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
There's "what a law targets", and there's "what a law hits", and they can be two very different things indeed.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Question their motives? So what if their motive is that they want to draw fictional naked children? As long as no real children are portrayed or in any way harmed in the making of those drawings, why should anyone care? The original point of child porn laws was to protect the children in the pornography. In this case, there are none.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
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/
Unfortunately, laws don't really act as they were "intended", they act as they are written(at best, it's all downhill from there). Even if the law is actually written with the more-or-less-pure motive of cracking down on the 4chan babyrapers fan-art fanclub(and that isn't necessarily a safe assumption; pretty much any sex-related law has at least a few theocrats clinging to it somewhere), the original motive won't last for long. If passed, it will most likely be being applied to pretty much any graphic art that happens to make the Daily Mail readership uncomfortable within a few years.
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.
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.
well, say its a fully clothed baby? um, and real woodland rabbits are only dry humping it.
And Megan's Law is never applied here in the US to people who peed outside or had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend while he was 18. Child porn laws are never turned on children who photograph themselves. But what difference does it make? It's for teh childres!!
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Make the baby a rock and we're talkin'.
- The UK Censorship Dept
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.
would it not follow that written descriptions be outlawed as well.
furthermore, when drawing stick people, how do you tell a dwarf from a child...
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.
And what's wrong with obscenity?
I understand obscene material bothers some people, but as long as they're not forced to watch it, I don't see why I can't.
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
Are you asking me, or the people who made the law that I'm describing?
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.
2girls1cup isn't illegal therefore I reject the whole premise.
I know a woman who likes to eat goat shit, because it's fairly dry and full of fiber, and I once jacked off while watching her carve up the neighbor's baby and make a roast out of it.
Complete bullshit of course. And the most obscene things I could think of on the spur of the moment. Should it be illegal to say such things?
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.
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.
"obscenity" or any other moral measurement has nothing to do with this. its about, by omission, allowing certain individuals to grow a perverse desire for (in this case) children beyond what they can control. so trust me, when a legislation like this is proposed of curse its backed up by conservative and "moral" justifications, but it only gets approved when the other half agrees on it. and they have much more rational reasons than "morality" to do it.
demanding some serious suspension of disbelief on your behalf.
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
But drawing people being torn apart or burned or tortured (non-sexually) is not obscene? I suppose I must have missed the memo explaining how X+sex is evil and must be banned, when X is tolerated and "free speech" and what not.
Do you think it should be illegal? Everyone considers themselves to be middle-of-the-road, what's your take on your post?
Weird. I thought anti-CP laws were about preventing child abuse. But if they are simply about obscenity... well, from now on I'll have to regard CP-producers as free speech activists!
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
What's obscene is that you consider it your business to tell people what they can draw.
That depends where you go. I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't pass customs in my country. I don't see anyone running out of their way to ban the internet as a medium for filth here either though.
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?
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.
Are you saying that you're the go-to guy on what's obscene?
I doubt it matters how moral or enlightened society becomes, nobody will ever agree completely on what is appropriate in which situations. Perhaps it's time for us to go find out how judges decide if something is obscene in court, since that's where it counts.
You bring up a good point. In my policy analysis classes, we considered the validity of assumptions behind laws - causal, jurisdictional, etc. It seems that this is a portion of theory that scientists are held to relatively strictly, but which our lawmakers often fail to address.
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?
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.
The original intent of obscenity laws was to prevent the public display of obscene material, not to protect against thoughtcrime. If someone draws something that you would find offensive, should that really be outlawed if it's kept private?
That would true for a very personal definition of obscene. Then it would be wrong since I'm not telling anyone what they can draw, I'm leading the debate towards the correct category this law falls under. Don't get angry.
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?
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
When your house gets raided and the material you intended to keep private gets seized and is no longer private, we'll see how you feel about that argument.
and they have much more rational reasons than "morality" to do it.
Such as?
HAHA, if you are between 16 and 18, it is already illegal for you to watch yourself having legal sex in most countries!
"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.
Child pornography is a subset of the term obscenity (at least, if you're a healthy individual it is).
