[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

[Wrapper]

2 problems. same problems i always have
a) nudity is not sexual activity under any circumstances. nudity is never inappropriate in any circumstance.

Indeed, this is why the innocent filming of nude children is allowed under this resolution.

b) banning the FILMING of an act is a truly insane thing to do. Ban the ACT.

Are you advocating the criminalization of young children exploring their sexuality? Perhaps we should ban them from masturbating? Help us understand your objection here.

[Sobreva]

We were planning on abstaining, but just out of annoyance at this little display of intellectual arrogance, we'll vote against, with apologies to the author.

OOC: I would rather you voted against it for some other petty reason, like, "you spelled 'discreet' wrong! Bastard!" than some fucked up shit like this. Apology my ass, vote on the resolution, not on what someone else who didn't have a hand in this thinks or does.

((Don't you find it a little ridiculous that the only reason for disagreement with a reasonable 'no' is that "lol, other species from other planets don't conform to our biological clocks!" though? The extreme difference in some peoples' made-up tech levels and fantasy roleplay makes it really hard to conduct diplomacy in a logical manner.))

[Defwa]

OOC: I would rather you voted against it for some other petty reason, like, "you spelled 'discreet' wrong! Bastard!" than some fucked up shit like this. Apology my ass, vote on the resolution, not on what someone else who didn't have a hand in this thinks or does.

((Don't you find it a little ridiculous that the only reason for disagreement with a reasonable 'no' is that "lol, other species from other planets don't conform to our biological clocks!" though? The extreme difference in some peoples' made-up tech levels and fantasy roleplay makes it really hard to conduct diplomacy in a logical manner.))

OOC: It takes finesse. All members of this assembly of worlds are equal in the eyes of this assembly (unless they're in a region in which case they are as much as twice as equal). The differing needs of different races- be they ancient elves or sentient plants, are something we must be able to cope with. Its part of the fun.

[Sween]

The Sweenian people and the Grand people's Assembly are disgusted by this proposal. I will list some points on why.

1. We are an extremely social-libertarian people. We see it as sexual discrimination, which is illegal and unconstitutional here, the same as a ban on gay porn, interracial porn, porn involving various fetishes [regardless of how strange], etc.

2. We do not recognize pedophilia or child pornography abuse as long as the subject has given consent. (According to my understanding of the proposal, we are technically immune. This is because we have no age of consent. LET IT BE KNOWN if we are forced to adopt one We have bills ready to stamp that set it at 2 years of age.)

3. It is just as much the "child"'s right to be involved in pornography, view pornography, or have sexual relations, so long as everybody involved gives consent, as it would be anybody else's

In conclusion our Sex and Pornography policies will remain the same as our Alcohol policies, "Your body, your choice, regardless of your age."

[Arkiasis]

I have one question. What does it mean by age of consent? In Arkiasis the age of consent is 16, but you must be over 18 to film pornography. What if a nation has an age of consent of say 13, 10, or even no age of consent? Couldn't a nation technically put the age of consent at something very low like 5 to circumvent this law?

[Sween]

I have one question. What does it mean by age of consent? In Arkiasis the age of consent is 16, but you must be over 18 to film pornography. What if a nation has an age of consent of say 13, 10, or even no age of consent? Couldn't a nation technically put the age of consent at something very low like 5 to circumvent this law?

That's exactly what we plan to do if we are forced to adopt an age of consent for this resolution. we have bills on the table, Emergency-Passed if we are forced to adopt and AoC these bills will be stamped, setting the AoC as 2 years month of age.

[Defwa]

I have one question. What does it mean by age of consent? In Arkiasis the age of consent is 16, but you must be over 18 to film pornography. What if a nation has an age of consent of say 13, 10, or even no age of consent? Couldn't a nation technically put the age of consent at something very low like 5 to circumvent this law?

Unfortunately that's not something we can fix.

A nation can set it's age of consent at one hour- of course we recognize that those nations are insane and should be ignored because they're obviously run by incompetent beings in order to defend a shallow and ill thought out ideology and that said individuals need to grow up so that we can look back on their past idiocy and laugh.
Mind you, the rest of us are laughing already (and not in a flattering way- imagine the most degrading laugh possible like an adult operating on the thought processes of a very small child deserves) but at least they might one day join us in the league of sensible people whom are, once again, not completely bonkers and mentally inept.

[Sween]

I have one question. What does it mean by age of consent? In Arkiasis the age of consent is 16, but you must be over 18 to film pornography. What if a nation has an age of consent of say 13, 10, or even no age of consent? Couldn't a nation technically put the age of consent at something very low like 5 to circumvent this law?

