[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

[Lexicor]

Recommends nations establish a national age of consent for sex or sexual depiction.

OOC: I get that you cannot have an age of consent universally, but if you encourage nations to legislate a national age of sexual consent and keep a database of sorts on it, you could alleviate the worries raised by others and keep the legal principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat intact.

If national consent ages are established, the WATD (Tourism Division) shall compile them into a database, examine and update said database and based on data gathered establish a non binding WA Age of Consent. Kind of as a rough guideline.

OOC: A stronger version of the above clause.

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

Is this really necessary? Its pretty clear that resolutions are binding as international law. Seems superfluous in my opinion.

[Verdo-Releignia]

OOC: You may want something to do with the whole lolicon thing, yes or no.

[De re publica populi Romani]

I support the current form of this proposal.

[Wrapper]

...and I just realized you'd be banning practically all hentai. Excuse me while I have a gigglefit and half-agree with you there...

OOC: You may want something to do with the whole lolicon thing, yes or no.

Read subclause (7) again, both of you.

As for the rest... eh. My head hurts.

[Verdo-Releignia]

...and I just realized you'd be banning practically all hentai. Excuse me while I have a gigglefit and half-agree with you there...

OOC: You may want something to do with the whole lolicon thing, yes or no.

Read subclause (7) again, both of you.

As for the rest... eh. My head hurts.

So your banning pornography involving children unless I draw it?

[Separatist Peoples]

...and I just realized you'd be banning practically all hentai.

"About bloody time somebody did..."

[Wrapper]

So your banning pornography involving children unless I draw it?

What child are you harming by making a cartoon for adults? Banning hentai will not fly here, pretty sure of it. On the other hand, the final clause of this resolution does allow you to ban it in your own nation, so, go for it.

[Normlpeople]

As for the rest... eh. My head hurts.

"To be honest ambassador, when you decided to expand its reach to a total blanket ban, you had to expect it. As far as age of consent laws, not only would I not check them unless I was going somewhere expecting a sexual encounter, and unlike drugs or firearms, porn is a subjective thing, not cut and dry. A traveler might not know they even have it, heck, their roommates or children may have been messing around downloading pornography without their knowledge, creating a situation that need not occur.

A simple, though likely unpopular, suggestion would be to simply remove the possession restriction. Ban the creation and distribution, as well as import or export, and you pretty much accomplish the point of the resolution. Devoting resources to capturing and trying a traveler (or even a citizen) who has a few pictures on his computer are wasted, when they could be going after the guy with the catalog of it that is transmitting it."

[Normlpeople]

OOC: One idea that has been put forth (privately) is banning domestic production and distribution, while limiting the possession to an URGES or RECOMMENDS clause that nations ban/criminalize it. This would seem to alleviate the concern regarding possession (leaving that to the member nations to determine on a case-by-case basis, such as international travellers that are clearly not mass-producing or distributing it), while still tightening up the domestic end of things internationally (the producers are sought). One of the concerns however was rather this reduces it back to mild. Thoughts?

[Wrapper]

Okay, because I could not post on this thread for some reason, I did, by TG, propose a compromise where the possession ban is moved to an URGES clause or the like, so that each individual nation can figure out how best to legislate and enforce such a ban within its borders. As such this resolution will lose some strength, but the question is, it enough for a downgrade to "Mild"?

Will likely update the draft on Thursday.

[Araraukar]

So your banning pornography involving children unless I draw it?

What child are you harming by making a cartoon for adults?

I'm slightly confused here. If you want to ban child pornography, why are you suddenly drawing a line between actual activities, especially as your proposal says...

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.

...which suddenly made me wonder how you'd classify real imagery combined with animated, which turned something innocent into a sexually explicit act, even if the animated part was obviously not photorealistic.

Read subclause (7) again, both of you.

(7) Non-realistic, artistic representations, such as drawing, animation, painting or sculpture;

Does an anime character that is physically realistically proportioned (yes, rare, I know, but they pop up here and there) count as "non-realistic"? Because you are banning computer-generated imagery that's close to photorealism. Where do you draw the line? If nations are allowed to decide, they could set the bar however high they wanted, making the whole point of forbidding fake pictures/movies altogether redundant.

Also, since this proposal seems to concern itself with visual pictures only, am I right in presuming that written stories would be fine?

OOC: In Australia, I think it was, animation featuring as unrealistic characters as the Simpsons, would be forbidden, if it features sexual activity with or witnessed by children. There's actually a couple of actual Simpsons episodes that would be forbidden by that law.

...and I just realized you'd be banning practically all hentai.

