NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

Postby Wrapper » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:41 am

Child Pornography Ban

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

BELIEVING that the children of the world need safeguarding from physical abuse and emotional cruelty;

RECALLING current national and international laws in place to protect children's rights and well-being;

HOWEVER CONSCIOUS of loopholes in existing international laws that permit the exploitation of children in the production and dissemination of child pornography;

The General Assembly HEREBY:

DEFINES "visual recording" as filming, photographing, videotaping, or producing any visual or audiovisual representation, including:
-- purposeful recording via discrete means such as a hidden camera;
-- realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is difficult to distinguish from the recording of a real person.

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.

DEFINES "child pornography" as the visual recording of one or more children engaging in real or simulated sexual activities, including the visual recording of nude children primarily for sexual purposes.

BANS the production, possession, solicitation, sale and distribution of child pornography in all member nations.

BANS the exportation of pornography from member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

BANS the importation of pornography into member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

MANDATES that nations treat violations of this resolution as criminal offenses, and proceed accordingly.

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not cover the following:
(1) The visual recording of persons who have attained the age of consent but have not reached the age of majority;
(2) The act of visually recording nude images, provided it is not intended to be used for sexual purposes;
(3) The act of visually recording oneself for private, personal use;
(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;
(5) The use or transfer of recorded evidence to be used in criminal or civil cases;
(6) Accidental recording of child pornography, such as via security camera footage, provided that such recording is not distributed, sold or copied, except to be provided to law enforcement as potential evidence in a criminal or civil case under subclause (5) above;
(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;
(8) Non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;
(9) Other anatomical representations used for non-sexual purposes, including educational areas such as biology and pediatric medicine.

FURTHER CLARIFIES that member nations may place additional restrictions not covered under this resolution, provided that such restrictions do not violate international law.

Child Pornography Ban

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

BELIEVING that the children of the world need safeguarding from physical abuse and emotional cruelty;

RECALLING current national and international laws in place to protect children's rights and well-being;

HOWEVER CONSCIOUS of loopholes in existing international laws that permit the exploitation of children in the production and dissemination of child pornography;

The General Assembly HEREBY:

DEFINES "child" as someone who has not yet attained the age of consent in the nation in which they are present, regardless of citizenship or residency.

DEFINES "visual recording" as filming, photographing, videotaping, or producing any visual or audiovisual representation, including:
-- purposeful recording via discrete means such as a hidden camera;
-- realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is difficult to distinguish from the recording of a real person.

DEFINES "child pornography" as the visual recording of one or more children engaging in real or simulated sexual activities, including the visual recording of nude children primarily for sexual purposes.

BANS the production, possession, sale and distribution of child pornography in all member nations.

BANS the exportation of pornography by member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

BANS the importation of pornography by member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

MANDATES that nations treat violations of this resolution as criminal offenses, and proceed accordingly.

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not cover the following:
(1) The visual recording of persons who have attained the age of consent but have not reached the age of majority;
(2) The act of visually recording nude images, provided it is not intended to be used for sexual purposes;
(3) The act of visually recording oneself for private, personal use;
(4) The act of transmitting a visual recording of oneself to another person or persons privately but not publicly;
(5) The use or transfer of recorded evidence to be used in criminal or civil cases;
(6) Accidental recording of child pornography, such as via security camera footage, provided that such recording is not distributed, sold or copied, except to be provided to law enforcement as potential evidence in a criminal or civil case under subclause (5) above;
(7) Non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;
(8) Other anatomical representations used for non-sexual purposes, including educational areas such as biology and pediatric medicine.

FURTHER CLARIFIES that member nations may place additional restrictions not covered under this resolution, provided that such restrictions do not violate international law.

Against Child Pornography

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

RECALLING current national and international laws in place to protect children's rights;

HOWEVER CONSCIOUS of loopholes in existing laws that permit the production and distribution of child pornography;

The General Assembly HEREBY:

DEFINES "child" as someone who has not yet attained the age of consent in the nation in which they are present, regardless of citizenship or residency.

