Slashdot Mirror
UK Proposes Banning Computer Generated Abuse
peterprior writes "The UK Justice Minister is planning to outlaw computer generated images and drawings of child sex abuse. While photographs and videos of child sex abuse are already illegal, undoubtedly to protect children from being exploited by these acts, what children will be protected by this new law? If there is no actual child involved is the law merely protecting against the possibility of offenders committing future crimes against real children?"
This can only mean there are now illegal thoughts.
Gee, I had no idea South Park was considered snuff. Oh my god, you killed free expression! You bastard!
... would a recent Simpson's movie have been unviewable in the UK due to Bart Simpson's brief nudity?
So you have no problem with the concept of thought crime ?
Killing people because of what they think is most likely not a good idea.
Even if you're right, that's the price of free speech. You either protect everything, even the vile, disgusting, hateful speech you disagree with or you don't have free speech at all.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Its banned to have images with real children, as it should be. Now they want to ban just a drawing. Then, they will want to ban writings talking about child abuse; think of it, not only adult/porn books but every novel in which any of the characters had been abused. After that it will be illegal to talk about sex with children. Results? child abuse will be an undeground thing again, flying below the radar of the society (as it was 30-40 years ago) and the govt/media will have to find the next ScaryThing(tm). Somebody should tell them that a mental illness cannot be fixed with a ban...
I look foreward to your up comming shooting spree in Japan. I would appreciate you doing everything you can to spare Gravure Idols. I'm sure their enthusiasim for mass transit will present a number of attractive targets.
Hurting children is vile. Expression of vile ideas, is both forewarning and proof of freedom. The inability to recognize the difference is ignorance, and the first step towards tragedy.
The effect they have on real children has not been demonstrated as far as I've seen, and certainly not to the high standard of evidence that should be required given what is at stake and the frightening precedent that would be set.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Right, as I'm posting this as an anon. coward, I know there won't be as heavy leverage behind my opinion. Nevertheless... this is drawing a -very- fine line. Child porn is a horrible, horrible thing. But to ban computer generated images is the first step down a slippery road.
It's illegal to rape anyone, or to kill anyone. Does that mean images, or say 90% of films in the case of the latter, should one day be outlawed? What of films like lolita? OK, so you can argue that these are movies made not for the purpose of people getting a sick pleasure out of it. Surely there will always be people who get pleasure out of graphic images in the way they were not intended.
I'm just afraid that once you start banning one form of fantasy produced content, not based on an act that has actually helping, what will stop law makers from using this as an example in the future for banning other forms of media? Kind of reminds me of the point the fellas over at South Park tried to make in the Cartoon Wars... either its all alright, or nothing is.
Terrorists make me sick. The sooner a law is instated that allows us to slaughter the lot of them, the better. Computer generated murders are still murders. Pretending to kill people is still killing people. Its the idea of it, not the act.
We need to kill every actor who has pretended to kill someone immediately! and ban every movie with a murder in it. The bible is right out! none of that simulated murder is fit to print. And that talk of abuse in our laws!
"Massachusetts General Law chapter 265 1:
The unlawful k***ing of a human being accomplished in one or more of the following modes:
(1) with deliberately premed****** malice aforethought; or
(2) with extreme at****ty or cru***y; or
(3) in the commission or attempted commission of a felony punishable by d**th or imprisonment for life."
We need to get rid of those laws immediately! No telling what kind of sick bastard might read them!
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
someone is going to be substantially out of touch with reality if they assume that society nods at them doing it in reality because they are allowed to view CG images of it, but not real images (and are told that they're not allowed to do it).
But Hollywood is profit driven, so how about just not watching it? I've spent US$0 on US movies in the US in the last 10 years (and I'm not BitTorrenting stuff), and you?
I think society would be better served by putting people like you in jail than *anybody* else.
I dub this law as Anti-Hentai law.
That is what I was thinking. And where do you draw the line? Hentai? Crudely drawn comic books? Or will even a stick figure get you thrown in jail since a stick figure doesn't have breasts and therefore must be underage? While I am for getting rid of the producers of REAL child porn,a drawing is simply thoughts made form with pixels or paint. And as we have seen lately any power given to the state WILL be abused,and abused badly. Not to mention the child pron laws have already reached the level of insanity that a 15 year old can go to prison for taking pictures of her own body and giving them to her boyfriend. The "save the childrens!" excuse doesn't really fit in this case unless they are determined to save imaginary kids as well. But that is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
This no more constitutes a loophole in UK child porn laws than the ability to freely purchase a water pistol amounts to a loophole in its gun control laws.
