UK Proposes Banning Computer Generated Abuse

peterprior writes "The UK Justice Minister is planning to outlaw computer generated images and drawings of child sex abuse. While photographs and videos of child sex abuse are already illegal, undoubtedly to protect children from being exploited by these acts, what children will be protected by this new law? If there is no actual child involved is the law merely protecting against the possibility of offenders committing future crimes against real children?"

That's it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any further goatse, 2 girls 1 cup, or tubgirl links will result in the poster being modded -1 Troll and reported to the UK computer police.

Re:That's it!

[sm62704]

As will this Greek statue from about 300 BC [mlahanas.de] and this young boy with the small penis [cachefly.net] that Michaelangelo Bonoratti carved about a thousand years ago (it's been thirty years since my art classes and I've slept since then and can't be arsed to look it up).

I haven't seen the 2 girls 1 cup, is that new?

If I rewrite my journals so instead of hookers the girls are teenagers, are the UK police going to come across the pond after me? Or is it only illustrations? Text can tittilate also, you know.

Tami [slashdot.org] (link NSFW) is only about four foot eight, if I draw her (only flat chested instead of those big fat boobies) would I be breaking the law in England? How about if I draw "Bighead" [slashdot.org], the hooker with the smallest boobs I've ever seen?

I't nice to know that politicians in other countries are as fucktardedly brain dead as ours. There's hope for my country after all!

Re:peterprior must be a paedo

[fuzzix]

And leave it to /. to stick up for paedos that want to jackoff to kiddie porn cgi and like all good paedos do, move on to the real thing

Why, this CGI is gateway porno! Just like if I even try marijuana I'll be on crack, meth and heroin the very same week!

Re:peterprior must be a paedo

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, this CGI is gateway porno!

Yeah, it commonly leads to Perl, PHP and in the worst cases Ruby on Rails.

Re:It's okay if chicks do it man !!

[The Anarchist Avenge]

I wouldn't mind that she abused you, except that all that time she could have been teaching you grammar.

Re:That's it!

[FMZ]

First they came for the pedophiles, and I did not speak out - because I was not a pedophile. Then they came for the anal stretchers, and I did not speak out - because I was not Goatse. Then they came for the girls who like to share cups of feces, and I did not speak out - because I was not a girl with a friend with a cup. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Re:That's it!

[Wooky_linuxer]

tubgirl, is that you?

Thought Police!

[kawabago]

This can only mean there are now illegal thoughts.

Re:Thought Police!

[Anonymous Coward]

There already are.

Most child porn laws specify "sexual activity" OR "intent to arouse".

This means that an image can both simultaneously be not child porn (a mom takes a picture of her daughter naked on the beach) and child porn (a pedo is aroused after downloading a copy of it).

You could outlaw ALL nude images and prosecute parents for pictures of kids in the bath, but i'm not sure that's a good solution.

But even if you did, then you would have to point out the several ongoing cases in the US involving clothed kids dancing or posing, which are being tried under child porn laws, despite the kid's parents having signed a waiver and agreed to the photos.

So you could outlaw that, but then, how do you determine what is child porn?

At which point does a studio portrait become porn? And considering that PRODUCING child porn carries sentences on the order of 20 years plus lifetime registration, you better make that line damn clear.

Or you could just use the world "intent" and make sure it's nice and fuzzy so you can basically prosecute anyone who makes you feel squeamish, which is what happens now.

So yes, there ARE illegal thoughts already.

Welcome to the modern world. Thanks for joining us.

Re:Thought Police!

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy solution: ban any and all pictures of children. No ambiguities anymore, and it'll also have the nice side effect of keeping us safe from new parents bombarding us with pictures of their drooling spawn...

Re:Thought Police!

[Stanislav_J]

The whole "intent to arouse" thing is troublesome, to say the least. One, how do you discern intent and, two, arouse who? The average person, or someone who happens to have a very specific fetish?

I'm sure, long before the Internet and computers existed, there were individuals who got their jollies looking at the children's underwear photos in the Sears catalog. Sears certainly did not publish those photos with the "intent to arouse," and 99.99999% of those looking at the catalog would not have that reaction. When we start banning things because some teeny tiny minority of users MIGHT derive sexual pleasure from them in a manner that triggers the "eewwww!" factor in most people, we're getting mighty close to thoughtcrime.

So, if a photographer produces photos of underage children in their underwear that are in every way indistinguishable from the Sears photos, but markets them under a website called "hotpreteensintheirundies.com" and uses suggestive, lascivious language to describe them, these otherwise unremarkable images become "child porn." This reminds me of the famous case I recall from my college communications classes where a publication (was it Screw magazine? This was a long time ago...) was judged not to contain obscene material; however, because the publisher marketed it as "obscene," and used that word in promotion, it was considered to be obscene. This is ludicrous.

By rights, there should be no harm, no foul when it comes to images if (a)no children were actually physically assaulted or harmed (as in the underwear images above), or (b)no actual sexual activity is depicted, or (c)the individuals involved are actually 18+, or (d)the individuals depicted do not actually exist (as in computer or manually generated art). In all of these cases, no actual child was in any way harmed or sexually assaulted.

The notion that such images may possibly, maybe, under the right circumstances, in some very few rare and isolated cases inspire a potential pedophile to actually harm a child is irrelevant. (And, as others have pointed out, WE DON'T KNOW if this is the case, because hardly any studies have been done, and probably will never be done, because of the distasteful nature of the subject matter.) ANYTHING can potentially inspire a sick mind to do heinous things. (The book "Catcher in the Rye" and the movie "Taxi Driver" were never intended to inspire a potential assassin, yet they played a significant role in, respectively, motivating Chapman to kill Lennon, and Hinkley to shoot Reagan.) As soon as we start criminalizing things based on "maybes" and "mights" and unproven possible unintended effects on isolated psychopaths, then the Law has become an orderless, featureless blob of goo instead of a carefully crafted guideline to protect the safety of the general society.

But (HEAVY SIGH), we ARE talking about CHILDREN here. And, as we all know too well, anything that even slightly reeks of "protect the children" insures that common sense and logic will quickly be cast aside....

It depends

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm as big a fan of "freedom of thought" as anyone.

But what are the purposes of these images, from a social/personal/psychological perspective?

I can see a reasonable argument that their purpose is to create a feedback loop for someone who already has pleasurable thoughts about child sex abuse gaining additional pleasure from looking at them, which in turn feeds future pleasurable thoughts about child sex abuse. It is also not particularly hard to think that someone who obsesses about such things might be e

Re:It depends

[MSZ]

I can see a reasonable argument that their purpose is to create a feedback loop for someone who already has pleasurable thoughts about child sex abuse gaining additional pleasure from looking at them, which in turn feeds future pleasurable thoughts about child sex abuse. It is also not particularly hard to think that someone who obsesses about such things might be encouraged by that loop to make the jump into real life, for example when the computer generated images are no longer "extreme" enough.