DEFINES "visual recording" as filming, photographing, videotaping, or producing any visual or audiovisual representation, including:
-- purposeful recording via discrete means such as a hidden camera;
-- realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is indistinguishable from film, video or photograph.

DEFINES "child pornography" as the visual recording of one or more children engaging in real or simulated sexual activities, including the visual recording of nude children primarily for sexual purposes.

BANS the production of child pornography in all member nations.

BANS the exportation of pornography by member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

BANS the importation of pornography by member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not cover the following:
(1) The visual recording of persons who have attained the age of consent but have not reached the age of majority;
(2) The act of visually recording nudes, provided it is not intended to be used for sexual purposes;
(3) The act of visually recording oneself for private, personal use;
(4) The act of transmitting one's own visual recording to another person or persons privately but not publicly;
(5) The use or transfer of recorded evidence to be used in criminal or civil cases;
(6) Accidental recording of child pornography such as via security camera footage, provided that such recording is not distributed, sold or copied, except to be provided to law enforcement as potential evidence in a criminal or civil case under subclause (5) above;
(7) Non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;
(8) Other anatomical representations used for non-sexual purposes, including educational areas such as biology and pediatric medicine.

FURTHER CLARIFIES that member nations may place additional restrictions not covered under this resolution, provided that such restrictions do not violate international law.


Child Pornography

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

RECALLING current national and international laws in place to protect children's rights;

HOWEVER CONSCIOUS of loopholes in existing laws that permit the production and distribution of child pornography;

The General Assembly HEREBY:

DEFINES "child" as someone who has not yet attained the age of consent in the nation in which they are present, regardless of citizenship or residency.

DEFINES "visual recording" as filming, photographing, videotaping, or producing any visual or audiovisual representation, including:
-- purposeful recording via discrete means such as a hidden camera;
-- realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is indistinguishable from film, video or photograph.

DEFINES "child pornography" as the visual recording of one or more children engaging in real or simulated sexual activities, including the visual recording of nude children primarily for sexual purposes.

BANS the production of child pornography in all member nations.

BANS the exportation of pornography by member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

BANS the importation of pornography by member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not cover the following:
(1) The visual recording of persons who have attained the age of consent but have not reached the age of majority;
(2) The visual recording of nudes, provided it is not used primarily for sexual purposes;
(3) The visual recording of oneself for private, personal use;
(4) The use or transfer of recorded evidence to be used in criminal or civil cases;
(5) Accidental recording of child pornography such as via security camera footage, provided that such recording is overwritten or otherwise destroyed and is not distributed, sold or copied, except to be provided to law enforcement as potential evidence in a criminal or civil case under subclause (4) above;
(6) Non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;
(7) Other anatomical representations used for non-sexual purposes, including educational areas such as biology and pediatric medicine.

FURTHER CLARIFIES that member nations may place additional restrictions not covered under this resolution, provided that such restrictions do not violate international law.


Child Pornography

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

RECALLING current national and international laws in place to protect children's rights;

HOWEVER CONSCIOUS of loopholes in existing laws that permit the production and distribution of child pornography;

The General Assembly HEREBY:

DEFINES "child" as someone who has not yet attained the age of consent in the nation in which they are present, regardless of citizenship or residency.

DEFINES "visual recording" as filming, photographing, videotaping, or producing any visual or audiovisual representation, including:
-- purposeful recording via discrete means such as a hidden camera;
-- realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is indistinguishable from film, video or photograph.

DEFINES "child pornography" as the visual recording of one or more children engaging in real or simulated sexual activities, including the visual recording of nude children primarily for sexual purposes.

BANS the production of child pornography in all member nations.

BANS the exportation of pornography by member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

BANS the importation of pornography by member nations, when the youngest person depicted is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation.

