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."
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
Child pornography is a subset of the term obscenity (at least, if you're a healthy individual it is).
Although drawing a naked baby being raped by guys in rabbit suits might not involve any children who once or ever will exist, it's still obscene. Lots of laws exist to prevent that level of obscenity. There are lots of reasons why it's obscene. Let's not get into that debate though, there's Wikipedia if we need to look up basic definitions.
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."
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 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?
Common sense would dictate that vanilla stick figures don't have the detail needed to accurately depict certain things. If you start adding more detail, they're not really stick figures anymore.
You might draw two perpendicular stick figures and write "guy fucking a baby" underneath it. Then I'd argue that the title would be considered obscene and the drawing is irrelevant.
I don't think obscenity is the diametric opposite of moral. The concepts don't exclude each other. It's fairly safe to assume that the side claiming to base its choices on moral arguments is the one most likely to describe something as obscene.
I think we all agree that obscene things can be made illegal to produce, but nobody agrees on the definition of obscenity.
I meant it in the sense that child pornography is obscene rather than all obscenity being child pornography. I could have explained that more clearly but I don't see how you got confused. Did you misinterpret that deliberately?
I don't think *anyone* can be the go-to person for what's obscene. There's no point in trying to regulate things that exist solely in the mind of the beholder. They might as well make it illegal to draw anything except fine art, or only allow fine music to be played on radio stations.
If some people are allowed to revel in what they consider the best things that society can produce, why can't other people revel in the worst of society?
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
Exactly. The idea behind outlawing obscenity is fairly understandable: we don't want to see things that can hurt us. People are acclimatised to different levels of violence, sexuality and Dane Cook. I for one would suffer tremendously in the presence of the latter item.
There isn't a lot of common ground on the issue either, but the things that jump to mind for me when we talk about obscenity are beastiality, scat, child porn and torture. It'll be similar for most people, give or take a few things. Still, there's a lot left to disagree on.
Since when? I hear people who getting raided for X crime also get stung with this sort of thing all the time. Happens at customs as well.
There are things which considered obscene recently (illegal within the last 30 years) which I probably would have never considered doing if I had never heard of them.
OTH, there are other things that are legal (and lots of web sites for) that I didn't find out about until I was nearly 50 that I didn't have an interest in doing (and found distressing/repulsive).
So, for at least one person (me)
a) Some things I've done I would have never done unless I learned about them but I enjoy them.
b) Some things I would never have thought of/done and now would never even tho I learned about them.
So, I guess your mileage may vary.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It will be soon. Its on the Aussie blacklist.
No way...No doubt that it is preverse, but the only thing that should be illegal is is what the neighbor did to the baby - and maybe if you just watched it and jerked off instead of trying to stop it that should probably be illegal..
But if you were to talk about it or draw a picture. Why should that be illegal?
My theory that I just came up with is that repressed people don't like being reminded that they are capable of doing fucked up shit - therefore they try to repress it in themselves and others - the only thing is, most people don't worry too much about this stuff and would either say "wow, that's really imagistic and nasty, is that really the kind of shit you're into?" or "don't say such horrible things you nasty jerk, you scare me" - but the person who goes absolutely apeshit trying to make it illegal to say those sort of things - that's the person you stay the fuck away from and keep them away from your kids too because they've got some sort of sociopathic hidden tendencies and a severe issue with trying to control others...A recipe for the type of person who would actually do ALL of the things you listed in your little sicko story.
That presumes that they can sublimate their urges with the piece of paper. I'm no expert but I've seen precious evidence of that(or the opposing view that seeing the piece of paper makes them more likely to act out). Humans are just too complicated to agree on a reaction to a single stimulus.
http://www.impactlab.com/2008/01/06/internet-porn-shown-to-decrease-incidence-of-rape/
You can't take the sky from me...
In Canada written descriptions are indeed outlawed. A case was brought to court a few years ago in which a guy had written these stories containing descriptions of things that, if visually represented, would be CP. He then shared them with others. The court ruled that he had the right to write these things down but he didn't have the right to distribute them to others. IOW you can think whatever you want, but don't try to communicate your thoughts or you'll go directly to jail.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Yes... But then perverts might have satisfaction. They might be able to hide amongst us and function as normal members of society, rather than being ostracized and constantly punished for being born that way. Surely you agree that sacrificing a few children is an acceptable price for the righteous cause of making pedophiles less comfortable?
The thing is, protecting the innocent is not as much fun as punishing the guilty. It doesn't make various vigilantes feel powerful, while a few witch burnings do. It's not about making the children safe, it's about finding people to punish publicly.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.