This was predominant theory half century ago, which supported bans on pornography, censorship etc. Then some countries lifted the ban under the less supported theory, that such material provides surrogate fulfilment. Statistically they were correct as the number of sex-related crimes fell sharply. Surely some of the sickos will go into feedback loop, but most of them will happily "go manual" while drooling on the pages/screens.

But a society which champions freedom of expression/thought/speech/action must perhaps still draw some limits or find some coherent basis for existence, or else risk becoming utterly dysfunctional.

The most logical limit is very simple: Was any child actually abused to make that particular material? If yes, drag the producer to the jail, lock him up and throw away the key. Punish for real crime, not thoughtcrime.

Anyway, even for people that are not into this kind of "entertainment", it's quite important to defend freedom. If it's legal to publish sick offensive shit (with a limitation as above) it guarantees the right to publish anything less sick and less offensive, like the views of average people. Larry Flynt comes to mind...

And UK is "special" (like in "special olympics") when it comes to related issues. There's very few actual cases of this kind of abuse, but the local media paint a picture of a country with violent pedophile at every corner, in every bush and three of them in every dark alley. With this level of hysteria they may very well ban photos of children whatsoever or require permits and observation by govt inspector.

Re:It depends

[totally bogus dude]

It's certainly an interesting issue. It's not that long ago in human history that promising children in marriage before they were 10 was common practice, and sexual relations would be started much earlier than is generally considered "acceptable" now. So characterizing sexual attraction to children as being a serious mental illness seems a bit of a reach -- it was perfectly normal not that long ago. Unless of course the vast majority of people in the middle ages were mentally ill, which is a possibility.

Times change of course, and people live much longer now and popping out new kids at the soonest possible moment isn't a necessity. Further, kids have become increasingly sacred and protected from pretty much everything that has any potential to have an even vaguely negative affect on them, which certainly will affect their ability to deal with things like sex at an early age. Societies evolve, so the above paragraph isn't intended as an "it was okay to have sex with children then so it should be now" argument, merely offering a counterpoint to your suggestion that it's a mental illness.

The main thrust of your initial argument is that exposure to simulated child porn may cause certain individuals (presumably ones who are somehow predisposed) to take their fantasy acts into the real world, and cite that certain types of "users" of adult porn will seek out harder and harder stuff.

I see two philosophical problems with this as a basis for banning anything that might be construed as CP. Firstly, "may cause certain types of people" has a hollow ring to it, and seems to be used by people wanting to enforce their own wishes without a good reason. More to the point, it acknowledges that it doesn't cause the majority of people to behave in an unacceptable manner, no more than watching violent movies or playing violent video games causes a significant number of people to behave in an acceptable manner. As such, we're effectively punishing (as in, restricting the freedoms of) perfectly law-abiding citizens, in order to potentially protect us from a few.

Taken further, consider these ideas which, to the best of my knowledge, are all backed up by studies:

• listening to music while driving a vehicle should be banned, as it can cause some people to drive more "dynamically" increasing the risk of accidents (particularly music with a fast tempo)
• listening to anything at all while driving a vehicle can distract certain people enough to significantly increase the risk of accident; therefore radios and passengers should be banned
• certain people may become violent after drinking alcohol, so alcohol should be banned
• similarly, certain people may feel less inhibited by things such as "the law" or "decency" after drinking alcohol, so it should be banned twice
• some people commit violent crimes to obtain money, therefore being poor should be banned (not exactly sure how to implement this; perhaps not being poor could be banned instead?)

More seriously, a person who enjoys child porn almost certainly enjoys looking at children in real life, as well. So should we ban children from all public spaces just in case there happens to be a paedophile around who will have bad thoughts because they happen to see a child they find attractive? I mean, having separate "child habitats" where children are made safe from the problems of the real world is the next logical step in the continued cotton-balling of our kids.

The general point being, if people are somehow predisposed to paedophilia, or murder, or rape, or theft, or any of a number of things we want to strongly discourage in our society, then these actions could be partially triggered by any number of inputs. Some might be easy to identify, others more difficult. Moreover, many of these inputs may be perfectly acceptable things that normal folk feel add value to their lives. Lots of people have posted about violent movies as a point of comparison. If we start banning "normal" folk fro

Re:

[TheLink]

"More seriously, a person who enjoys child porn almost certainly enjoys looking at children in real life, as well. So should we ban children from all public spaces just in case there happens to be a paedophile around who will have bad thoughts because they happen to see a child they find attractive? "

Nah the next step is to make them wear a hijab/burqa/chador, just like in those Islamic countries.

I'm sure many adults have bad thoughts, even illegal ones when they happen to see an adult they find attractive.

Re:It depends

[clam666]

This will continue, of course, until the fetishization of children decreases, and by that I mean the fetishzation of children by their parents and government.

Ignoring relatively recent human history where children in their early teens were married off, soldiers in wars, or running businesses/plantations/families, we have now created an overindulgent culture of keeping adults as children as long as humanly possible for the enjoyment of parents and politicians who exploit them.

An aquaintance of mine refers to her dog as "puppy" and treats him as such, regardless of the fact that the dog is 13 years old and on it's last legs. The dog is completely untrained, as to be expected, but now is not even getting some required medical care for a dog of it's age because that might be some sign that the animal isn't a puppy nor immortal.

Sadly, most of the "parents" I know now are doing similar things with their children. I've overheard conversations between parents chiding each other for cutting junior's hair ("His curls are so cute! We can't cut them!", "Yes, but he's 8 and looks like a roadie from Foghat"), not letting a 6 year old stay up until 3a.m ("She's playing! We have to let children be children!", "Yes dear, but I have to set up for Foghat in the morning."), and my favorite told to my idiot 14 year old nephew ("It doesn't matter what grade that teacher gave you, as long as you tried your best that's all that matters."). Having tried that technique of project completion with employers has met with limited success.

Luckily, if the child might be showing any signs of rebellion, intelligence, or desire to flourish on their own terms, there are a slew of "disease du jour" and designer drugs to keep them in that glassy-eyed / dopey-smiled state of puppiness. Autism/aspergers/marjoram/whatever is always available in case junior shows a but too much resistance. Pigeon hole them now, keep them in size XXL diapers when they're 16, and keep them from ever leaving mommey and daddy's side. Because as long as they stay, mommy and daddy aren't really, you know, grown-ups or old themselves.

Now I'm sure there are plenty of kids with "real" mental issues out there. I suspect if the bell curve is to be believed that at least 50% of the population has difficulty telling one end of a chalupa from another, and if special-ed classes and living with their parents until they're 40 gets my drive-thru order right at least most of the time, then it can't be all that bad.

Before I get modded for being too off topic, let me seamlessly tie that right back in to the article somehow.

Although real child abuse does occur, most likely it isn't the creepy guy in the street with the bad haircut and thick glasses on slashdot, it's the parent, family relative, or friend that does most of the molesting/abuse. The german sex-ring isn't photographing little Briegh or Taylour as they play in the back yard, it's the baby sitter or cousin or uncle Joe who is doing far worse when no one's watching, and since families rarely turn in one of their own, it's just quietly kept under wraps like the Catholic Church did with "misbehaving" priests who had a taste for alter boys.

