[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

[Araraukar]

Notwithstanding that, and in relation to children around the "edges" of differing ages of consent in different jurisdictions, we are deeply concerned that a legitimate piece depicting, say, an 18 year old, recorded in a country where the age of consent is 18, in the hands of a person in another country where the age of consent is also 18, would suddenly become a piece of prohibited child pornography should that 18 year old move to a country where the age of consent is, say, 21. At the moment under the current wording, such a situation could arise.

This, on the other hand... is obviously not our intent, but we concede that the wording can definitely be interpreted that way. We'll make a change shortly.

OOC: That is exactly the sort of situation I've been spelling out all along, and now you don't argue against it?

IC:

The state of CGI is such that one can produce realistic-looking media using, for example, the facial features of a real child.

...so facial features of a child on an otherwise completely adult body would be enough for the child porn warning to trigger? Or is that not what you're saying? [OOC: Think of anime-type bodyplan, but made with CGI to look real.]

Case 1: A nudist family takes a video of a kid's birthday party, and adds it to their collection of home videos. This recording, obviously, is "not intended to be used for sexual purposes", and would be legal, even if some pervert finds this collection and uses it for sexual purposes

Again, NOT what has been said before here. Unless suddenly it's not considered possession to have a recording that's clearly, for the person owning the recording, "for sexual purposes"? Colour me confused.

Are there shades of gray in between?

According to proposal text, no. Law does what it says, and this one doesn't allow for the grey middle ground, as you and others have repeated ad infinitum.

[Wrapper]

OOC: That is exactly the sort of situation I've been spelling out all along, and now you don't argue against it?

OOC: Have I missed something? The point made here is that if the person (not the pornography) moves from one nation (age of consent 18) to another (age of consent 21) after they have been filmed, and after the pornography exists, then something that was legal becomes illegal, under the old wording. Had you made the same argument? Apologies if you did.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: I will respond properly when im on a proper computer and not trying to copy/paste on my phone. One of the main issues I see with this is that you treat actual children and those on the edge equally. It wasn't really an issue until a possession ban was brought in. IRL, where a picture of a 10 year old is obvious, its quite likely you wouldn't be able to tell if the subject in another is 17 (illegal) or 18. These are the issues I am attempting to address. While the emotional response is there (believe me, im taking a shower after this debate), there has to be a logical approach taken that everything isn't cut-and-dry, and that all circumstances are not equal.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Have I missed something? The point made here is that if the person (not the pornography) moves from one nation (age of consent 18) to another (age of consent 21) after they have been filmed, and after the pornography exists, then something that was legal becomes illegal, under the old wording. Had you made the same argument? Apologies if you did.

1) Either it's the same argument, but put in a sentence that makes it look different,
or... 2) it has nothing to do with this proposal, as the pornography itself isn't crossing borders.? I'm confused now.

OOC: I'll have another look when not falling asleep. But company coming tomorrow, so probably won't have time until Thursday.

[Araraukar]

IRL, where a picture of a 10 year old is obvious, its quite likely you wouldn't be able to tell if the subject in another is 17 (illegal) or 18. These are the issues I am attempting to address. While the emotional response is there (believe me, im taking a shower after this debate), there has to be a logical approach taken that everything isn't cut-and-dry, and that all circumstances are not equal.

OOC: ^This.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Have I missed something? The point made here is that if the person (not the pornography) moves from one nation (age of consent 18) to another (age of consent 21) after they have been filmed, and after the pornography exists, then something that was legal becomes illegal, under the old wording. Had you made the same argument? Apologies if you did.

1) Either it's the same argument, but put in a sentence that makes it look different,
or... 2) it has nothing to do with this proposal, as the pornography itself isn't crossing borders.? I'm confused now.

OOC: I'll have another look when not falling asleep. But company coming tomorrow, so probably won't have time until Thursday.

Or 3) the definition of a child was flawed, and it has been fixed.

[Normlpeople]

We shall not be opening up that loophole.