Well, if the UK law is anything like the US law, it's not a subset of obscenity -- in fact, child porn is another category entirely precisely so that prosecutors don't have to meet the "obscenity" standard in order to prosecute child porn (because, as the GP noted, child porn inherently exploits the children in the porn). This was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court a few years ago when dealing with "virtual child porn"; this case raises the same issues.
Define the word. For me, "obscene" means: something that makes the prudes freak out.
Andres Serrano. HR Giger. Larry Flynt. 2 Live Crew. Mortal Kombat. Jyllands-Posten. Getting the idea now?
Circumcision is child abuse.
He's probably referring to the idea that the presence of obscenity breeds obscene behaviour. Case in point: police blaming violent behaviour on GTA.
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.
...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.
That might be true if you had an unlimited tolerance for obscenity. What you're referring to however is the ever-moving definition of obscenity held by society, which will simply be whoever can sqwauk the loudest.
You missed some words from your quoted text.
The debate does appear to be about obscenity now.
Like Gamma said, obscenity laws relate to the distribution of obscene material. There's no crime if they find your personal stash of baby-tied-to-a-cockrocket porn.
Agreed. Additionally, "fine" folllows only a single rule: "Your Mileage May Vary".
The definition of "fine" is made by individuals. Being so it may and will vary. The problem isn't whether it is "obscene", but whether it is harmful. The difference between perceived and real should be noted.
Are the viewers willing to see it? Is it causing any real harm? What is the opinion of the sides involved? And, more importantly: is there any issue that should be priorized before discussing this?
These are the questions that should be addressed
The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
I have heard that claim before, that published obscenity encourages actual obscene behavior -- but I don't think I have ever seen or heard actual evidence
She's probably also being hit on by 19 year old guys in her daily life.
Ewww.
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.
They don't hit because they're leading the target, they hit because they're using scattershot. And they're hitting a shitload of other stuff too.
I haven't, but I'm not sure the local police make a big deal out of catching this stuff coming in to the country. The situations I do remember all relate to the sale of obscene material. It's going to vary from country to country.
So it looks like another heavy metal album cover is going to get banned?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In the UK, possession is a crime. What's more, copying a file is considered as producing it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not proven. And even if it were, not anybody else's business.
See above.
Not proven.
Not proven - so vague as to be meaningless, hence unprovable.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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 probably wouldn't be a big deal if it didn't lead in many cases to child abuse, or at least the risk thereof.
And being unable to release their urges without harming actual children isn't going to lead to more child abuse?
I find child pornography as revolting as anyone (aside from the sickos, of course). That said, I staunchly defend anyone's right to artistic expression, regardless of how revolting I might find it. You can't have it both ways; either you have freedom of expression, or you wind up legislating it away.
As long as no actual child is harmed, I cannot argue with fictional representations of sexual acts involving children. Are they repulsive? Yes. I'll still fight hard to defend the right to create such content, on the grounds that no actual person is being hurt.
In short, I find your agreement with legislating morality as it pertains to freedom of expression to be obscene.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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.
Yep.
Someone able to imagine so obscene things, with rabbits and so, and put them in a drawing, should be severely punished. 12 months in prision.
Allowing some reduction if the drawings are only drafts and not very detailed.
If they colored them, 6 extra months.
3-6 years for animation attempts.
Ah, and you will no go away free... ./
Expect for at least 3 months for writting the script. 3 extra for making it public in
And a couple of months for you for quoting it.
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
It is impossible to sexualize children, in the same way that it is impossible to sexualize lemurs or adult humans. We are sexual beings, and as far as I know there is no way with our current technology to sexualize us any further.
Whatever alarmist reasons these lawmakers saw to attack freedom was bogus.
As Jimmy would say, COME ON. Do you really want to put my old Christian elementary school teacher in jail for showing us a cartoon of naked kids rubbing thighs and loudly thinking "YES, YES"? (The point of the cartoon was that you might think "NO, NO" and in that case you must make that clear and get out of there.)
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
Think of the children! Let no mirror go UNSMASHED!
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.
Normal obscenity laws, maybe. This law specifically prohibits private possession.
''It is a century or two old ?'' -- what does that matter, it depicts a child under the age of 16 at the time?
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
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.
So is Fred Goodwin's pension. Yet I don't see the British Government trying to ban that...
