[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

[Lexicor]

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

Just a stylistic note. It is well known that resolutions are binding to all nations in the WA. It could be edited to give you a few more characters.

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

[Araraukar]

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

Just a stylistic note. It is well known that resolutions are binding to all nations in the WA. It could be edited to give you a few more characters.

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

Well, for stylistic reasons, the member nations is needed in some way, since you can't legislate for non-members. I'm sure others will argue against this viewpoint, but it's been common sense for a long time. You'd get a few letters shorter by making it "WA nations".

[Normlpeople]

Clover sighs, wondering if she should shield herself before she makes the comments she was about to. "I am not sure a possession ban is required." she said. "Like drugs, going after the users ties up resources that could be better spent going after the ones committing these disgusting acts. Cut off the supply, and that will end the issue of the users. I also foresee an issue, particularly since age of consent in the nation currently in is the criteria, of international travelers unwillingly or unknowingly possessing pornography that would fall under these guidelines in one nation while not in another."

(2) The act of visually recording nude images, provided it is not intended to be used for sexual purposes;

"I would suggest 'visually recording nude subjects' or something to the like, as images seems to imply pictures"

[Araraukar]

"I would suggest 'visually recording nude subjects' or something to the like, as images seems to imply pictures"

What if someone takes pictures of the nude pictures?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Just a stylistic note. It is well known that resolutions are binding to all nations in the WA. It could be edited to give you a few more characters.

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

Well, for stylistic reasons, the member nations is needed in some way, since you can't legislate for non-members.

Are the mods really still sticking to this? Nevermind that it retroactively makes inumerable resolutions illegal?

[Sciongrad]

Just a stylistic note. It is well known that resolutions are binding to all nations in the WA. It could be edited to give you a few more characters.

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

Well, for stylistic reasons, the member nations is needed in some way, since you can't legislate for non-members. I'm sure others will argue against this viewpoint, but it's been common sense for a long time. You'd get a few letters shorter by making it "WA nations".

OOC: It actually hasn't been common for a long time. The fact that resolutions only affect member nations is axiomatic and there should be no need to specify. There are so many resolutions that don't use the phrase member nation, or any phrase to that affect, and they've all been considered legal.

Granted, in this case, I would advise that you actually keep "in all member nations" - not to make the proposal legal, but because I feel as if it sounds better that way.

[Artainias]

I agree this is a crusade for moral right and peace of mind! THE PRIEST HAS SPOKEN!

[Lexicor]

OOC: Don't really care either way, just feel its redundant. Take Araraukars' suggestion.

Well, for stylistic reasons, the member nations is needed in some way, since you can't legislate for non-members. I'm sure others will argue against this viewpoint, but it's been common sense for a long time. You'd get a few letters shorter by making it "WA nations".

[Wrapper]

To answer all the recent comments, we're keeping this as is:

-- We want the first BANS clause to say "all member nations" because (1) we make reference to other nations in the other two BANS clauses (member nations cannot import from or export to non-member nations as this resolution is written), and don't want those clauses to be misread as import/export bans to and from member nations only; (2) we think it sounds better than "all WA nations" and we're nowhere close to the character limit.

-- We'll keep possession as part of this. While this resolution's greatest effect will be to limit the supply, by not correspondingly limiting the demand we would keep open a golden opportunity for black market materials. (OOC: for a RL reference, Japan until recently hadn't banned possession, but has had one of the highest incident rates of child sexual abuse in the world. Not saying this is proof of direct cause and effect, but it's enough to make a connection.)

-- We'll keep the terminology "nude images" in CLARIFIES subclause (2) for now, and will listen to other suggestions for wording. That said, what are film and video if not moving pictures, correct?

I also foresee an issue, particularly since age of consent in the nation currently in is the criteria, of international travelers unwillingly or unknowingly possessing pornography that would fall under these guidelines in one nation while not in another."

If international travelers unwillingly or unknowingly possess bombs, or guns, or certain drugs, which are illegal in our nation but legal in theirs, aren't they still breaking the law? We make it plainly clear during the customs process that people are responsible for all items in their luggage and are subject to prosecution if they bring in items prohibited by international and/or national law, so why should pornography be any different than weapons or drugs?

[Lexicor]

If international travelers unwillingly or unknowingly possess bombs, or guns, or illegal drugs, which are illegal in our nation but legal in theirs, aren't they still breaking the law? We make it plainly clear during the customs process that people are responsible for all items in their luggage and are subject to prosecution if they bring in items prohibited by international and/or national law, so why should pornography be any different than weapons or drugs?

OOC: I see a potential for this resolution to be heavily abused by member nations. Governments can very easily set up people they do not like with a spam email or file containing child porn and then arrest them.

[Wrapper]

Or they can plant a gun on them. Or they can send them sensitive materials and arrest them for espionage. If a corrupt government is out to get someone, they will, regardless of the method.

[Normlpeople]

If international travelers unwillingly or unknowingly possess bombs, or guns, or certain drugs, which are illegal in our nation but legal in theirs, aren't they still breaking the law? We make it plainly clear during the customs process that people are responsible for all items in their luggage and are subject to prosecution if they bring in items prohibited by international and/or national law, so why should pornography be any different than weapons or drugs?