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not cover the following:
(1) The visual recording of persons who have attained the age of consent but have not reached the age of majority;
(2) The visual recording of nudes, provided it is not used primarily for sexual purposes;
(3) The visual recording of oneself for private, personal use;
(4) The use or transfer of recorded evidence to be used in criminal or civil cases;
(5) Accidental recording via security camera footage, which must be destroyed or overwritten and cannot be copied, unless it is to be used as recorded evidence in a criminal or civil case under subclause (4) above;
(6) Non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;
(7) Other anatomical representations used for non-sexual purposes, including educational areas such as biology and pediatric medicine.

FURTHER CLARIFIES that member nations may place additional restrictions not covered under this resolution, provided that such restrictions do not violate international law.


Child Pornography

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

RECALLING current national and international laws in place to protect children's rights;

HOWEVER CONSCIOUS of loopholes in existing laws that permit the production and distribution of child pornography;

The General Assembly HEREBY:

DEFINES "child" as someone who has not yet attained the age of majority in the nation in which they are present, regardless of citizenship or residency;

DEFINES "child pornography" as the filming or photographing (including purposefully via discrete means such as a hidden camera) or the realistic depiction (including computer-generated animation that is indistinguishable from film or video) of one or more children engaging in real or simulated sexual activities;

BANS the production of child pornography in all member nations;

BANS the exportation of pornography by member nations, when the persons depicted are below the age of majority in either the distributing or the receiving nation;

BANS the importation of pornography by member nations, when the persons depicted are below the age of majority in either the distributing or the receiving nation;

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not apply to:
-- non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;
-- nude photography, provided it is not used primarily for sexual purposes;
-- other anatomical representations used for non-sexual purposes, including educational areas such as biology or medicine;
-- evidence in criminal or civil cases;
-- the filming or photography of oneself for private, non-commercial use;

FURTHER CLARIFIES that nations may place additional restrictions not covered under this resolution, provided that such restrictions do not violate international law.
Last edited by Wrapper on Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:49 am, edited 23 times in total.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:47 am

As outlined in a previous discussion here, we believe that there is a loophole in GAR#222 that would permit child pornography in certain cases.

Here's the dilemma: Would it be wiser to repeal and replace GAR#222, or attempt to draft a resolution on top of GAR#222?

OOC: Been working on such a draft, and I'm having a tough time avoiding duplication/House of Cards/contradiction/etc. At the same time... I really don't want my name on a repeal of GAR#222. Would have a tough time justifying that just to include these provisions.
Last edited by Wrapper on Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:57 am

"The only reason to do a repeal and replace is if the original resolution creates a problem that, while it remains in place, is insoluble. I don't believe that's the case here because a child pornography ban could, if worded correctly and if made legal, pass. While I'm inclined to agree you've teased out an interesting loophole in the latter of your two arguments (that child pornography is no longer classified as such once the subject reaches adulthood), it's such a marginal case that it really doesn't justify a repeal at all.

"I would hope any draft, should it arrive, would concentrate on the genuine transnational impact of different ages of consent."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:12 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"I would hope any draft, should it arrive, would concentrate on the genuine transnational impact of different ages of consent."

Another pitfall that we plan to address. Our goal is to make international distribution illegal if the depiction is of anyone under the age of majority in the source nation, or if the depiction is of anyone under the age of majority in the destination nation. The drawback (or, some may claim, benefit) in this approach is, this won't have an effect on those nations where there is no age of consent, unless they are trying to export such content.

User avatar
Normlpeople
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1597
Founded: Apr 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Normlpeople » Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:55 am

OOC: This, quite frankly is a loaded debate. Taking the 'against' side makes you look extremely bad, despite the fact that you may not agree with it.