Where does prohibition figure in this I wonder. For example, in the USA there seems to be a big thing about seeing breasts (and topless bathing is, as I understand it, illegal), whereas in Europe (where it's mostly legal, especially the Med beaches), breasts are two a penny and not such a big deal!
Stepping over to the Scandinavian countries and there they have a still more open attidute, and full nudity seems to be no big deal.
Is there a frisson of excitement added to the pot for images deemed 'obscene'? Think of TubGirl (OK ... actually, let's not think of it!). How many of you have seen it? Is that obscene? I'd say it was obscene, and yet I've seen it (actually, of course without seeing it you can't really judge!). I've seen it and, strangely, it's not something I suddenly want to try for myself either! So can something be "obscene" and yet not "dangerous"? So it it's not dangerous why talk about making such images illegal?
As with all censorship, it's Mr. Outraged, of Middle England, trying to impose their values on everyone else, because they are right and we all need protecting from ourselves!
Do I think some things should be illegal - HELL YES! Culottes for a start, they're just Devil's Trousers!
In this case, do I think it's right to ban cartoon images of minors in sexual situations. Blimey! That's a tough one. A blanked YES will catch stuff like South Park, and is therefore, IMHO, obviously wrong - but for sure people are going "too far" in other areas and it makes sense to try and formulate a legal response in those cases. I don't know what the answer is, or even if it would be possible to distinguish South Park from South Pron in some useful legal way?
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
But drawing people being torn apart or burned or tortured (non-sexually) is not obscene?
The same applies to movies and TV. e.g. the first (1977) Star Wars movie was classified as suitable for all audiences, even though it includes the use of a WMD which killed huge numbers of people.
I suppose I must have missed the memo explaining how X+sex is evil and must be banned, when X is tolerated and "free speech" and what not.
The "violence is ok, sex is not" idea appears most common in the US. Where apparently one nipple equates to "sex"...
Unfortunately, laws don't really act as they were "intended", they act as they are written(at best, it's all downhill from there).
They may well act as "intended", just that those advocating them lied about their intentions when they were being passed.
Even if the law is actually written with the more-or-less-pure motive of cracking down on the 4chan babyrapers fan-art fanclub(and that isn't necessarily a safe assumption;
It's also not a safe assumption that it will even be used against that group of people.
pretty much any sex-related law has at least a few theocrats clinging to it somewhere),
If only to ensure that it's not likely to be used against them and theirs.
> This doesn't negate the fact that the viewer can be harming themselves by seeing it.
Even if we assume that 'fact' is true, should it be illegal for people to harm themselves? How harmful is watching child porn to the viewer? Define harm. Can I amputate my own arm? Finger? Can I get a piercing? Earrings?
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!
Sure, but a law that is so broadly defined that it targets everybody does society no good at all.
If the aim is to hit child molesters, then the law should target child molesters - not the people who produce/buy graphic novels, or any other art forms not understood by politicians.
>>>t does seem like they need to focus the law to deal with the sexualisation of minors in artwork
No. They. Don't. Ink-on-paper is not human, and therefore is not traumatized by being naked. There's no reason to ban the art because there's no victim. Embrace free expression, not censorship/moral tyranny.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>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.
So?
That still doesn't justify censorship, moral tyranny, and/or infringement of the right of free expression. If there's no victim, there's no crime, so let the deviant artist draw whatever he feels like drawing.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It will be soon. Its on the Aussie blacklist.
Speak for yourself buddy. I'm of the opinion that making the production of "obscene things" illegal is an anathema to free society. And I think you'll be hard pressed to find many allies here.
"Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
Fine art? It contained a lot of nude men and women. Good luck with that.
Fine music? You'll never hear that on the radio, not when the media cartels push untalented "artists" with formulaic lyrics/sounds on the public. Good luck with that.
Just curious as to how the brits are taking the movie "The Reader" ?.. Course we are not talking about infants, and the fact that the one being 15 is a boy instead of a girl lets it slide I suppose.. but couldn't this movie fall under those laws ?
I liked the movie.. but you have to wonder what happens if you place it in modern day, and or reverse the roles to older man younger girl.. some people would be freaking out, you can be sure.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
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.
