Slashdot Mirror
Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK
An anonymous reader writes with this news from the UK, as reported by Ars Technica: A 39-year-old UK man has been convicted of possessing illegal cartoon drawings of young girls exposing themselves in school uniforms and engaging in sex acts. The case is believed to be the UK's first prosecution of illegal manga and anime images. Local media said that Robul Hoque was sentenced last week to nine months' imprisonment, though the sentence is suspended so long as the defendant does not break the law again. Police seized Hoque's computer in 2012 and said they found nearly 400 such images on it, none of which depicted real people but were illegal nonetheless because of their similarity to child pornography. Hoque was initially charged with 20 counts of illegal possession but eventually pled guilty to just 10 counts.
inquiring minds want to see
Now maybe we can finally move on to locking up those with pictures of people illegally downloading music or drawings of addicts using heroin.
MILFs with tentacles?
Similarity to child pornography? Is there really someone so stupid that they cannot tell the difference between a cartoon drawing and a real child?
This is when people just go too far.. It's a f-ing drawing, it's not real..
This just tells me the people who made these laws are really in need of some psychotherapie if they think these drawings should be forbidden.. What's next, put people in jail just for what they are thinking?
thought crime
The laws against child pornography should be aimed at protecting children from exploitation, not in making morality statements. Cartoon drawings of children engaging in sex acts certainly indicate people with pretty sick imaginations, but no children are hurt in their creation or consumption. I have seen worse on walls in public washrooms.
Yeah, this is stupid. You can't sentence people for drawing and using a paper and pen, whatever the content of their drawing, or fapping it out to imaginary drawings that have no relation to any real person.
1984 would like to have a word with the UK. But then again, UK sentences people over tweets and facebook posts, so it doesn't surprise me.
Censoring art, whether you agree with the content or not, is a slippery slope towards thought policing, which is bad any way you look at it.
This also connects to the "violence in video games leads to real life violence" thing. So long as they don't stalk and harm real children (and some aren't even interested in real children but in drawings [you can't explain fetishes, fetishes just are],
they can fap to whatever drawings on paper they want and create whatever drawings they want.
Should Australia also ban many Renaissance statues and artworks, and those of ages before it, because they feature females with small breasts? ["Obscene media/art" portraying small breasts being disallowed or something in Australian law, some Ausia elaborate for me please].
So somebody who has never done anything wrong writes an offensive cartoon. How is this different than a cartoon depicting a murder, also offensive? In fact, what about all those Hollywood movies depicting murder? Should the writers of those movies go to jail as well?
Nonce-sense.
We could also ban political contributions because that's like bribery.
In all seriousness I do remember an argument against this type of crap in congress that basically said this was a regulation of taste, and if you ban things that are similar to child pornography couldn't you also ban images of women with small breasts because they evoke thoughts of children? (paraphrase)
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
Let's do a thought experiment. Start with a blank piece of paper and some colored pencils. A person begins drawing a picture. The page begins as a completely meaningless object, and as marks are made on the page, it gains meaning gradually. A line on paper is not illegal, or at least it shouldn't be by any moral or ethical standard. Two lines, three lines, and so on. Each are probably completely innocent individually. If these scribbles were forming letters and words, they would be clearly protected expression, until they formed some kind of credible threat. At least, that's how I understand it.
But this isn't a written message, just a picture. A head takes shape. Eyes, nose, mouth, and hair. The subject starts to emerge. Still this is a legal drawing by any measure. Eventually enough marks are made on the page that the subject has context. Clothes, background... and actions. At some point the scene depicted by this collection of lines and smudges becomes forbidden. What was an figment of someone's imagination is now a very real crime.
How does that happen, and when? Who specifically does this law protect? Is the person who drew it a criminal, or is it only a crime when someone buys it? Is every viewer of the picture a criminal or just the ones who enjoy it? How do you tell which is which? What about the imagination that spawned the picture? Would the artist have been a criminal if they hadn't put their mental image to paper? I find these questions very difficult to answer in a way that makes sense for a society. Every seemingly obvious answer can lead to some very harmful laws.