The reasons they gave on the BBC site was that Pedos are using special software to turn photos into drawings. I would like to see this software, it sounds very cool.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
You don't. It's free speech. When the creep tries to abuse a real child, that's when it's a crime, and that's when you bust them.
They don't. That's like asking what effect Bugs Bunny has on real rabbits.
I'm as big a fan of "freedom of thought" as anyone.
But what are the purposes of these images, from a social/personal/psychological perspective?
I can see a reasonable argument that their purpose is to create a feedback loop for someone who already has pleasurable thoughts about child sex abuse gaining additional pleasure from looking at them, which in turn feeds future pleasurable thoughts about child sex abuse. It is also not particularly hard to think that someone who obsesses about such things might be encouraged by that loop to make the jump into real life, for example when the computer generated images are no longer "extreme" enough.
There is, for instance, a recognised pattern with (adult) porn that certain types of user will inevitably seek out harder and harder stuff because the less extreme stuff no longer excites to the same degree.
If these images even slightly reinforce that sex with children is acceptable or pleasurable, and if (in addition) they have no other legitimate purpose or value, then I think there must be a reasonable basis for arguing that banning them does not in any way infringe a freedom worthy of protection.
Yes, yes, once you get on the slippery slope of making that judgment it's all very complicated and risky. I don't know that I totally buy the foregoing reasoning myself. But a society which champions freedom of expression/thought/speech/action must perhaps still draw some limits or find some coherent basis for existence, or else risk becoming utterly dysfunctional. I fear the death of western culture by relativism of values whilst other (much less permissive) cultures, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, thrive by virtue of their strict enforcement of specific values.
However I'd be interested to hear counter-arguments or suggestions of what other value these types of pictures could possibly have to anyone.
As a totally alternative argument, consider that kiddy porn is a form of serious mental illness or addiction (I personally regard it as a form of mental illness), with the potential for dangerous symptoms to arise in some sufferers. Controlling access to these images can then be regarded as analagous to controlling access to addictive drugs.
I have a question for any legal scholars. First, I have a gut feeling that possession of child pornography is wrong, but what is the rationale for why it is illegal to possess? Is it that the possession implies that the possessor bought it and therefore is driving demand for it? If so, the creation for demand of it has to be considered wrong, which once again I understand at a gut level, but why is it illegal? Maybe the answer to this is that the demand for the material causes actual abuse of children to occur in order to produce the material. Ok, so the root of this is that the demand causes abuse, which is clearly a violation of the rights of a child, and therefore the demand causes the abuse which itself is indicated by possession of the offending material. If my logical train of thought here is correct, why isn't it also illegal to possess a picture (or movie or book etc) of any criminal act? For example, say I had a picture of someone being beaten up. Also say that this picture had no artistic or political value. Possession of this (using the above reasoning) implies that I have created demand for the picture. The demand for the picture (thanks to Adam Smith) causes the creation of the picture, which leads to the actual beating up of someone. Why isn't any media (that has no political or artistic value) depicting a crime considered illegal?
Now just keep focusing on them whilst we take away all your rights.
Peadophilia is, statistically speaking, less of a threat to your children than lightning. Seeing as how most child abuse comes from a family member, the best way for parents to protect their child from molestation is to not molest them.
Yet this insignificant threat is used to scare people into allowing the government to take control of the Internet piece by piece. Our government has an overt disrespect for its subjects (remember, we are not citizens) and seems to think we should only have such rights as allow the economy to function and no more. They need shooting, all of them.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
NOOO! There goes all my Lolicon hentai...=(
No seriously though, this is really, discrimination against thought crime. Just because someone gets turned on by that kinda stuff doesn't mean they're going to go out there and do it. That's like saying "We should ban all TV's that contain themes such as murder". There's a HUGE difference between seeing Saddam Hussein's execution and watching the latest action flick at the movies. Likewise, if you have animated porn featuring controversial themes - underaged girls, rape, etc - how is that the same as videos which actually have real girls?
