Mundiferrum wrote:The North Pacific League wrote:
But "realistic" (and again that term is highly subjective) CGI animation isn't even used as a definition in the law; only as an example. Therefore it leaves the door open to extending the ban to prohibit anything that a judge might decide is realistic on his or her own whim under the sanction a WA resolution. In turn this provides an opportunity for moralistic legislation to restrict freedom of expression with regards to material that, in plain fact, may harm no one in any way.
Your interpretation is something that would be acceptable, but the problem is that it is one of a nearly endless possible set of interpretations.
Which is a good thing. You might be somewhat liberal about your treatment of pedophiles, but many WA nations are quite moralistic in this regard. And so, both nations are accommodated by the resolution; if you want to be kinder with regards to the virtual thing, you could legislate a more concrete definition of the restrictions on the animated thing. A member of the Secretariat once said a quote relating to this, though honestly I don't recall who that ambassador is, nor what the exact quote is.
And generally speaking, yeah I agree with the interpretation of the Dark Star Republic's ambassador, although I bet the King would rather just put the whole issue of what the exact definition of "realistic depiction" is to referendum....amongst his bros at tonight's poker game.
Liberal in our treatment of pedophiles only because pedophilia is not a crime, unless one embraces the notion of "thought crime". Child abuse is a crime (in the NPL and by WA resolutions), but it doesn't stand to reason that every pedophile is a child abuser. Some seek help and refrain from ever committing any such crime (or refrain on their own, by their own will and convictions), without doubt.
Collecting statistics is nigh impossible of course, because almost no one would openly admit to being a pedophile, and would likely be hesitant to do so even on a survey that assured their privacy would be protected, and because of doctor-patient confidentiality laws.
But I fear there is a dangerous conflation of the terms "pedophile" and "child molester"; they do not mean the same thing. I sincerely doubt that most pedophiles desire to be pedophiles--surely being attracted to adults would make their lives vastly easier, happier and more satisfying. Until they do commit a crime, they deserve help, not loathing--in fact loathing can only serve to drive them away from seeking help, for fear of the extreme social stigma they might incur. And, thus, paradoxically, stigmatization of non-criminal pedophiles (i.e. people attracted to children, but who never act on that) likely increases rates of child abuse.
As to the law, and the point that its openness to interpretation is a benefit in that it allows both interpretations such as the North Pacific League's, and moralistic legislation or judicial rulings that may unjustly restrict natural rights, I can only rejoin that each nation should vote its own interests and upon its own principles. No one can expect us to support moralistic, oppressive policy when it is anathema to everything we stand for.
And allow me to be clear: Our stance on child pornography is not liberal in any way. It is outlawed and the penalties for producing or distributing it are severe. We simply do not believe that cartoons can possibly be child pornography, because cartoon characters cannot be children, nor are they in need of legal protections.
The NPL ambassador bows and cedes the floor, choosing to ignore the spectacle unfolding.