Unfortunately that's not something we can't fix.

A nation can set it's age of consent at one hour- of course we recognize that those nations are insane and should be ignored because they're obviously run by incompetent beings in order to defend a shallow and ill thought out ideology and that said individuals need to grow up so that we can look back on their past idiocy and laugh.
Mind you, the rest of us are laughing already (and not in a flattering way- imagine the most degrading laugh possible like an adult operating on the thought processes of a very small child deserves) but at least they might one day join us in the league of sensible people whom are, once again, not completely bonkers and mentally inept.

So you are saying giving somebody the freedom to do what they want with their body, regardless of age, and allowing other people to see it, makes someone's leadership insane? I'm sorry last time I checked it was theocracies that were insane.

[Defwa]

Unfortunately that's not something we can't fix.

A nation can set it's age of consent at one hour- of course we recognize that those nations are insane and should be ignored because they're obviously run by incompetent beings in order to defend a shallow and ill thought out ideology and that said individuals need to grow up so that we can look back on their past idiocy and laugh.
Mind you, the rest of us are laughing already (and not in a flattering way- imagine the most degrading laugh possible like an adult operating on the thought processes of a very small child deserves) but at least they might one day join us in the league of sensible people whom are, once again, not completely bonkers and mentally inept.

So you are saying giving somebody the freedom to do what they want with their body, regardless of age, and allowing other people to see it, makes someone's leadership insane? I'm sorry last time I checked it was theocracies that were insane.

I don't think I said insane but I suppose that is a valid word as well. And I guess some theocracies can be considered on questionable ground but I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

In your case specifically, because my previous post was clearly not pointed at you (that would be quite uncouth), the issue arises when you give a right to make potentially life changing decisions or to put themselves in danger when they may not wholly or in part understand the consequences of their actions or lack the mental capability to understand due to immaturity or incompetency. It shows that a government cares for the welfare of its people when it endeavors to protect them from situations in which they may be taken advantage of and don't have a reasonable capability to avoid or otherwise protect themselves from the situation.

Of course I don't expect to convince you of this. You would rather operate on some unwise libertarian ideal [OOC Contrary to that soviet symbol on your flag for some reason] which has no place or basis in reality and is all around a danger to those under, in, or around it.

[Sween]

So you are saying giving somebody the freedom to do what they want with their body, regardless of age, and allowing other people to see it, makes someone's leadership insane? I'm sorry last time I checked it was theocracies that were insane.

I don't think I said insane but I suppose that is a valid word as well. And I guess some theocracies can be considered on questionable ground but I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

In your case specifically, because my previous post was clearly not pointed at you (that would be quite uncouth), the issue arises when you give a right to make potentially life changing decisions or to put themselves in danger when they may not wholly or in part understand the consequences of their actions or lack the mental capability to understand due to immaturity or incompetency. It shows that a government cares for the welfare of its people when it endeavors to protect them from situations in which they may be taken advantage of and don't have a reasonable capability to avoid or otherwise protect themselves from the situation.

Of course I don't expect to convince you of this. You would rather operate on some unwise libertarian ideal [OOC Contrary to that soviet symbol on your flag for some reason] which has no place or basis in reality and is all around a danger to those under, in, or around it.

We are social libertarians not economic. Our economic policy is communist.

On the ordeal of the age thing. I never gave our context. Sex education in schools starts at the age of 4. It is common practice and part of something taught in primary school (here age-4) that you are one should not fall for the whole "free-candy" getup etc and in general "don't trust strangers" rule. We don't hesitate to teach children exactly what these people are actually looking for. We also do not consider it extremely possible that one would be quite interested in sex until around the age of 8 or 9, possibly later. this is also a society where one wouldn't be so easily scarred by sexual contact unless it was traumatic and violent, in other words, rape, which is illegal.

As in our opinion: Nothing wrong with our leader(or anybody else for that matter) being an Asiaphile, nothing wrong with fetishes (weird as they can get), nothing wrong with pedophilia, or anything else for that matter, so long as it's consensual.

In terms of the "aftermath", our nation does provide free contraception and abortion (up until a certain stage of development unless the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has a low chance of survival), to anyone who wants or needs it.

A parent deliberately hiding sexual education from their children is considered a felony.

In the end, our society believes it is up to education, more education, and a bit of early common sense.

