[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

[Elke and Elba]

(4) The act of transmitting a visual recording of oneself to another person or persons privately but not publicly;

So minors will get prosecuted for showing themselves?

Or adults be prosecuted because a minor decided to show his/herself over the Net?

Logic?!

[Sciongrad]

"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?

"This is disturbing because this logic is an argument against any ban on child pornography possession, not just accidental possession in foreign territory. If there is reason to suspect that the material in question is child pornography, then it should be confiscated. The responsibility is on the traveler to ensure that he doesn't bring any materials that can be construed as child pornography; it's not the responsibility of nation that he's traveling to make exceptions based on age differences across borders."

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...

"Thinking rationally, I hardly find it realistic that law enforcement officials could accurately enforce any law against sexting."

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.

"This is completely false. That means that any child pornography still in existence will continue to be used and a resolution entitled "child pornography ban" will do nothing to stop that. I am utterly shocked that a resolution of this nature is receiving so much opposition due to a clause that bans the possession of child pornography..."

[Araraukar]

(4) The act of transmitting a visual recording of oneself to another person or persons privately but not publicly;

So minors will get prosecuted for showing themselves?

Or adults be prosecuted because a minor decided to show his/herself over the Net?

Logic?!

Hope you noticed this:

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not cover the following:

EDIT:

*snip*

OOC: I think you got quote code messed up somewhere in there.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I think you got quote code messed up somewhere in there.

OOC: Yep, you're right. Thanks for the heads up.

[Araraukar]

"This is disturbing because this logic is an argument against any ban on child pornography possession, not just accidental possession in foreign territory.

Hence why it makes no sense to either fully ban or not ban at all.

If there is reason to suspect that the material in question is child pornography, then it should be confiscated.

Doesn't this give nations mandate to confiscate practically anything?

The responsibility is on the traveler to ensure that he doesn't bring any materials that can be construed as child pornography; it's not the responsibility of nation that he's traveling to make exceptions based on age differences across borders.

...hence why it would be a good idea for those national laws or lack thereof to be easily accessible somewhere like, oh, say, a database. [OOC: In real life it's usually easy to just check the internet, but in NS it would have to be some sort of WA-committee-of-a-database for ease of access.]

"Thinking rationally, I hardly find it realistic that law enforcement officials could accurately enforce any law against sexting."

Well, according to this proposal, they would have to. WA magic at its best.

"This is completely false. That means that any child pornography still in existence will continue to be used

"Used"? How? You're not allowed to distribute it.

and a resolution entitled "child pornography ban" will do nothing to stop that.

...then what's the point? What's the point of any resolution, for that matter, if private people can break the law anyway?

I am utterly shocked that a resolution of this nature is receiving so much opposition due to a clause that bans to possession of child pornography..."

I'm opposed to bad definitions, always have been. This shouldn't be called child pornography at all, as that makes people think of child molestors of the worst kind, but "Ban on pictures of those under age of consent in whichever nation has the highest age of consent", since that's pretty much what this proposal does. If you had sexy pictures of someone who's verifiably 19 years old (going by a human example), and you went to a country where the age limit was at 21 (as I've provided examples of before), you could be arrested for having "child pornography" on you. This is what I'm objecting to.

The definitions make "child pornography" to be recordings of people who are under the age of consent where the "child" is. But the bans are concerned of the age limit in the target country (of travel or export), if/when it's higher there. That's what's making it all so difficult - in the sexting example the person receiving a sexting message would be the one in trouble, not the one sending it.

...actually I can see a marvelous loophole there for any authoritarian regime that wants to get rid of a difficult opposition leader - just have any "child" send sexy pictures of themselves to them, and then arrest them before they can delete the messages...

[Tea Party USA 2]

Tea Party USA 2 fully supports the attempt to combat immoral and sinful production and use of underage pornography.

[Sciongrad]

Hence why it makes no sense to either fully ban or not ban at all.