IC: "Please don't take anything I say as support for child pornography, or those who produce or distribute it, but is it necessary? After all, GAR #222 does specify " unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child", however, most nations do have a threshold as to when the child can actually give the consent. Would these nations also not have legislation on the books against child pornography as well?"
Last edited by Normlpeople on Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Words and Opinion of Clover the Clever
Ambassador to the WA for the Armed Kingdom of Normlpeople

User avatar
Elke and Elba
Minister
 
Posts: 2757
Founded: Aug 24, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Elke and Elba » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:07 am

Normlpeople wrote:OOC: This, quite frankly is a loaded debate. Taking the 'against' side makes you look extremely bad, despite the fact that you may not agree with it.

IC: "Please don't take anything I say as support for child pornography, or those who produce or distribute it, but is it necessary? After all, GAR #222 does specify " unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child", however, most nations do have a threshold as to when the child can actually give the consent. Would these nations also not have legislation on the books against child pornography as well?"


IC: Not true. Checking past records there was some unknown trying to push legislation on child pornography with, excuse me, a horrendous piece of "writing" that had failed to pass because there were more people observing the disaster done to the English Language and voting against it rather than those who were for it regardless of the state of the draft.

OOC: I think it was in 2008/09. Not too sure.
Represented permanently at the World Assembly by Benjamin Olafsen, and on an ad-hoc basis by Alethea Norrland and rarely Gaia Pao and Gabriel Dzichpol.
OOCly retired from the GA/SC for something called 'real life'.
Author of GA#288 and SC#148.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14225
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:35 am

Normlpeople wrote:OOC: This, quite frankly is a loaded debate. Taking the 'against' side makes you look extremely bad, despite the fact that you may not agree with it.

IC: "Please don't take anything I say as support for child pornography, or those who produce or distribute it, but is it necessary? After all, GAR #222 does specify " unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child", however, most nations do have a threshold as to when the child can actually give the consent. Would these nations also not have legislation on the books against child pornography as well?"


"Some nations without ages of consent or majority would fall through the cracks. Some self-regulate well, such as the Fae, and others less so. Free Pangea comes to mind for the latter...I'm not sure if it counts as child exploitation if there is no age of consent or majority, so I imagine there's a reasonable area available for legislation. I imagine this will bring out the ultra-bodily soveriengtists from the woodworks no matter how this is written."

Visit the GA, land of populist elitists!


User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7198
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:37 am

I don't think a R&R is necessary. There's nothing stopping further legislation on the topic. Duplication, if minor, can be legal in certain circumstances and I'm sure if written properly a resolution enacting further limits on child pornography would be legal without having to repeal the original. "Minor overlaps" are not rare.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Defwa
Minister
 
Posts: 2598
Founded: Feb 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Defwa » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:51 pm

Sanctaria wrote: "Minor overlaps".

OOC: Pun
__________Federated City States of ____________________Defwa__________
Federation Head High Wizard of Dal Angela Landfree
Ambassadorial Delegate Maestre Wizard Mikyal la Vert

President and World Assembly Delegate of the Democratic Socialist Assembly
Defwa offers assistance with humanitarian aid, civilian evacuation, arbitration, negotiation, and human rights violation monitoring.

User avatar
Normlpeople
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1597
Founded: Apr 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Normlpeople » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:03 pm

"I don't believe an R&R is necessary either, assuming the draft focus is on the production and (more importantly) the distribution of the material. If a nation has no age of majority law and allows minors to engage in sexual activity, then they likely don't have a moral stance against filming or producing it either. Other nations don't see it the same way (such as ours). Not sure an outright ban would pass the natsov crowd, but a distribution ban just may."
Words and Opinion of Clover the Clever
Ambassador to the WA for the Armed Kingdom of Normlpeople

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2162
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:21 am

We should be obliged if the proposer could outline exactly what loopholes he feels are left open in the definition of child abuse in #222. If I'm not mistaken, there has been assertion that there are loopholes but I have not seen them detailed either here or in the debate linked to in the second post.

