[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

[Lonely Swedish]

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 am one of those who thinks it goes too far. Defining the "visual recording as "realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is difficult to distinguish from the recording of a real person." I just cannot get behind. Who is the victim supposed to be in this situation exactly? In my opinion if there is no victim, there is no crime.

[Stevid]

I am one of those who thinks it goes too far. Defining the "visual recording as "realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is difficult to distinguish from the recording of a real person." I just cannot get behind. Who is the victim supposed to be in this situation exactly? In my opinion if there is no victim, there is no crime.

True in the legal sense that there is no 'complainant', but just because there is no obvious victim does not mean a crime has not been committed - 'Drink Driving' offences for example. Not to compare the two; but the depiction of a child being molested, whatever the medium, is abhorrent and thus simply because the depiction isn't of a real person shouldn't justify the existence of such material.

It is why we're on the other side of disagreeing with the resolution

[Lonely Swedish]

I am one of those who thinks it goes too far. Defining the "visual recording as "realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is difficult to distinguish from the recording of a real person." I just cannot get behind. Who is the victim supposed to be in this situation exactly? In my opinion if there is no victim, there is no crime.

True in the legal sense that there is no 'complainant', but just because there is no obvious victim does not mean a crime has not been committed - 'Drink Driving' offences for example. Not to compare the two; but the depiction of a child being molested, whatever the medium, is abhorrent and thus simply because the depiction isn't of a real person should justify the existence of such material.

It is why we're on the other of disagreeing with the resolution

I can kind of see the point in what you are saying (at least I understand where you are coming from). I don't think drink driving offenses are really comparable though. Even if someone is drinking and driving and has not hit anyone before being stopped by law enforcement, they were still putting other people operating in the public space at risk. Producing realistic computer animated child pornography is in my mind more akin to drunk driving on your own property. I guess it is still technically drunk driving, but you are not putting anyone else in harm's way, so who really cares.

[Stevid]

I can kind of see the point in what you are saying (at least I understand where you are coming from). I don't think drink driving offenses are really comparable though. Even if someone is drinking and driving and has not hit anyone before being stopped by law enforcement, they were still putting other people operating in the public space at risk. Producing realistic computer animated child pornography is in my mind more akin to drunk driving on your own property. I guess it is still technically drunk driving, but you are not putting anyone else in harm's way, so who really cares.

Tis why I said I didn't want to compare the two because they're are far apart in severity and type of crime. I was merely saying that there doesn't have to be a victim for a crime to be committed. It is illegal (at least in most RL countries) to just possess child pornography. There may be no actual complainant/victim, the person in possession will not be referred for offences relating to the act depicting in the images/footage, but instead the possession of the material. <-- In this case, from a legal stand point, there is no victim/complainant whatsoever, only a suspect.

[Lonely Swedish]

I can kind of see the point in what you are saying (at least I understand where you are coming from). I don't think drink driving offenses are really comparable though. Even if someone is drinking and driving and has not hit anyone before being stopped by law enforcement, they were still putting other people operating in the public space at risk. Producing realistic computer animated child pornography is in my mind more akin to drunk driving on your own property. I guess it is still technically drunk driving, but you are not putting anyone else in harm's way, so who really cares.

Tis why I said I didn't want to compare the two because they're are far apart in severity and type of crime. I was merely saying that there doesn't have to be a victim for a crime to be committed. It is illegal (at least in most RL countries) to just possess child pornography. There may be no actual complainant/victim, the person in possession will not be referred for offences relating to the act depicting in the images/footage, but instead the possession of the material. <-- In this case, from a legal stand point, there is no victim/complainant whatsoever, only a suspect.

One could argue that in possessing child pornography, the suspect is in some manner accesory to the production and distribution. Personally I would go along with that line of thought as long as the production caused a child to be harmed. Anyway I don't think the resolution is all bad and the intentions are obviously good. I just think it goes further than just protecting the child and into attempting to police morality across nations no matter whether anyone gets hurt or not and I can't get behind that.

[Vikipolis]

"-- realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is difficult to distinguish from the recording of a real person." you do know pedophilia is a mental illness, right? acts of pedophilia aren't always in spite of a mental disorder, but pedophilia is a mental disorder, so unless you think you can diagnose and intern all the bearers of this conditions, I say you should allow computer animations simulating child pornography, to prevent frustration and avoid attacks on children. it's more human and morally acceptable than inprisioning them and logistically more doable.