"I would agree its a large loophole, should the choice be left up to the possessor. However, leaving the choice up to the border agent/police officer who finds it is far more prudent. After all, allowing them the option to force one to delete a few questionable photos and be on their way is far more preferable than forcing detention/investigation on anyone with questionable material. Not only will it result in less resources being spent, it will result in far less lawsuits when/if the questionable material is proven legal, along with less international incidents. Basically, while you are upholding a WA ban, you leave the door open a crack for judgement calls to be made, since every situation is different. Obviously, clear-cut illegal material or a vast quantity of it would still result in the criminal punishment."

Is this not already adequately addressed in the CLARIFIES subclauses? (OOC: Careful here, you don't want criminals to get around a ban by filming child brides.)

"Clause 4 could cover it in theroy, however, it does not address the importation aspect, as you are technically crossing borders" (OOC: Agreed, but if a nation allows these child brides, then they would not be illegal to film them, since children forced into marriage is already covered)

Very reluctant to make this change. Could this not be destroying evidence of a crime?

"In our nation, a crime involves intent as well as the act. When I made this suggestion, my goal was to avoid situations where those unknowing of the circumstance, that being that the recipient was in a nation where reciept of the pornography was illegal. In this case, it makes little sense to force one to turn in friends and family, and cause a criminal investigation that will likely lead nowhere, when no harm was intended. That said, I can see this being used as a loophole where the criminals delete the material when they are suspicious the law is onto them, claiming they just received it. I will withdraw that suggestion until I think of a better way to word it."

"The other change I would suggest for your consideration is to your definition of child, both to give this teeth and to close a loophole"

DEFINES "child" as someone who has not yet attained the age of consent in the nation in which he/she is present at the time of recording, regardless of citizenship or residency;or someone who has reached the average age of sexual maturity in nations where an age of consent does not exist.

"For your consideration"

[Bananaistan]

Really? The "visual recording of one or more children" doesn't cease being just that, a recording of children, once a few years go by and they reach adulthood.

This, on the other hand... is obviously not our intent, but we concede that the wording can definitely be interpreted that way. We'll make a change shortly.

Fair enough but I do think that the change by introducing the words "at the time of recording" deals with both of my points adequately, as it can be considered to act on the age and the location of the child.

The state of CGI is such that one can produce realistic-looking media using, for example, the facial features of a real child. Were this child's family, or even the child himself/herself, to come across such media, wouldn't that be harmful to this child? Perhaps not in a physical way, but certainly in an emotional way.

Yes, completely fair enough. I had completely misinterpreted that section and totally agree with banning realistic depictions of actual real children. And we note that the definitions are such that it bans depictions of, say, people who are currently adults, or even people who have passed away, if the depiction is of them at a time when they were a child. With this pointed out, we actually feel that this is an excellent provision of law that doesn't ban realistic depictions of imaginary children unless the imaginary child may have features in common with an actual child.

This falls under "(2) The act of visually recording nude images, provided it is not intended to be used for sexual purposes" which is explicitly not covered under this resolution. In both cases, one must determine what the intent is. Case 1: A nudist family takes a video of a kid's birthday party, and adds it to their collection of home videos. This recording, obviously, is "not intended to be used for sexual purposes", and would be legal, even if some pervert finds this collection and uses it for sexual purposes (OOC: every time I type that I have to resist the urge to roll out a euphemism for masturbation). Case 2: Some pervert discreetly films a nudist family at a kid's birthday party, and adds it to his "collection". Obviously, the act of making this recording is "primarily for sexual purposes" and would be illegal. Are there shades of gray in between? And where exactly do we draw the line? We feel that trying to discern intent is not going to be accomplished in the scope of a World Assembly resolution, and is better left to law enforcement or the judiciary to interpret on a case-by-case basis.

Fair enough as well. That exception deals with our concerns completely.

With the changes and the clarifications you have made, we are pleased to offer our total support for this proposal.

