[PASSED] Child Pornography Ban

[Wrapper]

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

Obviously our intent is not to criminalize the recording of such acts on security cameras, but at the same time we don't want security footage distributed or sold if it contains child pornography. This clause is already a bit wordy; will try to pretty it up for the next draft. (OOC: suggestions on wording this clause are welcome.)

I would also say mild, since it only applies internationally, and doesn't restrict the practice within a nation itself."

Well, yes it does ("BANS the production of child pornography in all member nations"), although unreasonable nations can get around that by setting the age of consent/age of majority to zero. If that's what they really want, that gets them out of not just this but GAR#222, child labor laws, etc., but this still won't allow them to export it to any nation where the performers haven't reached the age of consent in the importing nation.

[Araraukar]

but this still won't allow them to export it to any nation where the performers haven't reached the age of consent in the importing nation.

What if it's not anyone commercially exporting, but someone privately bringing it into a country? Will the border security peeps have to track down the performers and do an age check before being certain it would be approvable in their country?

(OOC: I also can't help but think of differences in year length on different planets - if one planet's year is twice the length of that of Earth, a 9-yo on their planet would count as 18 on Earth.)

[Wrapper]

but this still won't allow them to export it to any nation where the performers haven't reached the age of consent in the importing nation.

What if it's not anyone commercially exporting, but someone privately bringing it into a country? Will the border security peeps have to track down the performers and do an age check before being certain it would be approvable in their country?

Then, as written, this resolution would not apply. (OOC: And I don't think I want to figure out how to make it apply to that scenario. National laws could cover stuff like this. I myself can't imagine border agents popping every DVD-shaped item in every piece of luggage into a player to find out if it's covered under international law. One can make the point that this is one more argument in favor of a "Mild" strength.)

(OOC: I also can't help but think of differences in year length on different planets - if one planet's year is twice the length of that of Earth, a 9-yo on their planet would count as 18 on Earth.)

OOC: I've done enough FT RP, don't waste my time! Okay, if your planet circles your sun in twice the time, and you're 9 "years" old there and I'm 18 "years" old here, then for all intents and purposes we are the same age, even if our numerical ages are different.

Still OOC: Now if you want to ask me about age due to relativistic travel, or different sentient species with different lifespans, or if this covers filming the fertilization of potted plants... I'm going to run up the "Reasonable Nation Theory" flagpole and never come down!

[Araraukar]

or if this covers filming the fertilization of potted plants... I'm going to run up the "Reasonable Nation Theory" flagpole and never come down!

OOC: LMAO, don't tempt me.

EDIT: Though, by PPU's rationalization, if a plant is old enough to produce flowers, it's old enough to decide if it wants to breed - which is as close to "age of consent" as you can get with a hivemind.

[Wrapper]

Third draft is up. Changed strength to "Mild" and -- hopefully -- fixed clause (5).

[Christian Democrats]

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.

I like the concept behind this proposal, but I would craft a better definition for child pornography. My suggestion:

Any depiction, real or simulated, that includes a child or children and is intended to appeal to a prurient interest.

[Wrapper]

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.

I like the concept behind this proposal, but I would craft a better definition for child pornography. My suggestion:

Any depiction, real or simulated, that includes a child or children and is intended to appeal to a prurient interest.

OOC: Thanks but I really want to avoid RL legalese like "prurient interest". Taken literally, your definition can be broadly misinterpreted to include things I'm not trying to regulate -- sex education materials, animation, etc.

[Christian Democrats]

Animated images of children having sex should be banned.

Also, I think the artistic exception should be expanded. Under the current draft, legitimate artistic depictions of teenage sexual conduct could be prohibited. A good example is The Reader, which depicts a 36-year-old woman taking advantage of a 15-year-old boy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reader_(2008_film)

[The Dark Star Republic]

I would automatically vote for any resolution that banned that fucking film. >_<

More seriously, I am still concerned about the exemption in (3):
"The visual recording of oneself for private, personal use"

This still seems to imply to me that if someone underage takes nude selfies (which I would speculate isn't exactly unknown) then should they fall into someone else's possession that person can then distribute them, even hosting them to the internet.

