[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

[The Dark Star Republic]

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. :p

I noticed :/ I really did think some of my suggestions had merit, but it's the lack of a response at all, rather than a lack of accord, that's galling in those situations.

[Stevid]

We respectfully disagree with your comments.

1)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.

2)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.

1) Your example is consensual, I stated before that the image would be sent innocently between consenting individuals HOWEVER if one (the under age person) is misled and the person receiving it (of any age) has manipulated someone to get those images for reasons the sender did not intend (or would not have consented to) then it is by definition illegal. A fifteen year old person can be a paedophile and could manipulate someone else to gain images for gratification and to pass them on to other individuals.

2) It is the glorification of such an act. An 'explicit' cartoon of, say, a six-year old girl having sex (consensual or not) with someone, say, over 18, is pornography. It has a child depicted in it, thus child pornography. There is nothing artistic or artistically intriguing about such a cartoon where the primary purpose of the cartoon will be to give someone sexual gratification - to that end one of the characters is a child, but the WA resolution feels this is okay because no one is physically harmed?

A further point to this, where do the artists draw reference or inspiration from when depicting a child having intercourse? Seeing as this is beyond the remit of the resolution the only thing it can do is ban cartoon porn depicting child sex. The medium is different... the result the same.

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.

A fair point. To that end, Point 4 can and should be discussed elsewhere and in a secondary draft proposal if necessary. However we stand by our argument on Point 8 - what we are describing is a form/medium, of child pornography that has been left out of the proposal because no one is harmed in it's making. We protest against this - that it glorifies an act where real people are physically and mentally harmed during the course of such acts. The content is obscene as is the potential 'source material' - the fact that it is cartoon is of no consequence.

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

A fine misinterpretation of everything I just stated.

Sexting is a trend that many billions of individuals partake in, the majority of which is done by consenting persons of all ages. I have addressed the issues of our concerns over Point 4 and concluded a discussion should take place in regards to it over a separate draft proposal. For the finer points on this I refer to the answer I gave to the Mundiferrum delegation.

As for the Lolicon swipe. We never mentioned that at all. It is clearly objectionable material that will offend some people. However it is clear that such a cartoon series is not pornographic. It may have heavy sexual undertones either humorous, light hearted or even serious - but from my understanding it is not pornographic and would never be covered under this resolution.

I made it abundantly clear that we are addressing the sexually explicit depiction of underage persons in mediums such as, but not limited to, CGI, anime and other cartoons; not starting a debate on the issues of Lolicon and whether or not it contributes to sexual desires towards minors.

[Wrapper]

To that end, Point 4 can and should be discussed elsewhere and in a secondary draft proposal if necessary. However we stand by our argument on Point 8 - what we are describing is a form/medium, of child pornography that has been left out of the proposal because no one is harmed in it's making. We protest against this - that it glorifies an act where real people are physically and mentally harmed during the course of such acts. The content is obscene as is the potential 'source material' - the fact that it is cartoon is of no consequence.

We could have gone that route, Ambassador. We chose not to, so that we could get a law on the books now that would take the minimum, necessary, and, we feel, uncontroversial steps to outlaw materials that, nearly universally (based on the current 94% tally), all member nations agree ought to be illegal.

That said, for gray areas such as those listed in the CLARIFIES subclauses, where there is some controversy over what should and shouldn't be prohibited, we're relying on the final FURTHER CLARIFIES clause of the resolution. The beauty of this resolution's structure and the concluding clause as written, we believe, is that it allows for further legislation -- not just on a national level but on an international level -- for anything that's listed in the CLARIFIES subclauses, without necessitating a repeal/replace. What we are saying is, this resolution, as written, does not state that anything in the CLARIFIES subclauses are legal; just that they are not illegal under this resolution. In other words: we are not legalizing explicit cartoons of children with this resolution, we are just stating that this resolution itself does not make them illegal, and the final clause opens the door to legislation that would make them legal or illegal.