I'm sure there are heaps of guys out there who watch hentai or other animated pornography which feature underaged girls, rape and whatnot. And I'm sure these same people are sickened when they hear about pedophiles going out there and doing shit to little kids - I'm sure all of them are just as likely to want to beat the crap out of rapists and Michael Jackson, and so on.
The whole point is its a fantasy - a fantasy one could enjoy without their conscience coming and biting them. It's not like watching an animated 15 year old being raped in a high school is gonna make them more likely to go to a high school and do it...unless they're already messed up in the head.
Honestly, what's next? Banning of violent video games...? Oh wait...
~Jarik
Agree with both posters. This is very blurry area. Borders thought control. We should never feel guilty about thoughts we have, and feeling we have. Cause we cannot control either. What we CAN control is our actions.
There is a world of difference between someone who thinks about committing an illegal or immoral act and someone who actually commits the act.
We should recognize that difference.
Preventive action, where you would imprison people who have dangerous thoughts or intentions is a very tricky and dangerous thing.
Very reminiscent of certain religions where impure thoughts are punished.
I am all for arresting and prosecuting producers and to some extent consumers of child pornography.
However this law will get abused, for political games I assure you.
By this line of reason. Anyone who watches an action flick is a killer.
Doesn't matter if you don't like it, thats the point of a free society.
:holy creepy batman, my captcha is eighteen!
It is your god given right to be a sick bastard as long as you don't hurt anybody else in the process.
If it affects no one else you can be as much of a dick, religious nut, liberal, conservative, annoying git, asshat. weirdo, freak, or any other adjective you care to name, as you want.
Deciding to restrict actions from a society, even when they affect no one else is unacceptable because it opens the door to a very slippery slope. Because then you've got the problem of who gets to decide what's right, and I don't trust anybody with that decision, its far too arbitrary.
A Muslim will tell you not to eat pork, a Hindu will tell you not to eat beef, which one is right?
How about since it only matters to the individual, let each one decide form them selves?
I think the advent of realistic CG pron is a boon for society, people with specific leanings can now have their urges satisfied without having to involve other people. And its just possible that a market for a legal product would weaken the market for illegal pornography, you know the stuff that actually exploits children. Remember the laws banning child pornography were based on the fact that you have to have a child having sex to create it, the laws were not passed to protect the sensibilities of other people. with GC art no actual children are involved
Its simple economics, you remove the market for something and the suppliers will go away all by them selves when they see theres no money to be made. While it probably wont solve the problem completely I would think that stopping some is better than nothing.
Has anyone who has replied actually read TFA? I've in fact done a lot more as it's been covered on Radio 4 a fair amount.
The reason they want to ban it is because it's made by converting REAL CHILD PORN into computer generated images. In other words people know they can't distribute real child porn without being very careful, so they convert real child porn to this and get away with it. So demand for this sort of thing drives up demand for child porn and therefore child abuse.
But I'm sure none of you lot were bothered about that --- too busy getting a hardon about being the first to quote 1984?
That's irrelevant. Serial killers, for example, are "born that way" too, yet they are locked up when caught and sometimes executed. Not everybody has the same mental faculties as the majority of the population, and that can lead to behaviour classified as psychopatic and abnormal.
Thing is that the mental patterns of serial killers may not be unique to serial killers. IIRC they have quite a lot in common with stock traders. The phrase "make a killing" is even used in the context of finance.
Also many governments specifically try and train people to be "serial killers", just that they tend to be called "soldiers" in that situation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that that particular aspect of this law is unenforcable, as there is no way you can establish the age of animated characters other than by asking the artists unless they are very obviously babies\small children as with lolicon type 'art'.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
If there is a rule that you can talk about everything except X, then you have freedom of speech with respect to (All possible topics of speech - X). So in a significant sense it would not be correct that you "don't have free speech at all". I understand, of course, that you would argue that "free speech" means "absolutely unconstrained speech".
Other questions:
1. Is speech "free" if it can be established statistically that a certain percentage of its audience will be induced to impact on another's freedom simply by hearing/reading/viewing it? Why does the chain of causation stop with the making and receiving of the speech, but not the consequences of it?
2. Is speech "not free" simply because there are criminal penalties? Or is it simply a legitimate trade off to say that if you choose to engage in the making or willing consumption of speech which the vast majority of rational people find utterly abhorrent, you also choose to take the risk that "society" will seek retribution against you, possibly in the form of violence and/or loss of liberty?