But the main motivation is one of greater public good. A scribble that harms nobody is made illegal because by locking up the people who like the scribbles, they cannot remain free to eventually harm real people in the same way. It's a noble cause and perhaps an effective law (I have not seen proof one way or the other). However it is also disturbingly close to pre-crime. I'm not entirely comfortable with that.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
While we're in the UK...
Percy: You know, they do say that the Infanta's eyes are more beautiful than the famous Stone of Galveston. ... What? ... from Galveston.
Edmund: Mm!
Percy: The famous Stone of Galveston, My Lord.
Edmund: And what's that, exactly?
Percy: Well, it's a famous blue stone, and it comes
Edmund: I see. And what about it?
Percy: Well, My Lord, the Infanta's eyes are bluer than it, for a start.
Edmund: I see. And have you ever seen this stone?
Percy: (nods) No, not as such, My Lord, but I know a couple of people who have, and they say it's very very blue indeed.
Edmund: And have these people seen the Infanta's eyes?
Percy: No, I shouldn't think so, My Lord.
Edmund: And neither have you, presumably.
Percy: No, My Lord.
Edmund: So, what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.
Percy: Yes, My Lord.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I always wondered how something like photo-realistic drawings of pedophilia should be handled. Cartoons have an obvious lack of reality that makes it easy (or easier) to say "it's just a drawing" but what about high-quality rendered images that are almost impossible to differentiate from photographs?
Is the sole justifiable argument against pedophilia photographs that a child was sexually abused creating the photographs, or are their legitimate arguments to be made against them on grounds that sex involving children is inherently immoral?
Is there any science that demonstrates that exposure to this imagery reduces or decreases acting out on pedophilic impulses?
I have to wonder how the judge draws the line between something like this conviction and, say, the Simpsons Movie, where Bart is rocking some full frontal on the big screen.
There's a difference, for sure -- one is funny and clearly a cartoon, whereas one sounds like it's purposefully sexualizing children. So the conviction could be grounded in intent. But it's a hell of a slippery slope.
--------------------- -me, Crusher of those who are Foolish (don't be foolish)
...and if you ban things that are similar to child pornography couldn't you also ban images of women with small breasts because they evoke thoughts of children? (paraphrase)
Kind of like Australia, then?
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
That is not how the real world works. Here, there is the law of unintended consequences.
Sometimes the law results in good things - for example, the existence of internet porn has pretty much ended bestiality. Before the internet, farms had an estimated fifty percent bestiality rate. Around 8 % and 3% for the general population. After the internet, all of those numbers dropped like a stone. Why? Because a pretty picture of a girl is more satisfying than bestiality.
Why do I bring this up? Because outlawing behavior doesn't stop it. Some people are and and will be attracted to kids. You can't turn off sexuality (ask any gay man or lesbian woman from an anti-gay tradition). Better that they read manga than buy actual child pornography.
Just as we use a lesser opiate (methadone) to treat addicts, we should use Manga to treat others.
Manga looks to me like a great way to:
1) wean them off child pornography
2) protect real children from being hurt by the industry
3) slowly shift their sexuality from kids to something more acceptable.
This should be required treatment for people interested in children, rather than outlawed.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
No. In the U.S. cartoon images ARE protected by the First Amendment. This was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)). Sometimes our Supreme court DOES get it right!
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Commission a drawing of the man in question serving time.
"The case is believed to be the UK's first prosecution of illegal manga and anime images."
Except for the other cases involving the exact same thing and England that were also on Slashdot years ago. Seriously, England got famous for being the first country to crack down on it and 4chan and deviantart and other famous communities got pissed.
The extreme ridiculousness of this article leads me to believe it is more about political expediency than solving any "Sex crime".
In the US, all you have to have happen to be jailed for CP is to have it found on your computer. Just found, there is no burden of proof that you knew it was there or any due diligence on the part of the accuser to prove anything other than it being found.
So if you are a business owner (one whose employees hate him for being a slave driver, hypothetically) and a disgruntled ex employee uploads CP on your computer and the authorities get an "anonymous phone call" about it, that business owner goes to jail for 5 years over doing nothing wrong than pissing someone off, whereas the actual "crime" was committed by the employee, who downloaded and distributed the CP in the first place.
Where is the justice in this exactly?
