Forum - View topic

NEWS: Virtual Child Porn Ban Proposed in UK Parliament

Mr. Garnier:The first main part leads us to a discussion on whether the evil or wrong that we seek to prohibit is best captured by attacking possession of prohibited images of children or, as we suggest in our amendment, their publication. For those purposes, publication means the making known of an image to a third party. It is not the technical process of publishing a newspaper or book. Making known to a third party is drawn from defamation law.
My suggestion—I am entirely open to others—is that we are dealing with unreal people, not with human beings or children. If we were, the position would be different, because someone taking an obscene photograph or creating an obscene drawing of a real child needs to have the child in front of them doing the obscene act, or depicted doing it. Here, we are talking about images of children that do not require the presence of a child to create the image. A silly example is a disgusting old man—

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): A pervert.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is always ready with the word that is needed. A pervert in his office or the back room of his house could be creating grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene images. Having drawn them or created them on his computer, however people do such things, he would be in possession of it. One could go through the whole of this part of the Bill and decide that he fits into this, that or the other category, but he would not have done anyone else any harm. He may have drawn the image for his own gratification and may look at it, but what he does with it in his house will not damage the public or the wider world.

Maria Eagle: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be making a similar distinction if the images were used to groom real children for abuse?

Mr. Garnier: The Minister is making my point for me. There must be third party interaction to groom. The child must look at the image, and as soon as the dirty old man shows it to the child for the purposes of grooming, there is publication under my definition, because he will have made the image known to a third party. That is why we must work out whether we are trying to stop publication in various forms—by internet, e-mail or physically showing someone a hard copy document—for all the sensible, catch-all provisions in clause 49, or whether mere possession is sufficient to create a criminal offence.

Maria Eagle: I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, but the image in his example is not illegal. That is the point.

Why Respond if my argument holds no weight?

I am not for the banning of such materials as I understand the consequence of such actions will have on media and self expression (Sorry this was not made clear). I am merely advocating a point of view that its unhealthy, and for people to review their view that such materials are harmless. I am not of the mind and view that all unhealthy things must be strictly control by the government.

Here is an analogy. Focus on the Family says, "Playing Grand Theft Auto a lot causes you to kill, rob, rape, hire hookers, steal cars, mug people, ect ect, just like in the game. Thus Grand Theft Auto should be banned." I say, "Subjecting your self to mindless violence, like found in Grand Theft Auto, a lot desensitizes you towards violence and violent acts. You might also be using it as an ineffective stop gap measure to release stress. It might be a good idea to reevaluate your playing of, and reasons for playing, Grand Theft Auto."

Direct towards the first bold statement, are you advocating a type of cultural relativism? I am pretty sure we don't just protect children from forced labor, sexual exploitation, or other things, because of some arbitrary since of justice. Rather I think we protect children, and try to get other countries to do the same, because we realize the innocents and (ie lack of knowledge of the world) vulnerability (ie lack of ability to defend themselves or compered) of children, and how this puts them at a disadvantage when it comes compared to adults, and thus that they need special protections, not because we are arbitrary law loving hypocrites.

Direct towards the second bold statement, I understand that they are drawing, what I am saying though is just because its protect under free speech doesn't mean that they should automatically be viewed as healthy to partake in. I have the right to choose to eat nothing but deep fried tacos for the rest of my life, but that doesn't make it healthy...

Finally I submit to you, if its not for the enjoyment of the destruction of innocents, or at least for the enjoyment of pain in the depicted child, then what is it for? Please give me an answer how the viewing of such material can be for healthy reasons. To people out their please don't view this stuff, go to a therapist, I don't know, just please find a healthier way to deal with what ever your dealing with. That is my message.

You couldn't write it for comedy. It's like a script for "Blackadder", or "Yes Minister".

Oh great, I wasn't even thinking about any of my Naruto doujinshi. *adds some Sasuke/Sakura doujin to the pile of doujinshi that may one day get her arrested*

I never really though about how all the doujin for series I collect involve high schoolers, but now I'm noticing it. It's not a problem really, but occasionally there's a hentai doujinshi.

As a doujinshi collector I like collecting any doujinshi on a series a particular circle (doujinshi group) may release, and occasionally they do a hentai doujin and the collector in me is "Gotta get em all for my collection so I can say I have all of (insert doujin circle's name here)'s doujinshi!" I beginning to see doujinshi collecting may be a very unhealthy habit in the long run.