We have some concerns in this area.
1) There are huge freedom of speech concerns in the whole area. #222 specifically refers to depictions of child abuse without artistic merit. We would leave it there. Any further restrictions, such as banning simulated materials may well run afoul of freedom of expression. We feel that the whole focus of law in this area should be on protecting children: IE when a child is being hurt, firstly getting them to safety, secondly dealing with those who tangibly hurt the child, thirdly, stopping the "continuation" of the abuse through the distribution and consumption of the materials depicting the abuse and fourthly, stopping anyone from profiting from those materials.

2) We note that many jurisdictions have different ages of consent and ages of majority. We will not support any international law which would criminalise teenagers in possession of non-abusive images of their sexual partners where one or both partners are between the age of consent and the age of majority.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:45 am

Bananaistan wrote:We should be obliged if the proposer could outline exactly what loopholes he feels are left open in the definition of child abuse in #222. If I'm not mistaken, there has been assertion that there are loopholes but I have not seen them detailed either here or in the debate linked to in the second post.

We thought this was covered in the linked discussion. To reiterate, the discreet filming of persons under the age of consent, and the distribution of this material without their knowledge, or withholding distribution until they are of age, are not covered under GAR#222. As a matter of fact, invasion of a child's privacy, one can argue, is not covered under GAR#222 at all.

1) There are huge freedom of speech concerns in the whole area. #222 specifically refers to depictions of child abuse without artistic merit. We would leave it there. Any further restrictions, such as banning simulated materials may well run afoul of freedom of expression. We feel that the whole focus of law in this area should be on protecting children: IE when a child is being hurt, firstly getting them to safety, secondly dealing with those who tangibly hurt the child, thirdly, stopping the "continuation" of the abuse through the distribution and consumption of the materials depicting the abuse and fourthly, stopping anyone from profiting from those materials.

Most of what you have there is covered under GAR#222. As far as artistic merit and simulated materials, are you talking about animation and the like? If so we won't be addressing that in this legislation and would leave that up to individual nations. At this point we'll only be tackling the filming or photographing of sexual acts by persons under the age of consent, and the distribution of that material internationally.

2) We note that many jurisdictions have different ages of consent and ages of majority. We will not support any international law which would criminalise teenagers in possession of non-abusive images of their sexual partners where one or both partners are between the age of consent and the age of majority.

We're on the same page here, Ambassador. For one, for the purposes of this resolution, we're drawing the line between pornography and nude images, which in many cultures are as natural as or even more natural than clothed images. We'll work on the age of consent/age of majority terminology (OOC: I've used them interchangeably so far, and as I read your comment, I've realized that's an error) and get a draft up in a couple days.
Normlpeople wrote:"I don't believe an R&R is necessary either, assuming the draft focus is on the production and (more importantly) the distribution of the material. If a nation has no age of majority law and allows minors to engage in sexual activity, then they likely don't have a moral stance against filming or producing it either. Other nations don't see it the same way (such as ours). Not sure an outright ban would pass the natsov crowd, but a distribution ban just may."

We're going to try this without a #222 repeal, and see how it goes. We do want to ban filming/photography in those nations where there is an age of majority/consent, but if that looks like it will be a slog, we'll fall back and focus on international distribution, and allow individual nations to make their own laws about production.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2162
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:02 am

Wrapper wrote: <snip>


Ambassador, thanks for the response. We will support your endeavour and hope to be of assistance in the drafting process. We agree that the invasion of privacy loophole is there and can be closed without a repeal and replace. We also agree that there's room for improvement on the international distribution angle.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:37 am

A draft is up! A few notes:

-- This purposely does not cover possession. Feel free to make national laws on that. The idea is to eliminate it at the source, and to prevent it from crossing national boundaries.

-- We tried to make it so WA nations cannot import such materials from non-WA nations. Yes, yes, laws only affect WA nations, but, if the WA says you can't import something, then the law's been applied to you, not to the exporting, non-WA nation. Same with exportation to a non-WA nation. We firmly believe this is legal, in principle.