How do we know that political authorities might not use this to discredit whistleblowers, political opponents or common citizens who know too much?
The implications of this article do not pass the smell test.
And again , CP is something that is a crime against children, and child pornographers and child abusers should go to jail for life! I am not arguing that, but the stigma around it is used for so much more evil against innocent citizens under the stupid "think of the children" mantra.
So the only men allowed in Australian porn are now fat men with big manboobs?
This is the same country that inspired 1984 and V For Vendetta, so it seems there's a long running propensity for criminal overreach.
That word isn't child, it isn't anime, it isn't pornography. It is computer.
And anyone who thinks about it for a moment and doesn't see this for what this is, class warfare , the spreading of the meme terror and population control, is standing in the way.
For pornography, that actually is already the case in some countries like Germany. It is called "Jugendanscheinspornography".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
is it ? The thought police is just getting there one item at a time. SJW are as morally corrupt than gun-trafficking gun-control democrat nuts (Obama (via Operation Fast and Furious), Clinton, Senator Lee...), or other "big shots". Individual freedom is their enemy. Covers like Virgin Killer, Nevermind, Blind Faith are just unthinkable today...
Today's also the day that the guys responsible for prosecuting child pornography offenders stated that they lack the resources and would only prosecute the highest priority cases - leaving around 50,000 alleged offenders uncharged.
So that's up to 50,000 people that allegedly have images of actual child sex that wont be charged, and one person with cartoons that's been found guilty.
Fucked up situation indeed. Interesting that it's his second conviction for breaching child pornography laws without ever being found in possession of child pornography. And people wonder why I refuse to browse porn sites these days..
ask Bridget The Midget.
Just make sure the first picture you draw of your underage-looking manga pornstar shows her holding up her vehicle operator's license (or other gov't approved photo ID). Also, make sure to draw the ID so it indicates that she's legal.
do not read this line twice.
Someone who does not having a fictional outlet. Let them jerk off to cartoons and leave the real kids alone. Dumb fuck.
Ron Jeremy FTW!
Have gnu, will travel.
ban images of women with small breasts
Or a wax job that leaves anything less than a Hitler Mustache.
Have gnu, will travel.
I have to wonder how the judge draws the line between something like this conviction and, say, the Simpsons Movie, where Bart is rocking some full frontal on the big screen.
There's a difference, for sure -- one is funny and clearly a cartoon, whereas one sounds like it's purposefully sexualizing children. So the conviction could be grounded in intent. But it's a hell of a slippery slope.
The tragedy is that the judge simply decides, somehow, based on his/her own guesstimate, which is affected by everything starting from his/her own beliefs, sexual orientation and paraphilias, childhood fears, adolescent fears, adult fears, up to whether he/she slept well or had a good/bad dinner, and such decision then becomes a precedent.
(I'd guess that the judge will be especially harsh if he/she him/herself is a paedophile, or has another sexual deviation; because then it will be like a holy war inside his/her own mind, and he/she will feel victorious if the punishment will be as hard as possible.)
To the western eye these cartoon images resemble children but in the nations of origin the drawings represent adults. The nature of the art is to draw the image with as few lines or details as possible and to westerners that somehow is seen as a child like image. School girls may well be college girls etc.. We are in one of those nonsenseable frenzies where everything is seen as a sexual threat. The system is irrational and needs to be limited.
A 39-year-old UK man has been convicted of possessing illegal cartoon drawings of young girls exposing themselves in school uniforms and engaging in sex acts.
What if they write a sequel with a plot twist where the girl was actually a Taiwanese 25-year old police woman who was undercover in the school trying to find illegal song downloaders? Will he get out of gaol retroactively?
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
broke the law plain and simple
Appeal to law. Law != morality, so this is irrelevant. If your point wasn't to equate legality with morality, then your point was worthless, as everyone here already knows about this crappy law, so you don't need to tell them that the law was broken or that they can campaign for it to be changed.
Would you want someone doing this with your kids?
Appeal to emotion. Even if I wouldn't, that is no excuse for infringing upon a fundamental right like freedom of speech.
You're an authoritarian to the core.
Some of whom have been later convicted of sexual assault against the children they painted.
Some humans are murderers, therefore all humans are murderers. Nice hasty generalization, there.