Politicians, knowing this but powerless to prevent it, love to pick up the banner of saving the children from some unknown danger from one of those southeast asian countries with a sex-ring and is much more marketable than passing laws that would prosecute a mother as an accessory who stands by allowing their children to be molested by their new boyfriend but pretending it isn't happening because she doesn't want to "rock the boat".

It doesn't matter that laws that would prosecute a completely digitally created image where no abuse occurred to anyone would also include 450 year old paintings that show fat naked cherubs (with little penii!) flying around Aphrodite getting it on, consenting adults role playing together (any second they'll have the urge to molest real kids, like them homosexuals!), or the XTian bible raping virgi

Re:It depends

[Zelos]

Surely the default position for any free society should be to allow things and only legislate when there is demonstrable proof of harm? Otherwise you start to get chilling effects.

Re:

[Mjec]

Perhaps it would be better (if there is a pressing need for this) to limit the law to those already convicted of offences relating to children.

Crimes that only apply to criminals? That's a slippery slope, my friend...

Re:It depends

[fbjon]

Careful now, you wouldnt want to upset Slashdot's significant pedophile community.

Ah yes, critisizing anti-pedophilia makes one a pedophile. Intellectual honesty is the most tragic casualty of the pedo-panic, IMHO.

Pencils...

[Joce640k]

In theory I can now end up in prison for drawing something with a pencil and paper.

If they closed the loophole earlier ...

[Deltic55]

... would a recent Simpson's movie have been unviewable in the UK due to Bart Simpson's brief nudity?

Re:

[GrahamCox]

would a recent Simpson's movie have been unviewable

Many people thought so.

Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Without birth records or a child / parents to ask, how do you determine the age of a person in a drawing?

Re:Age

[QuantumG]

Oh, haven't you heard? The burden of proof is on the photographer these days. You're assumed guilty, and even if you can prove yourself innocent, it doesn't matter, you have to prove yourself innocent *first* and register your proof with a document retention company. I'm not shitting you.

      18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance

I'm sure the UK has similar laws.

I guess Ghastly's Ghastly Comic is ok, then

[Moraelin]

Well, I guess Ghastly's Ghastly Comic [ghastlycomic.com] is ok then, 'cause he says Chibi Sue is 36 and only looks like a little girl.

But seriously, how would one provide records to prove the the age of a drawn character?

And I'd worry more about judgments based on what it _looks_ like, in the context of a law where 17 years old is still considered paedophilia. Now I'm not saying one should look for naked 17 year old girls, just saying how it applies to a drawing. How do you prove that you had in mind a 18 year old girl, and not a 17 year old one, when you drew t.

I actually personally knew someone who looked like she was maybe 13 or 14 by the time she finished college and got married. No bloody kidding. Not only her face was that of a child, but she was really short too, so basically she was as close to a "chibi" drawing as it gets. She looked like she's probably not even in high school yet.

So what I'm saying is, basically this:

1. noone objected to her marrying and presumably having sex, unless a bright star appeared in the East again when she got pregnant ;) Because she was well over 20, looks be damned.

2. she could probably even star in a porn movie, if she wanted to, because proof can be provided that she's well over 18

3. but if you drew some character based on her, you're essentially fucked because it looks like you drew a child. And you can't provide any proof that the character you had in mind isn't really a kid in disguise.

And actually, depending on the country (e.g., I _think_ in UK that's the case already) probably even #2 might be illegal, because it _looks_ like fucking someone underage.

Again, I'm not arguing for allowing actual paedophilia or child porn. But when the law gets into the murky domain of what it _looks_ like, it gets very funny indeed. Especially with an age like 18 as a cutoff point. Girls get their puberty and get breasts quite a few years earlier than that, and from there it's just a very slow and gradual transition to young adult, and there's considerable variation in how fast it happens. There are people well underage which look like they're 20 already (e.g., Traci Lords didn't raise any alarm bells when she claimed to be 18 and was actually 15), and there are people who look a lot younger than they are.

When looking at a photo or movie of Traci Lords, or even interacting with her in person, pretty much noone could tell that she's 15 not 18. How do you tell if a drawing looks like 15 or 18 then? How about whether she's 17 or 18?

There are no major morphological changes that happen abruptly at 18. It's not like they sprout a tail or horns at 18, so you can look at the drawing and see if the character has them or not.

Heh...

[Moraelin]

Heh. You know, you spelling nazis amuse me. You know why?

Well, I'm not a native English speaker. I'll take it I'm fluent enough in English, if that's the only word you could pick on. And I don't mean just in vocabulary, but also in grammar. Let's put it like this: if I used my native grammar in English, I'd sound like Yoda.

In fact, I'm fluent in three languages, only one of which is my mother tongue, and can understand another two decently.

While your claim to glory is... what? That you can spell a four letter word in your mother tongue? (It's a funny thing how spelling trolls only pick on 3'rd grade level words, but invariably miss longer typos.) I.e., that your grasp of language is enough for IQ 50 or so? _That_ is your great achievement and position from which you try to look down on people? That you could do well in a primary school spelling bee? Heh.

No, dearie, let me tell you who's the ill-educated loser: you and your ilk. If you actually had an actual achievement in your pathetic waste of a life, you'd brag about that, not about being up to 3'rd grade in spelling skills. Heh. You amuse me. Please continue.

Computer generate abuse?

[Martian_Kyo]

While (true)
{
      me.bitchSlap(wife)
}

before anyone one says anything,
I know this wont compile.
Cause wife is null.

Re:

[Martian_Kyo]

if you think that wife implies you,
you're in for a great surprise in your life.
especially when it comes to the
wife.sex()
function

Think of the pixels!

[admiralfurburger]

Won't someone think of the pixels?

logical progression

[papabob]

Its banned to have images with real children, as it should be. Now they want to ban just a drawing. Then, they will want to ban writings talking about child abuse; think of it, not only adult/porn books but every novel in which any of the characters had been abused. After that it will be illegal to talk about sex with children. Results? child abuse will be an undeground thing again, flying below the radar of the society (as it was 30-40 years ago) and the govt/media will have to find the next ScaryThing(tm). Somebody should tell them that a mental illness cannot be fixed with a ban...

Re:logical progression

[sakdoctor]

The logical progression is of course to ban children. If we don't have any children, then they can't possibly be abused and will therefore be safe.

Is this good logic? Can I have a job as a politician yet?

Re:

[Anne Thwacks]

The logical progression is of course to ban children.

I am sure the UK government is working on this. After all, children will grow up, and some of them might be abusers. We can't take the risk. Think of the children!... ("Oh, Wait" is not supported by the present "government by knee jerk" strategy)

Re:logical progression

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, just wait. The Pedophiles will get their rights just like the Homosexuals did.

(Have i offended someone? Good!)

The topic is not easy, not at all. While i can perfectly agree that raping children is wrong, pedophilia in- and itself does not hurt anyone.

It's basically the same as homosexuality - something that's wired the wrong way (from a pure biological standpoint). That doesn't make these people bad, wrong, pervert, sick, or anything else like that.

The only difference is that homosexuality can be lived out between consenting adults, while pedophilia cannot.

