DRAFT: Pornographic Deobfuscation

[Celtica and Neotopia]

Pornographic Deobfuscation
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

RECOGNIZING that due to the nature of the Internet persons may unintentionally view pornographic content they find objectionable, offensive, or which is illegal in their nation,

DEFINING pornography, for the purposes of this resolution, as writing, audio, video, or other images of which the primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal, or which contains sexually explicit material.

AFFIRMING the right of persons of various ages, genders, and sexual orientations to create pornographic content and host it on the Internet if this does not conflict with national or international laws,

The World Assembly hereby MANDATES that before showing pornographic content all websites hosted in member states must display a warning which notes the gender and age range of the participants, and that the content might possibly offend or be illegal in certain nations after the user must manually agree to continue viewing despite the warning.

This a short resolution we feel should please the more conservative among us as well as keep the freedoms in place that the World Assembly strives for. We had some difficulty in deciding on a title, and do realize "Deobfuscation" is not the most well-chosen word, so suggestions in this regard would be welcome.

[Krioval]

This is a matter best left to individual nations. Yes, the Imperial Chiefdom realizes that information can be transmitted between nations, but adding a disclaimer to pornography has never stopped a minor from clicking through to see it. Further, this proposal does not define what would constitute "pornography", which would be necessary before sending in an international agency to regulate it. And yes, "deobfuscation" is a terrible choice.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Celtica and Neotopia]

The disclaimer is not intended to stop minors from accessing pornography. At the moment, it is possible for a website to be misleading and suddenly present pornography to an unwilling user. Likewise, someone might now find pornography which is illegal in their nation or they find offensive among their usual pornography.

It is our personal opinion that the government (wether it be local, national, or the World Assembly) should provide the tools for parenting but not do it for parents, but that is not the matter at hand.

Your suggestion has of defining "pornography" has been noted and the draft has been edited.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World assembly

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Eschew obfuscation.

Eh. Seems harmless enough. Unnecessary, but... harmless.

[Gobbannium]

While we do think this a suitable matter for international consideration, given the international nature of computer networks, this is very marginally more irksome in its outlook than we are prepared to put up with. The pointless requirement to observe that some may find the contents offensive -- many of whom will have already been offended by the mandatory description -- is utterly unnecessary, and we happen to prefer less "positive" language than "confirmation" in permitting a viewer to decide that said content is not their cup of tea after all. We prefer to consider it the viewer's own damn fault if they proceed and are still offended.

More importantly than that, the proposal's language is simultaneously ambiguous and full of assumptions. It does not indicate how it applies to sites that may have multiple pages -- quite possibly the entire site -- of content that may need warning about. It does not indicate how it applies to pages with multiple individual examples of pornography, though the singular usage of "act" suggests that separate warnings are required for each act, an exceptionally tedious possibility. It exempts material which undoubtedly arouses but which has an entirely different primary purpose, such as -- and we fully expect this defense to be used -- telling a story.

In short, this has all the usual hallmarks of attempts to impose moral decency -- the drawing of a line where none exists -- albeit done with vastly more care and sensitivity than we normally see. We congratulate the respected ambassador, but none the less reject this proposal.

[Celtica and Neotopia]

The mandatory description is intended to be fairly basic. It might, for example, note that it contains two males as opposed to two females. Perhaps the "nature of the act" does indeed add a description which might be unwieldy, so I shall remove it.

"and that the user must agree to view the content" refers to the user explicitly agreeing to continue on after viewing the warning, rather than this happening automatically. We shall try and clarify this.

The warning must be given before the showing of pornographic content. This might be before an individual piece, or a sub-section of the site, but for convenience it might also simply be the main page, giving a blanket description of the various works within. (e.g. "This site contains sexual activity between persons of all gender combinations")

As to the last objection, that is a difficult issue. "might arouse" is not specific enough as persons might be aroused by things others consider un-arousing, while "might reasonably be expected to arouse" is too open to interpretation. Suggestions on that issue would be appreciated.

The purpose of the resolution is not to impose moral decency, but rather, to stop those who would like to impose moral decency from being unnecessarily troubled.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World assembly

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Under Resolution #30, only nations may restrict access to pornography, and the WA has no authority to force them to enact such restrictions. (And yes, I do consider a warning screen to be a restriction of access -- however weak and ineffective.) Therefore, this proposal is illegal. Sorry.