Um, why do they need to deal with *anything* in artwork? I firmly believe that harm minimisation should be the basis of all laws, which leads me to think that while child abuse should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner, if some pedophile is sitting in his back room drawing kiddy rape scenes while NOT hanging out at the local playground or trying to lure kids into his car with candy, then he's not doing anyone any harm.
Hell, he could be getting it out of his system that way, and (if I've read correctly) pedophilia is a genuine paraphilia, in that a true pedophile can't "choose" to find mature adults attractive any more than a straight male could choose to find another straight male (or a child) attractive. That leaves the options of repression (doesn't work, witness the Catholic church's endemic child abuse), death, or finding an alternate outlet (such as paraerotic artwork).
There are only two reasons that I can think of to target completely fabricated representations of child abuse, and they are (a) the theory that such material will lead to more actual children being molested, or (b) that it's 'icky' and 'they shouldn't even be allowed to draw that'. Given the lack of evidence connecting viewing of child porn and perpetrating child abuse (other than that 'people who like abusing children probably like child porn'), I'm banking on (b).
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
>>>"obscenity" or any other moral measurement has nothing to do with this. its about, by omission, allowing certain individuals to grow a perverse desire for (in this case) children beyond what they can control.
>>>
Sounds like moral dictatorship to me. What is this? The Dark Ages? Where the church and/or government gets to control what we say, think, or draw??? "In our opinion, the parliament, you drew obscene pictures in your notebook - a naked woman - so go to jail." No thanks. Is censorship of obscenity so important, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Absolutely not. I know not what course others may take but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. Better to be free in death, than alive in tyranny.
I prefer the right of liberated expression, even if that means some will abuse the right with obscenities, than the alternative of police pounding on my door because I drew a naked teenager. We don't want to create a society like the novel 1984.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Why are you so keen on limiting what other people can think?
If someone wants to draw/watch/read/masturbate to depictions of beastiality, scat, child porn and torture, then why is it your problem?
If someone molests a child or animal, or tortures someone, then it is a problem.
If someone wants to play with shit on camera, well, each to their own. It's hurting no one (as long as they wash their hands before eating anything).
"Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
It's yucky and I don't like it personally so you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Decent people (like me) all agree.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
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
That depends where you go. I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't pass customs in my country. I don't see anyone running out of their way to ban the internet as a medium for filth here either though.
sorry, but nobody's talking customs.
legality depends only on the law.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
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
Who'll be the go-to person for what's fine art?
You can't take the sky from me...
Are you saying that you're the go-to guy on what's obscene?
No, but you seem to be saying that you are. Your posts repeatedly imply that obscenity is an absolute--that there is a basic definition (you even referred us to Wikipedia, as if that's an agreed-upon resource.)
Meanwhile, for many of us "obscenity" is a code word for "I want to impose my morality on others", for people out to do that are far & away the most likely to use the term. And you, like they do, imply that there can be an agreed-upon definition. But somehow the "obscenity line" is always a moving target. If the "stop obscenity" people get their way with one law, they turn around and want to move it again to include more censorship. If the anti-obscenity law folks defeat the latest censorship bill, the stop-obscenity people find something else they want to ban, again moving the line. That's because they aren't really out to protect people but to control them.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
This doesn't negate the fact that the viewer can be harming themselves by seeing it. In the case of virtual child porn, someone is still being hurt in the sense they are satisfying their urge to see children in a sexual manner.
So you'd rather they keep that urge, let it grow and fester until they get the opportunity to act them out in real life!? You sick fuck! I'd MUCH rather have the perverts jerk it off in their dank basement with an inanimate piece of paper so they can control themselves around living, feeling beings.
You can't take the sky from me...
The idea behind outlawing obscenity is fairly understandable: we don't want to see things that can hurt us.
Hardly. If that were the case, you'd just turn the TV or radio to a different channel. Problem solved--you're no longer seeing something that might hurt you. But no, you have to go make laws and impose your beliefs on others. And that's where you start removing freedoms from others and we start opposing you.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
No, of course it isn't. They'd never abuse a law like that, not when it's only there to protect the children!