However, current society treats pedophiles (and i'm talking about pedophiles, not rapists) like they already committed a crime.

Add to that the issue that from a biological standpoint sex is a.ok. from the time a girl can get pregnant, but depending on where you live you'll have to wait much longer than that.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

(Have i offended someone? Good!)

Yes, parent is confrontational.

But this boils down to the key point that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Lots of people don't really think things through.

I'm happy I was born as a socially acceptable heterosexual... It must be living hell for all the people born pedophiles, knowing they will become an outcast the moment they tell anyone about their sexual orientation. Even though they have never hurt a child, and never will. I think we can safely assume there are vast numbers of pedophiles living "in the closet".

Re:logical progression

[AmiMoJo]

something that's wired the wrong way (from a pure biological standpoint)

Lusting after attractive 12 year olds is not wrong from a purely biological standpoint, in fact it makes perfect sense. In order to propagate your genes as much as possible, the best tactic is to impregnate as many young girls as possible. The sooner you get to them the better, since by having your children it prevents them having anyone else's for at least 9 months, not to mention the attachment they then form with you that makes it harder for others to impregnate them. From a purely animalistic point of view, girls just into puberty should be the most (physically) attractive.

As for homosexuality, it's a natural phenomenon. Sure, it reduced the chances of procreation, but it is a common enough genetic variation that it is considered normal.

Re:

[mdwh2]

I was under the impression that they want to ban this imagery because paedophiles are just converting photographic media into drawn forms to evade the current bans. I'd imagine you could probably just run a set of cell shading-esque toon filters over them if you so wanted, though I can't imagine it'd work too well.

That's just Government spin - see my other comment [slashdot.org] - the loophole is already closed in a recent law. This new proposed law will cover all drawings and cartoons of underage sexual acts, whether der

Posturig politicians

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Psychiatrists have known for a long time that paedophiles are "born that way", that their perversion isn't really a product of their upbringing or past life experiences, just like homosexuality. It's not something they can control or repress, or avoid becoming by not looking at certain images.

So, while outlawing real kiddie porn is understandable to avoid children being used to produce the material, outlawing computer-generated images makes no sense at all: it won't lessen paedophiles' drives and it won't prevent "would be" paedophiles from becoming real ones. What this is is some politicians passing a think-of-the-children law to look good, probably before elections or something.

Re:

[joe 155]

I'm not sure if your from the uk or not, but I think you've really hit the nail on the head with your comment concerning a desperate need of some politicians to raise their popularity. Brown is incredibly unpopular, his government has lost every vote they have every been subjected to and have shown the worst results labour have seen at least since 1983 where they were arguing for real socialism in the country. This means that he really needs popularist policies and the easiest way to do this is introduce la

The TRUTH about pedophiles

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is primarily a pile of steaming horse shit.

There is a slightly higher rate of sexual abuse amongst incarcerated pedophiles.

The MODERN psychosocial assumption is that the abuse causes them to have reduced inhibitions, rather than "caused them to be a pedophile". There are VERY FEW accurate studies of population samples that include pedophiles who HAVE NOT been arrested for crimes.

There is substantial proof that pedophile tendencies are formed in early childhood, but the mechanism and cause is unknown. This is very similar to homosexuality, though how similar is unknown because research on non incarcerated pedophiles is pretty much career suicide for even the most tenured and respected professors (reference Dr Bruce Rind or Dr Harris Mirkin).

The few population studies that are out there suggest that somewhere between 0.5% and 1% of the male population in the US has strong pedophile tendencies, maybe half of these being exclusive pedophiles.

This means that there is likely somewhere around 1 million exclusive pedophiles in the US.

FBI statistics point out that only about 20-30% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by exclusive pedophiles like we so like to call them. The other 70-80% is perpetrated by "situational" abusers, who are not necessarily pedophiles but choose children for reasons of power, domination, low self esteem, etc.

But even given these numbers, the concept of the average pedophile molesting 300 kids is absurd. This is a rare boundary case and is almost never played out by the statistics.

Real studies show the median number of kids a pedophile molests is 2-3. There are rare instances of hundreds, but they are extremely rare.

Real studies about child porn simply don't exist. It was 100% legal until the mid -70s in most of the Western world. Child abuse didn't drop after it was made illegal.

Since this is the only metric of its consumption that anyone has available, this seems like a logical point on which to conclude that it has little to no effect on "stimulating" child abusers to commit a crime.

But I may be entirely wrong. It would be awfully nice if this sort of ESSENTIAL research wasn't so politically charged as to be nearly suicidal to publish. The last few people who published research skirting this topic were getting weekly death threats.

sick fucks. (and i'm not talking about the pedophiles here)

And that, my friend, is the REAL truth.

Re:Posturig politicians

[mpe]

That's irrelevant. Serial killers, for example, are "born that way" too, yet they are locked up when caught and sometimes executed. Not everybody has the same mental faculties as the majority of the population, and that can lead to behaviour classified as psychopatic and abnormal.

Thing is that the mental patterns of serial killers may not be unique to serial killers. IIRC they have quite a lot in common with stock traders. The phrase "make a killing" is even used in the context of finance.
Also many governments specifically try and train people to be "serial killers", just that they tend to be called "soldiers" in that situation.

Closing loophole

[IAmAI]

If there is no actual child involved is the law merely protecting against the possibility of offenders committing future crimes against real children?"

According the news article, the motivation for the law is close a loophole in the law whereby a paedophile manipulates a illegal photography in order to make it legal:

"The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons."

Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, as I'm posting this as an anon. coward, I know there won't be as heavy leverage behind my opinion. Nevertheless... this is drawing a -very- fine line. Child porn is a horrible, horrible thing. But to ban computer generated images is the first step down a slippery road.

It's illegal to rape anyone, or to kill anyone. Does that mean images, or say 90% of films in the case of the latter, should one day be outlawed? What of films like lolita? OK, so you can argue that these are movies made not for the purpose of people getting a sick pleasure out of it. Surely there will always be people who get pleasure out of graphic images in the way they were not intended.

I'm just afraid that once you start banning one form of fantasy produced content, not based on an act that has actually helping, what will stop law makers from using this as an example in the future for banning other forms of media? Kind of reminds me of the point the fellas over at South Park tried to make in the Cartoon Wars... either its all alright, or nothing is.

Here in the US, we should just stick to Obscene...

[trims]

I'm not sure about UK law, but here in the US, we have a nice standard for what is Obscene:

(a) It (whatever it is, photo, "artwork", film, etc.) must appeal primarily to purient interest

(b) It depicts sexual activity in a patently offensive manner (according to community standards)

(c) Taken as a whole, the work has no artistic, political, or social value.

Frankly, the article does hit on one major problem with "synthetic" child porn - it's often not really synthetic. Remember the movie "A Scanner Darkly" ? That's the kind of thing were starting to see, not the full-on synthetic of a Final Fantasy. It's damned hard to figure out which is which, and in the mean time, people get exploited.