[Celtica and Neotopia]

Respectfully, ambassador, that is not how we interpret resolution number 30.

Of course, should the other ambassadors or a higher power disagree, we would scrap the resolution with nary a complaint.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Should this be submitted, I will make sure these "higher power" ambassadors are made aware of it.

[Qumkent]

We would certainly agree that this proposal contravenes the provisions of Resolution #30.


Yours,

[Philimbesi]

As an "other ambassador" I'm more inclined to side with the author of the resolution... you might want to check with him or her as to its intent...

[Celtica and Neotopia]

Intent is not the same as the printed word, decisions on interpretation are usually made by the judicial branch (in the legislative/executive/judicial three-branch system), rather than by the author.

That being said, the second and third opinion that have been provided seem to make the matter clear, and I shall retire.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Funkaholics]

Hey fellow Funketeers, lend me your ears!

What is all this babbling about having to warn people about porn on the in-ter-net? Everybody knows that 99.9% of what's out there is some form of porn anyway, right? As far the general opinion of Funkaholics' citizens is concerned, that's a good thing to: better to make love (or porn) than war, can you dig it?

Anyways, is it not a trivial matter for individuals to install a webbrowser plug-in that warns them before accessing a website containing pornographic content? If such a plug-in does not exist at the moment, surely some entrepreneurial wizz-kids will hack one together in no time if there is money to be made off it?

Dr. Funkenstein
Supreme Funkapriest
Free Land of the Funkaholics

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Can't say that I see it that way, Kenny.

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression [on...] blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

This is allowing member states to create such restrictions, but I don't see where the WA is prohibited from applying its own restrictions. If I'm missing something (I admit, it's late) by all means highlight it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

For the World Assembly to go back on this declaration would be a direct contradiction, no?

Perhaps a warning screen isn't a "direct" enough violation to merit deletion, but the question is academic at any rate, since the author has left.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

For the World Assembly to go back on this declaration would be a direct contradiction, no?

That's a real fine line. A warning screen (and, come on, how many horny 15 year-olds click right on past them?) doesn't really inhibit the ability of a porn site to show porn. Honestly, it's the "gives us money" screen that stops it more than anything

Perhaps a warning screen isn't a "direct" enough violation to merit deletion, but the question is academic at any rate, since the author has left.

Perhaps, but it's certainly worth keeping in mind in case someone takes this ball and runs with it.

[Celtica and Neotopia]

Well, with The Most Glorious Hack's approval, we'd be willing to get back on this.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

He didn't approve of this; he merely said that Res. #30 "is worth keeping in mind" if this goes ahead. (Unless you're asking for approval, in which case, you certainly don't need it to draft a proposal...though you would do well to consider his advice on keeping Res. #30 in mind.)

Whether this proposal would prove effective or even necessary is another matter entirely.

[Celtica and Neotopia]

If resolution 30 is to be "kept in mind", then it is not illegal in its current state, ergo it is approved. At least, that was the signal I was receiving.

The proposal's effectiveness depends on what you want to do it to do. I do not think the proposal is one of the greatest steps the World Assembly could ever take towards a better world, but I wouldn't say it isn't necessary...


-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Absolvability]

I'm not sure we're discussing the right matter here... though I've been absent for some time, and will certainly need a fair amount of time to refamiliarize myself with the host of past resolutions; I'd say there is enough wrong with this idea to sink it without declaring it illegal. Frankly, I don't believe it is.

More to the point, how does this proposal assume to 'recognize' the nature of the internet? And how does it go on to seek to regulate that nature? How will we control what an individual citizen puts on his webpage if that citizen made it themselves? And morally speaking, I don't believe it would be our place.

Granted, it is unfortunate that such accidents happen, but I find it hard to believe that a significant percentage of these 'stumblings' are accidents at all. I'm not the first to point this out, but if we dare discuss 'nature' I believe it should be pointed out again.

Also the wording leaves much to be desired in my opinion. If we're discussing pornography that has a high potential for being offensive or objectionable aren't we discussing fetishes? And if we're discussing such things, how exactly are we to gauge whether or not it is intended to be arousing? What is arousing for one may not be for others.

