NationStates

If quibbling over the title is the best critique anyone can offer at this time, we can take that as a positive sign, yes?

Will update title upon submission (leaning towards Against CP) and edit it here. Anything else or is this just about ready to go?

I did have one other thought, though I strongly suspect I will be shouted down as completely out of step with how the WA now works.

Resolutions used to be a lot more receptive to non-mandatory clauses; now, the emphasis is solely on excessively literal nitpicking of mandatory clauses and nothing else. But if you were willing to recapture more of the more realistic resolution language of yore, then you might include a clause or two encouraging nations to cooperate in the suppression of child pornography, and to provide appropriate aid to victims of child pornography.

For example, from the resolution I wrote on this subject:

4. Promotes international cooperation in:

• 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;

5. Supports all efforts at providing for the wellbeing and recovery of victims of child pornography.

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?

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?

The whole point to net neutrality is to PREVENT censorship....

: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

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

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....

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....

The problem is not nations ineptitude it is the simple anonymous nature of certain portions of the internet. There exist numerous ways in which one can mask a child porn website as something else, or encrypt it entirely. Governments by majority have illegalized child pornography and disallow it to be viewed, posted etc... domestically but frankly the internet is so massive and so chock full of information that it is impossible to catch every single child porn site. Giving the WA Authority to remove sites that contain it is beneficial in my opinion, and is not censorship since their is a genuine public interest in having this particular content removed.

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?

While this resolution does not directly address censorship, it does prevent the importation/exportation of child pornography, and, one can argue, such transmission across national boundaries via electronic means is indeed a method of importation/exportation. (OOC: RL reference: ITAR prevents the export of sensitive information by government contractors; export includes sending information by e-mail and having information available via a private or public network, including the internet.)

While this resolution does not directly address censorship, it does prevent the importation/exportation of child pornography, and, one can argue, such transmission across national boundaries via electronic means is indeed a method of importation/exportation. (OOC: RL reference: ITAR prevents the export of sensitive information by government contractors; export includes sending information by e-mail and having information available via a private or public network, including the internet.)[/quote]

The problem with the internet is indeed its vastness. 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. Simply allowing child porn to circulate on the web is kind of a big blow to the credibility of this fine resolution.

IC: Lexicor fully supports a resolution to deal with the abhorrent practice of Child Pornography

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.

How does this resolution disallow such censorship and removal? We don't see it.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:now, the emphasis is solely on excessively literal nitpicking of mandatory clauses and nothing else.

Very likely because, like just now with Chester's current proposal, without excessively literal nitpicked mandatory clauses, a proposal will be declared invalid and prevented reaching vote...

OOC: Agreed, but if it's the only way to pass a proposal that's not repealed next week, that tends to be what has to happen.

Lexicor wrote:*snip*

OOC: Take that to your proposal's thread. You're threadjacking here, and/or advertizing your proposal, both of which are no-no's.

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).

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 transmitting one's own visual recording a visual recording of oneself to another person or persons privately but not publicly.

Good catch, if a day too late. Everyone should understand the meaning here, since this clause is immediately preceded by the clause about recording oneself.

Twenty-twenty-twenty-four hours to go-o-oh... wait, still about a dozen approvals shy of quorum? Wad Ahume! Find out who owes us favors, and quickly! We mustn't wait until the last minute to....

The assistant ambassador removes a scrap of paper from his pocket. It's about the size of a fortune cookie fortune.

Oh... shitlings.

Approvals: 75

Status: Lacking Support (requires 1 more approval)

Voting Ends: in seconds

POOF!

Well now. How disheartening.

We'll wait a little bit before we make minor edits and resubmit.

I never noticed this proposal. I would have approved it if I had. Sorry! Did you TG?

Sanctaria wrote:I never noticed this proposal. I would have approved it if I had. Sorry! Did you TG?

Ari bangs his head repeatedly on the podium and does not respond.

OOC: After some 40-ish approvals the first day, I thought a campaign wouldn't be needed. Also around that time a couple flaws were pointed out (including Christian Democrats' suggestion above, that closes what could have been a significant loophole), so I figured I'd let it go and see what happened, and if it missed quorum I'd have an opportunity to fix it. I did save a list of the delegates who approved it, so next time around I'll start there.

"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?"

Hello,

Child pornography is cruel!
I am totally against it!

Lily McShane
Leader of Limany

Oops, I'm at fault too.

I noticed the proposal three minutes after it got taken down (when you posted that post)

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.

So... add back "BELIEVING that the children are our future"? Okay, we'll expound a bit.

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.

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?

There is so much gray area, we're wary of dealing with it in such a universal manner. That said, we are willing to hear other opinions on possession. If we are so encouraged, we'll amend this resolution to include a possession ban, and upgrade this to "Significant" strength accordingly.

As for explicitly stating punishment... not sure we want to go there at all.

Furthermore, while not strictly incorrect, the term 'nudes' is rather informal for legislation. Perhaps your Excellency could use a more appropriate term?"

Beg to differ on this point; that's precisely the word to use, as it's the term artists use nearly universally.

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)

OOC: Heh, didn't get my own region's delegate either, he was offline for three days. No sweat, we'll make improvements and campagn next time.

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?

"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."

As for explicitly stating punishment... not sure we want to go there at all.

"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."

Beg to differ on this point; that's precisely the word to use, as it's the term artists use nearly universally.

"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."

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."

We object to the characterization that we are making excuses about how complicated this is, when in fact... we... ummm... pretty much admitted to that already, but that's besides the point. The point is... that we have no point. Very well, ahem, we'll change the wording from "BANS the production" to "BANS the production, sale and possession" and take comments on that for now.

"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."

Our argument is... that... we have no argument. Okay, actually, we were considering the wording "MANDATES that nations treat violations of this resoltion as criminal offenses, and proceed accordingly." (OOC: Originally had "felony" in there but I'm thinking that's a US-centric term, is it not?) Beyond that, we do not want to mandate a strict set of punishments because of the reasons outlined earlier. Fair enough?

"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."

We're not artists? Speak for yourself, Ambassador! Is not karaoke in the Strangers' Bar an art? Wait, don't anwser that. Anyway, ahem, we'll go ahead and change it to "nude images", would that suffice?

Given all the fine suggestions, we'll go ahead and update the draft soon, and change the strength to "Significant" accordingly, but we shall hold off on submission for a bit. We'll also change the title to something stronger, like "Child Pornography Ban", unless there is an objection to that.

Went ahead and made changes, including title, strength and preamble; added domestic bans on possession, sale and distribution; added a statement of criminal liability; and reworded in a few other spots.