I don't see the need for additional legislation, as this kind of "artwork" has a far easier time being considered Obscene than most other types. When considered as a whole, most of this stuff would automatically pass (a) and (b) without much of an argument, and the bar for (c) would likely be lower than if the material solely used adults.

And, you certainly don't want to outlaw all cartoon "child porn" (i.e. things depicting sexual activity in children) - we need educational materials which depict certain acts in order to help victims of such crimes, not to mention basic (preventative) education itself. Additionally, I don't want to see documentaries become illegal (synthetic actors or real people), just because some people don't like the subject matter.

I like the obscenity standard. It's tough, for a reason. The only problem with it here in the US is jurisdictional - people should be prosecuted in the place where they possess it, not in some other place. That is, if Person A makes it available in California, but person B in Kentucky downloads it, then B should be liable for the Kentucky standards, but A should only be liable for California standards.

-Erik

Re:

[JaredOfEuropa]

Frankly, the article does hit on one major problem with "synthetic" child porn - it's often not really synthetic. Remember the movie "A Scanner Darkly" ? That's the kind of thing were starting to see, not the full-on synthetic of a Final Fantasy. It's damned hard to figure out which is which, and in the mean time, people get exploited. [...] I like the obscenity standard. It's tough, for a reason.

No. In a proper lawful society we do not prosecute victimless thoughtcrime, and we do not prosecute without p

Re:Here in the US, we should just stick to Obscene

[Tom]

It's damned hard to figure out which is which, and in the mean time, people get exploited.

A few years back, when we were still living in a free society, it was considered perfectly normal that the prosecution had to prove their case, even if it was hard. Even if it was "damned hard".

That's... unenforceable

[Anonymous Coward]

(commenting anonymously because this debate is still taboo in western countries)
Hentai has been working around these limitation since ages. They draw child porn, tell the characters are 18 and voila. They look younger ? well, it is "artistic license".

While not my cup of tea, I have always considered these kind of drawings as a way for real pedophiles to drop the pressure. I have always thought that preventing the circulation of child porn was counter-productive : it creates a black-market where the prohibition makes the prices go high. With high prices, it becomes more profitable to produce photographs.

To me, pedophilia seems like the first pretext used to control Internet traffic. Production of child pornography is the real crime, this must be stopped. The porn industry must not employ children. Owning and distributing their works ? What is the problem with that ? That's called 'pirating' it is supposed to bring down their business model. Legalize the transmission and possession of child porn, and the production of child porn will die. It is not like they can file a complaint to the MPAA...

AOC

[sqrt(2)]

I often wonder how much of the statistics of sexual abuse and child porn are inflated because of our age of consent laws. Not sure what they are in the UK, and this is about a proposed law in the UK, but in the US the age is usually around 18. So a 17 year old taking pictures of herself has the same legal designation as a 10 year old being molested and photographed by her abusers. If we had a law like this then drawings too would be just as bad? They're making a category of crime even larger when it already lacks the subtleties needed to deal with the reality of the world we live in.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle]

Yes, but a 16 or 17 year old taking pictures of themselves would be guilty of distributing child pornography. The law is disjointed like that.

A photo of a perfectly legal sex act between two 17 year olds would itself be considered paedophilia in the UK.

After RFTA

[Martian_Kyo]

I dub this law as Anti-Hentai law.

Against the law?

[mikeg22]

I have a question for any legal scholars. First, I have a gut feeling that possession of child pornography is wrong, but what is the rationale for why it is illegal to possess? Is it that the possession implies that the possessor bought it and therefore is driving demand for it? If so, the creation for demand of it has to be considered wrong, which once again I understand at a gut level, but why is it illegal? Maybe the answer to this is that the demand for the material causes actual abuse of children to occur in order to produce the material. Ok, so the root of this is that the demand causes abuse, which is clearly a violation of the rights of a child, and therefore the demand causes the abuse which itself is indicated by possession of the offending material. If my logical train of thought here is correct, why isn't it also illegal to possess a picture (or movie or book etc) of any criminal act? For example, say I had a picture of someone being beaten up. Also say that this picture had no artistic or political value. Possession of this (using the above reasoning) implies that I have created demand for the picture. The demand for the picture (thanks to Adam Smith) causes the creation of the picture, which leads to the actual beating up of someone. Why isn't any media (that has no political or artistic value) depicting a crime considered illegal?

Look! Peados!

[damburger]

Now just keep focusing on them whilst we take away all your rights.

Peadophilia is, statistically speaking, less of a threat to your children than lightning. Seeing as how most child abuse comes from a family member, the best way for parents to protect their child from molestation is to not molest them.

Yet this insignificant threat is used to scare people into allowing the government to take control of the Internet piece by piece. Our government has an overt disrespect for its subjects (remember, we are not citizens) and seems to think we should only have such rights as allow the economy to function and no more. They need shooting, all of them.

Please think of the children!

[naich]

On second thoughts - don't. It's illegal now.

Good

[MagdJTK]

Has anyone who has replied actually read TFA? I've in fact done a lot more as it's been covered on Radio 4 a fair amount.

The reason they want to ban it is because it's made by converting REAL CHILD PORN into computer generated images. In other words people know they can't distribute real child porn without being very careful, so they convert real child porn to this and get away with it. So demand for this sort of thing drives up demand for child porn and therefore child abuse.

But I'm sure none of you lot were bothered about that --- too busy getting a hardon about being the first to quote 1984?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit.

I bet there's not a single documented case of this.

It's just a way to circumvent legitimate opposition to thought-crime laws.

Re:

[Builder]

Regardless of whether that is really happening or not (I've not seen any credible proof), this bill is still WRONG.

This bill goes way past that, provides no real recourse to artists and is unsuitably vague to become the law of the land.

Much like the violent porn bill passed here, this is simply another government exercise in imposing their morals on the nation at large, and much like the violent porn bill, it's just flat out wrong. But no-one will vote against it, because in their next election campaign, th

Protecting against what?

[Jesus_666]

If there is no actual child involved is the law merely protecting against the possibility of offenders committing future crimes against real children?

Could we please get rid of the notion that people require media to develop unpopular views/needs/stances? It's not like Victor Vanilla browses the internet until someone trolls him with a child porn shock image and he immediately turns into Roger Rapist who desperately needs to rape little children.

We can't (yet?) predict whether someone will develop a paraphilia and we can't do anything about it. People just end up having different tastes for different (and often non-obvious) reasons. Whether or not poonography catering to a particular taste is available does not decide whether or not someone develops that taste; it can only be one of many influences.

Banning CP so hard that even mentioning it carries a mandatory prison sentence will still do nothing to "solve" paedophilia. It will only further cloud up the water and force the affected further into obscurity and violence.

What we need is an objective discussion of the issue. We need to view it as a controllable problem like alcoholism or an addiction. It's manageable, but only if we behave like mature, civilized human beings and treat issues like this with a bit of distance.

"Clean" child porn might allow paedophiles to blow off steam instead of waiting until the pent up sexual frustration makes them abduct, rape and kill some little girl. We don't really know, which is why we need scientific evaluation. And that is not possible while idiots with shotguns/the media are running around shouting: "I NEED TO KILLS Y'ALL OR IT MIGHT BE MY DAUGHTER!!1"


I think prohibition, the War on Drugs(TM) and similar endeavours have shown just how well complete demonization of an issue work towards safely controlling said issue.