3. Does "free" speech extend to an unwilling audience, or an audience which cannot defend itself, or both? For example, is it ok to make racially derogatory sexual remarks to an audience of small children from minority backgrounds?
4. Should a person be held responsible for any consequences of their "free" speech? For example, should someone producing these types of images be regarded as an accessory to any eventual child abuse which takes place and towards which their images contibuted?
I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain extent here, because I tend to err on the side of libertarianism on such issues. But free speech advocates need to learn to work on a more complex set of assumptions than that there is no consequence whatsoever to speech, however hateful or provocative, and explain how society is to deal with those consequences with respect to the maker of the original speech.
If speech could never provoke real-world consequences, why would we speak at all?
Read Pynchon.
From my experience reading Slashdot: it's always better to use explicit <sarcasm> tags; with so many readers, someone isn't going to get it if it's subtle.
Oh, and you might need to type < (or gt) to get the tag delimiters to display OK.
The neat trick here is the a pedophile is someone who THINKS about naked children. He has fantasies about naked children.
A serial killer is someone who has killed multiple people.
Do you see the logic gap?
If you would like to compare a serial killer and a serial child rapist, be my guest. But statistically, there are probably around 1 million "exclusive" pedophiles in North America and only about 80,000 of those are in prison. That's less than 8%, which is roughly the same incarceration rate as the general population.
Who is being executed here?
In the context of your example.... a child rapist is physically raping a child. Whereas the people we are talking about are enjoying a simulation of such a thing.
A serial killer is physically killing people. What's the corollary? Oh yeah... people engaging in simulated killing.
Which... is.... clearly.... pathological.
O wait....
Doh!!!!!
in reality, pedophiles are creepy and nobody likes them so it's easy to cast them as drooling sub-humans.
But is it reality?
The answers to those points you raise is another type of freedom: freedom of choice--also called free will. We assume that people are in control of their own actions, and that ideas, words, and speech by itself is inherently incapable of causing harm. When someone takes that speech and acts on it, they are responsible for the action and are handled in a way that is considered appropriate by society.
I want to live in that kind of society, not the kind that tries to protect me by limiting what I can and can't talk about because it may possibly put me in danger.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Sorry, in the United Fundamentalist Christian States of America, it's not OK.
Hey those are pretty cool, I'd probably get arrested & have to register as sex offender if I put one on the lawn, though...
Besides bad taste, would this be forbidden? What if someone just photoshops the ears, or hair from a 12 year old onto a 39 year old?
The law in it's heart is good, in practice is bad. It's basically a thoughtcrime.
Wouldn't it be better if the sickos could look at computer generated stuff, and give them a relatively safe outlet, instead of making it illegal and having them look at the real stuff since it all will be illegal?
I guess the old Coppertone adds will be outlawed, since the cartoon doggie pulling down the 6 year olds bathing bottom will be construed as beastiality, S&M, and child porn.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that that particular aspect of this law is unenforcable, as there is no way you can establish the age of animated characters other than by asking the artists unless they are very obviously babies\small children as with lolicon type 'art'. No because it can easily be an imaginary world, look at the Disgaea: Hour of Darkness ps2 game (great tatics game by the way)
Its main characters look like children, id say around 8-10 years old by physical appearance. However its a fantasy world, these characters are all well over 100 years old thanks to being things like demons, angels, and such.
This is the problem with trying to create a though crime/prosecute a victimless crime, theres WAY too many loop holes, and all your evidence is in the hands of the defendant.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
[Frowning Old Woman] Did you know that under their clothes, children are all naked? And you dare look at them! Why, everywhere we go there are naked children, thinly veiled in clothing. Any time you glance at a child, it is therefore clear that you are committing a grievous offence against nature.[/Frowning Old Woman]
Some people watch too much commercial television, methinks. That's why the politicians get away with so much.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
We can't (yet?) predict whether someone will develop a paraphilia and we can't do anything about it. People just end up having different tastes for different (and often non-obvious) reasons. Whether or not poonography catering to a particular taste is available does not decide whether or not someone develops that taste; it can only be one of many influences.
Banning CP so hard that even mentioning it carries a mandatory prison sentence will still do nothing to "solve" paedophilia. It will only further cloud up the water and force the affected further into obscurity and violence.