"Um, I prefer the type of law that fully prohibits the possession of child pornography. My last post was trying to prove how ridiculous the 'but banning the possession of child porn might make it difficult when traveling' argument is, not that an absolute ban on possession was impossible."

Doesn't this give nations mandate to confiscate practically anything?

"No. Only materials that pose a reasonable suspicion of being child pornography within that nation."

...hence why it would be a good idea for those national laws or lack thereof to be easily accessible somewhere like, oh, say, a database.

"Why can't someone from nation A (in the event that they plan on bringing porn on their trip) just check the age of consent for the nation that they plan on traveling to? Is a database created by a WA committee really necessary?"

Well, according to this proposal, they would have to. WA magic at its best.

"Proposals can't force member nations to do things that are impossible. There is no way to determine, as far as I can tell, if sexting is occurring without violating GAR#213. If a resolution required all nations to turn all adult men named Robert into wooden chairs, then you can't possibly continue to maintain the ridiculous position that whatever a WA resolution says is automatically translated into reality, could you?"

"Used"? How? You're not allowed to distribute it.

"If someone already owns it, then a ban on distribution does not prevent them from using it for their own purposes to their hearts content."

...then what's the point? What's the point of any resolution, for that matter, if private people can break the law anyway?

"I don't know what you mean here. I meant that a resolution that fails to prohibit the possession of child pornography should not be called the 'child pornography ban.'"

I'm opposed to bad definitions, always have been. This shouldn't be called child pornography at all, as that makes people think of child molestors of the worst kind, but "Ban on pictures of those under age of consent in whichever nation has the highest age of consent", since that's pretty much what this proposal does. If you had sexy pictures of someone who's verifiably 19 years old (going by a human example), and you went to a country where the age limit was at 21 (as I've provided examples of before), you could be arrested for having "child pornography" on you. This is what I'm objecting to.

"If I brought heroine into a nation where heroine is illegal, I would not be shocked if it was confiscated and I was detained, believe it or not. It is the responsibility of the traveler to ensure that their materials are legal in the nation that they're traveling to. Nations should not be forced to provide any additional protection for individuals that may come from nations with different customs."

The definitions make "child pornography" to be recordings of people who are under the age of consent where the "child" is. But the bans are concerned of the age limit in the target country (of travel or export), if/when it's higher there. That's what's making it all so difficult - in the sexting example the person receiving a sexting message would be the one in trouble, not the one sending it.

"For all intents and purposes, sexting is a non-issue unless the individual in question makes the information public. And in the event that they do, then they're completely responsible for publicly sharing material that is considered child pornography in that particular nation."

...actually I can see a marvelous loophole there for any authoritarian regime that wants to get rid of a difficult opposition leader - just have any "child" send sexy pictures of themselves to them, and then arrest them before they can delete the messages...

"'Brilliant idea, let's hide slaves in the Prime Minister's house, call the police, and then have him arrested. It's foolproof!' The same can be said of almost any other resolution that bans anything. I don't know why a child pornography ban is any different."

[The Dark Star Republic]

What's the point of any resolution, for that matter, if private people can break the law anyway?

This is the most hysterical thing I have ever read.

[Wrapper]

Okay, slight edit to the "realistic depiction" subclause, and the possession ban stays. You travel abroad, you need to know the laws ahead of time, be it for weapons, drugs, pornography, agricultural products, animals, hazardous materials, etc.

We don't foresee making any further changes.

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

Do we have your support for this no-nonsense draft?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Do we have your support for this no-nonsense draft?

Heh. Given you have sensibly reverted to banning possession of child pornography, you certainly don't have my unwavering opposition. :)

As for the rest I will have to look it over another time.

[Normlpeople]

Okay, slight edit to the "realistic depiction" subclause, and the possession ban stays. You travel abroad, you need to know the laws ahead of time, be it for weapons, drugs, pornography, agricultural products, animals, hazardous materials, etc.