Or put another way, why is it so important to preserve this exemption? If states discover such material on someone's phone, can't we assume a reasonable degree of discretion in determining whether it's actually in their interests to pursue a prosecution?

[Araraukar]

Animated images of children having sex should be banned.

OOC: Doesn't have to be actual children - way back when, when I was a teen, we were showed an animation of two teens having sex as part of the sex ed class. The people appeared to be around our ages 13-15-yo, to appeal better to our age group. That would be made illegal by this proposal if you had your way.

More seriously, I am still concerned about the exemption in (3):
"The visual recording of oneself for private, personal use"

This still seems to imply to me that if someone underage takes nude selfies (which I would speculate isn't exactly unknown) then should they fall into someone else's possession that person can then distribute them, even hosting them to the internet.

I think what is meant by that bit is that the person taking nude selfies wouldn't themselves be punished for someone else breaking the laws.

[Christian Democrats]

I would automatically vote for any resolution that banned that fucking film. >_<

I actually thought the movie was pretty good, but some critics did label it child porn.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thelma-adams/reading-between-the-lines_b_147631.html

[Wrapper]

Animated images of children having sex should be banned.

So ban them in your nation. Not everyone agrees with this.

Also, I think the artistic exception should be expanded. Under the current draft, legitimate artistic depictions of teenage sexual conduct could be prohibited. A good example is The Reader, which depicts a 36-year-old woman taking advantage of a 15-year-old boy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reader_(2008_film)

It would not ban such a film if the actor has reached the age of consent.

[Wrapper]

I think what is meant by that bit is that the person taking nude selfies wouldn't themselves be punished for someone else breaking the laws.

That's precisely the intent. Will listen to suggestions on how to better word this.

[Wrapper]

Or put another way, why is it so important to preserve this exemption? If states discover such material on someone's phone, can't we assume a reasonable degree of discretion in determining whether it's actually in their interests to pursue a prosecution?

OOC (assuming this is OOC since it isn't quoted or signed): There are jurisdictions in that most reasonable nation called the United States where teens have been prosecuted for nude selfies under child porn laws. I definitely don't want to do anything that might suggest we should make international criminals out of them. The exemption will stay, but I am open to rewording it to better clarify its intent.

[Normlpeople]

Well, yes it does

"I completely missed that. I should pay more attention to not comment while half intoxicated"

Obviously our intent is not to criminalize the recording of such acts on security cameras, but at the same time we don't want security footage distributed or sold if it contains child pornography. This clause is already a bit wordy; will try to pretty it up for the next draft. (OOC: suggestions on wording this clause are welcome.)

"I would suggest you can remove this. Security Cameras are, by nature, secure. Corrupt operators of them tend not to remain employed, or free, for long. That part is more of a national interest anyhow. After all, its quite the burden to place on an operator to determine rather it is a consensual act and to be deleted immediately, only for them to find out later that it was not and they have deleted very critical evidence"

[Separatist Peoples]

Or put another way, why is it so important to preserve this exemption? If states discover such material on someone's phone, can't we assume a reasonable degree of discretion in determining whether it's actually in their interests to pursue a prosecution?

OOC (assuming this is OOC since it isn't quoted or signed): There are jurisdictions in that most reasonable nation called the United States where teens have been prosecuted for nude selfies under child porn laws. I definitely don't want to do anything that might suggest we should make international criminals out of them. The exemption will stay, but I am open to rewording it to better clarify its intent.

OOC: why not write in specifically that nations are expected to use their best judgement and discretion when considering prosecution, and get rid of the exception? I think it's safe to assume that nations do so already, much like the real world nations do. This is an issue with so much nuance and minutiae, it's probably best to keep as much of the prosecuting power at the national level, and focus primarily on limiting the transfer of the product. [/$.02]

[Wrapper]

OOC: why not write in specifically that nations are expected to use their best judgement and discretion when considering prosecution, and get rid of the exception? I think it's safe to assume that nations do so already, much like the real world nations do.

