One correction re: Seven Seas example - I haven't listened to that ANN podcast, but as far as I know, that title is being described as certainly involving the depictions of minors in explicit sexual situations. Which may be found illegal, and overall, it has a very unclear, very questionable legal status in the US. IMO: it is NOT comparable to the censored content we're discussing here. Borders made the right choice re: that title, IMO. (Please feel free to correct me if some other title was meant.)
Mo2468: I also don't think we should be discussing issues irrelevant to June and the whole issue at hand.
(By the way, just like Delena666, I was initially confused whom you're addressing your whole initial message here, (and thought you addressed most of it to her... but now it seems you addressed me the whole time), so for the sake of clarity, it does help to use a specific name/username when addressing people, or maybe specific quotes?)
Re: me opening three posts - I think as a fan I have a right to bring up what really concerns me, and share what I believe is important information with other readers who may have the same tastes and convictions re: this issue. I wish someone told me what I told everyone here way before, i.e, re: overall June's policy on this and Invisible Love title in particular. Of course, everyone is welcome to support censorship or to be very understanding about this issue, and speak up on such posts (as Mo2468 does here), as it will help DMP to gauge how many fans are in support versus how many are not.
Also, for organization purposes, it's convenient to keep these discussions focus on particular titles. So, anyone who's interested in Invisible Love would know what that title contains. I don't think most people have attention spans to keep reading through long discussion posts to wield out info re: which particular titles were censored and to what extent, especially if that thread was already named under a different title (as I initially thought that only BSR2 is censored). Besides, censorship of BS2, discussed in other topic/thread, being very minor, is VERY different to the extent of censorship done on Invisible Love Title. To me, editing bodily fluids and much more severe censorship are different issues and topics. (Re: some "other thread" *I* "took over", I wasn't the one who mentioned censorship of an unrelated June title there, and sometimes these discussions do tend to go to bilateral topics, it might be just a nature of things. I do agree we should try to keep focus, though).
Re: bookstore argument used as an explanation for censorship: There are always alternative distribution channels available for explicit titles, even If one assumes that whole bookstore argument is a very valid one. Plus, as discussed, at this point, all I really want is a clear label whether the artwork was edited or not, and it seems a number of people out there want the same thing. That's certainly a very low-cost thing to do (e.g., listing "artwork editing" info on all upcoming / new releases on June's website, as they're being released / processed by June), but it will help June to keep such fans as I am (and thus, the money we will keep on paying for their books), while keeping all other, more indifferent parties/fans at their "status quo".
Re: calling all explicit manga pornographic is highly reductive. And I agree: the whole issue has nothing to do with "obscenity". (Though I must add to the previous post that "obscene" is the one that also "appeals to "prurient" (morbid) interest and depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way", not just "lacking scientific or artistic value" (a VERY subjective thing), and can be found as such ("obscene") only by a jury...this addition is done by me so that just not to *scare* anyone out there, rest assured, it's not that easy to label anything "obscene", and not that many cases of this is happening out there, in the US
Manga should not be labeled "porn", and I hope DMP does not think itself as being in "porn business". There's a social stigma attached to the wording "pornographic materials", and while being perfectly legal, they do imply the lack of any other purpose rather than titillation, at least as far as this word is used in common/popular language and many social situations.
P.S: We should open a post about this elsewhere (not on June's forum), as I will probably do. I'm quite curious how others think about this, but again, this issue is not directly related to the topic/June titles, and I won't discuss it here anymore.