Clover sighed "What part of my point is unclear? Yes, they should know the laws ahead of time. However, guns and drugs are obvious and can be determined in a short time. A picture is less clear, especially throwing the vast number of species in member nations into the mix. Since the decision has been dictated by the WA, then draconian measures must be taken to detain the suspect until it is clear the photos are acceptable."

"If you are dead set against removing the possession ban, then you need to make an exemption for travelers, perhaps allowing them to remove or dispose of a 'reasonable amount' of offending material immediately without penalty, since that would satisfy the concern while still holding mass-importers to the fire. The act, which has been referred to as "sexting", must be addressed, especially internationally, since the recipient does not have any choice in receiving the offending material.

Yes, removing a possession ban means that one who currently possesses it can still possess that collection, which was the final point I wished to bring up. However, as they cannot distribute it, or create more, I would venture that knowledge is far more cruel to the people who indulge in that sick behavior than a simple ban. After all, A possession charge is often simply a 'catch-all' charge to allow law enforcement to further investigate an individual while bypassing his rights, or as a tack on to a larger list, both of which I find ineffective. These resources are better spent investigating the producers and distributors, not the end user."

OOC: I point at the "war on drugs" as a great example why possession bans don't work. Marijuana, for example, has been illegal for some time, but is readily available pretty much anywhere, and some states actually legalized it after realizing how ineffective a ban actually was.

[Wrapper]

(A) Your point is not unclear, we just disagree with it.

(B) There will be no exception for travelers. That would present a major loophole that criminals can easily exploit.

(C) Sexting is adequately covered in CLARIFIES subclause 4.

OOC: In the real world, child pornography is illegal to produce and distribute, yet with no possession ban in Japan it has been comparatively abundant. Why do you think this is so, even if production and distribution are illegal?

[Araraukar]

My last post was trying to prove how ridiculous the 'but banning the possession of child porn might make it difficult when traveling' argument is, not that an absolute ban on possession was impossible."

Again, I'm not advocating letting a person with harddrives full of the stuff off scotch free. I'm advocating for not prosecuting as a pedophile a person who might have a picture or two of a person that's well above the age of consent in their nation, but falls shy by one year or two in the one they're traveling to.

As it currently reads, the proposal defines a 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", so for the person with the pictures, the person in the pictures would not be a child.

Doesn't this give nations mandate to confiscate practically anything?

"No. Only materials that pose a reasonable suspicion of being child pornography within that nation."

Well, "reasonable suspicion" definition is bound to vary from nation to nation, and I can easily see how, say, customs office would receive an anonymous tip of a person coming into the country having child pornography on their computer... while said person might actually have governmental/industrial secrets instead.

"Why can't someone from nation A (in the event that they plan on bringing porn on their trip) just check the age of consent for the nation that they plan on traveling to?

As I and others have pointed out, if you're not traveling with the intention of finding sexual partners in the nation you're traveling to, it'll be unlikely to even occur to you that you would need to. Especially as, by the definition I pointed out above, such pictures as you'd likely to accidentally possess, would not be child pornography to you. They would just magically become such the moment you crossed the border.

Is a database created by a WA committee really necessary?

It's getting to a point where that's the only way I can see of coming to a compromise here.

"Proposals can't force member nations to do things that are impossible. There is no way to determine, as far as I can tell, if sexting is occurring without violating GAR#213.

From GAR#213:

3. Affirms that this resolution does not protect privacy with regard to unlawful actions (or matters) and actions that occur within public view;

4. Further affirms the legality of the following under the law of this Assembly as not infringing on the right to privacy:

*snip*

b) Conducting a search or seizure with a warrant or similar authorization because of a possible legal violation by the person or possibly involving the person who is being searched, whose property is being searched, or whose property is being seized;

c) Conducting a search or seizure without a warrant or similar authorization because a compelling public interest exists (for example, there is an imminent threat to public safety);

I've underlined the relevant bits.

If a resolution required all nations to turn all adult men named Robert into wooden chairs, then you can't possibly continue to maintain the ridiculous position that whatever a WA resolution says is automatically translated into reality, could you?"