In relation to the recent debate regarding travellers, we are more than happy that a specific exemption should not be introduced. A law enforcement official will not search or detain them unless they have a reasonable suspicion that they have committed or are committing a crime. It is unlikely that a depiction of a person around the edges of the age of consent in the relevant jurisdictions would be sufficient for the law enforcement official to form the reasonable suspicion. Regardless of WA magic, in real terms, law enforcement officials in all member states, always have their own discretion. In any case, you'd have to wonder about the mentality of this supposed traveller going around with a pile of porn in his suitcase.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I will respond properly when im on a proper computer and not trying to copy/paste on my phone. One of the main issues I see with this is that you treat actual children and those on the edge equally. It wasn't really an issue until a possession ban was brought in. IRL, where a picture of a 10 year old is obvious, its quite likely you wouldn't be able to tell if the subject in another is 17 (illegal) or 18. These are the issues I am attempting to address. While the emotional response is there (believe me, im taking a shower after this debate), there has to be a logical approach taken that everything isn't cut-and-dry, and that all circumstances are not equal.

OOC: I don't see anyway around treating young children and teenagers near the age of consent in the same fashion. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and if the WA decides to draw it at the age of consent, we will actually be significantly more liberal than most RL jurisdictions who draw it at the age of majority. No matter where the line is drawn, there's always going to be issues at the "edges".

[The Dark Star Republic]

Fair enough but I do think that the change by introducing the words "at the time of recording" deals with both of my points adequately, as it can be considered to act on the age and the location of the child.

I'd like to second this. This is very similar to the wording that was first discussed when this issue was raised back with regard to the existing resolution on child abuse.

---

Which does remind me...at some stage, it would be worth checking about whether this resolution will be legal. The bizarre decision to delete the proposal on repatriation suggests a much more restrictive interpretation of the duplication rule is now in force.

[Wrapper]

DEFINES "child" as someone who has not yet attained the age of consent in the nation in which he/she is present at the time of recording, regardless of citizenship or residency;or someone who has reached the average age of sexual maturity in nations where an age of consent does not exist.

Well, "age of consent" is already covered in GAR#16 (age of consent; absent that, age of majority; absent that, puberty). Does it need to be repeated here?

[Wrapper]

Which does remind me...at some stage, it would be worth checking about whether this resolution will be legal. The bizarre decision to delete the proposal on repatriation suggests a much more restrictive interpretation of the duplication rule is now in force.

Asked and answered pre-draft, which of course is no guarantee that this is legal as written. I'll take my chances.

[Lumeau]

To the Wrapperian Ambassador:

Lumeau has massive issues with this proposal. I believe your heart is in the right place in wanting to defend victims of child sexual abuse, but we cannot support this proposal in its current form.

First, the proposal makes no accommodation for close-in-age exemptions for age of consent laws. For example, in Lumeau, our age of consent is 14, but it is not illegal for a 14 and 13 year-old to have sex, as they are close in age and criminalizing the behavior would be draconian and silly. Suppose they make the (admittedly ill-advised) decision to post a video of themselves having sex online. Suddenly, it's a public distribution of someone underage having sex, and these kids are criminals in the eyes of the law. We do not outlaw recordings of legal sexual acts for plainly obvious reasons - to say it's legal to have sex, but not to film it, makes no sense from a secular policy standpoint in a liberal democracy such as ours. We firmly stand opposed to any law that makes our kids into criminals for expressing themselves sexually.

The proposal also criminalizes the self-uploading of sexual pictures/videos involving only that one person if that person is underage. Again, this is a choice the individual is making and we feel that making this a crime is draconian. I am not saying we should be encouraging this behavior; what I am saying is that criminalizing it is not the appropriate response.

Second, the proposal states in relevant part,

(7) The unsolicited receipt, such as via electronic means or parcel delivery, and subsequent temporary possession of child pornography, provided that such materials are turned over to law enforcement authorities upon discovery;

We have deep concerns about making a criminal out of someone who does not report accidental receipt of child pornography. Suppose a person clicks onto a site with child porn, panics, and deletes his browser cache immediately before he thinks to report the site. This person is not a criminal and we refuse to treat him as such. Failing to report a crime is not in and of itself a crime in Lumeau. Many law-abiding citizens simply do not want to get involved in criminal prosecutions for reasons relating to wanting peaceful and private lives, and our government respects that. We feel that a requirement simply to destroy or delete the unsolicited child pornography will serve your purpose well and be less heavy-handed.