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
And we will win because we are legion. If there is any issue where enough people disagree with us to make it a worthwhile fight, then we shall go to war to stop them. This is how decent people behave.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
>>>I think we all agree that obscene things can be made illegal to produce
No we don't. The right to liberated speech should Not be curtailed if there are no victims. If I want to draw Wonder Woman or Supergirl as a young child without clothes, so be it. You cannot victimize ink-on-paper. No crime has been committed unless you imprison me, and then you've committed the crime of human rights' abuse.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
you do have to wonder about the motives of some of the people pushing to have this overturned.
I think we should start with the motives of those people who are pushing for this law in the first place.
It sounds more like a law targeting 4Chan.
And you think that visiting 4Chan should result in 3 years in prison and placement of the Sex Offender register?
Perhaps this law isn't aimed at Watchmen, but even leaving aside the debate of whether intentional "pedophile" material should be illegal when it is fictional: this bill is so broadly written that it covers a lot of material that isn't ever intended to be underage porn.
As stated in TFS, it explicitly criminalises images of 16 and 17 year olds, as well as adults of what a "predominant impression" of someone under 18. Not to mention the problem that it is very difficult to tell an adult from a 17 year old in a drawing. Hentai is something at risk - and judging by comments from some politicians and police chiefs, I think criminalising hentai is one of their intentions. No, you probably won't have someone criminalised for owning a book like Watchmen - but you will be criminalised if the police search your computer one day, and the police find webcomics or screenshots, even if taken from mainstream comics, or showing very similar scenes. Things like Watchmen will only be safe in their original context.
And just take a look at Australia - do you think it was intended that the law cover joke Simpsons images? Because that is the kind of thing the law will cover, no matter what it was intended for.
Child pornography
This is not a law on child pornography (which involves the abuse of children), it is a law on fictional depictions of under-18s, as well as adults with a predominant impression of someone under 18. Please RTFS.
Secondly, we already have laws against obscenity - as you say yourself. What is the justification of a new law then, one that covers simple private possession? The justification for obscenity laws is ropey enough in the first place, but the concept of "Obscenity" only has meaning in terms of showing it to other people. In fact one MP (Edward Garnier) did propose limiting this new law to publication - despite his definition being so broad as to include merely showing it to someone, he was criticised by other MPs, and labelled a "libertarian"(!)
Let's not get into that debate though, there's Wikipedia if we need to look up basic definitions.
You should trying looking up the definition of "child pornography" on Wikipedia, and see how it is defined as the abuse of children, and not me doing a quick doodle on a piece of paper.
Under this law, I could take an image of two consenting adults having sex, doodle a fully-clothed 17 year old on it in the background, and suddenly the image is illegal and I need to be put in prison for three years.
But take a pair of scissors and cut the image in two, so the so-called "child" is no longer in the scene, and the image is legal again.
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.
Do you think that writing "guy fucking a baby" should therefore result in a three year prison sentence?
If so, you'd better report to the local police station, because you've just done it. If you don't, do you agree that it shouldn't for a drawing, either?
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.
I actually meant that child pornography is obscene and not all obscenity is child porn.
Yes, we know that's what you meant. And you're still wrong. Child porn is not - or was not intended to be, at least - a subset of obscenity.
And in the UK, the law is not defined as such. Nor is this new law. Neither laws are subsets of the Obscene Publications Act, but are separate laws. Child porn law was meant to be about preventing abuse. This new law is about god knows what, but certainly not about publication.
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.
Common sense would dictate
Law does not work that way :(
Why do people feel the need to come up with such disgusting examples for their comments? This post and the image it conveys is just as "obscene" as any drawing, in my opinion.
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.
You brought up an mental image though when describing the scene. Should I go turn myself into the police for imagining a photo of that and not a drawing?
Seriously, shouldn't what you just wrote be considered "obscene" if we're going to label a drawing of it "obscene"? If so, then the editors of Slashdot have a legal obligation to remove all reference to your post.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
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
Indeed it would be. But this law would also make it a criminal offence to draw a married mother having consensual sex with her husband, if the entirely fictional act took place at 11:59 pm on the night before her 18th birthday.
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
Morality and obscenity are both heavily based on cultural norms, they are definitely related but I could certainly agree that in many cases they're exclusive to each other.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
That's exactly why it's time for an uprising! Go, people of the United Kingdom! Go PWN your leadership and rebel against them trying to quash you first amendment rights to... oh, right. Your right to free speech... oh... uhhh...
