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."

Comments

The difference is

[oliverthered]

In real child porn a child is being abused.
In 'virtual' child porn no children are being abused.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Rob T Firefly]

That makes me wonder where the "virtual child abuse" line is drawn. There are lots of non-porn instances in pop culture. Can South Park still kill Kenny? Can Charlie Brown still get whacked with a baseball and go flying off his pitcher's mound? Can Popeye still chase Swee'pea around a construction site? Can God still tell Abraham to kill his son Isaac in the Christian Bible? And don't get me started on the mythological dysfunctional families in the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, and other ancient polytheistic pantheons that most kids learn about in school.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Total_Wimp]

In the case of other crimes, the depiction is entirely separate from the depicted. Reading about a bank robber does not make you a thief.

Pornography is a little different, however, in that it exists as the interaction between the subject and the material. The whole point of pornography is to not just be a depiction of some sexually-arousing act, but to actually arouse.

A) Horror films invoke fear, and many depictions of murder are designed to give the viewer a viceral charge, espcecially of revenge. Clearly fictional works of violence work very hard to arouse the emotions of the viewer.

B) So what if someone gets aroused by a cartoon depiction of kiddie porn? "No child was harmed in the creation of this film." I abosolutly have no tolerance or empathy with child pornographers. I loathe them as the lowest form of existance. But that's because they hurt kids. If no kids are harmed, I don't really care how you get your jollies.

TW

Re:Let's not play word games

[StewedSquirrel]

Wow, the only thing missing is

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"

Your post is a series of "yes, but" and "what if".

What if child porn incites pedophiles? Is there any evidence at all of this? No, there isn't. People claim it's "common sense" and site statistics that show 70% of molestors have viewed child porn.

Know what? I'd bet 90% of married men have viewed straight porn. Can I conclude that porn incites marraige?

There is no provable connection, nor is there even anicdotal evidence that shows a causal link.

I, personally, believe that porn is a great outlet for people who would otherwise do freaky things... like that guy in college who had the bestiality porn.... (not joking).

Stew

Words are not Deeds

[The Monster]

We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed. It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal".

I don't believe this. I think you've got cause and effect reversed. There's plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that letting people look at porn diffuses their 'lustful mentality' so that they are not as likely to commit an act of physical abuse. That some people's appetites cannot be satisfied by the porn does not equate to the porn causing the appetite itself.

Let's suppose that you're chosen for a jury in a kiddie porn case. In order to render a verdict against the accused, you'll have to look at the porn. Will this make you go out and rape kids? No, it won't. That's because porn doesn't make normal people commit physical acts against others.

But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. Making pictures that 'encurage' activities is the expression of an idea, which isn't the same thing as the activities themselves. If someone abuses a child, they have committed an act against an actual person, which is justly punished. If all they're doing is looking at pictures and thinking about it, no one has been harmed, so there is no justification for sending Men With Badges And Guns to stop it.

Got that, pervs? Look, but don't touch, m'kay?

Re:Words are not Deeds

[AdamKG]

If that's the case, why has paedophilia been on a statistical rise for the past decade or so? What changed in society?

The fall of the Soviet Union. A significant decrease in mortality in Africa. The change from tapes to CDs and VHS to DVD.

A general decrease in the quality of Disney movies. Better laptops. A European Union.

Say, lets roll back all those things and see if the problems go away! ... or could it be that you have a pre-determined answer to your question that you were aiming for?

Re:Legislating Morality vs Preventing Crime

[StewedSquirrel]

The theory is if you take a mentally unstable person and bathe him in child porn, virtual or not, he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.

By this logic, 'gangsta' rap music should be illegal in the highest degree.

Take an underprivledged kid, put them on the street and bathhe them in masoginistic, violent, crime ridden lyrics and he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.

Now that I've said it that way, does it not reflect on how absurd the argument is?

Stewed

I'd like to keep Joe Camel out of this

[Rob T Firefly]

Joe Camel really has nothing at all to do with this. The violent video games and porn cartoons are directed at adults, and meant to be restricted from viewing or use by children. If you show a child hentai, you're guilty of child abuse.

The Joe Camel cigarette ads, on the other hand, were directed toward the general public and viewable everywhere, including places children would see them.