[Sween]

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.

thinking things such as this are matters for the state and not international law makes one a potential pedophile? those who don't think it goes far enough? those who think it's too much?

sorry, i'm not a pedophile. No child fetish, I also despise almost every child i have ever had the misfortune to have to deal with. my only fetish is an Asian fetish.

[Normlpeople]

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.

"Since the 'previous paragraph' limits its influence, it would not apply here. The 'previous paragraph' part banned outlawing consensual sex between partners of the age of consent."

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.

"This is exactly the kind of accusation I expected throughout the debate when I first heard about it bring debated... I believe General Cloudspear referred to this as a 'loaded topic' at the time for this reason. Thankfully, they have remained outside of this debate until now..."

[The Eternal Kawaii]

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."

[The World Assembly Nuncia of the Eternal Kawaii presses a button on the Defenestron 3000 ^(TM), and hurls the ambassador of Sween out the window.]

"Brother and Sister Representatives, we are all for a healthy debate on this issue. But the next speaker who claims that children can consent to appear in pornography is going to join the esteemed Ambassador in the Reflecting Pool."

[Defwa]

Indeed. An early sex education program does not suddenly make a child capable of making decisions of that magnitude. You can tell a child to avoid the candy wielding stranger, but they will not always- all the flying ambassadors nation has done is make it impossible to prosecute.

[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.

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

No. You can't call this a theocratic decision if the purpose if it is to ban the exploitation of children. Below the age of majority children are under the responsibility of the adults that look after them. Below the age of majority a child doesn't have freedom to do a great deal of things for their own protection. So you suggesting some sort of "worldwide theocracy" is, in my opinion, absurd. We can't allow child pornography to be legal in any sense, shape or form, and this council must put an end to it and enact this resolution.

[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.

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

If such evil is normal in your nation, I suggest you consider leaving the WA.

[Coroscent]

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?

I agree very much with you.

[Coroscent]

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."

[The World Assembly Nuncia of the Eternal Kawaii presses a button on the Defenestron 3000 ^(TM), and hurls the ambassador of Sween out the window.]

"Brother and Sister Representatives, we are all for a healthy debate on this issue. But the next speaker who claims that children can consent to appear in pornography is going to join the esteemed Ambassador in the Reflecting Pool."

I think that said nations should not be on this council.

[Emrakkia]

I voted AGAINST due to this line:

"(1) The visual recording of persons who have attained the age of consent but have not reached the age of majority; "

Do tell me, what is this "age of MAJORITY"? Emrakkia shall have no part of these crackpot median age XXX restrictions! By that line alone, there shall be no porn in Emrakkia unless a person is 38 years old or older! Poppycock!

[Coroscent]

I say this resolution must stretch forward to make it illegal for those under the age of majority to be depicted in pornographic material. The age of consent is another thing.

[Coroscent]

I voted AGAINST due to this line:

"(1) The visual recording of persons who have attained the age of consent but have not reached the age of majority; "

Do tell me, what is this "age of MAJORITY"? Emrakkia shall have no part of these crackpot median age XXX restrictions! By that line alone, there shall be no porn in Emrakkia unless a person is 38 years old or older! Poppycock!

But still voting for this resolution would be better than voting against it; think of the children!

[Sauvage]

A rather skinny representative puts his own words in while adjusting his red bandana.

"Pah! This is almost the same case I made with 'Child Welfare in Adoption' (page 7) where I referenced 'Reproductive Freedoms' then this resolution. If your too lazy to look back at the assembly logs I'll fill you in."

He takes a breath.

"The resolution 'Reproductive Freedoms' among other things legalized the abortion of pregnancy. The resolution 'Child Welfare in Adoption' legalized anyone receiving a child in the name of children growing up and lower poverty stricken youngens. This resolutions' first line: BELIEVING that the children of the world need safeguarding from physical abuse and emotional cruelty.

Blatant hypocritical thinking. The assembly would value a child's life as nothing until it stops requiring the support of the mother. But the second it leaves the womb it somehow becomes the most valuable thing in the world, valuable enough for two resolutions on it. Something I've noticed about the assembly is the twisting of morality, I can see this is no different."

The representative snorts before walking toward the exit.

"Rest assured my superiors will do their best to loophole all these ridiculous resolutions, while in good meaning they eat at the same table as a bill that kills children, until such time as this is repaired Sauvage, her allies, and a number of independent forces hold the assembly in contempt for hypocrisy."

[Wrapper]

A rather skinny representative puts his own words in while adjusting his red bandana.