We applaud your nation's outstanding efforts in combating child pornography, and respectfully request that you to change your vote to AYE.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The beauty of this resolution's structure and the concluding clause as written, we believe, is that it allows for further legislation -- not just on a national level but on an international level -- for anything that's listed in the CLARIFIES subclauses, without necessitating a repeal/replace.

Really? Amendments are legal now?

[Mundiferrum]

The beauty of this resolution's structure and the concluding clause as written, we believe, is that it allows for further legislation -- not just on a national level but on an international level -- for anything that's listed in the CLARIFIES subclauses, without necessitating a repeal/replace.

Really? Amendments are legal now?

Not amendments, but additional resolutions on the things the resolution pointed out as "Hey, that ain't my job now" are.

Hmmm....On the issue of travelers and such, could a resolution mandating a universal set of ages of consent be viable? As in, a piece of international legislation creating a committee that shall reasonably dictate the age of consent for each member species of the WA?

Additional:
Okay, here's a weird idea:
What if a nation had all of their stamps as pieces of porn featuring 18-year-olds (with their age of consent being 18), and a person from that nation had to mail something to someone else from another nation wherein the age of consent of 21?

[Wrapper]

The beauty of this resolution's structure and the concluding clause as written, we believe, is that it allows for further legislation -- not just on a national level but on an international level -- for anything that's listed in the CLARIFIES subclauses, without necessitating a repeal/replace.

Really? Amendments are legal now?

No, amendments are not legal. Further legislation in those gray areas mentioned would not amend this resolution, the way this is written, that's our point.

[Hakio]

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=282067
CONTROVERSY.

[Defwa]

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.

What age of consent would you propose? Remember that this assembly includes multiple species with varying life spans and ages at which maturity is attained.

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

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.

Do you ban fake murder? In video games, movies, and theater?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Really? Amendments are legal now?

No, amendments are not legal. Further legislation in those gray areas mentioned would not amend this resolution, the way this is written, that's our point.

Further legislation to address "gray areas" of a passed resolution would be an amendment. Passing another legislation on a focused area of a broad-based topic, like terrorism -> radiological terrorism, would be one thing, but you seriously don't expect someone to propose a Child Pornography Ban II and get away with it, do you?

[Defwa]

No, amendments are not legal. Further legislation in those gray areas mentioned would not amend this resolution, the way this is written, that's our point.

Further legislation to address "gray areas" of a passed resolution would be an amendment. Passing another legislation on a focused area of a broad-based topic, like terrorism -> radiological terrorism, would be one thing, but you seriously don't expect someone to propose a Child Pornography Ban II and get away with it, do you?

A resolution placing additional restrictions is perfectly legal. Just because we have a resolution dealing with child pornography does not mean nothing can ever be said again on the subject. As long as neither resolution neither duplicates or contradicts the other, its perfectly legal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

A resolution placing additional restrictions is perfectly legal. Just because we have a resolution dealing with child pornography does not mean nothing can ever be said again on the subject. As long as neither resolution neither duplicates or contradicts the other, its perfectly legal.

So why was "Repatriation of Remains" deleted? However "perfectly legal" you perceive such duplication to be, the mods seem to see things in more restrictive terms.

But at this stage we're commenting on a hypothetical future proposal which will obviously never come to fruition anyway.

[Defwa]

A resolution placing additional restrictions is perfectly legal. Just because we have a resolution dealing with child pornography does not mean nothing can ever be said again on the subject. As long as neither resolution neither duplicates or contradicts the other, its perfectly legal.

So why was "Repatriation of Remains" deleted? However "perfectly legal" you perceive such duplication to be, the mods seem to see things in more restrictive terms.

But at this stage we're commenting on a hypothetical future proposal which will obviously never come to fruition anyway.

I think we can all agree that was a terribly contradictory ruling that will be inconsistently enforced

[Bananaistan]

We are pleased to have voted in favour of this fine proposal although we are and were aware of the limitations regarding nations who do not implement an age of consent.