What we need is an objective discussion of the issue. We need to view it as a controllable problem like alcoholism or an addiction. It's manageable, but only if we behave like mature, civilized human beings and treat issues like this with a bit of distance.
"Clean" child porn might allow paedophiles to blow off steam instead of waiting until the pent up sexual frustration makes them abduct, rape and kill some little girl. We don't really know, which is why we need scientific evaluation. And that is not possible while idiots with shotguns/the media are running around shouting: "I NEED TO KILLS Y'ALL OR IT MIGHT BE MY DAUGHTER!!1"
I think prohibition, the War on Drugs(TM) and similar endeavours have shown just how well complete demonization of an issue work towards safely controlling said issue.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
"The death penalty is too quick, a jail sentence has them safe from the rest of the world. It is the only case in which I would approve the use of torture - indeed, in it's most sadistic form, since the goal isn't information or confession, just suffering."
Perhaps you should add those who delight in thinking about others being slowly tortured to death to the list of people who should be slowly tortured to death for thinking about things.
"Obviously everyone who has modded me down thinks kid-fucking is okay."
A more likely explanation is that they reckon that you're a hypocritical sicko who thinks that torture and death fantasies are OK because he's having them, but other sick fantasies he doesn't have must be prohibited at all costs.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
In theory I can now end up in prison for drawing something with a pencil and paper.
No sig today...
The crime isn't important - the fear it generates it. Politics are driven by fear, more specifically by the formula "look how dangerous the world is - elect us so you're at least a little bit safe". The different parties only play on different areas of fear - right-wing usually on fears of crime, foreigners, etc. and left-wing on fear of unemployment, illness, poverty, etc.
So everyone who's posted a comment detailing how computer-generated images hurt nobody is missing the point entirely. Nobody cares who is being hurt or not. It doesn't matter. "Abused child" is merely a meme that is being exploited by power-greedy politicians. Since our emotions do not differentiate between "real" and "computer-generated", they are triggered by both, and since fear is an emotion, politicians don't see why they should make a difference, either.
Logic doesn't apply here. Psychology does.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
But this boils down to the key point that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Lots of people don't really think things through.
I'm happy I was born as a socially acceptable heterosexual... It must be living hell for all the people born pedophiles, knowing they will become an outcast the moment they tell anyone about their sexual orientation. Even though they have never hurt a child, and never will. I think we can safely assume there are vast numbers of pedophiles living "in the closet".
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That's a frightening quote.
So it's legal to fuck her, but if you take a picture of it with your mobile phone, you go behind bars for 20 years.
Only politicians and lawyers can come up with that kind of thinking.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Not to mention that there's no clear link between those who indulge in child porn, and those who commit pedophilia.
It's just more scaremongering to drum up votes by a government that knows it's on the ropes. The unfortunate thing is, it might be working.
Why, this CGI is gateway porno! Just like if I even try marijuana I'll be on crack, meth and heroin the very same week!
Being anti-pedophile doesnt give you a free pass for being a fucking moron. There's a difference between thinking about something and doing it. Actual child pornography has a direct link to child abuse [no producer without consumer] so is rightly banned. Simulated child pornography does not. Making simulated child pornography equivalent to actual child pornography means that people who currently find a harmless outlet for their sick impulses can no longer do so. They would no longer have an incentive to opt for simulated images over real images which would directly lead to more actual child abuse. So, "would someone please think of the children" goes both ways.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Except such a thing is already illegal. The purpose of this proposed law is not to prevent such a thing. The purpose is to make it illegal to even conceive of such a thing in an art form.
People die due to climate change in the film The Day After Tomorrow. This film is not illegal, because nobody was harmed in the making of it. Artistic representations of helpless children are not actually helpless children. No children were harmed in the making of this porn.
"pedophiles take pleasure in harming - physically and emotionally - people in no position to defend themselves. Helpless children."
The vast majority of child sexual abuse happens at home or a friend's house, and takes place regularly over a long period by people who've never seen child porn, and don't seek it out, so they won't be caught irrespective of how many laws are passed banning pictures, literature, etc. Child predators who prey on strangers are such a statistically insignificant factor in the child abuse problem as a whole that killing them all wouldn't reduce it in any noticeable way.
"At least I have a firm stance on something that matters."