-- "Age of majority" is used as the threshold instead of "age of consent". Will listen to arguments on this aspect of it.

-- Torn between "significant" and "mild" for strength. (OOC: This does seem pervasive enough in the real world to merit "significant".)

-- There's plenty of wiggle room for nations to go further, e.g. ban all pornography, ban all imports, etc. Hopefully this is clear to everyone.

-- The first line originally said "BELIEVING that the children are our future" but... :)

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:35 am

"This seems to create something of a grey area regarding nudity. The definition of child pornography includes only 'sexual activities': being nude is not itself a sexual activity. But nude photography is exempted only where 'it is not used primarily for sexual purposes'. So what does a sexualised, nude photograph count as? It's not really depicting a child engaged in a sex act, but it equally is primarily for sexual purposes.

"The exemption for 'private, non-commercial use' is also a bit alarming. Wouldn't 'personal, non-commercial use' be a better phrasing? 'Private use' implies, to me anyway, that people could actually share this.

"I would consider 'age of consent' the better term, because it's what Sexual Privacy Act uses, and because it makes more sense in context, but I'm not sure it's worth scrapping over.

"Finally, 'recording' might be a better term to use, to avoid tech-weaseling over what constitutes a 'film' or a 'photograph'.

"Overall it seems pretty solid."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

User avatar
Louisistan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 810
Founded: Sep 10, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Louisistan » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:43 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"I would consider 'age of consent' the better term, because it's what Sexual Privacy Act uses, and because it makes more sense in context, but I'm not sure it's worth scrapping over.
And I would beg to differ, Mr. Fungschlammer. While persons over the age of consent but under the age of majority may engage in sexual acts as much as they want, that doesn't necessearily make it okay to produce pornography of these acts. I believe that the age of majority should indeed be the standard in this case. Or are there any nations where the age of consent is above the age of majority?

As for your other suggestions, I agree with those.

~Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz
Last edited by Louisistan on Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Knight of TITO, Senator of 10000 Islands

User avatar
Defwa
Minister
 
Posts: 2598
Founded: Feb 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Defwa » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:49 am

Considering the use of either always has complaints- what about using both?
__________Federated City States of ____________________Defwa__________
Federation Head High Wizard of Dal Angela Landfree
Ambassadorial Delegate Maestre Wizard Mikyal la Vert

President and World Assembly Delegate of the Democratic Socialist Assembly
Defwa offers assistance with humanitarian aid, civilian evacuation, arbitration, negotiation, and human rights violation monitoring.

User avatar
Elke and Elba
Minister
 
Posts: 2757
Founded: Aug 24, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Elke and Elba » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:08 am

OOC: This troubles me:

the filming or photography of oneself for private, non-commercial use


All the RL drama about people sexting and idkwhat and people just posting revenge porn (children revenge porn in this case) for no profit at all, and provided initially to the other person with consent, wouldn't be applicable, ja?
Represented permanently at the World Assembly by Benjamin Olafsen, and on an ad-hoc basis by Alethea Norrland and rarely Gaia Pao and Gabriel Dzichpol.
OOCly retired from the GA/SC for something called 'real life'.
Author of GA#288 and SC#148.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:26 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"This seems to create something of a grey area regarding nudity. The definition of child pornography includes only 'sexual activities': being nude is not itself a sexual activity. But nude photography is exempted only where 'it is not used primarily for sexual purposes'. So what does a sexualised, nude photograph count as? It's not really depicting a child engaged in a sex act, but it equally is primarily for sexual purposes.

Will have to ponder this part a bit, and shall listen to other input on the matter as well. The definition may need tweaking.

"The exemption for 'private, non-commercial use' is also a bit alarming. Wouldn't 'personal, non-commercial use' be a better phrasing? 'Private use' implies, to me anyway, that people could actually share this.

We do not wish to make someone who takes a picture of himself or herself and sends it to a partner or classmate an international criminal.