In terms of molestation, it's defined as : unconsensual or invalidly consensual (intoxicated, unconscious, or does not know what they are agreeing to) sexual activity. involving: Vaginal or anal intercourse, Oral sex, ejaculating on a victim, or "masturbating" the victim.

Sexual harassment has the same guidelines for Molestation however is less serious. harassment includes: Kissing, licking (genitals upgrades to molestation), groping, etc.

Molestation/Rape and Sexual harassment count weather the victim or offender is a child or adult, man, woman, or "genderqueer"

[Defwa]

Look at all these things I didn't ask for and wasn't talking about.

There are so many more of them than fracks I give.

[Coroscent]

There is a lot more to this debate than meets the eye. This isn't just about banning child pornography, but it should include in the definition an age that is to be used to distinguish who is child and who is adult. In most jurisdictions, including Yakus, the age of majority is 18. But of course this will vary under the laws of different nationstates, WA member or not. I propose that this resolution SHOULD include a defined age that all member states will adhere to on an international scale.

I also want to stress the evil behind child pornography; if you as a member state of this assembly vote against this resolution, agree or disagree, you are supporting the evil of child pornography.

[Sween]

There is a lot more to this debate than meets the eye. This isn't just about banning child pornography, but it should include in the definition an age that is to be used to distinguish who is child and who is adult. In most jurisdictions, including Yakus, the age of majority is 18. But of course this will vary under the laws of different nationstates, WA member or not. I propose that this resolution SHOULD include a defined age that all member states will adhere to on an international scale.

I also want to stress the evil behind child pornography; if you as a member state of this assembly vote against this resolution, agree or disagree, you are supporting the evil of child pornography.

Are you insane?! that would impose a worldwide theocracy!

[Wrapper]

Are you insane?! that would impose a worldwide theocracy!

Theocr...

Really, Ambassador, what have you and the ambassador from Pantoufle been inhaling? What does any of this have to do with religion? There's a religious tenet, "thou shalt not kill," that's common to many religions, does that mean that outlawing murder in a secular nation would be advocating a religious agenda? Does outlawing theft -- "thou shalt not steal" -- push us one step closer to a theocracy?

[Stevid]

The Holy Empire hereby votes AGAINST this proposal. We applaud the the proposal and what it represents; the act, the material, sale and distribution of child pornography is abhorrent and disgusting and should be rightfully banned. However there are two large loopholes that can easily be exploited by the criminal underworld that involves itself in such sordid activities as child sexual exploitation.

We vote against for the following reasons:

1) As highlighted by a fellow regional member of Greater Dienstad, Point 4 under CLARIFICATION "The act of transmitting a visual recording of oneself to another person or persons privately but not publicly, nor the receipt or possession of such recordings;"

This could be easily abused by sexual predators grooming under age children for sexually explicit images either in person or over a network. The term 'Sexting' is not new and continues to be a problem particularly when adults are actively involved with texting persons under the age of sexual consent. Child molesters/paedophiles/etc can be manipulative by nature of their perversions and it is not unreasonable to believe that Point 4 could be exploited by these criminals to manipulate young children into transmitting images of themselves for innocent purposes, only for the person receiving to gain sexual gratification from said images.

2) "(8) Non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;"

We are at a loss as to why this is not covered by the resolution. The fact may be that an actual physical child may not be depicted in the images, but does this legitimise the production, distribution, sale and use of sexually explicit 'images/footage' of child or underage young persons just because it is 'art'/cartoon/anime/CGI? The image/footage will still be depicting a child/under age person and the gratification it gives someone would be a similar as to a genuine image or footage of real life person.

Such acts, regardless of form or medium, are obscene and not just indecent. Surely it isn't logical that simply because the medium of the depiction has changed the content then becomes legal?

Understanding that additional clarification says that additional national laws can be implemented to address any issues (e.g. for those stated above), however we believe the short sightedness of this resolution on those two points seriously needs addressing.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Again, proper computer, proper thoughts can be posted.

IC: "I must ask, where were these nations when I was playing the 'support the pedophiles' role? It is one I would have gladly handed off...

That said, I do feel I failed in that regard. While I had suggestions that may have clarified a few of my remaining concerns (OOC: RealLife kicked me pretty hard this month, its no fault but my own that I didn't raise them), this draft will pass, and will have to be adequate. It wasn't complete, nor do I feel it is not repealable, but it does cover what needs to be covered. I do feel the need to defend myself on the following however:

I wasn't quite satisfied with the resolution, but I wasn't very involved in the drafting process because the objections being raised ("the rights of travellers") were specious drivel. So I would have felt guilty voting against.