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
That is the only definition of obscenity. It is completely subjective and thus should never have been referred to in legal matters.
From wikipedia:
Obscenity (in Latin obscenus, meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable"), is a term that is most often used in a legal context to describe expressions (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent sexual morality of the time.
A couple hundred years ago it was tolerable for 10 years old to marry and have sex; 12-13 years old (and even younger) marrying is still tolerable in many cultures today.
Pray tell, what is the prevalent sexual moralities of our modern, global times?
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.
I hope to hell you're being ironic/joking, and I just got wooshed.
Otherwise, fuck off. It's irrelevant what 'decent people' think. It doesn't affect them, unless they want it to.
Sharia law is moral to Muslims... but we don't like when it's legislated. So stop being hypocrites and stop trying to legislate morality. How do you know that your morality is right? What if somebody did it to you? A muslim is every bit as convinced of their correctness as you are. Perhaps more relevantly, I am every bit as convinced as you are that my morality (who cares if it doesn't affect me) is correct, nay more correct.
Since we can't know either way, law has no business being involved.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Maybe not proven, but let's start with evidence. Climate change has plenty of evidence - but with this law, the Government itself happily admits it's okay to pass laws in the absence of evidence.
And we can easily make the counter claim that banning these images will cause harm (indeed, this is trivially true in that criminalising someone harms them, but also the idea that even for pedophilic images, that they provide an outlet and reduce crime if they are fictional).
Otherwise, ALL drugs would have to be allowed.
Oh yes, drug laws - they're working just great aren't they. Not exactly a ringing endorsement to bring in yet more stupid laws that do far more harm than good.
However, the point is that the evidence people put in favour of drug laws - as weak as those are - don't apply to me doing a quick doodle on a piece of paper. The arguments about drugs are that they allegedly affect other people, not merely that they harm yourself. I think those claims are wrong, but the point is it's not true that drugs are illegal simply because of that. If harming yourself was illegal, then a lot more people would be locked up!
And no one would come to stop your suicide.
That's nothing to do with the law. Yes, in some countries suicide is or was illegal, but that's batshit too.
You're joking, right?
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
Customs also refers to border control and are very much related to enforcement of the law.
SO what...So what - Obscenity is in the eye and mind of the beholder - there is no universal standard for obscenity anymore than there is a universal standard for ugliness.
And what is a "healthy individual," and who gets to make that call? You?
The most famous quote I know about obscenity is one of a justice saying something to the effect of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." - that is absolute bullshit that proves my point, and thinking like that should NEVER be the basis for laws.
Maybe there are people who would find artistic beauty or other aesthetic thought provoking art out of seeing drawn photos of babies being raped by rabbits...It should NEVER be illegal to draw, paint, or produce any sort of images that aren't real.
If people don't like them or feel that they are obscene then they can exercise their free will not to look at them they can bitch and complain about morals religion and other completely subjective personal choices, they can go on TV to try to rile up the public with assholes like Bill O'Rielly and whine whine whine whilst ignoring real problems - but to try to pass laws? Fuck that.
Attempting to restrict imagination and art is a REAL crime - drawing pictures of distasteful and nasty shit isn't.
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.
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...
I think the point being made here is that since "whoever can sqwauk the loudest" isn't a very good basis for law, it should be ignored completely when making laws.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Exactly! So it is thought crime for those that are best able to express their thoughts.
I actually meant that child pornography is obscene and not all obscenity is child porn.
I understood what you meant and showed that you are wrong, at least according to the legal meaning of the terms.
Exactly.
If something done by A is harmful to B, and B hasn't consented to it (which includes being old enough to consent), then maybe there is a case for government involvement. But if there is no demonstrated harm then what the hell business is it of government????
We are about to go through this in Canada where, after years of soap-boxing by a tiny number of ideologically oriented journalists, the government is about to find out if the law against polygamy is constitutional. They are going to prosecute some of the residents of a small town populated by an offshoot of the Mormons.
Not having any ability to show that polygamy itself is actually harmful the offended folk have managed to associate it with sexual assault and other sex crimes. The thing is there are already laws against these other things so why, after many years of observation, haven't the police laid charges under these other laws? Because there is no evidence to support them.