"About bloody time somebody did..."

As long as it didn't ban yaoi, where the participants are clearly in their late teens (and are said to be 18 or over), I'd be fine with it.

I did, by TG, propose a compromise where the possession ban is moved to an URGES clause or the like, so that each individual nation can figure out how best to legislate and enforce such a ban within its borders.

That would definitely help with the issues concerning unwary travelers who may be unaware they have images that would be banned in the country they're traveling to. If you're still banning deliberate creation and distribution, I wouldn't call it mild.

[Wrapper]

Does an anime character that is physically realistically proportioned (yes, rare, I know, but they pop up here and there) count as "non-realistic"? Because you are banning computer-generated imagery that's close to photorealism. Where do you draw the line? If nations are allowed to decide, they could set the bar however high they wanted, making the whole point of forbidding fake pictures/movies altogether redundant.

Okay, let's try this, since I've given up on IC debate for now:

Peter Jackson loses his mind and is now in the porn parody business. The intent under this resolution: kiddie Gollums having sex, legal (it's an unrealistic animated depiction, the characters cannot be mistaken for real kids, even if they are realistically proportioned with a real filmed background); kiddie Hobbitses and elves having sex, illegal (using real child actors in rubber feet or pointy ears or any other disproportionate body parts, even if the sex is simulated); young adults who look suspiciously like kiddies with fake beards but are actually dwarves, having sex, legal (the actors are not children, they are adults); MASSIVE-generated hordes of kiddie humans having sex at the Orgy of Helm's Deep Throat, illegal (realistic CGI that's virtually indistinguishable from actual film footage).

Now... does the wording presented in the proposal match up with this scenario?

Also, since this proposal seems to concern itself with visual pictures only, am I right in presuming that written stories would be fine?

Correct, we are not banning Lolita or L'Amant here.

OOC: In Australia, I think it was, animation featuring as unrealistic characters as the Simpsons, would be forbidden, if it features sexual activity with or witnessed by children. There's actually a couple of actual Simpsons episodes that would be forbidden by that law.

Would be legal under this resolution.

That would definitely help with the issues concerning unwary travelers who may be unaware they have images that would be banned in the country they're traveling to. If you're still banning deliberate creation and distribution, I wouldn't call it mild.

(Finally, some IC:) Noted. We'll leave this open for debate, and we encourage others' opinions. We're still on the fence between Mild and Significant once we drop the possession ban. Will edit the current draft later today.

[Normlpeople]

"Dropping the possession ban also has a side effect of leaving enforcement at a national level, where authorities may be more understanding and reasonable in such cases, as opposed to an internationally dictated ban requiring them to be heavy handed. It is a good move indeed. I would make two changes. First, perhaps re-wording something like "realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is difficult to distinguish from a live person" would be a little more clear in defining the goal.

As to Miss Leverets point, perhaps a change to read "DEFINES "child pornography" as the visual recording of one or more children engaging in sexual acts" would be more clear, as manipulation of a scene with animation would be a clear violation of the act as per the definition of visual recording. Just my pre-coffee sense." Clover said, returning to her seat, where a steaming mug of sweet black liquid awaited.

OOC: Playing devil's advocate on this one has been harder than I thought.

[Araraukar]

Peter Jackson loses his mind and is now in the porn parody business.

The intent under this resolution: kiddie Gollums having sex, legal (it's an unrealistic animated depiction, the characters cannot be mistaken for real kids, even if they are realistically proportioned with a real filmed background); kiddie Hobbitses and elves having sex, illegal (using real child actors in rubber feet or pointy ears or any other disproportionate body parts, even if the sex is simulated); young adults who look suspiciously like kiddies with fake beards but are actually dwarves, having sex, legal (the actors are not children, they are adults); MASSIVE-generated hordes of kiddie humans having sex at the Orgy of Helm's Deep Throat, illegal (realistic CGI that's virtually indistinguishable from actual film footage).

OOC: *sets you on fire for daring to disgrace LoTR* Also, LMAO. I KNOW there are porn films made to more or less parody LoTR. That's besides the point.

IC: If you're nixing the possession (or, rather, unintentional possession) ban, it won't really be that big an issue anymore, but if such films are distributed, couldn't they just write on the DVD cover "all actors are over 18", even if they looked like they were barely 14? Who would need to procure evidence that they really were? The distributor? The maker of the film? The prosecutor?

OOC: Playing devil's advocate on this one has been harder than I thought.

OOC: I hear ya. But it helps to make a proposal that's less easy to repeal. And this issue needs a hard-to-repeal resolution.