OOC: It'd be illegal for either Bloody Stupid or contradicting CoCR.

"If someone already owns it, then a ban on distribution does not prevent them from using it for their own purposes to their hearts content."

If you dismiss the parts I quoted above of GAR#213 as not fitting this proposal's case, then wouldn't mere possession not be impossible to prove as well?

"I don't know what you mean here. I meant that a resolution that fails to prohibit the possession of child pornography should not be called the 'child pornography ban.'"

Ah, I misunderstood the sentence, my bad.

It is the responsibility of the traveler to ensure that their materials are legal in the nation that they're traveling to. Nations should not be forced to provide any additional protection for individuals that may come from nations with different customs.

Protection, no. Knowledge of their laws, yes. Thus a "tourist information database" or whatever you want to call it, would be handy. For the purposes of this particular proposal, it should definitely contain age of consent and any additional national laws on this matter.

"For all intents and purposes, sexting is a non-issue unless the individual in question makes the information public.

And yet "BANS the production, possession, sale and distribution of child pornography in all member nations". As you argued earlier, "If someone already owns it, then a ban on distribution does not prevent them from using it for their own purposes to their hearts content." I read those both to mean that any possession is to be prosecuted, no matter how private or innocent it would seem. After all, it's only the age of consent in the nation we currently happen to be in, that's the defining factor. [OOC: In fact, I find it hard to read the argument "but you won't know unless they distribute it" as anything else "but you won't know they're breaking the law already, unless they distribute it", since mere possession is banned.]

And in the event that they do, then they're completely responsible for publicly sharing material that is considered child pornography in that particular nation.

Yes. Definitely agreed here. Yet possession is banned as well.

"'Brilliant idea, let's hide slaves in the Prime Minister's house, call the police, and then have him arrested. It's foolproof!'

Well, technically that would work too. Though I'm fairly amused with the idea of hiding slaves now...

I don't know why a child pornography ban is any different.

Indeed, why should it be? Earlier you argued that possession is as bad as distribution, and some others have opinioned it should be prosecuted as seriously. Shouldn't that apply to all resolutions that ban something?

What's the point of any resolution, for that matter, if private people can break the law anyway?

This is the most hysterical thing I have ever read.

It was based on a misunderstanding.

(B) There will be no exception for travelers. That would present a major loophole that criminals can easily exploit.

Yes, because having to delete one or two pictures of someone a year under the traveling-to nation's age of consent from your smartphone is clearly on par with importing a crate of kiddie porn DVDs.

(C) Sexting is adequately covered in CLARIFIES subclause 4.

Except for the part where possession is banned, no matter how you came to own the visual recording in question. Something emailed/texted to you by someone else, without your asking for it, still makes you guilty of possession.

Why do you think this is so, even if production and distribution are illegal?

OOC: Because clearly production and distribution are not monitored closely enough. That's what I mean with "WA magic" coming into play here.

Actually, I think that if there were a "first time traveling to the country" exception for a couple of pictures or whatever exception - having to delete the pictures and being educated about the age differences - I'd be fine with it, since then you couldn't claim being ignorant of the laws on future visits. [OOC: This is not meant to excuse the amounts that "intent to distribute" wouldn't cover in real life.]

[Wrapper]

Again, I'm not advocating letting a person with harddrives full of the stuff off scotch free. I'm advocating for not prosecuting as a pedophile a person who might have a picture or two of a person that's well above the age of consent in their nation, but falls shy by one year or two in the one they're traveling to.

As it currently reads, the proposal defines a 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", so for the person with the pictures, the person in the pictures would not be a child.

A picture or two of... whom? A loved one back home? A loved one traveling with you? Someone unknown to you?

Protection, no. Knowledge of their laws, yes. Thus a "tourist information database" or whatever you want to call it, would be handy. For the purposes of this particular proposal, it should definitely contain age of consent and any additional national laws on this matter.

It's a good idea. But, such a database should include information on not just ages of consent, but also weapons, drugs, etc., and as such would be outside of the scope of this resolution.