The "Loophole" is already closed!

[mdwh2]

FTA:

"The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons."

But under the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, Section 69 [opsi.gov.uk]:

"References to a photograph also include- a tracing or other image, whether made by electronic or other means (of whatever nature)- which is not itself a photograph or pseudo-photograph, but which is derived from the whole or part of a photograph or pseudo-photograph (or a combination of either or both)"

So not only is it absurd to suggest that all drawings need to be criminalised because pedophiles are allegedly converting child abuse images into them, this simply isn't a loophole anymore anyway!

What if pedophiles start converting images of children into page 3 girls, will they need to be criminalised too?

The claim that this material is already illegal to sell or distribute is also bogus (they made this same false claim with the extreme porn law [slashdot.org] - on that note, expect to see "extreme" adult cartoon images made illegal in a few years). The Obscene Publications Act requires a jury to believe that the material would "deprave or corrupt" those likely to see it, but these new laws do not have such a test, instead using a dictionary definition of the word "obscene" (i.e., disgusting etc). I suspect that a jury made up of Daily Mail readers would consider plenty of Manga and Hentai to be illegal.

Also see the official announcement [justice.gov.uk], and consulation and consultation response documents [justice.gov.uk].

I fear that to the police, hentai is not merely something that may be unintentionally caught, but it is a direct intended target. In the response to the "extreme porn" law (a different law, but the comment is relevant), Greater Manchester police stated [seenoevil.org.uk] "Would like to see account of several child cartoon images e.g. Hentai material."

And note that whilst the age of consent is 16 in the UK, the age for child porn was raised to 18 in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. So sex with a 17 year old is legal, but a fantasy drawing of someone who might look 17 would be illegal!

The Register has a better write up [theregister.co.uk].

Will South Park's Red Rocket be illegal [comedycentral.com]?

focus

[Tom]

The crime isn't important - the fear it generates it. Politics are driven by fear, more specifically by the formula "look how dangerous the world is - elect us so you're at least a little bit safe". The different parties only play on different areas of fear - right-wing usually on fears of crime, foreigners, etc. and left-wing on fear of unemployment, illness, poverty, etc.

So everyone who's posted a comment detailing how computer-generated images hurt nobody is missing the point entirely. Nobody cares who is being hurt or not. It doesn't matter. "Abused child" is merely a meme that is being exploited by power-greedy politicians. Since our emotions do not differentiate between "real" and "computer-generated", they are triggered by both, and since fear is an emotion, politicians don't see why they should make a difference, either.

Logic doesn't apply here. Psychology does.

Re:Pedophiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I had no idea South Park was considered snuff. Oh my god, you killed free expression! You bastard!

Re:Pedophiles

[Jarik_Tentsu]

NOOO! There goes all my Lolicon hentai...=(

No seriously though, this is really, discrimination against thought crime. Just because someone gets turned on by that kinda stuff doesn't mean they're going to go out there and do it. That's like saying "We should ban all TV's that contain themes such as murder". There's a HUGE difference between seeing Saddam Hussein's execution and watching the latest action flick at the movies. Likewise, if you have animated porn featuring controversial themes - underaged girls, rape, etc - how is that the same as videos which actually have real girls?

I'm sure there are heaps of guys out there who watch hentai or other animated pornography which feature underaged girls, rape and whatnot. And I'm sure these same people are sickened when they hear about pedophiles going out there and doing shit to little kids - I'm sure all of them are just as likely to want to beat the crap out of rapists and Michael Jackson, and so on.

The whole point is its a fantasy - a fantasy one could enjoy without their conscience coming and biting them. It's not like watching an animated 15 year old being raped in a high school is gonna make them more likely to go to a high school and do it...unless they're already messed up in the head.

Honestly, what's next? Banning of violent video games...? Oh wait...

~Jarik

Re:Pedophiles

[VJ42]

I'm sure there are heaps of guys out there who watch hentai or other animated pornography which feature underaged girls, rape and whatnot. And I'm sure these same people are sickened when they hear about pedophiles going out there and doing shit to little kids - I'm sure all of them are just as likely to want to beat the crap out of rapists and Michael Jackson, and so on.

You see, that's where this law "fails". Hentai artists can just say that their characters are over 16 (age of concent here in the UK), and it magically becomes legal. Lolicon, however you might have a problem (but then I always thought the people who watch lolicon have many problemas anyway...).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that that particular aspect of this law is unenforcable, as there is no way you can establish the age of animated characters other than by asking the artists unless they are very obviously babies\small children as with lolicon type 'art'.

Re:Pedophiles

[teslar]

Hentai artists can just say that their characters are over 16 (age of concent here in the UK), and it magically becomes legal.

Nope. According to the Register article [theregister.co.uk] on the same topic:

Section 45 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 extended the definition of "child", for porn purposes, to anyone aged 16 or 17. For the first time, it became illegal to possess images of perfectly legal sexual activity.

Re:Pedophiles

[Tom]

That's a frightening quote.

So it's legal to fuck her, but if you take a picture of it with your mobile phone, you go behind bars for 20 years.

Only politicians and lawyers can come up with that kind of thinking.

Re:Pedophiles

[shadowknot]

Being someone working in digital forensics I and my colleagues are responsible for gathering the evidence that puts these guys away and there are certain cases where the filed act is legal but the act of filming it is illegal. On the general issue; it has been a somewhat grey area for many years and you do tend to find a bunch of not always hentai but definitely paedophilic "art" and on the Copine Scale (which is used for grading the severity of indecent images) they fall into no category. Personally I would make the law that if they are found in conjunction with photographic indecent images then they should be bundled in with Level 1 images (the least severe) and if you find nothing but graphic images they should be ignored but maybe the cops should keep a regular eye on the person who has them.

Re:Pedophiles

[QCompson]

Personally I would make the law that if they are found in conjunction with photographic indecent images then they should be bundled in with Level 1 images (the least severe) and if you find nothing but graphic images they should be ignored but maybe the cops should keep a regular eye on the person who has them.

So you support increasing the punishment for someone convicted of child pornography offenses because they possess artistic images which depict no real children. And you want the police to monitor people who possess drawn or computer-generated fake images. You advocate increasing penalties and surveillance based on assumptions of what a persons thinks or desires, even though their direct actions may not have any connection to abuse of children in real life.

I wonder if you'd also support the police keeping an eye on people who read literature which has child-sex themes? Perhaps monitoring those who check out "Lolita" at the library?

I'd say you picked a fitting career for yourself. Congratulations.

Re:Pedophiles

[Oktober Sunset]

If I have sex with a 16 year old in view of a CCTV camera, then does that make the camera operator a paedo?

Re:Pedophiles

[Maestro4k]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that that particular aspect of this law is unenforcable, as there is no way you can establish the age of animated characters other than by asking the artists unless they are very obviously babies\small children as with lolicon type 'art'.

