Advertisement
by Wrapper » Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:53 am
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:55 am
4. Promotes international cooperation in:5. Supports all efforts at providing for the wellbeing and recovery of victims of child pornography.
- the capture of and facilitation of appropriate legal proceedings against those suspected of involvement in the child pornography trade;
- the seizure, and appropriate further action, such as shipment for the purposes of use as evidence, and thereafter full destruction, of all child pornography;
- the extradition of those suspected of involvement in the child pornography trade for questioning and trial;
- the identification and repatriation of children taken abroad through the child pornography [trade];
- the sharing of information on known child pornography producers and distributors between law enforcement agencies;
by Lexicor » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:29 pm
by Chester Pearson » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:33 pm
Lexicor wrote:I made a provision in a draft of my Net Neutrality Act allowing governments to censor child pornography websites if they are detected; perhaps that would be a worthwhile provision in this resolution if it not yet been suggested?
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Lexicor » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:38 pm
:palm: The whole point to net neutrality is to PREVENT censorship....
by Chester Pearson » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:41 pm
Lexicor wrote::palm: The whole point to net neutrality is to PREVENT censorship....
OOC: Net neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic be treated equally by the internet service provider. It was an exemption because I believe nobody who seeks out child porn should be able to access it on the internet. To be pertinent, child porn is worthy of censorship. FBI, Anonymous etc... readily censor and attack websites that display child porn.
IC: Do you dare suggest that we as the World Assembly allow for the deplorable footage of child pornography to be readily available on the internet for pedophiles to be able to access with anonymity!? I question the humanity of any nation that would allow child porn websites to remain on the web!
Lexicorian Mission to the WA
Jean-Luc Brassaurd
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Lexicor » Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:33 pm
The Federation has outlawed child pornography years ago thank you. It is considered sexual assault and is dealt with as such under the law.
The simple fact is, I do not believe that nations are so inept as to allow it on their networks without the WA telling them not to....
by Wrapper » Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:01 pm
Lexicor wrote:I made a provision in a draft of my Net Neutrality Act allowing governments to censor child pornography websites if they are detected; perhaps that would be a worthwhile provision in this resolution if it not yet been suggested?
by Lexicor » Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:18 pm
by Wrapper » Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:32 pm
Lexicor wrote:If not allowing governments to censor and remove pornographic depictions or sexually explicit depictions of minors on the internet then another mechanism must be put in place to do so.
by Araraukar » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:15 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:now, the emphasis is solely on excessively literal nitpicking of mandatory clauses and nothing else.
Lexicor wrote:*snip*
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Christian Democrats » Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:17 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Wrapper » Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:58 am
Christian Democrats wrote:I've approved this proposal, but I suggest that you make one small change in your next version (if this one does not reach quorum).(4) The act of transmittingone's own visual recordinga visual recording of oneself to another person or persons privately but not publicly.
by Wrapper » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:39 am
by Wrapper » Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:03 am
Approvals: 75
Status: Lacking Support (requires 1 more approval)
Voting Ends: in seconds
by Wrapper » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:20 am
Sanctaria wrote:I never noticed this proposal. I would have approved it if I had. Sorry! Did you TG?
by Sciongrad » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:45 am
by Limany » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:39 pm
by Elke and Elba » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:37 am
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Wrapper » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:09 am
Sciongrad wrote:"The preamble is quite weak and doesn't really set up the purpose of the proposal very well. Perhaps adding some more depth to that wouldn't be out of the question.
Also, this proposal prohibits the production, importation, and exportation of child pornography, but doesn't actually prohibit the possession or distribution of it. Furthermore, it may be worth explicitly stating that member nations are expected to appropriately punish those that violate any of the bans in this proposal.
Furthermore, while not strictly incorrect, the term 'nudes' is rather informal for legislation. Perhaps your Excellency could use a more appropriate term?"
by Wrapper » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:11 am
Elke and Elba wrote:Oops, I'm at fault too.
I noticed the proposal three minutes after it got taken down (when you posted that post)
by Sciongrad » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:18 am
Wrapper wrote:We originally left out possession because it is rather difficult to address, since what is legal in one nation can be illegal in another, with differing ages of consent/ages of majority/lifespans coming into play. There also may be grounds to leave some leeway in certain circumstances. For example: For digital images on a computer that is used by more than one person, or owned by a corporation, who "possesses" those images? What about images that were downloaded accidentally and deleted but tracking shows that they were indeed downloaded? What about if someone has opened an e-mail attachment or phone message that contains such materials, can they be prosecuted for possession?
As for explicitly stating punishment... not sure we want to go there at all.
Beg to differ on this point; that's precisely the word to use, as it's the term artists use nearly universally.
by Wrapper » Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:45 am
Sciongrad wrote:"Simply because the area might seem complicated to legislate on is no excuse to not include a ban on the possession and distribution of child pornography in a resolution against child pornography. A resolution against child pornography that doesn't ban the use or sale of it isn't really very effective."
"I don't see why a clause along the lines of 'member nations shall punish those that violate the provisions of this resolution accordingly,' is so taboo. I'd like to hear the argument against that."
"Unfortunately, your Excellency, we're not artists. If an ambassador were to write a resolution on recreational drug use, they wouldn't use the term 'dope' just because those that partake in recreational drug use use the term."
by Wrapper » Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:41 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement