Slashdot Mirror
Graphic Artists Condemn UK Ban On Erotic Comics
mdwh2 writes "Graphic artists, publishers and MPs have condemned the UK's Coroners and Justice Bill, which will criminalize possession of sexual depictions that appear to show someone under 18 (the age of consent is 16 in the UK), as well as adults where the 'predominant impression conveyed' is of someone under 18, and even if they are merely drawn as being present whilst sexual activity took place between adults. The definitions could include Lost Girls, Watchmen, and South Park. The Comic Book Alliance has launched a petition against the law."
Ha Haw!
Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
It does seem like they need to focus the law to deal with the sexualisation of minors in artwork, but you do have to wonder about the motives of some of the people pushing to have this overturned. It doesn't really seem like it's a law targeting The Watchmen and South Park. It sounds more like a law targeting 4Chan.
Just like here in Australia, where we said that Bart and Lisa were real people and if you draw/possess/distribute pictures of them naked, you go to jail. In the UK, that extends to South Park.
Well, that's a'right. I'm listing Bart, Lisa and Maggie as dependants on my tax return this year, as well registering Maggie to get the baby bonus (she's obviously only a year old or so so she counts- every year too!). I recommend UK citizens do the same for Kyle, Stan, Kenny and Cartman.
Of course, the UK government will not see the humour in that. Ridiculous extremes only apply when used against the people, not for them.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Yes they do. No they don't. Yes, they DO! NO they do NOT! Comic artists do NOT love being BANNED! YES THEY DO! baM! POW!!! KA-BLAMMM! CRRRACK! UGH! THERE! see? they do NOT!
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Where's the line going to be drawn on that law ?
I understand the need to keep an eye on the perverts who pass themselves off as artists, but guys, myself included, routinely joke about checking ID before sleeping with a chick for good reason.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
No loli? This is madness!
My sibling posts have already pointed out some of the problems with that assertion, but I still think you might hava a point here. It is quite obvious that this law is not about protecting children, so you start wondering what it is about. And criminalizing the anime/manga aficionados is politically convenient, considering that they're an unruly bunch of liberals and swing voters, who are generally opposed to current government policy already.
Misters Manet, Degas, and Van Gogh would like to inform you of their fervent objections to your new law...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
This is just further proof of how far the UK has gone off the deep end. Yes, child porn is bad, but drawings of adults who are dressed to look younger? Oh my, that cartoon grandmother is in a school-girl outfit..lets arrest that artist for producing child porn. And I thought it was bad when they had a camera on every street corner.
XKCD should draw stick figure porn in protest..
We should all protest with placards showing stick figure porn.. I am sure the children won't understand it.
Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
So if government workers receive email of these cartoons, then they'd better report it right away. Right?
So basically, you can get jailed for a drawing that someone else thinks might be of someone under 18.
Talk about B.S.
What next?
Getting arrested for stalking or mugging just because you and some paranoid idiot were walking the same direction on a mostly deserted street?
inb4 midget porn?
Also, I'm pretty short for my height. If I were 18 and I looked 15 or 16, would it be illegal for me to watch myself having sex?
which will criminalize possession of sexual depictions that appear to show someone under 18 (the age of consent is 16 in the UK)
Well, since the age of consent for this law is 16, then can't I simply not consent to be governed by this law?
... and then they built the supercollider.
It's all in there!
Perverts have been forcing it on children for thousands of years!
The sickness must stop!
Hitler studied to be a Catholic Priest.
Stalin studied to be an Orthadox Priest.
Almost everyone convicted of a violent crime in the US is religious. Worldwide, every single major terrorist incident was committed by religious people.
So again, if we are going to ban something for the good of everyone it should be the Bible, not comic books.
People are such twits. They really think they are helping children when doing this, which is the ultimate scape goat. What they are actually doing is preventing them selves from being exposed to something they find objectionable. They are imposing their morality/fear on individuals who aren't committing crimes, of course... not for long. What this all boils down to in a neat way, as it always does, is.... people are stupid.
Eat sleep die
I wonder if anyone would be so bold as to do the right thing, and suggest a law protecting artistic expression in the UK, equivalent in scope to American Freedom of Speech?
Dude, where's my packet?
Childish whining is just what I'd expect from these filth mongers.
If it hasn't happened already, I imagine that pretty soon the number of "child" porn (by the legal definition) images on social networking sites and cell phones will out-number all the other child porn images ever created.
There's just no sense in laws that make images of naked people under the age of 18 illegal. Punish the people who actually commit crimes of child abuse.
But I don't see how any of those works are threatened by the definitions.
If anything, the law is less threating to legitimate art than existing obscenity laws in the US. If this law simply means possession of child porn is illegal regardless of how it was produced, I'm fine with it.
I don't always agree with how the laws are applied, but possession of "virtual" child porn is just as objectionable as a photograph to me. The person responsible for the photograph is still a child molester, but it shouldn't matter how an image was created when defining child porn.
Appear to show someone under eighteen? Under such a law, there would be two possible responses:
1. Only depict people who are obviously middle-aged or older having sex.
2. Write stories in which all of the characters are androids. This could include, of course, androids that look like three-year-olds having sex with robots that look like dogs.
While I have no particular interest in seeing either option, I certainly hope someone puts both in the same comic book and sells it in every comic store in the UK.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"An image is "pornographic" if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."
That's a rather broad definition... Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, Victoria's Secret catalogues, and just about anything that directly or indirectly invokes the "sex sells!" marketing theory.
As humorous as this may seem at first glance, this really is nothing less than a government's attempt to control certain thoughts in the population (i.e. thoughts of pedophilia). It is nothing less than legislating certain thoughts as criminal actions.
As someone who cares about civil liberties I find this to be doubleplusungood.
...on swift deletion of privacy rights here in 'th states? We're falling behind, quick someone find us some more corrupt politicians before we fall too far behind!
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The law is very bad, but not quite as bad as the summary would have you believe. Simpsons would *not* be covered by the law, because allthough there are episodes in it where children are present when someone has sex, that's not sufficient for the imagery to be deemed illegal.
The images also need to be pornographic, which is defined thusly: must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(and a later section says, in the case of images that are part of a larger narrative, the entire narrative should be considered.)
So the simpsons would only be covered by the law if you claimed that the episode in question would reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
And that, frankly, doesn't pass the laugh-test. The simpsons is a lot of things, but it's not principally produced for the purpose of sexual arousal.
IT's still bad law mind you, just not quite *THAT* bad.
This isn't law, and probably never will be in this form. The UK has some pretty lurid (and rather excellent) comics - Viz for example, featuring Buster Gonad and his Unfeasibly large testicles, Tina's Tits - who thinks her breasts have magical powers, and Johnny FartPants - there's always a commotion in his underwear. This is "underground mainstream" if you catch my drift, and no one would outlaw these. Balance that against a screaming right wing press, and millions of people who are almost paranoid about paedophilia though, and you have a strong political pressure to be seen to be doing something. These people may be paranoid, but they have votes, and their fears are real, even if the causes are exaggerated. They worry in this particular instance about "near photo realistic" artwork - such as that in computer games, and loopholes by which people who possessed indecent photographs could escape prosecution by passing it off as photo-realistic art. Who is the victim - who knows ? But there is a very great public opposition to it - and politicians are reacting to it. - Believe me though they will react just as strongly to any attempt to outlaw comics - Old public schoolboys won't be easily seperated from their Beanos and Dandys
I wonder if the politicians are also trying to shut down some critics? Like "Viz":
"The comic's style parodies the strait-laced British comics of the post-war period, notably The Beano and The Dandy, but with incongruous language, crude toilet humour, black comedy, surreal humour and either sexual or violent storylines . . . Occasionally, it satirises current events and politicians, but has no particular political standpoint." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viz_(comic)
I could imagine politicians from all sides would be eager to find a reason to shut it down. "Baxter Basics" featured a sex obsessed Member of Parliament shoving a petrol station gas nozzle up his ass, just after a real life conservation MP was caught soliciting prostitutes. Prime Minister John Major's motto was "Back to Basics."
One regular strip features a schoolboy who, after a string of bad luck, ends up shagging a bird with big tits, in a mountain of sweets. Some other regulars are, "Johnny Fartpants", "Buster Gonad and his unfeasibly large testicles", "Felix and his amazing underpants" and "Wanker Watson." Any of these could be interpreted to run foul of this law.
At least the other UK periodical that I read, which regularly criticizes politicians, "The Economist", seems to be safe . . . for now.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Sometimes children actually engage in sexual activity. I don't remember my age exactly but I definitely know that I was less than four the first time I ate a girl. Since she told me to do it, who was the molester? Me or her? In fact, maybe both of us should go to jail -- we damaged our society and increased the chance for others to be molested -- and hey, it's so downright obscene anyway that there just must be a punishment involved, right?
Oh, and FYI, I thought it tasted weird so after a while I told her that I didn't want to do it any more. She said fine, and declared that she wouldn't suck me off. I got a bit mad but instead we went inside and played something else.
I'm not trolling, this is absolutely true. And I know that it's not a very rare experience either.
Just pass a law that says "Everything that makes you feel funny inside and your mommy didn't tell you about is illegal." Problem solved. This is what this is all about, isn't it? These people never have to learn how to deal with reality because they create legal blinders that forbids other people to show them what's actually going on. Perpetrators should be shot at the spot. Death penalty for repeat offenders.
...
It could be so simple. Germany has adopted this law as well now teens can legally fuck at the age of 14 but they can never watch the tapes. God forbid someone drew them naked on a giant sinking cruise liner
''It is a century or two old ?'' -- what does that matter, it depicts a child under the age of 16 at the time?
Subsesction 6 (describing one of the prohibited forms of drawings) explains that an image "which focuses solely or principally on a childâ(TM)s genitals or anal region" is to be prohibited.
IANAMS (I Am Not A Medical Student), but wouldn't that make a fair number of medical text books technically pornography? IANAL either, but this clause does not even seem to be modified by the other sections covering âpornographyâ(TM) which allow certain images as long as the wider work is not pornographicâ"these images would be illegal outright regardless of their context.
And youâ(TM)d better not let your 10-year-old alone with your phone, in case he uses it to photograph his sisterâ(TM)s bum (or his own willy).
--Andrew
(Who is proud that the first substantive post to Slashdot on an important political issue contains the terms âbumâ(TM) and âwillyâ(TM).)
P.S. Captcha is âoematuringâ. Hmmm.
This all leads to the unavoidable situation of a local magistrate being tasked with the job of determining a cartoon depicting a stick figure man having sex with a stick figure woman, and trying to decide if one or both of the figures is under-aged.
This is brain-farting on an epic scale. It's ill conceived, rooted in stoopid!!! social taboos, and I can barely imagine why some people feel so compelled to fuck with other peoples free speech. If it something that needs to be purchased to be seen, and you don't like it, then simply don't buy it and don't look at it.
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat! -- Pink Floyd
Don't come around bothering me over dirty pictures while Father O'Malley sodomizes little Timmy.
I think you mean Father Tucker (warning: not safe for work nor for UK residents)
Y'all do: "The gallery is a non-departmental public body; its collection belongs to the public of the United Kingdom and entry to the main collection (though not some special exhibitions) is free of charge." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gallery_(London)
So who will you need to arrest for possession of that porn . . . ?
Napoleon had it wrong: the UK is not a "nation of shopkeepers," but a "nation of hardened criminals." But I guess he found that out at Waterloo.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I don't think the motive here is really to criminalize erotic comics.
The community generally agrees that sex involving children is abuse and that's something that should be punished. And that if you've got pictures of that sort of thing happening, that's evidence of the crime.
The problem is that it's a lot of work to prove the pictures are (1) sexual (2) involving children.
The solution is to simply redefine the crime--If it looks like sex and it looks like children, a crime has occurred.
"looks like" to be defined to suit the convenience of the prosecutor.
From the prosecutors' point of view, the rights of the accused are an impediment to justice. The law works for the good, and the prosecutor (but not the accused) is part of the law. Any impediment to good is evil, and should be removed.
So, the burden of proof is technically on the prosecutor--but the bar is so low that for practical purposes, he's guilty until proven innocent.
Simply criminalizing everything and then selecting those you're going to prosecute is NOT the impartial rule of law--it's the rule of the person who happens to be sitting in the prosecutor's office at the moment. Perhaps someone educated in Australian constitutional law can tell us if this is even a concern over there.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
The freaks who support this legislation have been working away, quietly within the system, slowly gaining support and respectability, until they have attained a position of power, sufficient for them to get their obnoxious legislation considered.
Who are they?
It isn't enough to know that the prospective legislation has been drafted and is now under consideration. I want to know who suggested it, and who sponsored it. If they were forced out into the open we could then have a healthy debate.
Really, who are they?
Freedom. Allow them to express their most intimate and private thoughts or fantasies in as graphically realistic art as they are capable. But it goes both ways. When you're private fantasies are exposed to public eyes and ears, be prepared to deal with the public ridicule and social ostracizing that follows. No need for laws when the majority can easily impose their morality through peer rejection.
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
Then your whole point has nothing to do with this law because this law is a law on private possession. So why did you bring this up, when suggesting that this law had the right direction, and questioning those people who dared to oppose the law?
If your original post was meant to suggest this is a law aimed at publication or distribution, then you are completely wrong. It's intentionally aimed at possession rather than publication.
Okay, I'm up for an off-topic side-debate on whether Obscenity laws are needed, or what form these laws should take, but please note that that has nothing to do with this law (and has nothing to do with laws on actual child porn, come to that - as pointed out, they were originally intended to prevent child abuse, and not a subset of obscenity law). This law, along with the recent UK "extreme porn" law that criminalises possession of images involving consenting adults, are some new kind of thing: they're not about preventing abusive acts, but they're also not about preventing the distribution of "obscene" things, they're about criminalising people merely for possession of things deemed to be "disgusting" (to quote both laws) in certain ways.
It's not enough that no one would've seen your images if the police didn't go forcibly looking for them. It's not about people wanting control over what they see, it's about wanting control over what other people can see.
Ban and destroy all depictions of children in every medium currentley out there because humans might see it and think thoughts. Ban everything from books, T.V. shows, Barney, cartoons, movies, health pamphletes, religious pictures childrens books, statues - everything. Everything and anything with a damn child in it - even yours. If you want a picture of your kid, all you get is a head shot. Disneyland should be shut down and so should playgrounds, because we can't have adults looking at kids - now can we? Everything of, for or about children should be obliterated from the face of the earth so that there is no sead to spark the thoght of thinking about - THEM. Even the word 'child' should be stricken from the language (written or spoken); they should only be reffered to by descriptive words such as 'small people' or 'non-adult entities'or by other descriptive words. Immagine the $hit that would ensue when the depictions must be destroyed: No, you can't paint over it, nor can you paint clothes on it, because its origional meanning was pornographic and humans might have thoughts while covering them up. No, the whole thing must be destroyed because the whole thing is a pornographic construct whose origional meaning was not enlightenment or empathy, but only a medium to display filth. Aw, fu$ck it! Humans were born of origional sin - right? So fu$ck 'em all because they see, draw, paint, sculpt and think. Destroy all humans! Wipe them off the face of the earth and stop the porn forever! C,mon big government: unleash the bio-weapons. Destroy the fu$cked-up humans and their sick porno ways. Destroy the sick and vile creatures that vomit this rank puss from their minds that pollute the universe. Do it for the non-adult entities.
Theoretically we have such a law as part of the European Convention On Human Rights, however it has the get-out clause "protection of morals" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm ). This also came up with the recent "extreme" porn law - the Government claimed that this was not a violation of freedom of expression (or right to privacy) under the law, because of these get-out clauses. In the explanatory note for that law, they gave as justifications ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 ):
802. The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 but that for the reasons set out below this is justified as being in accordance with the law, and necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, for the protection of morals and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
803. The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people. It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence, so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place. The House of Lords upheld convictions for offences of causing actual and grievous bodily harm in the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 which involved a group of sado-masochists who had engaged in consensual torture. The threshold that the clauses have set is very high, so while those taking part might argue that they had consented to it, such consent is not valid at law.
804. In the case of images of staged activity , the Government believes that banning possession is justified in order to meet the legitimate aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities. This is also the case with images of bestiality, which while involving harm to animals can also involve the non-consensual participation of humans who are harmed in the process of making the images.
805. The Government considers that the new offence is a proportionate measure with the legitimate aim of breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it. Irrespective of how these images were made, banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable. Viewing such images voluntarily can desensitise the viewer to such degrading acts, and can reinforce the message that such behaviour is acceptable.
806. The Government considers that the restrictions on this material also achieve the aim of protecting others, particularly children and vulnerable adults, from inadvertently coming into possession of this material, which is widespread on the internet.
803 is the only one that has any strength - despite being a batshit ruling, it is nonetheless something that existing law says (although even there, an act being illegal doesn't mean that an image should be, nor should it mean you give up your convention rights). However, it ignores that the law covered even fictional/staged depictions, as well as things that might look risky but didn't result in harm - acts clearly legal to carry out. The rest of them - well, see for yourself how ridiculous they are.
I haven't seen similar justifications yet for this new bill, but if those justifications are allowed to fly, then our "freedom of expression" is basically useless.
Another law being passed based on the assumption that a certain medium is targeted and consumed exlusively by children.
I'm almost 30 and I own several thousand comic books, probably 30 graphic novels, and actively collect 6 or 7 titles every month. I own the Watchmen and several other titles that would be taboo under this law. None of what's in any of these is more pornographic that he Clan of the Cave Bear series by Jean M. Auel, which my parents gave me to read when I was 13. They'd already read the books a couple of years before and knew about the sex scenes. My wife read Flowers in the Attic around the same age and she tells me that the oldest boy rapes his sister.
Neither of these books come with warnings about the graphic nature of their content or laws to prevent their dissemination to children 2 years above the legal age of consent (WTF, this is akin to the difference between the draft age and legal purchase of alcohol in the US).
My wife is pregnant with our first child and I hope that I never become so irresponsible that I want the government to censor artistic expression because I'm too lazy to investigate the media my children are interested in before I let them consume it. My parents used the Clan of the Cave Bear books as a starting point for the discussion of, not only reproduction, but relationships and human sexuality. I'm sure my parents were embarrased, but that was there job NOT the governments.
For the most part people have little problem with sex or sexuality in visual art. How many nude paintings did you see on your field trips to art museums growing up? For the most part people also have little problem with sex or sexuality in written art. I can't count the number of novels I read in middle school and high school that at least made reference to sex. However, when you combine the visual and written medium everyone looses their Fracking mind if anything taboo comes up (Drugs, sex, etc were the original reason for creating the Comics Code here in the US).
It's all just Nanny State BS.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I see tons of articles about free speech and all that on slashdot. Everybody whines and yet what are we doing to fix the problem?
We must do something instead of talking!
I don't want the world to become a police state!
isn't this the 20th anniversary of the TV show, making them all over the age of consent? If chronological age is ignored and appearance is used as the child porn yardstick, then what about women who like to dress up as high schoolers and have sex, i.e. be 28 years old but dress as fourteen? Is that OK? Could Dave Vitter, with his sex preference of wearing diapers, be considered a child since he dresses (and acts) like one? And, since the Simpsons all have yellow skin and disproportionate features, can a court properly classify the Simpsons as human, since no humans have skin that color- they are better defined as humanoid- aliens, therefore non human. Did anyone in Oz figure this out?
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
But I don't see how any of those works are threatened by the definitions.
The South Park episode I linked to shows a child performing the act of masturbation (of a dog), and other children present in the scene. That would seem to come under:
(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;
A BBFC version would be exempt, but a screenshot or clip would not be exempt. As for Lost Girls and Watchmen, I was quoting the Independent article. For Lost Girls, they say:
Certain pages in the novels could fall foul of the new law because it currently defines a child as under 18-years of age. This is problematic because many of the women's sexual experiences in The Lost Girls occur in their late teens when they are above the age of consent but still under 18-years-old.
If the book depicts them during sexual acts, it would come under the definitions. For Watchmen:
There are even fears that Watchmen, one of the industry's most critically acclaimed graphic novels, could risk being banned because one of the main superheroes sees his mother having sex when he is a young child.
Since the law states this is illegal, I don't see how this is incorrect or alarmist.
If this law simply means possession of child porn is illegal regardless of how it was produced, I'm fine with it.
And how on earth do you define the difference between "porn" and "not-porn" - are you sure your interpretation will match up with the police, and jury of random people?
Do you think it would be alarmist to suggest that joke Simpsons porn will be made illegal too? Because that already happened in Australia. Or do you think it's right for that to be illegal to possess?
And what do you have against porn? Another problem with this law is images that are intended to be porn, but are not pedophilic, but could still be caught by the law, since it explicitly covers images of people over the age of consent (16-17 year olds, and any adults with a "predominant impression" of someone under 18). Add to that the difficulties of judging age from a cartoon or sketch, then things such as Hentai, or BDSM porn that features school room scenes (even if it's intended to be a drawing of adults role-playing schoolgirls, a pretty cliche fetish, it might be deemed illegal because the school scene and uniforms give the impression of someone under 18).
In practice, I suspect that a copy of Watchmen owned in book form would be fine, but a screenshot or your computer out of context, who knows. And everything from joke simpsons porn (or how about this scene?) to hentai would be taking a grave risk to possess, or view online. Even if we agree that pedophilic pornographic material should be illegal to possess (and even there, I see no justification for doing so), this law is far broader than that, catching material - whether or not it happens to be porn - is clearly not about pedophilia. That's not "alarmist", it's exactly how the law's written.
And no - this law doesn't say that child porn is illegal. We're talking about cartoons, not child porn. It doesn't cover real children, and the definition of "child" isn't restricted to even depictions of children, but includes those over the age of consent.
If I had kids and one ended up with criminal charges like the currently-fashionable "sexting" ones, I'd do anything possible to fight any outcome that ended up including a "sex offender" status.
fencepost
just a little off
Ah, how the mighty who created the Magna Carta have fallen. Every time I think things have gotten bad here, I just have to look across the pond at the hidden cameras, warrantless searches and censorship laws, and know it's not that bad here.
Ironic that the guy who created V for Vendetta will have a comic of his censored in Britain.
Should google this...
You bastard!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
OTHERS WILL MISINTERPRET THIS ON PURPOSE!
The MOMENT you allow a matter of taste "obscene" to be part of law then you can just wait for SOMEONE to classify something as obscene that you don't agree with.
Jazz was obscene to the nazi's. Godwin be damned, either you have freedom of speech or you don't and if you don't want speech that you find obscene then you can't have free speech and sooner or later someone will find what you find normal obscene.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Obscenity is about control of free thought. What maybe obscene to someone could be non-obscene to another. It is all based on the general census of people, which is wrong when it comes to objects that do not in the materal world inflect pain, suffering, physical or mental damage.
Some people may find small chibi loli anime characters having sexual relations with an object, person or beast/creature to be obscene. Some people may find a small carrot with human like qualities being raped by a giant potatoto be obscene. Bias always exists when groups are used as a voting structure, that is the problem.
I personally, do not like torture related media. Saw and all those movies, I find those to be extremely obscene. But thats just me. Obscene laws need to be abolished, because they criminalize non-criminal free speech, just like arresting someone in public because they said "f**k".