This is from the Sexual Privacy Act. I assume that this only applies to that resolution and not to the current proposal?

(b) Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to establish an age of majority, the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

I also note that the usage of the word puberty since to be rather humanocentric. Obviously species wankery was not strong in September 2008.

[Wrapper]

But at this stage we're commenting on a hypothetical future proposal which will obviously never come to fruition anyway.

Indeed, but with the vote going the way it is, this is now the most interesting thing to come out of this.

Further legislation to address "gray areas" of a passed resolution would be an amendment. Passing another legislation on a focused area of a broad-based topic, like terrorism -> radiological terrorism, would be one thing, but you seriously don't expect someone to propose a Child Pornography Ban II and get away with it, do you?

OOC: No. But, here's the point, using a different example. I write a proposal to "Ban Motor Vehicles". I clarify that motorcycles are not included in this ban, and further clarify that "that member nations may place additional restrictions not covered under this resolution, provided that such restrictions do not violate international law." Have I banned motorcycles? No. Have I explicitly made motorcycles legal? No, I'm just saying that this resolution does not cover them. Is there an option to ban motorcycles in future legislation? Yes. Could it be called "Ban Motor Vehicles II"? Eh, probably not, that would be too obvious, but if I call it "Motorcycle Ban" then I've done just that, without contradicting the first resolution.

Of course, mods may overrule this logic, but we won't know until the time comes. I'm tempted to write a "Kiddie Porn Anime Act" for the sole purpose of getting a ruling.

[Mundiferrum]

We are pleased to have voted in favour of this fine proposal although we are and were aware of the limitations regarding nations who do not implement an age of consent.

This is from the Sexual Privacy Act. I assume that this only applies to that resolution and not to the current proposal?

(b) Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to establish an age of majority, the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

I also note that the usage of the word puberty since to be rather humanocentric. Obviously species wankery was not strong in September 2008.

Perhaps by puberty it meant the period wherein the creature is deemed somehow ready to procreate, which is a reasonable definition for most species with sex as a reproductive process.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Further legislation to address "gray areas" of a passed resolution would be an amendment. Passing another legislation on a focused area of a broad-based topic, like terrorism -> radiological terrorism, would be one thing, but you seriously don't expect someone to propose a Child Pornography Ban II and get away with it, do you?

A resolution placing additional restrictions is perfectly legal. Just because we have a resolution dealing with child pornography does not mean nothing can ever be said again on the subject. As long as neither resolution neither duplicates or contradicts the other, its perfectly legal.

Uh-huh. FYI, legislators have tried placing additional, overly specific restrictions on previous resolutions before, and they have always been ruled illegal whenever they reached the moderation stage. One incident was so embarrassing the perpetrator actually got a form of rules-wank named after him: Ceowank, or trying to worm your way around duplication/contradiction rules to effectively amend a passed resolution. (Of course, that was under the Hack/Fris regime. Whatever the new mods may conjure on a future hypothetical is anyone's guess.)

[Koopaland]

Holy crap. 6% of NS are possible pedophiles. In other news, this is the most one-sided vote I've ever seen, including my previous nation.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm tempted to write a "Kiddie Porn Anime Act" for the sole purpose of getting a ruling.

Does anyone really want to revisit that clusterfuck?

that was a terribly contradictory ruling that will be inconsistently enforced

Finally - something we can all agree on!

Obviously species wankery was not strong in September 2008.

It's always been around, it just wasn't so entrenched. The Sexual Privacy Act predates the utterly jawdropping Fetal Life Preservation Act rulings, anyway.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Further legislation to address "gray areas" of a passed resolution would be an amendment. Passing another legislation on a focused area of a broad-based topic, like terrorism -> radiological terrorism, would be one thing, but you seriously don't expect someone to propose a Child Pornography Ban II and get away with it, do you?

