[DRAFT] Regulation of Pornographic Materials

[Palait]

Regulation of Pornographic Materials
A resolution to define the legal status of pornographic materials

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

Distinguishing between pornographic acting and prostitution, in order to not conflict with GAR 179, by

Defining prostitution as ‘the action of performing sexual acts to give pleasure to the buyer, or on behalf of the buyer, in exchange for goods, money, or services’ and pornography as ‘explicit materials, with depictions of sexual organs and/or activites, with the consent that those sexual acts will be filmed or depicted in any other format (or formats), to primarily give pleasure to a third party who views the sexual act or image but does not participate’,

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that the international nature of the internet makes national legislation regarding pornography practically impossible to fully implement and, thus, calls for the need of international coordination in this matter,

Further recognizing that GAR 300 already coordinates an international ban on child pornography, setting precedent, and that GAR 398 bans the restriction of lawful materials, emphasising the need for legislation,

Hereby:

Affirms that pornographic materials are classified as lawful materials, should the following criteria be met:

• a) Pornographic materials are age-restricted
  i. no one under the age of 18 should be able to access pornographic material online.
• b) Pornographic materials can be removed from the internet should any participant withdraw their consent:
  i. By appealing, pornographic actors will be able to have any videos or images that they participated in removed from the internet.
  ii. In cases where fictional characters, who bear no resemblance to a living or dead person, have been used in pornography, the right to withdraw consent falls to the owner of the character

and,
Prohibits the production of any pornographic material where a participant does not consent to its production or distribution in any member nation; In cases where likeness has been used, the depicted person or persons are regarded as a participant.

[Palait]

Reserved for edits (if there is another there for it to be improved);

sorry about the bad editing - new at this.

[Altanni]

"How will you actually stop kids from seeing porn? They'll find it anyways. Besides, I don't think it's the government's place to tell kids they can't get all hot and bothered in front of a computer. That's a job for their parents. I'm against this just based on that reason."

[Bears Armed]

i. no one under the age of 18 should be able to access pornographic material online.

"Setting age limits for anything is a matter for the separate nations, not for the GA: Resolution #299, clause 4, says so... and proposals that contradict existing resolutions are considered illegal."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Palait]

i. no one under the age of 18 should be able to access pornographic material online.

"Setting age limits for anything is a matter for the separate nations, not for the GA: Resolution #299, clause 4, says so... and proposals that contradict existing resolutions are considered illegal."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

How would I go about proposing a universal scheme with this restriction? Would saying something along the lines of 'no one under the nation's age of majority should be able to access the material' be allowed?

[Araraukar]

Would saying something along the lines of 'no one under the nation's age of majority should be able to access the material' be allowed?

OOC: That would work legalistically, but think how easy it is in real life for kids to get past the bans that exist, and then wonder if in real life the UN would bother to try to limit porn.

[Ransium]

Each mention of specific existing legislation seems like a house of cards violation to me.

[Palait]

Would saying something along the lines of 'no one under the nation's age of majority should be able to access the material' be allowed?

OOC: That would work legalistically, but think how easy it is in real life for kids to get past the bans that exist, and then wonder if in real life the UN would bother to try to limit porn.

OOC: The main idea behind this was inspired by a case where revenge porn was leaked online, but the person who did so was from a different country to the victim, where revenge porn wasn't deemed a crime and so wasn't charged: I can't remember the details, it was some time last year. Additionally, the UN wouldn't, or at least haven't, imposed anything resembling the Internet Neutrality Act, as it would stop the censorship (Digital Economy Act) that the British Government imposed, with regards to combatting the threat of pornography.

[Altanni]

OOC: That would work legalistically, but think how easy it is in real life for kids to get past the bans that exist, and then wonder if in real life the UN would bother to try to limit porn.

OOC: The main idea behind this was inspired by a case where revenge porn was leaked online, but the person who did so was from a different country to the victim, where revenge porn wasn't deemed a crime and so wasn't charged: I can't remember the details, it was some time last year. Additionally, the UN wouldn't, or at least haven't, imposed anything resembling the Internet Neutrality Act, as it would stop the censorship (Digital Economy Act) that the British Government imposed, with regards to combatting the threat of pornography.

ooc// Then what does the age restriction have to do with revenge porn? You still haven't responded to the issue of minors getting arousal the age restriction.