Question: Lolicon and child abuse in this porn has been brought up a lot. But what if it's all consensual, and the other person is the character's age. Does that lessen the label of child porn any? I'm not saying actual photo/video. Still on the subject of comics.

Question: Lolicon and child abuse in this porn has been brought up a lot. But what if it's all consensual, and the other person is the character's age. Does that lessen the label of child porn any? I'm not saying actual photo/video. Still on the subject of comics.

the comic community's concerns are unfounded. It is not our intention to criminalise the legal entertainment industry, the art industry or pornographic cartoons," a spokesperson said.

Well it's gone off to the the House of Lords now.

Does the bill still use the term 'possession', or has it been amended in any way before the Lords got to look at it? I'm expecting the worst here.

"It is not our intention to criminalise the legal entertainment industry, the art industry or pornographic cartoons," a spokesperson said.

"The proposed offence has been carefully constructed to target the material which causes most concern and is at the extreme end of the spectrum. Images will have to meet certain conditions to be considered illegal."

NSPCC policy advisor Dr Zoe Hilton said drawings of child abuse serve to legitimise abuse.

Even if some one holds the line that its not CP.

Even if some one holds the line that its protect under free speech.

It stills not a healthy outlet. Not only does it seem to exemplify destruction of innocence (and thus a wanting for a destruction of innocence in those who consume it), but it seems to go against basic human instincts to protect preadolescence children. In the end the habit just seems to show not only an outwardly destructive habits and tendencies, but inwardly destructive habits or tendencies.

Why Respond if my argument holds no weight?

Here is an analogy. Focus on the Family says, "Playing Grand Theft Auto a lot causes you to kill, rob, rape, hire hookers, steal cars, mug people, ect ect, just like in the game. Thus Grand Theft Auto should be banned." I say, "Subjecting your self to mindless violence, like found in Grand Theft Auto, a lot desensitizes you towards violence and violent acts. You might also be using it as an ineffective stop gap measure to release stress. It might be a good idea to reevaluate your playing of, and reasons for playing, Grand Theft Auto."

I am not for the banning of such materials as I understand the consequence of such actions will have on media and self expression (Sorry this was not made clear). I am merely advocating a point of view that its unhealthy, and for people to review their view that such materials are harmless.

Direct towards the first bold statement, are you advocating a type of cultural relativism? I am pretty sure we don't just protect children from forced labor, sexual exploitation, or other things, because of some arbitrary since of justice. Rather I think we protect children, and try to get other countries to do the same, because we realize the innocents and (ie lack of knowledge of the world) vulnerability (ie lack of ability to defend themselves or compered) of children, and how this puts them at a disadvantage when it comes compared to adults, and thus that they need special protections, not because we are arbitrary law loving hypocrites.

Direct towards the second bold statement, I understand that they are drawing, what I am saying though is just because its protect under free speech doesn't mean that they should automatically be viewed as healthy to partake in. I have the right to choose to eat nothing but deep fried tacos for the rest of my life, but that doesn't make it healthy...

First let me admit I made an omission in my first post. Innocents in a child can be destroyed two ways. Positively when innocents in replaced by unbiased knowledge in a way that will not create self loathing in a child. Negative instances of the destruction of innocents happen when innocents is replaced by knowledge that is biased or flat out wrong in a way that will create self loathing in a child.

I would like to think I am not sheeped. I would like to think that it is easy to understand the importance of the meaning behind and connotation of the words innocent, and vulnerable. I think from this it would be easy to see why I think its an unhealthy habit to enjoy and partake in artwork depicting and portraying nothing more then the negative destruction of innocents in children. Just as I think that its unhealthy to enjoy in a game full of mindless violence (not all violence is mindless, and not all mindless things are violent) that does nothing but show pain, and suffering. Just as I think that its unhealthy to enjoy fried tacos every day for every meal. Of course each one of these things have different levels of unhealthiness and are unhealthy for different reasons and to different parts of your body/mind, but I hope it still shows that they are unhealthy, and should be avoided.

Finally I submit to you, if its not for the enjoyment of the destruction of innocents, or at least for the enjoyment of pain in the depicted child, then what is it for? Please give me an answer how the viewing of such material can be for healthy reasons. To people out their please don't view this stuff, go to a therapist, I don't know, just please find a healthier way to deal with what ever your dealing with. That is my message.

PS 1: I say go to a therapist in a positive light. I believe the world would be a lot better off if we all did, or at least had some one we could talk to in a similar way on a regular basis.