If you actually wanted to have a real impact on child abuse instead of indulging in tabloid-inspired rants, you'd be calling for teachers and others who work with children to receive comprehensive training about how to spot the signs of abuse, and raise topic with a child without frightening or embarrassing them, or putting them in a position where they falsely accuse somebody because they want to please the adult, or are afraid of getting in trouble (those who thinks kids always tell the truth don't know very many of them!).
"I have a firm stance, that everyone will disagree with aloud, but more than a few will silently agree with."
It's irrelevant how many people agree with you, because it doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds of kids who get abused by nice uncle Aubrey, their slightly older cousin Henry, or their best friend's dad for every one that suffers at the hands of a wandering sexual predator. Nobody's doing anything about them, because it's a much harder problem to solve, and doesn't offer tabloids and TV companies human interest stories with sobbing parents and calls for somebody to do something that politicians can legislate about.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
The point he's making is that South Park being comedy is an opinion. People die in South Park all the time. Violently. People died quite frequently in the latest Beowulf CGI film. Whether they're of "artistic value" or not is irrelevant. It's a SIMULATED situation where no one is being hurt. Same way it's ok to show people shooting horses for fun in a movie and at the end it rolls the oh so common "No animals were harmed in the making of this film". If it's make-believe, it hurts no one.
You largely defeated your own argument: South Park IS offensive to many people. But, being sane, intelligent beings, we traditionally haven't banned media based on it being offensive, because that's subjective. Things have been baned based on whether or not they are harmful. Computer generated films of ANYTHING are not harmful, and should not be the subject of any legislation.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Computer generated child porn is still child porn.
Yes, computer generated abuse is still abuse, computer generated murder is still murder, and computer generated criminal damage is still criminal damage.
Pretty soon the police will come and arrest everyone who has ever played Doom/Quake/GTA/everything else, throw Carmack's ass in prison for several million counts of aiding and abetting, lock the Cloverfield guys up for what they did to the Statue of Liberty and call PETA on anyone who ever let their tamagotchi die.
Please put the kneejerk response aside and think logically before you speak. Laws (and the endorsement of them) are not to be taken lightly.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
As will this Greek statue from about 300 BC and this young boy with the small penis that Michaelangelo Bonoratti carved about a thousand years ago (it's been thirty years since my art classes and I've slept since then and can't be arsed to look it up).
I haven't seen the 2 girls 1 cup, is that new?
If I rewrite my journals so instead of hookers the girls are teenagers, are the UK police going to come across the pond after me? Or is it only illustrations? Text can tittilate also, you know.
Tami (link NSFW) is only about four foot eight, if I draw her (only flat chested instead of those big fat boobies) would I be breaking the law in England? How about if I draw "Bighead", the hooker with the smallest boobs I've ever seen?
I't nice to know that politicians in other countries are as fucktardedly brain dead as ours. There's hope for my country after all!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I wonder if you'd also support the police keeping an eye on people who read literature which has child-sex themes? Perhaps monitoring those who check out "Lolita" at the library?
I'd say you picked a fitting career for yourself. Congratulations.
...does that make me a terrorist?
Do any real people get killed because I draw pictures of explosions??
It's the exact same thing as making *fictional* kiddie porn illegal: a *representation* of something is being equated with *the real thing*.
As I've said numerous times -- how is this not Thought Crime??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Good luck with that, already it's not uncommon to see characters that are "legal lolis", women who haven't developed but are 20+. It's more common in H games but it turns up in anime some too, for example the teacher in Doki Doki School Hours. She looks like she's a grade schooler but she's in her 20s. And while it's not terribly common there are cases of this occurring in real life so it's not completely fantasy. So if the author swears the girl who looks like she's 8 years old is really 25 does that mean it's OK? Or will the law just allow the police/prosecutors/etc. to decide what age they think the girl is supposed to be and prosecute based on that? I'm guessing it'll be the latter and that path will lead to horrid abuse, people will be getting thrown in jail that never really committed a crime.
This is about control, not protecting any children.
That's the most rediculous bullshit I've ever heard. That's like saying that if I download a CD illegally, then all other CDs I own legally should also count towards extra counts of copyright infringement. Why should we keep an eye on those that possess cartoon porn anyways? If that's the case then we should keep a regular eye on everyone who consumes any amount of alcohol.
If I have sex with a 16 year old in view of a CCTV camera, then does that make the camera operator a paedo?
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?