In short, and aside from the fact that I'm not a fan of censorship of any kind, I have to agree with some other Ambassadors that this proposal is largely ineffective.

[MisterBellyButtonMan]

Too difficult to enforce. People have enough to worry about without policing everyone's every move on the net. This will be a lot more harmful than it appears, or it will just be ignored by everyone. In either case while this proposal has good intentions it will be impossible for everyone in the WA to enforce such a rule.

[Philimbesi]

Nigel stopped dead in his tracks as he entered the chamber. He had been looking for his 89 year old dementia riddled father in law, for some time now. But that voice, that fingernails down a chalkboard like voice, that voice that used 4000 more words than needed to make a point that really wasn't worth making the first place, the one and only voice that caused him to bail out the window into the fountain down below.... the voice that sounded like 1000 babies crying incoherently... was back. He slowly turned terrified at the reality of what he was going to see, it was almost as kettle drums were being beaten in the back ground, then realized it was the other ambassadors all beating their heads on their desks, this made it true, it was undeniable, he'd seen it all before.

He noticed now that the desk lamp, that had been turned off for so long now was on... and then he saw him... Anton... suddenly he knew that every debate he would enter into now would be 5 times longer and filled with delegates turning to their translators with confusion, only to be met by the same confusion... the golden age of peace and quiet was over.... Anton was back. Despair filled his heart, suddenly, he was fighting frustrated tears... he could only do one thing...

"Welcome back ambassador..." he said, with a smile.

[Gobbannium]

If the respected ambassador is intending to continue with this, we would appreciate his opinion of any of the issues we raised. Any of them.

[Celtica and Neotopia]

More to the point, how does this proposal assume to 'recognize' the nature of the internet? And how does it go on to seek to regulate that nature? How will we control what an individual citizen puts on his webpage if that citizen made it themselves? And morally speaking, I don't believe it would be our place.

On the internet it is quite easy to stumble upon things unexpectedly, through following Hyperlinks or misleading search results. This is something we think many Ambassadors can recognize, although perhaps it could use clarification. While it is difficult to uninvasively control what a citizen puts on a self-created webpage, it is possible to remove such websites through contacting the offending person or if necessary to block the website, or even temporarily seize the equipment being used. Many nations already have systems in place for removing websites they find disagreeable. I think, morally speaking, it is not our place to force people to not post certain content. However, we also think it is our task to protect people, in this case from being offended or unwillingly performing a criminal act.

Granted, it is unfortunate that such accidents happen, but I find it hard to believe that a significant percentage of these 'stumblings' are accidents at all. I'm not the first to point this out, but if we dare discuss 'nature' I believe it should be pointed out again.

It is possible for websites to be intentionally misleading, and in this case it might not be an "accident" in the regular sense but the person was certainly unwillingly subjected to it.

Also the wording leaves much to be desired in my opinion. If we're discussing pornography that has a high potential for being offensive or objectionable aren't we discussing fetishes? And if we're discussing such things, how exactly are we to gauge whether or not it is intended to be arousing? What is arousing for one may not be for others.

Homosexual acts tends to be found offensive by some, but for the most part it is pretty much fetishes. It is true it might be difficult to determine whether or not something is intended to be arousing.. Although I think a majority of people could judge whether or not something is, that isn't really something for law. We appreciate other Ambassador's suggestions on this matter.

In short, and aside from the fact that I'm not a fan of censorship of any kind, I have to agree with some other Ambassadors that this proposal is largely ineffective.

Ineffective in what way? I think it will reasonably do what it sets out to do.

Too difficult to enforce. People have enough to worry about without policing everyone's every move on the net. This will be a lot more harmful than it appears, or it will just be ignored by everyone. In either case while this proposal has good intentions it will be impossible for everyone in the WA to enforce such a rule.

I am not sure how you might consider this "harmful", other than setting a precedent in a category which might also be used for rather harmful things. I am unsure how it could be ignored by "everyone", that is what law enforcement is for. We disagree with your argument that it is too difficult to enforce. Any nation already with a system in place for removing websites will be able to do this, and otherwise a simple agency to report offenders to would make it possible to enforce. Of course there will always be some nations who will have problems, such as those with no law enforcement at all, but those nations will have a problem with the majority of WA legislature.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Flibbleites]

Hyperlinks

OOC: It's not nice to Rickroll people.