[Frisbeeteria]

OOC: The main idea behind this was inspired by a case where revenge porn was leaked online, but the person who did so was from a different country to the victim, where revenge porn wasn't deemed a crime and so wasn't charged:

So rewrite this from scratch with the basis being "international enforcement of national pornography laws". All the references to passed resolutions make this one mostly illegal, so you have to do a full rewrite anyway.

[Palait]

Thanks for all the feedback - really appreciated. I'll either rewrite it from scratch, or just scrap it, depending on how busy I am.

[Capercom]

Thanks for all the feedback - really appreciated. I'll either rewrite it from scratch, or just scrap it, depending on how busy I am.

There needs to be more people like you around! Keep your head up and work on what you feel impassioned about that needs to be in the WA.

[Araraukar]

Thanks for all the feedback - really appreciated. I'll either rewrite it from scratch, or just scrap it, depending on how busy I am.

OOC: You can also create an ambassador character and hang around, partaking the debates on the other drafting threads.

[Schweizerisch]

I think that this would be a great idea and promote decency in the world you should submit this draft for I and all WA members in my region will support you

[Essu Beti]

Before Iksana can open his mouth, Inan speaks up. "Essu Beti is firmly against this proposal on moral grounds. We will not allow pornography in our nation."

[Covenstone]

Well, I have to say I am uniformly against this. If someone willingly enters a contract to make a pornographic film, then decides they want to run for office and they want that film removed from the net or from history, I say tough cookies. They can't just erase parts of their history they don't like or want people to forget about because that's not how the world works.

And, arguably speaking, if someone consents to naked photographs of themselves being taken, the owner of the camera then owns the copyright of the photographs and providing that they had permission to take the photographs in the first place, they can do what they want with them. Just because the person in question changed their mind about being naked in picture doesn't really matter.

Now if the photographs are stolen, or taken without permission, or something like that, it is a different matter. But if you let someone take pictures of you, then they are not breaking the law and they own the pictures. I would argue you have no rights over the content of the picture or what gets done with them.

And as for banning pornography of any type.... just no.

[Gogol Transcendancy]

i. no one under the age of 18 should be able to access pornographic material online.

"I'm beginning to wonder if this act was sponsored by the fine owners of National Geographic and Sports Illustrated", Felicia muttered sarcastically under her breath.

[Palait]

Well, I have to say I am uniformly against this. If someone willingly enters a contract to make a pornographic film, then decides they want to run for office and they want that film removed from the net or from history, I say tough cookies. They can't just erase parts of their history they don't like or want people to forget about because that's not how the world works.

And, arguably speaking, if someone consents to naked photographs of themselves being taken, the owner of the camera then owns the copyright of the photographs and providing that they had permission to take the photographs in the first place, they can do what they want with them. Just because the person in question changed their mind about being naked in picture doesn't really matter.

Now if the photographs are stolen, or taken without permission, or something like that, it is a different matter. But if you let someone take pictures of you, then they are not breaking the law and they own the pictures. I would argue you have no rights over the content of the picture or what gets done with them.

And as for banning pornography of any type.... just no.

The Bill (as proposed, although it is now on hiatus) wouldn't ban pornography - it simply clarifies it as lawful, and therefore allowed to be produced, distributed, and regulated in WA countries. The main issue and debate is regarding revenge porn - in cases where the person knows that it is going to be filmed (although, they may have been pressured or bullied into it), but believes it is only ever going to be distributed between them, and spread no further, your argument is that the person was naïve and the photographer has full rights to distribute the image to all his/her friends, or post it online for everyone to see. My counter to that would be that either a verbal or an implied contract would have been formed that the distribution would only be between the two parties and surely the photographer is breaking that contract by doing so, and should be punished.

OOC: I do concede with your former point, but by allowing this, it removes the risk of people being accused on simply 'changing their minds' if they have only recently discovered its distribution on other sites. I know that a male nurse in the UK performed in gay porn to pay his way at university, and the Sun newspaper ran an article outing him, trying to ruin his career for no reason other than his sexuality. It was pulled and the NHS defended him, but the point of the legislation is to stop that from being a legitimate threat.

[Ochea]

• a) Pornographic materials are age-restricted
  i. no one under the age of 18 should be able to access pornographic material online.
• b) Pornographic materials can be removed from the internet should any participant withdraw their consent:
  i. By appealing, pornographic actors will be able to have any videos or images that they participated in removed from the internet.
  ii. In cases where fictional characters, who bear no resemblance to a living or dead person, have been used in pornography, the right to withdraw consent falls to the owner of the character

You can't just "remove something from the Internet." The porn would likely be distributed among many porn websites, and maybe downloaded by some people. You could order these websites and people to delete the porn, but some might not be in the WA and therefore not required to follow this legislation. If the porn is on a website hosted in a nation that's not a WA member, the WA can't do anything about it.

