Forum - View topicNEWS: Virtual Child Porn Ban Proposed in UK Parliament
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
enurtsol
 Posts: 14886 |
|
|||
|
Oh man, and yet again, that British article becomes relevant: *Le sigh*
This commentary about "Govt uses Obscenity Law to stuff up cartoon sex loophole" pertains to a UK case, but it makes good points on both sides of the debate: The key question is why one should need to do something about such material. That is not to defend it or advocate its possession: rather, it is to highlight concern that the current climate of hysteria over child protection makes it very difficult for our legislators to explore the underlying issues without the risk of having their motives questioned. The first and most important issue is whether this proposed law will make matters better – or worse. Existing laws on child porn have at their core the very reasonable contention that the mere existence – let alone circulation – of photos of child abuse contribute to the further abuse of a child. When it comes to wholly fictitious imagery, there is no direct harm. If the law is not simply premised on a desire to punish, then it needs to demonstrate either that it contributes to a reduction in longer term harm, or that it will do no worse than the status quo. The pictures in question may be odious, but do they "reinforce inappropriate feelings" - or do they act as a substitute for abuse? Moreover, if abusers have begun to collect cartoon images as a safer way to satisfy their fantasies, then could this law actually reinvigorate the market for real porn? Then there's also the question of what constitutes realistic enough in a cartoon depiction. A realistic sketch of kids drawn from pure imagination? A trace of a kiddie-porn photo but tweaked to be more cartoonish? Where to draw the line (pardon the pun)? |
||||
|
||||
penguintruth
 Posts: 8499 Location: Penguinopolis |
|
|||
|
A drawing is a drawing. Unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's a tracing of real child pornography, it should be protected. Pen to paper does not a human make.
|
||||
|
||||
|
mulrich
Posts: 139 Location: Denmark |
|
|||
|
While I do not condone child pornography, penguintruth is right. A drawing is a drawing. No real person is suffering.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Paploo
Posts: 1875 |
|
|||
|
But, someone is still creepily thinking about abusing kids, even if it's drawing. No thank you, internet. I hope Britain puts it through.
|
||||
|
||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||
|
The existing Extreme Pornographgy Bill only declares an image to be illegal if a typical person would deem it as being real as opposed to a drawing (etc). All I can do is hope that the Commons will see the problem with outlawing only the fictional depictions of certain illegal acts and not all of them, because the Lords (and for that matter the tabloids) certainly won't.
|
||||
|
||||
|
4nBlue
|
|
|||
So if someone thinks about killing while watching violent entertainment, should we ban violent entertainment or can we ban only the things you don't like. Also last time I checked, thinking about nasty things was very much legal in most countries. While this law would not affect me directly because I live in Finland (luckily in Finland a similar law did not pass). I still can't accept it because images can not be victims and I can't believe that looking at them can turn someone into a sexual predator before someone shows me a research to prove me wrong. The only thing this would ban are not lolicon porn, but all things which involve underaged characters in sexual situations. This would include things like: - The original releases of wonderful games like Air, Kanon and Muv-Luv. - Several manga and anime. You can bet that Battle Royale and a large amount of yaoi would be banned. Some related links: http://www.oniichannoecchi.com/2009/03/09/united-kingdom-trying-to-ban-loli/ http://finality.dasaku.net/?p=2795 http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/12/16/japan-lags-in-loli-ban-unicef-lies-exposed/ |
||||
Ai no Kareshi
 Posts: 561 Location: South Africa |
|
|||
|
I fully agree that child pornography is disgusting, but I don't support the notion of banning drawn images on any grounds. What if such a scenario is described in writing (it's not all that different)? Would they eventually ban that as well?
Just wait until we have the technology to arrest you for your thoughts. Better make sure your imagination doesn't run wild, no matter what your views or intentions, because guess who's watching! |
||||
|
||||
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||
|
Don't panic dear! It's just a proposal and hasn't had it's second reading as yet. Also its already had wording changes. Replace "possession" with "publish in any way, shape, or form". There is still the lingering debate that banning virtual child porn will help, or do more harm in protecting children. This is far from being any kind of law in the UK as yet. A few say that a graphic drawing of a child being involved in a perceived sexual act, can perpetuate sexually abusive feelings toward children, and some are arguing that it’s instead a release mechanism for the same, reducing the risk to a potential victim. The bill is falling apart as I write as Justice Minister Jack Straw has already dropped the controversial Data Sharing proposal of this bill. Even if it gets a second reading it still has to get through a Lords debate and they could just talk it to death.
|
||||
|
||||
|
ConanSan
Posts: 1818 |
|
|||
|
This is Labour throwing a massive hissy-fit over the fact that they can't lead a country out of a wet paper bag ever since Blair left office.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Kit-Tsukasa
Posts: 930 |
|
|||
|
If this law ever comes into the US, I see Amendment 1 of the Constitution rebellion almost immediately.
|
||||
|
||||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||
Then that would make it thought crime. I could think about murder and hurting all the time, but that doesn't mean I'll do anything. |
||||
|
||||
|
ConanSan
Posts: 1818 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
GeekyBlackGirl
 Posts: 52 |
|
|||
|
I see where Paploo is coming from in this because to me child pornography or images depicting child pornography (drawings) is creepy and disgusting. I know that there are people who are into that kind of thing just like people are into snuff films. However, what someone draws is their own domain, I would just hope that it stays fantasy.
Yes, I watch violent anime, movies, etc as well as read books, manga, comics with violent content and would HATE if it were banned. But where do we draw the line? No one is actually getting hurt but its still gross so I just won't look at it. |
||||
|
||||
|
grgspunk
Posts: 136 |
|
|||
|
You've already drawn the line. If you run into something you don't like, you can either continue looking at it, or look away. You chose to avoid/ignore it yourself over watching/reading it: That's where "The Line" is drawn.
|
||||
|
||||
|
GeekyBlackGirl
Posts: 52 |
|
|||
|
I'm talking about where we draw the line in publishing not in what I or someone else chooses to do with the content that is already present.
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group