"Pah! This is almost the same case I made with 'Child Welfare in Adoption' (page 7) where I referenced 'Reproductive Freedoms' then this resolution. If your too lazy to look back at the assembly logs I'll fill you in."

He takes a breath.

"The resolution 'Reproductive Freedoms' among other things legalized the abortion of pregnancy. The resolution 'Child Welfare in Adoption' legalized anyone receiving a child in the name of children growing up and lower poverty stricken youngens. This resolutions' first line: BELIEVING that the children of the world need safeguarding from physical abuse and emotional cruelty.

Blatant hypocritical thinking. The assembly would value a child's life as nothing until it stops requiring the support of the mother. But the second it leaves the womb it somehow becomes the most valuable thing in the world, valuable enough for two resolutions on it. Something I've noticed about the assembly is the twisting of morality, I can see this is no different."

The representative snorts before walking toward the exit.

"Rest assured my superiors will do their best to loophole all these ridiculous resolutions, while in good meaning they eat at the same table as a bill that kills children, until such time as this is repaired Sauvage, her allies, and a number of independent forces hold the assembly in contempt for hypocrisy."

Er... so... you think it is ridiculous to ban child pornography... and will find ways, apparently, to find loopholes so you can circumvent this resolution... because abortion is legal?

Ari looks to Ahume, who just shrugs.

This is beyond a shadow of a doubt the stupidest reasoning we've ever heard.

[Sauvage]

It's completely over your head isn't it? We have already put our own laws in place to deal with these issues. I simply stated that further idiocy from the assembly has disgruntled a number of countries. The idea being that resolutions are being ignored until the rats that vote here fix their act."

The rep finishes his response before slamming the door, follow by three representatives from various countries also from Sauvage's region.

[Wrapper]

We have already put our own laws in place to deal with these issues.

Rest assured my superiors will do their best to loophole all these ridiculous resolutions

We weep for your children, don't we, Wad Ahume?

Ahume, briefly taken aback by the slamming of the door, suddenly nods his head and comically wipes an imaginary tear from one of his eyes.

[Louisistan]

An (of course) well dressed aide presents a piece of Paper to Ari. It merely reads:

The Confederacy of Louisistan
Confederate Foreign Office/Delegation to the WA
from the "desk" of Deputy Ambassador R. Schulz

Ambassador Ari, we join the Wrapperian delegation in their weeping for the children and offer our full weeping support.

signed,
Schulz, Deputy Ambassador

[Sauvage]

We have already put our own laws in place to deal with these issues.

Rest assured my superiors will do their best to loophole all these ridiculous resolutions

We weep for your children, don't we, Wad Ahume?

Ahume, briefly taken aback by the slamming of the door, suddenly nods his head and comically wipes an imaginary tear from one of his eyes.

The translator who had been sitting next to the Sauvage representative speaks up.

"Though I don't blame you for being ignorant, our nation is still in the age of muskets. These laws are retarded considering we can't use any photography in the first place."

[Defwa]

We weep for your children, don't we, Wad Ahume?

Ahume, briefly taken aback by the slamming of the door, suddenly nods his head and comically wipes an imaginary tear from one of his eyes.

The translator who had been sitting next to the Sauvage representative speaks up.

"Though I don't blame you for being ignorant, our nation is still in the age of muskets. These laws are retarded considering we can't use any photography in the first place."

As far as I understand it, this does still quite apply even if you have no cameras. So much as sketching an act described in this resolution is a violation if you're using authentic models.

Regardless, it is not uncommon for resolutions to not apply to some groups in which the legislated subject does not occur in. Its also extremely common for sensible nations to have laws already in place similar to assembly resolutions. The idea is to work on those nations that do not yet have such law.
Neither is an acceptable reason to reject a proposal because they are realities that are simply umavoidable

[Sauvage]

The translator who had been sitting next to the Sauvage representative speaks up.

"Though I don't blame you for being ignorant, our nation is still in the age of muskets. These laws are retarded considering we can't use any photography in the first place."

As far as I understand it, this does still quite apply even if you have no cameras. So much as sketching an act described in this resolution is a violation if you're using authentic models.

Giving an exasperated sigh. Implying we have any skilled artists willing to draw naked children in the first place, though it appears if the contempt held by the Sauvage goverment is anything to go by I won't need to burn my art on the wall depicting Cupid as a naked boy with wings and a bow.

It's not the subject stated by the representative. He has placed an embargo of sorts on the assembly for legalizing the killing for innocents and then turning around and pretending it loves those it condemns. I can't blame him.