about possibility here.
Let me enlighten you:
0 percent.
Because the judiciary in each country independently decides on censorship and regulation based on its own constitution and precedents.
You're turning a mere 'possibility' into a matter of good and evil, aren't you?
From a public welfare standpoint, stripping away freedom like this is outrageous.
Are disabled people some kind of privileged class now?
Personally I lean toward it being a violation.
There's already real, concrete harm happening.
It's unusual for advocacy groups to keep issuing statements like this back to back.
And judging by the author's attitude and that Kodansha video, neither seems to have any hesitation about accelerating discrimination, nor much sign of actual consideration.
'Real harm'?
Be specific.
You people only ever write vague, fuzzy stuff, don't you?
Uh, the group's statement literally says disabled kids are being called 'Mii-chan' and bullied over it.
Read it.
So what?
Is it forbidden to use anime or manga characters as nicknames now?
So what?
Are you saying no fictional character in the world is allowed to have a proper name at all?
Background and Key Points of This Debate
It’s unusual for a public disability advocacy organization like the Japan Autism Society to publish a formal statement expressing “grave concerns” about a specific manga or anime title, which suggests just how strong the social reaction has been. The thread split over whether freedom of expression should take priority or whether the problematic depictions should be restricted on “public welfare” grounds, and the back-and-forth over how to interpret the constitutional “public welfare” clause went on for hours. It’s worth noting, though, that the claim that the supervising organization was actually the author’s father was only ever raised within the thread itself and has not been officially confirmed. It’s also worth noting that the statement itself doesn’t flatly declare the work “discriminatory”—it’s framed as an expression of concern—a nuance easy to lose amid the thread’s heated back-and-forth.
※This article is compiled and summarized from the 5ch (Nanademo Jikkyo G) thread “Japan Autism Society criticizes Mii-chan anime adaptation, publishes statement on manga’s problems: “We have grave concerns”.”