Re:Let's not play word games

[suitepotato]

Then let's ban depictions that glorify rape. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify murder. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify fighting. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify violence. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify nonconformity. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify revolution. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify rebellion. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify (enter anything you are against here). They might be encouraging it.

Meanwhile, as people are off looking for pedophiles under every bed, trying to find someone, anyone, else that can be blamed for the ills of their society, their children are keeping busy watching television. They watch commercials for Bratz girls with jeans halfway down their buttocks. They see that the penultimate expression of being a woman is to have jiggly breasts and to have guys slathering like brainless drug-addled fools after them. They see that their parents are liars and hypocrites who treat relationships and marriage like a game to grow bored with and other people's hearts like things to be toyed with. They learn that sex and lust are all that their adults seem to care about.

At least there won't be any nasty pictures of fictional children having fictional sex. That at least is a consolation when Mrs. Clarkson calls up about her daughter Cindy being pregnant and naming your son as the father. And when your daughter is found taking off her clothes in front of that webcam you bought her, for some guy named Chuck in South Dakota, you can comfort yourself knowing that you were dead set against cartoon child porn.

Yup. You can sleep a lot better knowing that you had nothing to do with furthering the problems...

Re:What's the big deal?

[SamSim]

That line isn't nearly blurred enough yet. How do you accurately determine the age of an individual who doesn't exist except as a virtual construct or a drawing? What if the character's purportedly sixteen but looks like she's fifteen? What if she's thirteen but looks like she's seventeen? What if it's a 30-year-old woman's mind transplanted into a twelve-year-old cloned body? What if it's a shape shifter? What if it's an adult character drawn in chibi style? What if she's drawn from the back and her age is completely unclear? What if it's so dark in the drawing you can't tell what's going on? What if there are just haphazard lines on the page and you can't tell if it's even a person?

What happens when you realise that all you are actually looking at is marks on a piece of paper or patterns of light on a screen, and nobody was actually hurt to create them?

Re:Let's not play word games

[StewedSquirrel]

There are an awful lot of "things" that a free society allows simply because some people enjoy them.

That's the nature of free society.

I'm glad you don't want to live in a free society.

Take your desire elsewhere, because I want to live in a free society.

A victim has to file a complaint. Your grasp of "victim" is deluded so much by your moral indignation at the topic being discussed that you simple shrug and decide to throw methodology and logic out the window in favor of your personal moral interpretation becoming codified in law.

I see only moderate social benefit to religion, for example, where I see a great deal of damage and strife caused by religions which procliam a "one, true" anything that is worth fighting for (islam, christianity, flying spaghetti monsterism)

That said, do I have a right, as a politician (if i were one), to ban religion outright because I believe it can be used in nefarious ways and does, in fact, hurt many people?

Legislate your morality elsewhere. I want to have 3 wives if i damn well please. And i want the government not to recognize marraige as a binding legal contract so they can't each steal half of my assets..... or so my sleazy neighbor can get his part-time-hooker benefits based on a Las Vegas priest's proclimation "I now pronounce you..."

I think the institution of marraige being codified into a legal contract system with a licence to practice..... that's a travisty of justice and immoral in my opinion.

We do not legislate morality. Legislating morality is not how our society was built and not how free thinking people would want to excercise their will. That is dictatorship or theocracy... or worse.

Society should do the minimum necessary to ensure basic freedoms. The more laws, the more corrupted they become.

Stew

Re:What's the big deal?

[skarphace]

Well, good for the UK. Pornography wastes huge globs of time and ruins many marriages.

How does it waste time? Okay, if someone is excessive about it, I can understand that. But I still think you're overgeneralizing. As with marriages, that's up to interpretation. I for one would require a wife to look at some form of porn daily. heh

It has no advantages to society whatsoever.

I totally disagree. Here's some advantages I can pull out of my ass...

1. Provides an escape for people with unusual fetishes that can not participate in them in reality
2. Provides a nice 'release' for those of us without a female. Much easier to choke the chicken with a little mental 'lube'.
3. It's good entertainment

Most of this can be excused as opinion, but, I do think it has some value to society(including myself).