Good luck with that, already it's not uncommon to see characters that are "legal lolis", women who haven't developed but are 20+. It's more common in H games but it turns up in anime some too, for example the teacher in Doki Doki School Hours. She looks like she's a grade schooler but she's in her 20s. And while it's not terribly common there are cases of this occurring in real life so it's not completely fantasy. So if the author swears the girl who looks like she's 8 years old is really 25 does that mean it's OK? Or will the law just allow the police/prosecutors/etc. to decide what age they think the girl is supposed to be and prosecute based on that? I'm guessing it'll be the latter and that path will lead to horrid abuse, people will be getting thrown in jail that never really committed a crime.

This is about control, not protecting any children.

Photoshop 5 year old head onto 80 year old body?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides bad taste, would this be forbidden? What if someone just photoshops the ears, or hair from a 12 year old onto a 39 year old?

The law in it's heart is good, in practice is bad. It's basically a thoughtcrime.

Wouldn't it be better if the sickos could look at computer generated stuff, and give them a relatively safe outlet, instead of making it illegal and having them look at the real stuff since it all will be illegal?

I guess the old Coppertone adds will be outlawed, since the cartoon doggie pulling down the 6 year olds bathing bottom will be construed as beastiality, S&M, and child porn.

Re:No more video taping births either

[Oktober Sunset]

You imprisoned an innocent child inside your stomach for 18 months then forced it backwards through your genitals for your own sick amusement?

Re:Pedophiles

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should dismantle every buildiing with naked babies with naked babies perched on top of massive, rock-hard shafts. So what if they're just statuary on the top of columns of every major cathedral in every Christian nation? That'll serve those awful pedophile priests right!

Re:Pedophiles

[admiralfurburger]

Side question:
Why is it Ok for people to have statues of little boys peeing in their garden, with fully functional stream, but not little girls?
Just curious...

Re:Pedophiles

[ozmanjusri]

but not little girls?

The monthly "algal bloom" ruins the lawn.

Re:Pedophiles

[Legrow]

To borrow a line from Dimitri Martin, why is it okay to say "I love kids" but not "I love 12-year-olds"?

Re:Pedophiles

[Paaskonijn]

It's not? Cause I've seen several of these.

The most famous examples would be Jeanneke Pis [webshots.com] in Brussels and Mieke Stroel [lycos.nl] in Zelzate. Of the top of my head: there's also one in Ellezelle and Dubrovnik.

Re:

[admiralfurburger]

Sorry, in the United Fundamentalist Christian States of America, it's not OK.

Hey those are pretty cool, I'd probably get arrested & have to register as sex offender if I put one on the lawn, though...

Re:Pedophiles

[DaveV1.0]

What the OP means is that here in the U.S., one can go to a store and by a statue of a naked little boy peeing that spouts water. one can then take that statue, hook it up in one's front lawn and the worst that will happen is people will say it is tacky and against the development's rules.

But, one can not go into the same store and buy a statue of a naked little girl peeing. On the off chance one was able to do so, hooking it up in one's front yard would make one a pariah, and would likely get one arrested.

I wonder if there is similar double standard elsewhere.

Re:Pedophiles

[speculatrix]

There seem to be a lot of really sick people these days.
No, there's a lot of publicity about a tiny minority of really sick people these days

Re:Pedophiles

[Zironic]

So you have no problem with the concept of thought crime [wikipedia.org] ?

Killing people because of what they think is most likely not a good idea.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Pedophiles

[Martian_Kyo]

Agree with both posters. This is very blurry area. Borders thought control. We should never feel guilty about thoughts we have, and feeling we have. Cause we cannot control either. What we CAN control is our actions.

There is a world of difference between someone who thinks about committing an illegal or immoral act and someone who actually commits the act.

We should recognize that difference.

Preventive action, where you would imprison people who have dangerous thoughts or intentions is a very tricky and dangerous thing.

Very reminiscent of certain religions where impure thoughts are punished.

I am all for arresting and prosecuting producers and to some extent consumers of child pornography.

However this law will get abused, for political games I assure you.

By this line of reason. Anyone who watches an action flick is a killer.

Re:Pedophiles

[ozmanjusri]

And where do you draw the line?

Boundaries are interesting.

Over in Australia, we've just seen a scandal about photographs by Bill Henson being withdrawn from display [roslynoxley9.com.au] by the gallery that was showing them. The showing was cancelled after complaints from many people, including the Prime Minister.

The models in Hensen's portraits are often underaged and sexualised. Most who have participated, including many who are now adult, are proud of their portraits and strongly supportive [smh.com.au] of Hensen's work.

I accept that that children must be protected because they do not have the experience or the understanding to make an informed consent. There needs to be limits to their involvement in sexuality. I also believe that censorship of art is fundamentally wrong, and that artists should always be pushing limits and challenging authority. The tension between two conflicting, but necessary requirements is what makes this so interesting.

This is one area where it takes a brave artist to explore those boundaries, and I'm grateful that we have courageous people like Hensen doing that.

Re:Pedophiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Snuff movies are still snuff movies when nobody really dies. It's the idea of it, not the act.

Right. Stop watching action/horror/thriller movies then. Oh, and stop playing any game except perhaps bejeweled or tetris. And I hope you won't ever have a bad day and wish that someone had an accident... Real child porn is bad, children are hurt. CGI child porn is just sick, but if it's keeping real children safe, let the pedophiles enjoy it.

Re:

[Mutant321]

Not to mention that there's no clear link between those who indulge in child porn, and those who commit pedophilia.

It's just more scaremongering to drum up votes by a government that knows it's on the ropes. The unfortunate thing is, it might be working.

Greeting citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

I look foreward to your up comming shooting spree in Japan. I would appreciate you doing everything you can to spare Gravure Idols. I'm sure their enthusiasim for mass transit will present a number of attractive targets.

Hurting children is vile. Expression of vile ideas, is both forewarning and proof of freedom. The inability to recognize the difference is ignorance, and the first step towards tragedy.

Re:

[Iamthecheese]

Terrorists make me sick. The sooner a law is instated that allows us to slaughter the lot of them, the better. Computer generated murders are still murders. Pretending to kill people is still killing people. Its the idea of it, not the act.

We need to kill every actor who has pretended to kill someone immediately! and ban every movie with a murder in it. The bible is right out! none of that simulated murder is fit to print. And that talk of abuse in our laws!

"Massachusetts General Law chapter 265 1:
The

Re:Pedophiles

[SL Baur]

You make me sick.

Computer generated child porn is still child porn.

Who was harmed?

Snuff movies are still snuff movies when nobody really dies. It's the idea of it, not the act.

Well, better yet, don't watch it. If it's the idea of it, then all of Hollywood should be prosecuted.

But Hollywood is profit driven, so how about just not watching it? I've spent US$0 on US movies in the US in the last 10 years (and I'm not BitTorrenting stuff), and you?

I think society would be better served by putting people like you in jail than *anybody* else.

Re:Pedophiles

[Weedlekin]

"The death penalty is too quick, a jail sentence has them safe from the rest of the world. It is the only case in which I would approve the use of torture - indeed, in it's most sadistic form, since the goal isn't information or confession, just suffering."