[The Dark Star Republic]

We will be opposing this, and drafting a repeal. A ban on child pornography that doesn't ban child pornography is nonsense.

[Lexicor]

We will be opposing this, and drafting a repeal. A ban on child pornography that doesn't ban child pornography is nonsense.

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.

Not really sure what you're talking about Dark Star...

[The Dark Star Republic]

Not really sure what you're talking about

The draft hasn't been updated yet, but when it is, the ban on possession will be removed.

[Lexicor]

Not really sure what you're talking about

The draft hasn't been updated yet, but when it is, the ban on possession will be removed.

In that case.

[Wrapper]

Well. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. This is going on hold for a few days.

[Lexicor]

Well. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. This is going on hold for a few days.

The question is which damns you less.

[Araraukar]

Not really sure what you're talking about

The draft hasn't been updated yet, but when it is, the ban on possession will be removed.

That's mainly because the author refused to address accidental possession when a person crosses borders with imagery that was fine at the nation they left, but is considered "child" pornography in the other nation.

[Wrapper]

That's mainly because the author refused to address accidental possession when a person crosses borders with imagery that was fine at the nation they left, but is considered "child" pornography in the other nation.

That's an unfair statement at best and an outright untruth at worst. I did not refuse to address it; I addressed it by saying it would be illegal, just like the accidental transport of weapons or drugs from a "legal" nation to an "illegal" nation. Just because I didn't address it in a manner to your satisfaction does not mean I refused to address it.

The more I think about this, the more I'm tempted to leave everything as is, save for Norml's clarification on CGI, which is a clear improvement. Still going to leave this for a few days; not going to try editing the OP on an iPad.

[Sciongrad]

The draft hasn't been updated yet, but when it is, the ban on possession will be removed.

That's mainly because the author refused to address accidental possession when a person crosses borders with imagery that was fine at the nation they left, but is considered "child" pornography in the other nation.

"What's to address? I don't see why that shouldn't be illegal. If someone brought cocaine to Sciongrad from a nation where cocaine was legal, relevant authorities would still confiscate the materials. Why is child pornography any different?"

EDIT: I'm not good at the thing where I move my fingers to make words.

[Araraukar]

Just because I didn't address it in a manner to your satisfaction does not mean I refused to address it.

No, I meant you went from full ban to no restrictions at all, rather than consider accidental possession of a picture or three being different from having a computer full of the stuff.

And as per the objections of the laws [OOC though they might've been] wouldn't the accidental possession be easily avoidable if there was a database [OOC: oh the horrors, a committee!] of the laws and ages of consent that tourists could easily check (I don't think there's any on gun or drug laws either, but that's for a different resolution to address) prior to crossing borders. Then you could keep your full ban in effect.

Still going to leave this for a few days; not going to try editing the OP on an iPad.

OOC: Probably a wise choice, if DYAC is of any indication (though it's more for iPhones, I think).

[Normlpeople]

That's mainly because the author refused to address accidental possession when a person crosses borders with imagery that was fine at the nation they left, but is considered "child" pornography in the other nation.

"What's to address? I don't see why that shouldn't be illegal. If someone brought cocaine to Sciongrad from a nation where cocaine was legal, relevant authorities would still confiscate the materials. Why is child pornography any different?"

"Because in this case, a gun is a gun, drugs are drugs. Is the naked person in the photo 15 or 16? How can one tell exactly? It actually can get far worse than accidental possession. Lets assume a traveler from nation A, where age of consent is 16, travels to nation B, where age of consent is 18. After staying some time, he is looking forward to returning home. His 16 year old wife sends him a naked picture in his email, to remind him of what is waiting for him. Is he now guilty of possession? Importation? It is his wife after all...

I still do not believe a possession ban is required, since you have banned creation, distribution, import and export, it will be essentially impossible to actually possess. That said, perhaps the title could be changed to something more generic to suit the point possession isn't covered.

I can suggest two things. The first would be a RECOMMENDS clause that suggests individual nations draft possession laws. The second would be an exemption for a "reasonable amount" of it, for "personal use", if the subject in it is of legal age in the possessors home nation. Distribution would still be banned and punished accordingly, and "reasonable amount" is enough of a loophole that would allow for liberal or draconian measures when dealing with travelers."

OOC: While I can't say much regarding nudes, I can say, from my time as a bartender, that you can't tell age by looking sometimes. I've kicked teenagers out that looked like they were in their late 20s, and carded people in their 30s who didn't look a day over 12. It's not as cut and dry as 'this is a gun' or 'this is a bag of white powder'.