Furthermore, freedom of speech > safety. Take your "Think of the children!" garbage elsewhere. Dailymail, perhaps?
There is a big problem with the number of paedos in this country, already the police admit there are just too many too arrest.
Fearmongering nonsense. For one thing, a pedophile is simply someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children; an individual pedophile isn't necessarily a child molester, and vice versa. You are using incorrect terminology.
Second of all, society is safer than ever before; you need only look at crime statistics. If you're scared of child molesters, then you should never get into a car again, as it's far more likely you'll die in a car accident.
I fond it odd that anyone is defending this on the grounds of free speech......
Why is it odd to defend free speech on the grounds of free speech? What's odd is people who want government thugs to have the ability to subjectively determine that certain content is unacceptable for subjective reasons and then have it banned. That should be frightening to anyone who cares about freedom.
Community can set standards
Sounds like tyranny of the majority to me. A good thing if you don't like individual liberties, but a bad thing otherwise.
But. The guy is weird even for a brit and if he is monitored until the end of his time, all the better.
Why is punishing someone who merely looked at images forever considered a good thing?
We are close to see situation where having a charged gun in the street full of peoples including children, all seeing massive amount of murder involving gun while watching movies, TV, games, cartoon, anime, streaming, since there are young is considered as nothing wrong despite a lot of documented massacres, but seeing a manga along on his personal computer for self consuming fantasy is a crime.
My point of view is that regardless of the subject there will be a tiny amount of peoples developing problems discerning differences between fantasy and reality, including inability to control there actions. For sure any society have advantage to identify this few peoples and to do something to protect the vast amount of normal peoples. The bad new is that historically societies are close to there end when there make rules disconnected from the reality...
No. In the U.S. cartoon images ARE protected by the First Amendment. This was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)). Sometimes our Supreme court DOES get it right!
Just don't take them over the border to Canada...
http://comicsalliance.com/u-s-...
Be seeing you...
Is it just me, or does anyone else here think that the UK is seriously confusing the issue on why child porn is bad, and subtituting resolution for the victims of crime, with good ol' fashion morality, which is on the edge of a very slippery slope. Child porn is illegal to protect children from being exploited. Cartoon characters are not real people, and have no rights as such, and I'd really hate to live in a world where even the law cannot tell the distinction.
This is a slippery slope, because cartoon characters have no actual birthdays, so they have no actual age, and there is no distinction between an "18 year old toon", and a "13 year old one", or with any variant of non-human, or un-realities that cartoons depict, there is really no standards, and this can be construed to arrest anyone for any cartoon depiction of sex.
Lets call this what it is, a moral outrage, and not a real protection of anyone, child or otherwise. Someone went to jail for someone elses morality. This opens up the door for more morality based arrests.
considering Tex Mex (the porn name for the Rei Heiroe of Black Lagoon fame) has done this with some of his works for, they may do that at the end of every book, just to fuck with the censors and give the audience a cheap laugh.
How does the court determine the age of the girl in the drawing? That's impossible to prove. It seems like a reasonable defense would be "it's a drawing of a 20-year-old who suffers from dwarfism."
Well if you go by the "1 dog year = 7 human years" rule then she only has to be 3.
27 or is she 8?
I don't really like the arguments that a character drawn looking like a human child could be older according to the story, but I do think the opposite is a minefield. Loads of manga/cartoon porn features adult-looking characters that are underage in the original non-porn story and (I'd assume, lol) lots of people fap to these without knowing or caring that the original wasn't 18.
In addition there's a lot of hentai where many wouldn't think twice about the risk of someone being underage but looking more carefully at it one could make a fairly convincing argument someone is under 18.
A Swedish case had the entire court room laughing when the prosecutor claimed a manga character giving a blowjob was obviously underage because of the undeveloped boobs when it was actually gay porn.
I don't feel any attraction to underage women and have never to my knowledge seen actual child porn on the net (Samantha Fox's boobs and Scorpion's Virgin Killer album don't count) but fapping to completely normal manga could technically land me in jail. That's fucking scary. I'll have to fap to non-normal manga for now.
How many museums have art by Botticelli? You know. The art with lots of nudes and cherubs?