Check with France. It's actually illegal to set to pen imaginary accounts of such stuff.
STOP VOTING FOR PURITAN MORONS Tell them to go stuff their babies up a goat's ass and fuck-off while they're doing it.
Why is every first non-'Fr0sty P1s7!!11' comment on Slashdot now from an Aussie saying "Me too!!11"?
I disagree with saying cartoon sex is bad (I often get off to it). Heres the rub though (;) is it wrong to draw someone you know? What if that person is underage? Would it be harrasment? What if it made it to an art gallery? Aren't there laws against photographing someone? Would it be defamation? This has so many interesting problems.
J
The point is not to prevent anything, but to use the current 'witchhunt'-flavor of the day (or generation) to implement laws that enable government to 'optionally' criminalize everyone to allow selective enforcement.]
There is a threat that people might actually not break the law -- in which case, the power of a government is hampered in its ability to establish control through threat.
If there are few laws, then when the government wants to silence you, people ask why. If the law is so complex you that everyone is a law-breaker, then when asked why, they can mumble something about US or State, or City (or whatever gov) code clearly says the person they arrested is a law breaker. They'll get a swift & speedy court date within 5 years with a public defender -- don't worry "ma'am/sir", justice will prevail.
By creating a law that is subjective like 'looks young', they open a whole new avenue of silencing people they don't like.
They also create new excuses to hunt for more 'violating items'. So how about we start treating all Japanese anime as 'suspicious', because they draw young looking sexualized characters in stories (even if the show is aimed at children,
it's really all a cover for old perverts to look at forbidden drawings)...etc. blah blah blah.... Have to keep the laws up-to-date and current to go after 'technology', as drawings/computer art is looking more real all the time. The supposed reasoning for crackdown on child-porn, is that the children were exploited. But if the pics aren't real, where are the victimized children we have been hoodwinked into 'protecting'?
It becomes another way the government extends its license to interfere in consensual adult activity that prudes want to regulate and extinguish so everyone is under their thumbs and as unhappy as those pushing the laws.
*sigh*
(what else is new...story of 'humanity'...)
-l
Yes lets cure censorship with censorship! Surely that will establish a foundation for a golden age of human rights abuses by targeting scapegoats one after another until we're knee deep in our own crap with our eyes sewn shut throwing turds at each other.
I thought there was a law that prevented you from testifying against yourself.
"It is not our intention to criminalise ... the legal entertainment industry, the art industry or pornographic cartoons" grates the Home Office spokesbot. But we're stiill going to pass a law that does make them illegal.
Many in here seem to think that this is the government in the UK being against comic classics and other graphic media which would depict these acts.
In reality they're all HUGE comic fans. This is really just the first step in their performance art re-creation of "V for Vendetta"....
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Erm... I've just followed the handy-dandy link to the draft Bill and it appears that we may be able to hold fire just slightly on all our angry rants because the Bill contains some important constraints. The Bill does not make it an offence to have a pornographic image of a child (cartoon or otherwise). It makes it an offence to have a prohibited image. Prohibited images are defined to have *three* characteristics in the Bill: 1. pornographic, 2. focused on the perianal area or depicting various sexual acts, and 3. grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
1. is taken to mean "designed to make the reader horny" (I paraphrase). Who's going to argue in court that the picture of a young Rorschach stumbling on his mother having sex with a john was drawn with this intention? Especially when 1. is further qualified to say that the test has to be applied in the context of the narrative.
3. may be annoyingly vague, but it's pretty clear that it's intended to be a fairly high bar and that some images will pass the bar of both 1 and 2 and yet not 3.
Now you know all this, please feel free to go on being jolly cross about the Bill. Perhaps you'll find the time to get cross about the data-sharing provisions and the secret inquest provisions, both of which are much more worrying to me at least, even though they've both been narrowed somewhat from the original lunacy.
We are gonna need a 'new thought of the day' or whatever the quotes at the bottom are called!!
"We have art that we do not die of the truth. -- Nietzsche"