Perhaps you should add those who delight in thinking about others being slowly tortured to death to the list of people who should be slowly tortured to death for thinking about things.

"Obviously everyone who has modded me down thinks kid-fucking is okay."

A more likely explanation is that they reckon that you're a hypocritical sicko who thinks that torture and death fantasies are OK because he's having them, but other sick fantasies he doesn't have must be prohibited at all costs.

Re:Pedophiles

[joss]

Being anti-pedophile doesnt give you a free pass for being a fucking moron. There's a difference between thinking about something and doing it. Actual child pornography has a direct link to child abuse [no producer without consumer] so is rightly banned. Simulated child pornography does not. Making simulated child pornography equivalent to actual child pornography means that people who currently find a harmless outlet for their sick impulses can no longer do so. They would no longer have an incentive to opt for simulated images over real images which would directly lead to more actual child abuse. So, "would someone please think of the children" goes both ways.

Re:Pedophiles

[teh kurisu]

I'm under no illusion I am a good person, but pedophiles take pleasure in harming - physically and emotionally - people in no position to defend themselves. Helpless children.

Except such a thing is already illegal. The purpose of this proposed law is not to prevent such a thing. The purpose is to make it illegal to even conceive of such a thing in an art form.

Some people take it upon themselves to grandstand about the environment, some people try to force others to quit smoking. Some people claim video games and rap are tearing down society. At least I have a firm stance on something that matters.

People die due to climate change in the film The Day After Tomorrow. This film is not illegal, because nobody was harmed in the making of it. Artistic representations of helpless children are not actually helpless children. No children were harmed in the making of this porn.

Re:Pedophiles

[Weedlekin]

"pedophiles take pleasure in harming - physically and emotionally - people in no position to defend themselves. Helpless children."

The vast majority of child sexual abuse happens at home or a friend's house, and takes place regularly over a long period by people who've never seen child porn, and don't seek it out, so they won't be caught irrespective of how many laws are passed banning pictures, literature, etc. Child predators who prey on strangers are such a statistically insignificant factor in the child abuse problem as a whole that killing them all wouldn't reduce it in any noticeable way.

"At least I have a firm stance on something that matters."

If you actually wanted to have a real impact on child abuse instead of indulging in tabloid-inspired rants, you'd be calling for teachers and others who work with children to receive comprehensive training about how to spot the signs of abuse, and raise topic with a child without frightening or embarrassing them, or putting them in a position where they falsely accuse somebody because they want to please the adult, or are afraid of getting in trouble (those who thinks kids always tell the truth don't know very many of them!).

"I have a firm stance, that everyone will disagree with aloud, but more than a few will silently agree with."

It's irrelevant how many people agree with you, because it doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds of kids who get abused by nice uncle Aubrey, their slightly older cousin Henry, or their best friend's dad for every one that suffers at the hands of a wandering sexual predator. Nobody's doing anything about them, because it's a much harder problem to solve, and doesn't offer tabloids and TV companies human interest stories with sobbing parents and calls for somebody to do something that politicians can legislate about.

Re:Pedophiles

[courseofhumanevents]

I always hate it when I can't tell whether someone is either psychotic or a really good troll.

Re:Pedophiles

[Knuckles]

Snuff movies are still snuff movies when nobody really dies.

No they aren't, since the very definition of a snuff movie is that the depicted acts are real.

Re:Pedophiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter if you don't like it, thats the point of a free society.

It is your god given right to be a sick bastard as long as you don't hurt anybody else in the process.

If it affects no one else you can be as much of a dick, religious nut, liberal, conservative, annoying git, asshat. weirdo, freak, or any other adjective you care to name, as you want.

Deciding to restrict actions from a society, even when they affect no one else is unacceptable because it opens the door to a very slippery slope. Because then you've got the problem of who gets to decide what's right, and I don't trust anybody with that decision, its far too arbitrary.

A Muslim will tell you not to eat pork, a Hindu will tell you not to eat beef, which one is right?

How about since it only matters to the individual, let each one decide form them selves?

I think the advent of realistic CG pron is a boon for society, people with specific leanings can now have their urges satisfied without having to involve other people. And its just possible that a market for a legal product would weaken the market for illegal pornography, you know the stuff that actually exploits children. Remember the laws banning child pornography were based on the fact that you have to have a child having sex to create it, the laws were not passed to protect the sensibilities of other people. with GC art no actual children are involved

Its simple economics, you remove the market for something and the suppliers will go away all by them selves when they see theres no money to be made. While it probably wont solve the problem completely I would think that stopping some is better than nothing. :holy creepy batman, my captcha is eighteen!

Re:

[njfuzzy]

Snuff movies are still snuff movies when nobody really dies. It's the idea of it, not the act.

Actually, no. A "stuff film" is one in which an actor (or person in general) actually dies on film. There isn't a special name for movies where a character happens to die. That covers probably the majority of movies, since death is a major theme of any kind of narrative.

Re:It's about psychology

[sqrt(2)]

Even if you're right, that's the price of free speech. You either protect everything, even the vile, disgusting, hateful speech you disagree with or you don't have free speech at all.

Re:

[caitsith01]

Even if you're right, that's the price of free speech. You either protect everything, even the vile, disgusting, hateful speech you disagree with or you don't have free speech at all.

You assert that as fact. But it's a philosophical or possibly semantic question, not one with an obvious and easily stated answer, i.e., can you have "some" free speech? What does "free" mean in this context?

If there is a rule that you can talk about everything except X, then you have freedom of speech with respect to (All possible topics of speech - X). So in a significant sense it would not be correct that you "don't have free speech at all". I understand, of course, that you would argue that "free s

Re:

[sqrt(2)]

The answers to those points you raise is another type of freedom: freedom of choice--also called free will. We assume that people are in control of their own actions, and that ideas, words, and speech by itself is inherently incapable of causing harm. When someone takes that speech and acts on it, they are responsible for the action and are handled in a way that is considered appropriate by society.

I want to live in that kind of society, not the kind that tries to protect me by limiting what I can and can't

Re:It's about psychology

[sqrt(2)]

The effect they have on real children has not been demonstrated as far as I've seen, and certainly not to the high standard of evidence that should be required given what is at stake and the frightening precedent that would be set.

Re:It's about psychology

[Anonymous Coward]

While protecting liberties is important, where do you draw the line?

You don't. It's free speech. When the creep tries to abuse a real child, that's when it's a crime, and that's when you bust them.

The question is how these images have a real effect on children.

They don't. That's like asking what effect Bugs Bunny has on real rabbits.

Re:

[arstchnca]

And you know this because you are an image-thought-ologist, and you participate in research regarding this phenomenon? Truly leading in the field, I'm sure.

But no. You're just some dumbfuck who wasted his time posting drivel to an otherwise respectable (lol) website.

At least you made some effort to pass off your crap, if only with 3 words (4 if you count the contraction differently) of "trying" in the subject: It's about psychology.

You're full of shit. Forgive me on the very-off chance that you'