You missed the greater point of the argument. The point was to highlight the logistical and legal nightmare that banning something that is not universal would cause. Those on the edges of child/legal will still cause headaches for all now, a reason I felt a possession ban should remain a national issue. I did succeed at that, until a certain ambassador "Who wasn't very involved in the drafting process" came along to threaten a repeal, a threat that I was shocked actually worked. In the end, the "think of the children" mentality I was hoping to avoid ended up succeeding, and that is why I believe I failed at my task.

I do congratulate the Wrapperian delegate on the successful authorship, and will rest easily knowing there will be no more suicides in their camp. We will take appropriate measures to limit the nightmares at our boarders, as well as plan measures for any nations that detain our citizens without evidence that satisfies us."

[Wrapper]

I did succeed at that, until a certain ambassador "Who wasn't very involved in the drafting process" came along to threaten a repeal, a threat that I was shocked actually worked.

No it didn't. Credit where credit is due, it was Sciongrad's arguments that convinced me to add the possession ban.

[Normlpeople]

I did succeed at that, until a certain ambassador "Who wasn't very involved in the drafting process" came along to threaten a repeal, a threat that I was shocked actually worked.

No it didn't. Credit where credit is due, it was Sciongrad's arguments that convinced me to add the possession ban.

"The threat was made, regardless. In any case, what is done is done, my failure intact."

[Sween]

The Holy Empire hereby votes AGAINST this proposal. We applaud the the proposal and what it represents; the act, the material, sale and distribution of child pornography is abhorrent and disgusting and should be rightfully banned. However there are two large loopholes that can easily be exploited by the criminal underworld that involves itself in such sordid activities as child sexual exploitation.

We vote against for the following reasons:

1) As highlighted by a fellow regional member of Greater Dienstad, Point 4 under CLARIFICATION "The act of transmitting a visual recording of oneself to another person or persons privately but not publicly, nor the receipt or possession of such recordings;"

This could be easily abused by sexual predators grooming under age children for sexually explicit images either in person or over a network. The term 'Sexting' is not new and continues to be a problem particularly when adults are actively involved with texting persons under the age of sexual consent. Child molesters/paedophiles/etc can be manipulative by nature of their perversions and it is not unreasonable to believe that Point 4 could be exploited by these criminals to manipulate young children into transmitting images of themselves for innocent purposes, only for the person receiving to gain sexual gratification from said images.

2) "(8) Non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;"

We are at a loss as to why this is not covered by the resolution. The fact may be that an actual physical child may not be depicted in the images, but does this legitimise the production, distribution, sale and use of sexually explicit 'images/footage' of child or underage young persons just because it is 'art'/cartoon/anime/CGI? The image/footage will still be depicting a child/under age person and the gratification it gives someone would be a similar as to a genuine image or footage of real life person.

Such acts, regardless of form or medium, are obscene and not just indecent. Surely it isn't logical that simply because the medium of the depiction has changed the content then becomes legal?

Understanding that additional clarification says that additional national laws can be implemented to address any issues (e.g. for those stated above), however we believe the short sightedness of this resolution on those two points seriously needs addressing.

so now you want a ban on sexting and lolicons too?

[Mundiferrum]

The Holy Empire hereby votes AGAINST this proposal. We applaud the the proposal and what it represents; the act, the material, sale and distribution of child pornography is abhorrent and disgusting and should be rightfully banned. However there are two large loopholes that can easily be exploited by the criminal underworld that involves itself in such sordid activities as child sexual exploitation.

We vote against for the following reasons:

1) As highlighted by a fellow regional member of Greater Dienstad, Point 4 under CLARIFICATION "The act of transmitting a visual recording of oneself to another person or persons privately but not publicly, nor the receipt or possession of such recordings;"

This could be easily abused by sexual predators grooming under age children for sexually explicit images either in person or over a network. The term 'Sexting' is not new and continues to be a problem particularly when adults are actively involved with texting persons under the age of sexual consent. Child molesters/paedophiles/etc can be manipulative by nature of their perversions and it is not unreasonable to believe that Point 4 could be exploited by these criminals to manipulate young children into transmitting images of themselves for innocent purposes, only for the person receiving to gain sexual gratification from said images.