OOC: No. But, here's the point, using a different example. I write a proposal to "Ban Motor Vehicles". I clarify that motorcycles are not included in this ban, and further clarify that "that member nations may place additional restrictions not covered under this resolution, provided that such restrictions do not violate international law." Have I banned motorcycles? No. Have I explicitly made motorcycles legal? No, I'm just saying that this resolution does not cover them. Is there an option to ban motorcycles in future legislation? Yes. Could it be called "Ban Motor Vehicles II"? Eh, probably not, that would be too obvious, but if I call it "Motorcycle Ban" then I've done just that, without contradicting the first resolution.

Of course, mods may overrule this logic, but we won't know until the time comes. I'm tempted to write a "Kiddie Porn Anime Act" for the sole purpose of getting a ruling.

They may overrule it, they may not. But it's fallacious to assume that any gray area specifically ruled out in a resolution would be ruled legal as an "area of focus" resolution.

[Wrapper]

Holy crap. 6% of NS are possible pedophiles.

Please do not make that assumption. There are those who are voting against because it goes too far, those who are voting against because it doesn't go far enough, and at least one vote just to say "Fuck you, Hakio, I'm voting against." Oh, and, the Anarchy delegate voted against, presumably because TBR are in charge now and/or it's the anarchic thing to do (c'mon, defenders, where are you?).

[Wrapper]

I'm tempted to write a "Kiddie Porn Anime Act" for the sole purpose of getting a ruling.

Does anyone really want to revisit that clusterfuck?

Just to get a ruling? Sure, why not?

[Wrapper]

They may overrule it, they may not. But it's fallacious to assume that any gray area specifically ruled out in a resolution would be ruled legal as an "area of focus" resolution.

OOC: Oh, agreed, I would never assume that it would be ruled legal, I'm just making the argument that it should be ruled legal.

[Koopaland]

Holy crap. 6% of NS are possible pedophiles.

Please do not make that assumption. There are those who are voting against because it goes too far, those who are voting against because it doesn't go far enough, and at least one vote just to say "Fuck you, Hakio, I'm voting against." Oh, and, the Anarchy delegate voted against, presumably because TBR are in charge now and/or it's the anarchic thing to do (c'mon, defenders, where are you?).

I was just messing around lol. I might pull a delete before a mod comes though.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Does anyone really want to revisit that clusterfuck?

Just to get a ruling? Sure, why not?

Given how destructive many of the current mods' rulings have been, I wouldn't submit anything "just to get a ruling."

[Stevid]

Do you ban fake murder? In video games, movies, and theater?

To compare banning anime child rape with banning fake murder in the theatre (Macbeth for example) is poor taste, or at the very least a crude analogy.

In fact I see it as like comparing a red pepper with a chocolate bar. Useless because they are two completely different things.

This delegation is simply pointing out that under the ruling of this legislation there is a large area of media that is unfettered by the resolution and to be allowed to continue producing child porn in various forms not covered by the resolution. We would not expect someone of sound mind to sit a watch child porn, claim it to be disgusting only to then watch cartoon child porn and see it as completely legitimate. If this is the case then there are members of the WA that should rethink their moralistic values in regards to child pornography and the exploitation behind it all.

-SNIP -

I reiterate that the Empire fully supports this resolution, what it represents and how it is authored. We understand, thanks to your patient explanation, that the FURTHER CLARIFIES point leaves countries the opportunity to add to the ruling with their own laws and for future international laws to be implemented. This, of course, we support as it does not completely impede upon nation sovereignties.

While we do understand why the minimum necessary content was decided upon in order to push the resolution to quorum and to passing through the General Assembly, a subject as delicate, emotive and important as Child Pornography should require the maximum and harshest content only for compromises to made made afterwards. Surely the strength of character of the proposal in regards to the subject matter is of more importance than simply doing just enough to get it to pass?

In light of our discussions with you, the Empire will promise to reevaluate its position on voting Yay or Neigh but does not promise to vote in favour.