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."

2 of 544 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What's the big deal? by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

  2. Re:What's the big deal? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.