Finally, most of the larger child pornography rings around the world are involved in human trafficking, which is already proscribed by GAR #23. As such, Lumeau fails to see how this is an international issue worthy of the World Assembly's time.

--The Executive-General of the Commonwealth of Lumeau

[Wrapper]

For example, in Lumeau, our age of consent is 14, but it is not illegal for a 14 and 13 year-old to have sex, as they are close in age and criminalizing the behavior would be draconian and silly.

Irrelevant.

Suppose they make the (admittedly ill-advised) decision to post a video of themselves having sex online. Suddenly, it's a public distribution of someone underage having sex, and these kids are criminals in the eyes of the law.

Such pornography should not be publicly distributed in this manner and should be illegal.

The proposal also criminalizes the self-uploading of sexual pictures/videos involving only that one person if that person is underage. Again, this is a choice the individual is making and we feel that making this a crime is draconian.

You keep using that word. We don't think it means what you think it means.

We have deep concerns about making a criminal out of someone who does not report accidental receipt of child pornography. Suppose a person clicks onto a site with child porn, panics, and deletes his browser cache immediately before he thinks to report the site. This person is not a criminal and we refuse to treat him as such.

How hard is it to report an illegal website that displays child pornography?

[Wrapper]

This has been submitted. We wish to thank those who took part in this discussion.

[Father motherland]

I do not like this resolution and resolutions of its kind because it limits nation's rights. Do nations not have the right to decide what is legal and what is illegal in their own nation. This resolution further limits the type of culture that one nation could have. What if child pornography was just what happened in a culture, it has always been around and always will be.

I am not saying that I would not outlaw Child Pornography but I think that the WA needs to stop legislating national affairs and instead focus on international policy areas.

I will not support this resolution for the reasons listed.

[Wrapper]

I do not like this resolution and resolutions of its kind because it limits nation's rights. Do nations not have the right to decide what is legal and what is illegal in their own nation. This resolution further limits the type of culture that one nation could have. What if child pornography was just what happened in a culture, it has always been around and always will be.

I am not saying that I would not outlaw Child Pornography but I think that the WA needs to stop legislating national affairs and instead focus on international policy areas.

I will not support this resolution for the reasons listed.

Is joke, yes?

[Lumeau]

For example, in Lumeau, our age of consent is 14, but it is not illegal for a 14 and 13 year-old to have sex, as they are close in age and criminalizing the behavior would be draconian and silly.

Irrelevant.

Suppose they make the (admittedly ill-advised) decision to post a video of themselves having sex online. Suddenly, it's a public distribution of someone underage having sex, and these kids are criminals in the eyes of the law.

Such pornography should not be publicly distributed in this manner and should be illegal.

The proposal also criminalizes the self-uploading of sexual pictures/videos involving only that one person if that person is underage. Again, this is a choice the individual is making and we feel that making this a crime is draconian.

You keep using that word. We don't think it means what you think it means.

We have deep concerns about making a criminal out of someone who does not report accidental receipt of child pornography. Suppose a person clicks onto a site with child porn, panics, and deletes his browser cache immediately before he thinks to report the site. This person is not a criminal and we refuse to treat him as such.

How hard is it to report an illegal website that displays child pornography?

I would like to thank you SO MUCH for replying with a reasonable, thoughtful critique of our concerns. It warms my heart to know you advocate throwing kids in jail for their own private decisions.

You keep using that word. We don't think it means what you think it means.

I'd also like to thank you for insulting my intelligence as well!

Rest assured, if this resolution passes, the penalty in Lumeau for the conduct I described in my original post will be a monetary fine roughly equal to the cost of a bag of chips, and that our Department of Prosecutions and police will be told to give this the absolute lowest enforcement priority.

--The Executive-General of the Commonwealth of Lumeau

[Wrapper]

I would like to thank you SO MUCH for replying with a reasonable, thoughtful critique of our concerns. It warms my heart to know you advocate throwing kids in jail for their own private decisions.