But polygamy offends the press activists who have been campaigning against it so they keep on about child abuse, at the same time ignoring the very real widespread and very obvious child prostitution going on in their own cities. Now they've got federal politicians up in arms about "Canadian values." So we will have the situation where two people can have a sexual relationship and live together. The two can also have a sexual relationship with a third person - as long as that person doesn't live with them. But let the third person move in so that there is effectively a marriage of 3 (formalized or not) and boom they are breaking the law. How can this make sense to anybody?
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
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
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.
Not to mention with BS laws like this you have pretty much outlawed entire sections of the horror genre. Vampires? I hate to break the news to you, but nobody would want to get stuck with a saggy 40 year old for the next 1000 years. Pretty much every vampire story ever written has been "hot teen turned into a sexy killer, which lures you to your death with their hotness". So that genre is right out. And the whole elves/fairies/seraphim style characters in games and comics? Don't matter if they are supposed to be 1000 years+ old, they are awful short and therefor could be considered CP.
See why this crap is a bad idea? This is not about protecting kids, this is about busybodies making sure your thoughts are pure. This kind of crap is no different than countries with Sharia law telling you how many times you should pump your wife. It is strictly to control your thoughts, nothing more. They just dress it up with the "save teh childrens!" crap because they have found it is easy to silence opposition with it. After all, do YOU want to come out in favor of CP? because that is what the commercials your opponent will run against you in the next election will say.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You sir, are a troll. Good night.
"Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
actually, it IS so. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/20/1544257
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
And yet surely "pron" is in the eye (and maybe hand!) of the observer! Some people (presumably?) get off on "TubGirl" ... and good luck to 'em I say, each to his (or her!) own. Whatever lights yer candle/floats yer boat ... and all that!
But what if there's someone out there who gets off on the South Park's somewhat stylised representation of kids? Woooooah there buddy! We can't have you getting your jollies from stupid cartoons of (think of the) children now can we!
For the law to be effective it has to stop people getting off on cartoon images of kids, or at least stop people providing said images for folks to "get off on". Does this really mean we have to ban ALL cartoon images of kids, on the off chance?
Well, I guess one good thing about it will be the demise of those awful "Bratz" dolls!
Hey ... do Huey, Lewy, and Dewy get the boot too? Baby Animals ... [SHUDDER]
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Torture? So you'd outlaw everything from _Slumdog Millionaire_ to the ST:TNG episode "Chain of Command" to several Edgar Allen Poe stories?
Just because it makes sense to prohibit an action doesn't mean it makes sense to prohibit its fictional depiction.
And that sort of "reasoning" is the frictionless surface on the slippery slope to tyranny.
For some reason we as a society have a much higher tolerances for violence in our entertainment then for nudity and sex. Not that the ratings for sexually explicit are higher then the ratings for graphically violent content. In Australia the only place you can leggally buy XXX rated videos is the nations capital.
read my mind at http://the-willows.blogspot.com/
I'm not so sure the actual reasoning is faulty. The scarcity of proof that it "leads weak minds..." is more troublesome. Then, if the proof is found, the question that is never answered or examined is whether the damage to society at large justifies the reaction. For me, you would have to prove the connection to a near certainty and then demonstrate an extremely large impact resulting from the existence of the material to justify the type of restrictions and sanctions that are being imposed. Personally I fond it amazing the amount of resources expended on policing this sort of thing while little is done for the kids who are being pimped out on the street. Maybe we should go after the unquestionably criminal acts first.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Thank you, you wrote exactly what I would have if I wasn't being ironic. :)
And frankly, I can handle Christian-based laws (to an extent). It's things like Sharia law that really scare me. I'm not keen on things like my wife being legally stoned to death for marrying a non-Muslim.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
i'm sorry. i thought customs as in tradition. just my idiocy. actually i was thinking in terms of the web, so it was difficult for me to make the connection.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
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.
It's yucky and I don't like it personally so you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Decent people (like me) both agree.
There fixed that for you.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
If there's twice as many of us as there are of you, why shouldn't we stop you from doing things that we think are yucky? You shouldn't want to do them anyway, because we don't.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Jesus. I was pretty sure you weren't being serious. Good to know I was right ;) Guess you're too smart for me...