Yes, because having to delete one or two pictures of someone a year under the traveling-to nation's age of consent from your smartphone is clearly on par with importing a crate of kiddie porn DVDs.

Nonsense, no one said they are on par. Is punching someone in the face on par with chopping off his head?

Except for the part where possession is banned, no matter how you came to own the visual recording in question. Something emailed/texted to you by someone else, without your asking for it, still makes you guilty of possession.

Would this concern be addressed as follows: Adding to the CLARIFIES clause, something like, "The unsolicited receipt of child pornography, provided that such materials are turned over to law enforcement authorities upon discovery," and, accordingly, adding "solicitation" to the list of acts in the BANS clause? This would still make it illegal to ask children for nude pictures, but should clearly not make the recipient of unwanted materials a criminal.

[Normlpeople]

(A) Your point is not unclear, we just disagree with it.

(B) There will be no exception for travelers. That would present a major loophole that criminals can easily exploit.

(C) Sexting is adequately covered in CLARIFIES subclause 4.

OOC: In the real world, child pornography is illegal to produce and distribute, yet with no possession ban in Japan it has been comparatively abundant. Why do you think this is so, even if production and distribution are illegal?

"You clearly do disagree with me on a few things, but that is fine. There is no loophole in allowing travelers an exception, as a simple clause specifying a reasonable amount would be enough to distinguish from one with a few pictures on their device or one with several media devices full of it. Especially since, as was said before, one cannot tell age by a simple glance sometimes.

Sexting is not adequately covered when it is international. Your subclause covers the act of sending the media, but not the act of receiving it. This is far more of a loophole than allowing a travelers exemption.

Would this concern be addressed as follows: Adding to the CLARIFIES clause, something like, "The unsolicited receipt of child pornography, provided that such materials are turned over to law enforcement authorities upon discovery," and, accordingly, adding "solicitation" to the list of acts in the BANS clause? This would still make it illegal to ask children for nude pictures, but should clearly not make the recipient of unwanted materials a criminal.

So, if your wife, who may be underage in the nation you are currently in, sends you a naked picture, I trust you would run immediately to law enforcement to turn it over?"

OOC: IIRC, Japan didn't actually make CP illegal until very recently, and, while I would love to take your word on it, I don't have evidence that it is 'abundant'.

[Wrapper]

Sexting is not adequately covered when it is international. Your subclause covers the act of sending the media, but not the act of receiving it. This is far more of a loophole than allowing a travelers exemption.
...
So, if your wife, who may be underage in the nation you are currently in, sends you a naked picture, I trust you would run immediately to law enforcement to turn it over?"

Well now, if that was your point, then that wasn't so clear after all. Hmmm... seems we should add a "receipt of such transmission" or some such wording to subclause 4 to address this.

As far as "a simple clause specifying a reasonable amount", that's not going to fly. There's no "reasonable amount" of bona fide child pornography, is there?

[Araraukar]

A picture or two of... whom? A loved one back home? A loved one traveling with you? Someone unknown to you?

And a customs/police officer would know the difference how?

It's a good idea. But, such a database should include information on not just ages of consent, but also weapons, drugs, etc., and as such would be outside of the scope of this resolution.

All it takes is for it to be created in one proposal for that proposal's needs - which means you could limit it here for this proposal's subject matter - and then other proposals can use it. That's happening with WASP quite often.

Yes, because having to delete one or two pictures of someone a year under the traveling-to nation's age of consent from your smartphone is clearly on par with importing a crate of kiddie porn DVDs.

Nonsense, no one said they are on par. Is punching someone in the face on par with chopping off his head?

Please point out to me where the proposal makes the disctinction.

Would this concern be addressed as follows: Adding to the CLARIFIES clause, something like, "The unsolicited receipt of child pornography, provided that such materials are turned over to law enforcement authorities upon discovery," and, accordingly, adding "solicitation" to the list of acts in the BANS clause? This would still make it illegal to ask children for nude pictures, but should clearly not make the recipient of unwanted materials a criminal.

