Slashdot Mirror
UK Wants To Ban Computer-Generated Child Porn
An anonymous reader writes "UK Home Secretary John Reid has urged a ban on computer-generated images of child abuse, including cartoons. The Register asks if this would criminalize role-playing gamers, and what about Hentai? Currently, such images may be illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act, but they do not come under child pornography laws. The attempt to criminalize possession of virtual images mirrors the attempt to criminalize possession of 'extreme porn' which would also include fake images, as well as photos of simulated acts involving consenting adults (as discussed on Slashdot). A petition on the Government's new website urges an end to such plans."
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/280586.html#Sec
"My fellow Americans, these are not the droids the nation is looking for."
Indeed -- argued both ways, no less! It could alter the behavior by making them want to act on their urges with real children more, or it could alter the behavior by satisfying their urges so they no longer feel the need to go after real kids.
0 102.htm
This sounds like the kind of wishful-thinking with which most Slashdot readers react to anti-porn news of any kind.
Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach05
Child porn does not sate a desire to molest children, it inculcates this desire. If banning artificial child porn makes child porn hard to come by and thereby dampens the demand for the real thing (or molestation), then it's a great idea. Even if it doesn't, I'm a little tired of this idea that free speech extends to pornography. Somehow I doubt that was original intent of the Founding Fathers.
Very well. Commence flaming.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Just for slashdot's education, based on my non-lawyer reading this has been illegal in the US for some time:
...
(a) In General.-- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.-- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
source
(emphasis mine)
But the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down such provisions as unconstitutional; see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (here's an article about the decision). I'm fairly sure the provisions you highlighted would fall under this decision and thus could not be enforced.
My reading of the CNN article is that it was struck down because it failed to account for the SLAPS test (standard since Miller v. California.) It seems that the law in the Cornell source I linked has that base covered. I don't know if there are some finer details that escaped me and so maybe you're right and it is unenforceable, but it seems to me that this section has been re-written since the 2002 decision.
I'd be interested if anyone has any more details or a better understanding than I do.