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
No. In the U.S. cartoon images ARE protected by the First Amendment. This was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)). Sometimes our Supreme court DOES get it right!
Thanks for the cite!
I'm really happy to be proven wrong on this one.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Reality is worse than you imply.
Learn to love Alaska
broke the law plain and simple
Not all laws are legal. For example, in the US various state constitutions have laws prohibiting atheists from holding public office, but those laws are themselves illegal because the US Constitution declares no such test may be made. Also, not all laws are moral. For example, Nazi Germany. Finally, not all laws are effective toward their supposed objective. For example, drug prohibition laws and the absurd amount of money they funnel to criminals, so you're not safer than without said laws.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
So all the pricks from the UK can shut up? But they never do.
Learn to love Alaska
I can't find the link - my Google-fu is apparently weak - but a couple of years ago a truck driver was arrested crossing from Canada into the US. Reason for the arrest: he had printed stories - fiction, not pics - describing sexual encounters with children. He was arrested for possessing child porn. I don't know what happened afterwards, and finding this online seems to be difficult, given the search terms needed...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
No, a better analogy would be locking up people for having a drawing of a copyrighted song. Because, you know, people might THINK of hearing the song, and we can't have THAT.
It's. A. Drawing.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You're being disingenuous here.
We know loud sound and loss of sleep can cause direct physical harm. That's the basis for not yelling, bullhorns, and so on.
There is no sane basis for banning words, drawings, sculptures, renderings, woodcarvings and so on. None whatsoever.
The only sane basis for banning *anything* is it either causes such immediate harm to purse or person, or it is so likely to do so (ex, massively drunk driving) that the activity must be interfered with to lessen the odds of that potential becoming reality.
When speech gets loud or amplified, the legit question is not what was said. Ever. The question is what were you thinking putting people's hearing and/or sleep cycles at risk?
There is no reasonable argument that can justify a "right not to be offended", and there never, ever should be such a thing encoded in law. It should be painfully obvious as to why. If it isn't... oy.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, it's because they make sure every word you say is parsed by the government. The government decides if it doesn't like what you said if and when it becomes convenient for them to do so. Not only is your speech free, it's on deposit in special government accounts with your name right on them. You had just better hope it doesn't start earning "interest."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There's no such thing as a "well designed lawful age metric." Though I'm not sure you were even implying there was. But in any case:
It's about comprehension, consent, and physical development. Age cannot serve to draw such a multidimensional line effectively. There are obvious cases of young teens who know exactly what they are doing, are doing it carefully, and not in any way coming to harm. There are obvious cases of "adults" who are so unready for sex by the "comprehension" and "informed" metrics that it is painful to even consider it. And everything you can think of in between.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ephobephilia, exclusive or not , is ridicilously common (10 to 20% prevalence depending on the study). Pedophilia IIRC barely scratch the 0.2 to 0.5%. What is the difference ? Secondary sexual characteristic. See in some country people have been flagging teh attraction to underage male & female NO MATTER THE AGE as pedophilia. But the reality is that pedophilia has a clear definition is the attraction to a child which does not display secondary sexual characteristic. Ephebophiliac on the other hand are attracted to young postpubescent teennager which display such sexual characteristic (for example young 14 year old female girl with breast) but are not at all itnerrested into prepubere children , like a 5 year old.
The problem is that in some country like the USA people are mistaking one for the other. They accuse often ephebophiliac as being pedophiliac. They are not the same category, they ephebophiliac,e xclusive or not, are not even recognized as a pathology, only true pedophiliac are.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
We're also very good at moral panics and crusades. The US can only copy: We invented them.
I was at a house party a few years back where there was a Vietnamese girl who looked for all the world like a 15 year old. It turns out she was 25.
I commented on this a day or so later to a woman I know, who ventured to suggest that anyone who went out with her was obviously attracted to childish looks and therefore a dangerous, evil paedophile who should be locked up.
This might actually be true in the case of a genuine card-carrying paedophile, while at the same time a lot of non-paedophile suitors would be scared away. But what's the girl then supposed to do for a boyfriend? Go out with 15-year olds herself, making her the paedophile?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
There was a similar case in Sweden which highlighted many of the problems with current child pornography laws. It was a manga translator who was accused but was finally declared not guilty in the final instance (högsta domstolen). The picture in question depicted a topless (relatively realistic looking) manga girl standing alone on a field.