"Private decisions"? What does that even mean? Sharing something with someone privately is fine, distributing it publicly is not, not if it's child pornography.

I'd also like to thank you for insulting my intelligence as well!

Did no such thing. Just pointing out that you used "draconian" incorrectly more than once. If we were advocating harsh sentences for all people who violated this law, including 13-year-olds who posted these materials, that would be draconian. The mere criminalization of it, without even specifying a penalty, is not.

[Wrapper]

Twenty-twenty-twenty-four hours to go-o-oh.... And two approvals short? Let's not count our organisms-that-taste-like-chicken-bok-bok-bok before they're hatched. Wad Ahume! Get on the phone, quickly. I want you to round up every vicious WA delegate who hasn't approved this yet. I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, Methodists, sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads -- they all adore us. They think we're righteous dudes... What? What is it?

Ahume points to the electronic tote board.

One more approval! Well done Ahume but don't stop now! Remember we came one approval short last time. Just one more, just one more....

Ahume points again.

And we have a quo... WHAT? Back to two shy? How is that poss... Adis a-WHO lost delegate status? Gah. Well don't just stare at it, you silly Wad, keep working the phones!

[Elke and Elba]

Twenty-twenty-twenty-four hours to go-o-oh.... And two approvals short? Let's not count our organisms-that-taste-like-chicken-bok-bok-bok before they're hatched. Wad Ahume! Get on the phone, quickly. I want you to round up every vicious WA delegate who hasn't approved this yet. I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, Methodists, sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads -- they all adore us. They think we're righteous dudes... What? What is it?

Ahume points to the electronic tote board.

One more approval! Well done Ahume but don't stop now! Remember we came one approval short last time. Just one more, just one more....

Ahume points again.

And we have a quo... WHAT? Back to two shy? How is that poss... Adis a-WHO lost delegate status? Gah. Well don't just stare at it, you silly Wad, keep working the phones!

*sigh* What a sad life you have, Wads.

Alethea points to electronic tote board.

Look at that proposal by Amoeba- what? Oh, apologies - Ambibia, they've got 90! How that is possible is beneath me, except by the use of well, you know, stamps. Something both of us lack.

Keep trying, you will get there one day, my Wads. There is no possibility people would reject a ban of child pornography.

[Wrapper]

Look at that proposal by Amoeba- what? Oh, apologies - Ambibia, they've got 90! How that is possible is beneath me, except by the use of well, you know, stamps. Something both of us lack.

Keep trying, you will get there one day, my Wads. There is no possibility people would reject a ban of child pornography.

Stamps? What...

Ari turns to Ahume, who shrugs. They stare at each other for a few moments, unsure of what to do.

OOC: Out of stamps, didn't feel the need to buy more for this one. I thought this would be more fun with a manual campaign, which I haven't tried before, and I was right.

[Elke and Elba]

Look at that proposal by Amoeba- what? Oh, apologies - Ambibia, they've got 90! How that is possible is beneath me, except by the use of well, you know, stamps. Something both of us lack.

Keep trying, you will get there one day, my Wads. There is no possibility people would reject a ban of child pornography.

Stamps? What...

Ari turns to Ahume, who shrugs. They stare at each other for a few moments, unsure of what to do.

OOC: Out of stamps, didn't feel the need to buy more for this one. I thought this would be more fun with a manual campaign, which I haven't tried before, and I was right.

OOC: Manual campaigns are fun. Done almost everything without it.

But on the other hand, stamps means the ballot-ticking delegates will approve it easily and you don't have any challenge to get anything up for vote. But then again it works without - Moratorium for Animal Testing and Universal Suffrage Act did exactly that without stamps. Heh.

Good luck though!

[The Dark Star Republic]

Moratorium for Animal Testing and Universal Suffrage Act did exactly that

You had help from Mousebumples.

[Elke and Elba]

Moratorium for Animal Testing and Universal Suffrage Act did exactly that

You had help from Mousebumples.

OOC: On stamps?