That would indeed work to close the loophole allowing unscrupulous people to abuse the possession ban.

As far as "a simple clause specifying a reasonable amount", that's not going to fly. There's no "reasonable amount" of bona fide child pornography, is there?

And unsolicited sexy pictures of a minor count as that how exactly? Oh yes, forgot, the strange definitions and WA magic.

[Normlpeople]

As far as "a simple clause specifying a reasonable amount", that's not going to fly. There's no "reasonable amount" of bona fide child pornography, is there?

"If there was a clear-cut, international definition to what it actually was, then yes, I would agree. However, in the WA, there is not. Even still, a possession ban puts a lot of pressure on police or customs workers, who cannot be expected to know every species in the WA well enough to make a determination on the spot regarding particular media. This could very well lead to several international incidents and lawsuits, which is why there needs to be a reasonable limit set on one individual with a few items vs one with many"

[Wrapper]

OOC: Updated the redraft. Still think a tourist database should be separate from this. Will not be setting a "reasonable" limit, but, I think the revised "selfie" (hate that term) exceptions will allow most travelers to keep the private stuff on their cell phones legal.

the strange definitions and WA magic

And Hobbitses, don't forget the Hobbitses.

[Araraukar]

the strange definitions and WA magic

And Hobbitses, don't forget the Hobbitses.

OOC: That reminds me I needed to log off and cook dinner...

[Wrapper]

And Hobbitses, don't forget the Hobbitses.

OOC: That reminds me I needed to log off and cook dinner...

Almost time for elevenses here.

[Bananaistan]

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.

We are somewhat concerned that this definition, and the other definitions listed, are not tied down to referring to a child "at the time of the recording". It may be helpful to introduce some provision to this effect.

Notwithstanding that, and in relation to children around the "edges" of differing ages of consent in different jurisdictions, we are deeply concerned that a legitimate piece depicting, say, an 18 year old, recorded in a country where the age of consent is 18, in the hands of a person in another country where the age of consent is also 18, would suddenly become a piece of prohibited child pornography should that 18 year old move to a country where the age of consent is, say, 21. At the moment under the current wording, such a situation could arise.

-- realistic depiction, such as computer-generated animation, that is difficult to distinguish from the recording of a real person.

We are opposed to an international prohibition of anything which is not a depiction of actual children. Different societies have different approaches to this rather thorny issue and we do not support an across the board, universal approach to this. We feel that the point of this proposal should be to protect children, not pixels.

... including the visual recording of nude children primarily for sexual purposes.

This provision also concerns us. A nude recording of anyone (or anything) can be perfectly innocent or it could be used for sexual purposes depending on who's looking at it. We do not wish to criminalise, say, nudist parents taking a photo of the whole family, just because a pervert might get his hands on the photo.

BANS the exportation of pornography by member nations ...

BANS the importation of pornography by member nations ...

Could we suggest that the above be amended to "from member nations" and "into member nations"?

Edit: We also meant to say that perhaps the proposal should take a narrower focus. You could deal solely with depictions of child sexual abuse while leaving privacy issues to a separate, age neutral proposal. The exceptions listed in the Clarifies clause could be significantly trimmed down in such a case.

[Wrapper]

We are somewhat concerned that this definition, and the other definitions listed, are not tied down to referring to a child "at the time of the recording". It may be helpful to introduce some provision to this effect.

Really? The "visual recording of one or more children" doesn't cease being just that, a recording of children, once a few years go by and they reach adulthood.

Notwithstanding that, and in relation to children around the "edges" of differing ages of consent in different jurisdictions, we are deeply concerned that a legitimate piece depicting, say, an 18 year old, recorded in a country where the age of consent is 18, in the hands of a person in another country where the age of consent is also 18, would suddenly become a piece of prohibited child pornography should that 18 year old move to a country where the age of consent is, say, 21. At the moment under the current wording, such a situation could arise.

This, on the other hand... is obviously not our intent, but we concede that the wording can definitely be interpreted that way. We'll make a change shortly.