The age limit, if there is one, should be left up to the member nations' governments. In some cultures, it might be considered okay and normal for children to view porn, if the culture sees sex as a natural part of life and not as a taboo topic.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Before Iksana can open his mouth, Inan speaks up. "Essu Beti is firmly against this proposal on moral grounds. We will not allow pornography in our nation."

Teran Saber: "If you're against pornography on moral grounds, then there's no reason for you to be against this proposal, which seeks to restrict access, not allow it."

OOC: Or, well, no reason apart from its myriad of legality issues.

Teran Saber: "All things considered, the Greater Siriusian Domain Abstains from either supporting or opposing this proposal unless a number of legality issues are fixed."

[Covenstone]

Well, I have to say I am uniformly against this. If someone willingly enters a contract to make a pornographic film, then decides they want to run for office and they want that film removed from the net or from history, I say tough cookies. They can't just erase parts of their history they don't like or want people to forget about because that's not how the world works.

And, arguably speaking, if someone consents to naked photographs of themselves being taken, the owner of the camera then owns the copyright of the photographs and providing that they had permission to take the photographs in the first place, they can do what they want with them. Just because the person in question changed their mind about being naked in picture doesn't really matter.

Now if the photographs are stolen, or taken without permission, or something like that, it is a different matter. But if you let someone take pictures of you, then they are not breaking the law and they own the pictures. I would argue you have no rights over the content of the picture or what gets done with them.

And as for banning pornography of any type.... just no.

The Bill (as proposed, although it is now on hiatus) wouldn't ban pornography - it simply clarifies it as lawful, and therefore allowed to be produced, distributed, and regulated in WA countries. The main issue and debate is regarding revenge porn - in cases where the person knows that it is going to be filmed (although, they may have been pressured or bullied into it), but believes it is only ever going to be distributed between them, and spread no further, your argument is that the person was naïve and the photographer has full rights to distribute the image to all his/her friends, or post it online for everyone to see. My counter to that would be that either a verbal or an implied contract would have been formed that the distribution would only be between the two parties and surely the photographer is breaking that contract by doing so, and should be punished.

OOC: I do concede with your former point, but by allowing this, it removes the risk of people being accused on simply 'changing their minds' if they have only recently discovered its distribution on other sites. I know that a male nurse in the UK performed in gay porn to pay his way at university, and the Sun newspaper ran an article outing him, trying to ruin his career for no reason other than his sexuality. It was pulled and the NHS defended him, but the point of the legislation is to stop that from being a legitimate threat.

Except wouldn't that destroy ANY concept of contract law? If I sign a contract to say I will do a job for you, then I don't do it, and simply say I changed my mind because I didn't want to do it, how is that any different than changing my mind about not wanting porn to appear?

I get that there is a fine line when it comes to verbal contracts, but if Felicity Doogooder signs a contract and makes a movie and gets paid for it, she should NOT be allowed to change her mind five years later and get all copies of that movie destroyed just because she now regrets her choice. That would make the idea of contracts and legal agreements a joke and throw the entire world in to chaos and mayhem.

[Essu Beti]

Inan turns to face Teran Saber. "It says "Affirms that pornographic materials are classified as lawful materials, should the following criteria be met." Our concern is valid."

[The Skrall]

Pornographic materials can be removed from the internet should any participant withdraw their consent:

How exactly to you plan to remove something from the Internet? You're going to tell a private organization to delete content that they legally have the rights to? What about people who have paid for the porn and/or downloaded it? Do they get a refund if the government forces them to delete it? Who would pay this refund?

If the porn is on a website hosted in a nation that's not a WA member, the WA can't do anything about it.

You also have this issue, where porn sites could buy servers in non-WA nations and therefore not be subject to this resolution.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Inan turns to face Teran Saber. "It says "Affirms that pornographic materials are classified as lawful materials, should the following criteria be met." Our concern is valid."

Teran Saber: "What it is stating is that from the World Assembly's point of view, pornographic materials are lawful should they meet the given criteria. There is nothing that says that member nations are forced to legalize it."

[Bears Armed]

Thanks for all the feedback - really appreciated. I'll either rewrite it from scratch, or just scrap it, depending on how busy I am.

OOC: You can also create an ambassador character and hang around, partaking the debates on the other drafting threads

OOC: and visit the Bar...

^_^