Clover shook her head "It's not as cut and dry as that. A few stray files on a computer is all it takes, hardly something as obvious as a gun or package of drugs. Especially since age is not something that is inherently obvious in a simple recording."

[The Dark Star Republic]

A few stray files on a computer is all it takes, hardly something as obvious as a gun or package of drugs.

Yeah, and so for financial records, or government files, or incriminating emails, or any other data that could easily be planted on someone for political purposes.

Refusing to ban child pornography because you're worried governments will abuse those restrictions for political purposes would be as silly as refusing to ban financial fraud because you're worried governments will abuse those restrictions for political purposes.

[Normlpeople]

A few stray files on a computer is all it takes, hardly something as obvious as a gun or package of drugs.

Yeah, and so for financial records, or government files, or incriminating emails, or any other data that could easily be planted on someone for political purposes.

Refusing to ban child pornography because you're worried governments will abuse those restrictions for political purposes would be as silly as refusing to ban financial fraud because you're worried governments will abuse those restrictions for political purposes.

"I'm not. To be honest, a government will simply trump something up should they be corrupt enough to plant 'evidence'. This bill won't affect us anyway. What I am concerned about is travelers being unreasonably detained because of some questionable, yet legal, material that they may not even be aware they have on them"

[The Dark Star Republic]

What I am concerned about is travelers being unreasonably detained because of some questionable, yet legal, material that they may not even be aware they have on them

None of that is an argument against a child pornography ban. If your customs or immigration agents are routinely detaining people for "questionable, yet legal, material", then hire better trained agents who won't run the risk of getting your state sued. Furthermore, how would these files even be seen? We're talking about files on a computer, or phone, or memory stick. It's incredibly unlikely that even if someone did have massive amounts of child pornography on such a device, they would be detained as an "international traveller", because there would never be any cause to check such devices.

You are manufacturing a fear that is completely incidental to the actual proposal.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Actually, what I realized was what I was attempting to argue was likely covered under importation. The main concern I had was that what appears to be CP would be enough to hold legitimate travelers up at a border, it does not have to be a large amount at all.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Actually, what I realized was what I was attempting to argue was likely covered under importation. The main concern I had was that what appears to be CP would be enough to hold legitimate travelers up at a border, it does not have to be a large amount at all.

OOC: it was thoughts like these that originally kept me from including possession, but Scion's argument and the brouhaha in Japan have convinced me otherwise. That said, this resolution does have some safeguards to protect some innocent travelers -- a traveler from a country where nudity is the norm and is carrying family photos that are ordinary in every manner save for the nudity couldn't be prosecuted under this resolution.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Actually, what I realized was what I was attempting to argue was likely covered under importation. The main concern I had was that what appears to be CP would be enough to hold legitimate travelers up at a border, it does not have to be a large amount at all.

OOC: it was thoughts like these that originally kept me from including possession, but Scion's argument and the brouhaha in Japan have convinced me otherwise. That said, this resolution does have some safeguards to protect some innocent travelers -- a traveler from a country where nudity is the norm and is carrying family photos that are ordinary in every manner save for the nudity couldn't be prosecuted under this resolution.

OOC: Japan has an age of consent of 13. That makes it actually a great example of my concern. Under this proposed resolution, Pornography legal there would not be legal, in, say, the US. A traveling businessman with nude photos on his computer of his consenting-there-but-illegal-here girlfriend would be breaking the law, perhaps unknowingly, and definitely unwillingly. That is the type of thing that I am concerned about, not the guy who has a carry-on loaded with DVD's and Thumbdrives full of the stuff.

[Hirota]

I agree this is a crusade for moral right and peace of mind! THE PRIEST HAS SPOKEN!

You don't think priests getting involved in this particular subject is a bit like the KKK campaigning for minority rights?

OOC: Japan has an age of consent of 13.

Kinda off topic, but I'll get back to relevence in a bit! Thats not entirely true. It tends to vary from district to district from 13 to 18 as prefecture law typically overrides federal law.

Under this proposed resolution, Pornography legal there would not be legal, in, say, the US.

The age of consent does not equate to consent to appear in pornography. Japan does not have a single age at which everything is legal - in most prefecures you are considered an adult at 20.

It's all rather murky - which might be a point with this legislation - a traveller could easily be confused by conflicting international law. I suppose it depends on if you subscribe to Ignorantia juris non excusat.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Japan has an age of consent of 13. That makes it actually a great example of my concern. Under this proposed resolution, Pornography legal there would not be legal, in, say, the US. A traveling businessman with nude photos on his computer of his consenting-there-but-illegal-here girlfriend would be breaking the law, perhaps unknowingly, and definitely unwillingly. That is the type of thing that I am concerned about, not the guy who has a carry-on loaded with DVD's and Thumbdrives full of the stuff.