We are opposed to an international prohibition of anything which is not a depiction of actual children. Different societies have different approaches to this rather thorny issue and we do not support an across the board, universal approach to this. We feel that the point of this proposal should be to protect children, not pixels.

The state of CGI is such that one can produce realistic-looking media using, for example, the facial features of a real child. Were this child's family, or even the child himself/herself, to come across such media, wouldn't that be harmful to this child? Perhaps not in a physical way, but certainly in an emotional way.

This provision also concerns us. A nude recording of anyone (or anything) can be perfectly innocent or it could be used for sexual purposes depending on who's looking at it. We do not wish to criminalise, say, nudist parents taking a photo of the whole family, just because a pervert might get his hands on the photo.

This falls under "(2) The act of visually recording nude images, provided it is not intended to be used for sexual purposes" which is explicitly not covered under this resolution. In both cases, one must determine what the intent is. Case 1: A nudist family takes a video of a kid's birthday party, and adds it to their collection of home videos. This recording, obviously, is "not intended to be used for sexual purposes", and would be legal, even if some pervert finds this collection and uses it for sexual purposes (OOC: every time I type that I have to resist the urge to roll out a euphemism for masturbation). Case 2: Some pervert discreetly films a nudist family at a kid's birthday party, and adds it to his "collection". Obviously, the act of making this recording is "primarily for sexual purposes" and would be illegal. Are there shades of gray in between? And where exactly do we draw the line? We feel that trying to discern intent is not going to be accomplished in the scope of a World Assembly resolution, and is better left to law enforcement or the judiciary to interpret on a case-by-case basis.

Could we suggest that the above be amended to "from member nations" and "into member nations"?

You could. Could we then ignore you? Just kidding, that does read better, we'll make that change in the next draft.

EDIT: Re-redraft posted with the above changes.

[Normlpeople]

Notwithstanding that, and in relation to children around the "edges" of differing ages of consent in different jurisdictions, we are deeply concerned that a legitimate piece depicting, say, an 18 year old, recorded in a country where the age of consent is 18, in the hands of a person in another country where the age of consent is also 18, would suddenly become a piece of prohibited child pornography should that 18 year old move to a country where the age of consent is, say, 21. At the moment under the current wording, such a situation could arise.

Clover spoke up "This is the kind of thing I am talking about when I mean a travelers exemption. I am not talking about children that are clearly underage, I am talking about those on the edges. That said, perhaps a compromise could be in order. First, perhaps an option, where the amount is clearly not an importation attempt, for the destination nation to allow for immediate destruction of the suspicious material instead of persecution for possession. Second, allow for a limited exemption for spouses that may fall under this act in another nation.

The last change I would request is this:

(7) The unsolicited receipt, such as via electronic means or parcel delivery, and subsequent temporary possession of child pornography, provided that such materials are destroyed orturned over to law enforcement authorities upon discovery;

After all, should someone you know be unaware you are in a nation that outlaws reception of this material, you would not wish to hang them out to dry, assuming that the nation the traveler is in can actually persecute someone in the senders nation.

You have addressed most of my issues. My 'travelers exemption' request was seemingly unclear, but its becoming clearer now."

OOC: This was painful on my phone...

[Wrapper]

Clover spoke up "This is the kind of thing I am talking about when I mean a travelers exemption. I am not talking about children that are clearly underage, I am talking about those on the edges. That said, perhaps a compromise could be in order. First, perhaps an option, where the amount is clearly not an importation attempt, for the destination nation to allow for immediate destruction of the suspicious material instead of persecution for possession.

We shall not be opening up that loophole.

Second, allow for a limited exemption for spouses that may fall under this act in another nation.

Is this not already adequately addressed in the CLARIFIES subclauses? (OOC: Careful here, you don't want criminals to get around a ban by filming child brides.)

destroyed or turned over to law enforcement authorities upon discovery

Very reluctant to make this change. Could this not be destroying evidence of a crime?