2) "(8) Non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;"

We are at a loss as to why this is not covered by the resolution. The fact may be that an actual physical child may not be depicted in the images, but does this legitimise the production, distribution, sale and use of sexually explicit 'images/footage' of child or underage young persons just because it is 'art'/cartoon/anime/CGI? The image/footage will still be depicting a child/under age person and the gratification it gives someone would be a similar as to a genuine image or footage of real life person.

Such acts, regardless of form or medium, are obscene and not just indecent. Surely it isn't logical that simply because the medium of the depiction has changed the content then becomes legal?

Understanding that additional clarification says that additional national laws can be implemented to address any issues (e.g. for those stated above), however we believe the short sightedness of this resolution on those two points seriously needs addressing.

Ambassador, both of those issues you have were under the Clarification section, which indicates that the resolution does not act upon those those; it does not state that those are necessarily to be made legal under the proposal. The issues you have voiced here are not at all issues the resolution needs to concern itself with; instead, if you so wish, you may address them via drafting additional WA resolutions, or perhaps legislating in your own nation.

OOC: And with the character limit, I'm sort of sure the resolution may also be incapable of covering them, at least with the level of detail that should be necessary in such a resolution.

[Slevvania]

I have one question. What does it mean by age of consent? In Arkiasis the age of consent is 16, but you must be over 18 to film pornography. What if a nation has an age of consent of say 13, 10, or even no age of consent? Couldn't a nation technically put the age of consent at something very low like 5 to circumvent this law?

Unfortunately that's not something we can fix.

A nation can set it's age of consent at one hour- of course we recognize that those nations are insane and should be ignored because they're obviously run by incompetent beings in order to defend a shallow and ill thought out ideology and that said individuals need to grow up so that we can look back on their past idiocy and laugh.
Mind you, the rest of us are laughing already (and not in a flattering way- imagine the most degrading laugh possible like an adult operating on the thought processes of a very small child deserves) but at least they might one day join us in the league of sensible people whom are, once again, not completely bonkers and mentally inept.

How dare you insult the Archduchess, she at the age of 16 has already stolen the hearts of the people and done many thing to restore the faith to its prominence. Our age of consent has been dropped to 14 for a while now anyway.

[Wrapper]

--snip--

We respectfully disagree with your comments.

Without CLARIFIES subclause 4, "The act of transmitting a visual recording of oneself to another person or persons privately but not publicly, nor the receipt or possession of such recordings", we would be making an international criminal of, for example, a teenager who privately sends a picture of himself/herself to a lover. Why would the WA want to get involved in this? The idea is to not publicly disseminate such materials, which can be used and distributed by pedophiles. Two fifteen-year-olds who trade "selfies" are not pedophiles.

As for CLARIFIES sublause 8, if no one is being harmed by a non-realistic cartoon... we don't see the point of criminalizing this either.

[Slevvania]

There is a lot more to this debate than meets the eye. This isn't just about banning child pornography, but it should include in the definition an age that is to be used to distinguish who is child and who is adult. In most jurisdictions, including Yakus, the age of majority is 18. But of course this will vary under the laws of different nationstates, WA member or not. I propose that this resolution SHOULD include a defined age that all member states will adhere to on an international scale.

I also want to stress the evil behind child pornography; if you as a member state of this assembly vote against this resolution, agree or disagree, you are supporting the evil of child pornography.

You Dare question the Sovereignty of his Grace The Archduke! I will support a resolution that takes our heritage away from us.

[The Dark Star Republic]

It really is astonishing how many nations who would plead national sovereignty on virtually any other issue are suddenly clamouring for much more restrictive WA micromanagement of domestic issues. The WA shouldn't legislate on nuclear weapons, environmental pollution, or international trade - but it needs much more detailed diktats on sexting?

I wasn't quite satisfied with the resolution, but I wasn't very involved in the drafting process because the objections being raised ("the rights of travellers") were specious drivel. So I would have felt guilty voting against.

You missed the greater point of the argument. The point was to highlight the logistical and legal nightmare that banning something that is not universal would cause. Those on the edges of child/legal will still cause headaches for all now, a reason I felt a possession ban should remain a national issue. I did succeed at that, until a certain ambassador "Who wasn't very involved in the drafting process" came along to threaten a repeal, a threat that I was shocked actually worked. In the end, the "think of the children" mentality I was hoping to avoid ended up succeeding, and that is why I believe I failed at my task.

I was hardly the only person to take umbrage at the omission of possession. A number of Ambassadors expressed their concern on this point.

[Wrapper]

I was hardly the only person to take umbrage at the omission of possession. A number of Ambassadors expressed their concern on this point.

Indeed, you were largely ignored.