But the problem is, I've literally met people who think that way and don't see any problem with it. Unfortunately, that kind of batshit 'it makes me sad so the world has to pretend it doesn't exist' mentality isn't laughed away, and it's not even a minority viewpoint anymore.
People literally think that the world will be all better if we stick our fingers in our ears and pretend everything is all cool.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
This conversation looks like it'll eventually hinge on the argument that fictitious child pornography either does or doesn't harm anyone, directly or otherwise.
Just sayin'. Maybe cut the back-and-forth down and figure that part out first?
whereas in Europe (where it's mostly legal, especially the Med beaches), breasts are two a penny and not such a big deal!
Really? I've got like $6.25 on me... can I get some of that brand of fun sent over here?
Who'll be the go-to person for what's fine art?
Metrosexuals.
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
The "violence is ok, sex is not" idea appears most common in the US.
Except that this article is about a foolish law in Britain, and the articles from last week were about the Great Firewall of China^WAustralia.
Comic books where children are ripped apart would apparently be fine and dandy (as long as their body parts remained modestly clothed) according to the British law.
"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.
In the UK, possession is a crime.
The UK's become Communist? Surely then the British Phonographic Institute can't sue for sharing files? Awesome!!1
What's more, copying a file is considered as producing it.
So the BPI cannot sue me for sharing music, because I'm the one producing it? Awesome!!1
Double standards for teh lose
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.
Good thing said individuals have a near-limitless supply of drawn pornography to take their perverse desires out on without harming anyone, eh? No wait, they don't anymore, not in the UK. Good thing I'm not a child in the UK, then.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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"
Luis Royo, my favourite artist. Paints images of corpses/demons/monsters fucking big-breasted women, and manages to give them an almost religious atmosphere. About as obscene as you can get - and damn fine art.
Coming to think of it, wouldn't "Peanuts" also qualify? I mean, Lucy constantly flirts with Schroeder, and Charlie Brown is always lusting after the "small red-haired girl". Heck, it even hints at bestiality - just look at the number of times Snoopy "kisses" Lucy!
That's the problem, isn't it? It's all in how you look at it. There is no such thing as "obscene", there are just your own dirty thoughts that might come out when you look at something - but they are your thoughts, not an inherent part of whatever you look at. So it all depends on whether a judge happens to have perverted desires or not - or, even worse, whether he thinks you have them or not. After all, the cover image of "Virgin Killer" would be completely innocent if the judge figured that you simply bought the album to listen to it, while that same image would send you to jail if the judge decided that you bought the album to look at the naked girl on the cover.
And that, in my humble opinion, is truly obscene.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Indeed. For example, the bill linked from the summary, which contains the following passage:
This is a very interesting passage. It seems to suggest that your description of a bunny-rape scene could be against the law, if said description could be turned into a graphical representation somehow. And indeed it can: I could draw it, based on your description - not well, but then again artistic merit is not listed as requirement to qualify as a illegal.
In other words, you are a criminal and a child pornographer, you sick fuck.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
WARNING: This message contains some disturbing content.
I actually agree with you in some principles, but not others.
Question for you: when androids can be made simulating small children, would you be equally bothered and yet protective of people purchasing them to have sex with them?
I and a friend of mine with whom I regularly engage in deep discussions turned this stomach turning topic around for a while and we couldn't come up with a solution that discouraged simulating illegal (and, as you put it, revolting) activities without violating people's rights. In that situation, there's only one actual human. The "victim" is a robot.
If we gave robots rights because of their intelligence, there's no guarantee that a "mature" and consenting robot intelligence couldn't inhabit an android body that simulated an immature human. Then what?
I have to tell you, I'm actually in favor of banning simulation of child sex, whether graphical or, in this future scenario, robotic.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
I don't think *anyone* can be the go-to person for what's obscene.
I'd like to volunteer. I have very very low standards. I voluntarily watched glassass, and didn't even wince!
I'll still fight hard to defend the right to create such content, on the grounds that no actual person is being hurt.
Exactly!
It's easy to agree with Freedom of Speech, when the person is saying something you agree with.
The real test of Freedom of Speech (or artistic expression) is when the person/artist is saying something you profoundly disagree with.