So what is child pornography exactly?
1) It depicts a child. A child is someone, real or fictional, under 18. This includes an adult pretending to be a child (also called age play). And also an adult looking like a child (willingly or not), for example by dressing in childish clothes. One tool to decide if someone looks like a child is the Tanner scale (which was used in court).
2) It is pornographic. This is of course very subjective and defined as what is commonly perceived as pornographic. An obvious problem with this definition is that something needs to contains adults (or at least teens) to be commonly perceived as pornographic to begin with. So one has to imagine to be a paedophile in order to make the decision. Which is only unnecessary sexualisation of children (for example pictures children playing on a beach becomes commonly perceived as pornographic).
The laws tend to get more and more inclusive to include more and more as child pornography. And no one wants to pull the breaks since it will get them accused of liking child pornography and being pedophiles themselves (an open goal for political opponents). While in reality the real child pornography (with real children being real victims) simply gets dwarfed by the vast amount on cartoons and teens taking pictures of themselves. Which makes it difficult for the police to legally focus their resources.
These laws are expansions of laws against indecent behavior. You are not allowed to have sex in public -> you not allowed to publicly display pictures of people having sex, or other pornographic images -> some pornographic images you are not allowed to distribute -> some pornographic images you are not allowed to possess.
It would make much more sense to instead expand the laws of sexual assault, to forbid images of those. There is not much point in determining of someone may find them pornographic or not (from a legal perspective).
One key question here is of course what the relationship is between child pornography and pedophiles committing sexual assaults. One possibility is that the pornography inspires pedophiles to commit more sexual assaults. Another is that the pornography keeps the pedophiles occupied so they commit less sexual assaults. The studies made on serial offenders point to the conclusion that pornography lessens the risk of repeated offenses. But it's uncertain if this is also true for the first offense (which isn't as easy to study for obvious reasons).
Christopher Handley, a 39 year old comics and Manga collector in Iowa pled guilty in 2009 to an offense under the Protect Act after a shipment of comics he sourced from Japan was opened by customs. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison. With real child pornography real children are abused in the making of the film. The extension of the prohibition to virtual children criminalizes the communication of bad thoughts but the same holds for other types of material, possession of the Anarchist's Cookbook for example. There are lots examples in Labor history of union organizers being arrested for distributing pamphlets. So criminalizing the communication of ideas is not new. The question is where to draw the line.
Not true. In order to conform to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the new act only prohibits images that are obscene. In other words, it isn't enough that the (cartoon) images depict children having sex, the images must depict children having sex and ALSO must be obscene. Obscene speech was never protected by the U.S. Constitution. Cartoon images are no exception.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Indeed. Observe violence rates compared with the playing of violent video games. Despite trying to restrict them, studies that look at the long term actually find a negative correlation between violent video games and real life violence. You have to look at very young children shortly after the game to find increases.
I don't read AC A human right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Marie-Louis O'Murphy was 14 when this nude portrait of her was painted by Francois Boucher in 1752. It seems pretty obviously erotic. (A nude portrait of her caused her to come to the king's attention, and he took her on as another of his lovers.)
I guess anyone in the UK who views this famous painting (which currently hangs in a German art gallery) and thus has the image in their browser cache might get in legal trouble.
Fail. Like everything else in the people's United communist Kingdom they're run by teh gubmint.
There was, IIRC, a pilot scheme. Those with wisdom looked West and saw that it was a stupid idea.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Ah, so not only did they try it, but couldn't figure out how to make it work. At least we never had workhouses and debtor prisons.
Learn to love Alaska
Care to point out where he said "Pedophiles are like Rosa Parks."? No, you can't, because he didn't; that was a straw man.
Let me help you understand the situation, since you seem to be too stupid to do it yourself. One guy said that the people looking at these images are breaking laws "plain and simple," as if that in itself was a bad thing. Then, someone else mentioned people who broke the law (Rosa Parks being an example) to show that breaking the law is not necessarily wrong.
There was no comparison. Just someone using someone's stupid fucking logic against them.