OOC: I think I already explained why "best judgement and discretion... much like the real world nations do" is not the best standard to hold ourselves to:

teens have been prosecuted for nude selfies under child porn laws

This is an issue with so much nuance and minutiae, it's probably best to keep as much of the prosecuting power at the national level, and focus primarily on limiting the transfer of the product. [/$.02]

Which is why something that initially appeared to be a slam-dunk has proven to be a little more challenging. Nevertheless, I think I'm already leaving quite a bit up to the individual nations. I'm just trying to establish a minimum standard, and leave it up to individual nations to legislate against the so-called exceptions if they desire.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Or put another way, why is it so important to preserve this exemption? If states discover such material on someone's phone, can't we assume a reasonable degree of discretion in determining whether it's actually in their interests to pursue a prosecution?

OOC (assuming this is OOC since it isn't quoted or signed):

Pretty much given up on any hope of a meaningful OOC/IC distinction; even the moderators are replying to OOC posts with "IC".

There are jurisdictions in that most reasonable nation called the United States where teens have been prosecuted for nude selfies under child porn laws. I definitely don't want to do anything that might suggest we should make international criminals out of them. The exemption will stay, but I am open to rewording it to better clarify its intent.

So don't prosecute them. But the exemption is written such that it doesn't just apply to the people who initially create such images; it would also protect such images even once they've entered wider circulation.

[Wrapper]

So don't prosecute them. But the exemption is written such that it doesn't just apply to the people who initially create such images; it would also protect such images even once they've entered wider circulation.

Yeah, Gruen, I got it, but I need to figure out how to word this without relying so much on "reasonableness". Let's try this on for size and let me know what you think, if this makes a clear enough distinction.

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not cover the following:
(#) The act of visually recording oneself for private, personal use;
(#) The act of transmitting one's own visual recording to another person or persons privately but not publicly

[The Dark Star Republic]

Good change. It exempts the initial recording, but not the image once it's entered circulation.

[Wrapper]

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper respectfully submit a fourth draft for comments. We have revised clause (3) and inserted a new clause (4) to cover the recording and private sending (but not public dissemination) of oneself, and we have removed the "overwritten or otherwise destroyed" part from the security camera clause (which is now clause (6)). We concede to Ambassador Cloudspear that, indeed, we do not want possible misjudgment or overzealousness to lead to potential evidence being destroyed, but we still feel that the remainder of this clause is necessary. We feel that we must clarify that (a) accidentally recording such material in and of itself is not a crime, (b) "accidentally" recording such material and then selling/distributing/copying that material is not exempted, and (c) distributing such footage to law enforcement or the judicial system is not a crime.

[Araraukar]

OOC (assuming this is OOC since it isn't quoted or signed):

OOC: DSR only writes OOC when he makes it read OOC.

[Texan Hotrodders]

Animated images of children having sex should be banned.

So ban them in your nation. Not everyone agrees with this.

Out of morbid curiosity, why does this line of reasoning not apply to images of children having sex which are not animated, particularly in light of the fact that many nations have animation technologies which can effectively duplicate every facet of a person's physique and render the distinction practically useless?

There will always be people who disagree with whatever moral proscription is proposed in a Moral Decency proposal. Is the solution to that problem not also to ban them in your nation rather than attempting to modify domestic policy in every nation?

Thank you for your consideration,

Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tlaloc Blackstone

[Don-Valentino]

There would still be a loophole in that a member nation many lower its age of consent, or may not actually have a national age of consent.

[Separatist Peoples]

There would still be a loophole in that a member nation many lower its age of consent, or may not actually have a national age of consent.

"A loophole that cannot be closed. Thus why there are importation/exportation bans."