OOC: You're making a faulty assumption here. Pornography in Japan is not necessarily legal for those between 13 and 18, and this resolution would not necessarily make it legal. Japanese law would trump this resolution per the FURTHER CLARIFIES clause. But, okay, for argument's sake, let's say that in the NS world that there are nations where it's legal for those ages (assuming we're talking humans here of ordinary lifespans and maturity and not some advanced race that reaches adulthood at 13). Then, yes, he's breaking the law, as he would be if this were a real-life scenario. Same as if he'd brought a few ounces of marijuana, or a gun, from a country where it's legal to a country where it isn't. Now, would he be prosecuted to the same extent as someone who "has a carry-on loaded with DVD's and Thumbdrives full of the stuff"? Or a few pounds of cocaine? Or a mini-arsenal? Of course not.

As Hirota stated, ignorantia juris non excusat. If one is going to travel abroad, one better find out what the laws are in the destination country, especially in areas such as drugs, firearms and, yes, pornography.

[Araraukar]

If one is going to travel abroad, one better find out what the laws are in the destination country, especially in areas such as drugs, firearms and, yes, pornography.

OOC: Drugs, firearms, yes, certainly. But if you're a regular tourist not looking for prostitutes of any age, would you think to check age of consent and what the laws say of pornography of any sort?
It still amuses me that age of consent in Vatican is 12... unless it's been changed in the past couple of years.

Multiple EDITs because I fail at spelling.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Drugs, firearms, yes, certainly. But if you're a regular tourist not looking for prostitutes of any age, would you think to check age of consent and what the laws say of pornography of any sort?

OOC: Ummm, hell yeah. Try this. Google (with no quotes) laws for tourists. The first website that shows up on my search is a tourist travel guide for Natal (Brazil). The first item of interest, at the top of the page, is the age of consent. After a couple of news articles, a page specific to marijuana in Colorado, and a seemingly dead link to the French Tourist Office, the next search result is a page on laws in Thailand -- and notes, in its Items Prohibited by Law section, a ban on "obscene items and publications". Whether you would "think to check" or not, the information is out there, and readily available.

The possession clause stays.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Drugs, firearms, yes, certainly. But if you're a regular tourist not looking for prostitutes of any age, would you think to check age of consent and what the laws say of pornography of any sort?

OOC: Ummm, hell yeah.

OOC: Ok, let me rephrase that... WHY would you think to check age of consent and laws on pornography, if you weren't a sex tourist?

Whether you would "think to check" or not, the information is out there, and readily available.

In real life, yes, but in NS? Maybe there should be a clause that the laws should be easily accessible to people wanting to enter the country?

The possession clause stays.

Even if the pictures are of one's legal spouse, and person possessing them would also be under age of consent in the nation they're traveling to? (Don't think kiddie porn, think of some nations with age of consent at 18, and others allowing 17-yo's to marry.)

[Wrapper]

All OOC, I've given up on making the distinction for this.

OOC: Ok, let me rephrase that... WHY would you think to check age of consent and laws on pornography, if you weren't a sex tourist?

If I were to enter a foreign country knowing that I had porn on my laptop, I would check out the laws to make sure it was legal. Same as if I had a bong. Or a beer. Or a Swiss army knife on my belt. Or a Hustler magazine. Or a 15-year-old "child bride". Not to do so is irresponsibly ignorant and IMO is just asking for trouble.

Even if the pictures are of one's legal spouse, and person possessing them would also be under age of consent in the nation they're traveling to? (Don't think kiddie porn, think of some nations with age of consent at 18, and others allowing 17-yo's to marry.)

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not cover the following:
...
(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;

As long as you aren't selling them or displaying them for anyone, how is this illegal? And, before you say it, no, I don't think someone having something in their luggage is the same as a nation importing/exporting goods to another nation.

[Araraukar]

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not cover the following:
...
(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;

It wouldn't necessarily only be "of oneself", though. "Of oneself" reads to me as "oneself and no other people".

As long as you aren't selling them or displaying them for anyone, how is this illegal? And, before you say it, no, I don't think someone having something in their luggage is the same as a nation importing/exporting goods to another nation.

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

As Hirota stated, ignorantia juris non excusat. If one is going to travel abroad, one better find out what the laws are in the destination country, especially in areas such as drugs, firearms and, yes, pornography.

Doesn't quite match up.

And I think that part of the reason we're not connecting here properly, is that we're coming to the part of "including the visual recording of nude children primarily for sexual purposes" from different directions. The word "children" is so emotionally-laden in this instance that it makes you think I want to encourage "child-brides" and whatnot, while I think of countries with formal age of consent at something like 20 or 21 (in human terms) because it then goes for getting married and hard liquour and driving licence and gun ownership and whatnot also.

I get it that you're wanting to stop propagation of child pornography, but your definition of pornography - or, rather, "visual recording" - is so wide that it's catching all sorts of things it really needn't be catching.

Actually, looking at the text more closely... you define "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". Yet the BANs parts have "is below the age of consent in either the distributing or the receiving nation". It's the either-or in the BAN clauses that's making it an issue, I think.
...and I just realized you'd be banning practically all hentai. Excuse me while I have a gigglefit and half-agree with you there...