"I would consider 'age of consent' the better term, because it's what Sexual Privacy Act uses, and because it makes more sense in context, but I'm not sure it's worth scrapping over.

Spent a lot of time pondering this one and went with "age of majority" just to avoid the gray area between "age of consent" and "age of majority" for those jurisdictions where the age of consent is lower (OOC: forgive the RL reference but there are US jurisdictions with ages of consent as low as 15 or 16, but that's not the age of majority, which is 18). Nations are free to make laws regarding those people in between.

"Finally, 'recording' might be a better term to use, to avoid tech-weaseling over what constitutes a 'film' or a 'photograph'.

Hmmm, good point... however we wouldn't want to make international criminals out of high school kids who make an audio recording of simulated sex sounds, so we'll add something like "any type of visual record" or something along those lines.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:29 am

Elke and Elba wrote:OOC: This troubles me:

the filming or photography of oneself for private, non-commercial use


All the RL drama about people sexting and idkwhat and people just posting revenge porn (children revenge porn in this case) for no profit at all, and provided initially to the other person with consent, wouldn't be applicable, ja?

OOC: Yes, I think I've seen and heard that exact terminology far too many times (every baseball, football and hockey broadcast). This needs better wording.

User avatar
Percussionland
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Apr 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Percussionland » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:16 pm

I found a loophole in your draft. It bans images of children performing sexual acts, but does not ban perverted nude photos of children not performing sexual acts. If I were you, I would include this in the ban.
-From the Desk of Keith Starr, Percussionland Ambassador To the World Assembly

Percussionland President: Ringo Bonham
Vice President: Ronnie Watts
Chairman of The Senate: John Moon
Chairman of The Armed Forces: Charlie Wood

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14225
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:59 am

Percussionland wrote:I found a loophole in your draft. It bans images of children performing sexual acts, but does not ban perverted nude photos of children not performing sexual acts. If I were you, I would include this in the ban.


"I'd consider posing for pornography to be inherently sexual, myself. Though I wonder, why not state that the age limit is whichever is lower between the age of consent and majority? That may tidy up some of your concerns by my thinking."

Visit the GA, land of populist elitists!


User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:24 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:Though I wonder, why not state that the age limit is whichever is lower between the age of consent and majority? That may tidy up some of your concerns by my thinking."

OOC: :palm: Crap, I did this backwards. I wanted to leave it to individual states to legislate for the ages in between... but then I chose what would be, in most jurisdictions, the higher age (majority) instead of the lower age (consent). Duh....

IC: Harrumph. Very well. We shall consider such a change in our next draft, Ambassador Bell.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:45 pm

New draft is up. Some thoughts:

-- Went with "age of consent". The resolution does allow nations to legislate for performers who have reached the age of consent but have not reached the age of majority.
-- Firmed up the definitions.
-- Added some new exceptions including security camera footage, and addressed the non-sexual nude issue (primarily for those cultures where nudity is the norm).
-- Closed loopholes mentioned earlier (OOC: think I got them all, let me know if I missed anything), as well as some new scenarios we came up with along the way.

Now, with the way this is written, we're wondering if is still "Significant" strength. By lowering the cutoff to the age of consent while allowing nations to legislate all the gray areas that this resolution purposely doesn't cover, does that push this into "Mild" territory? We will gladly listen to input on this, my fellow ambassadors, and we welcome all comments.

User avatar
Normlpeople
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1597
Founded: Apr 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Normlpeople » Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:07 pm

"Clause 5, regarding security cameras, requires change in my opinion. It can often be some time between the act of committing a crime and the investigation of it. This part places some rather difficult decisions on the ones operating the cameras to state rather the act is consensual or not, and could result in the loss of valuable evidence in a criminal investigation.

I would also say mild, since it only applies internationally, and doesn't restrict the practice within a nation itself."
Words and Opinion of Clover the Clever
Ambassador to the WA for the Armed Kingdom of Normlpeople

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads