Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Your Rights Online

UK Wants To Ban Computer-Generated Child Porn 544

Posted by kdawson
from the think-of-the-children dept.
An anonymous reader writes "UK Home Secretary John Reid has urged a ban on computer-generated images of child abuse, including cartoons. The Register asks if this would criminalize role-playing gamers, and what about Hentai? Currently, such images may be illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act, but they do not come under child pornography laws. The attempt to criminalize possession of virtual images mirrors the attempt to criminalize possession of 'extreme porn' which would also include fake images, as well as photos of simulated acts involving consenting adults (as discussed on Slashdot). A petition on the Government's new website urges an end to such plans."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Wants To Ban Computer-Generated Child Porn

Comments Filter:
  • by Giant Ape Skeleton (638834) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:31AM (#17237126) Homepage
    What's wrong with cartoons depicting child abuse?

    It's not like we're talking about images of Mohammed or something!

    • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:54AM (#17237616) Homepage Journal
      That makes me wonder where the "virtual child abuse" line is drawn. There are lots of non-porn instances in pop culture. Can South Park still kill Kenny? Can Charlie Brown still get whacked with a baseball and go flying off his pitcher's mound? Can Popeye still chase Swee'pea around a construction site? Can God still tell Abraham to kill his son Isaac in the Christian Bible? And don't get me started on the mythological dysfunctional families in the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, and other ancient polytheistic pantheons that most kids learn about in school.
      • by Billosaur (927319) * <.ten.enilnotpo. .ta. .rehtorgw.> on Thursday December 14, 2006 @11:33AM (#17238374) Journal

        This points out the blurring of the line between fantasy and imagination, and reality and causality. You can stop such artwork from being drawn and distributed (maybe), but you can't legislate what goes on in the mind of the creator of such work (yet).

        Look at the CGI work that is done in movies. As computer-generated characters look and sound more like real actors, does what we can do to them change? No more violence, bestiality, child abuse depictions in movies? Take it a step further -- assume a CG character could be made alive via AI. Does this character now have the protection of the law? Can a CGAI character be made to perform in a gratuitously sexual manner?

        Technology advances and as it does, it makes the moral distinctions we carry even more ambiguous than they were before. The question is, how do we handle this? At what point do we say enough?

      • by SamSim (630795) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @01:37PM (#17240992) Homepage Journal

        That line isn't nearly blurred enough yet. How do you accurately determine the age of an individual who doesn't exist except as a virtual construct or a drawing? What if the character's purportedly sixteen but looks like she's fifteen? What if she's thirteen but looks like she's seventeen? What if it's a 30-year-old woman's mind transplanted into a twelve-year-old cloned body? What if it's a shape shifter? What if it's an adult character drawn in chibi style? What if she's drawn from the back and her age is completely unclear? What if it's so dark in the drawing you can't tell what's going on? What if there are just haphazard lines on the page and you can't tell if it's even a person?

        What happens when you realise that all you are actually looking at is marks on a piece of paper or patterns of light on a screen, and nobody was actually hurt to create them?

    • by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Thursday December 14, 2006 @11:01AM (#17237748) Homepage
      We should also ban images depicting murder.. and books.. and movies.. and talking about crime.. and thinking about crime.. and thinking.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        I don't mean this as a blanked defense of the proposed law by any means. I do, however, think it's a fallacy to compare reading/viewing sexual child abuse to reading/viewing a murder, theft, or other crime. In the case of other crimes, the depiction is entirely separate from the depicted. Reading about a bank robber does not make you a thief.

        Pornography is a little different, however, in that it exists as the interaction between the subject and the material. The whole point of pornography is to not just
        • by Total_Wimp (564548) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @11:35AM (#17238408)
          In the case of other crimes, the depiction is entirely separate from the depicted. Reading about a bank robber does not make you a thief.

          Pornography is a little different, however, in that it exists as the interaction between the subject and the material. The whole point of pornography is to not just be a depiction of some sexually-arousing act, but to actually arouse.

          A) Horror films invoke fear, and many depictions of murder are designed to give the viewer a viceral charge, espcecially of revenge. Clearly fictional works of violence work very hard to arouse the emotions of the viewer.

          B) So what if someone gets aroused by a cartoon depiction of kiddie porn? "No child was harmed in the creation of this film." I abosolutly have no tolerance or empathy with child pornographers. I loathe them as the lowest form of existance. But that's because they hurt kids. If no kids are harmed, I don't really care how you get your jollies.

          TW
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Vicegrip (82853)
          Oh come on. The point of a horror novel is to scare you. The point of a murder drama is to empathize with the victim. The point of trash-mafia books it to make you feel like you are in the gangster culture-- to feel what it's like to be a thug.

          A well written book draws you into its story and compels you to finish it. I don't read books so I can observe disparately what is going on in the story.

          I for one do not want the government to start down the slippery slope of deciding which of my thoughts should be il
    • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <[Satanicpuppy] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday December 14, 2006 @11:02AM (#17237764) Journal
      What's wrong with cartoons depicting murder?

      The question is always, "By allowing this stuff to exist are we providing an outlet for an antisocial impulse, or are we feeding an antisocial desire?"

      It is rarely so clearcut. When the cops bust a pedophile, and he has a huge collection of child porn, they blame the porn for the pedophilia, but it's a chicken and egg problem.

      It's my feeling that people who are prone to committing these types of crimes will do it regardless of the existence of these videos, so the creation of these videos should be allowed in the hopes that they'll fill some of the kiddie porn niche that is currently filled by actual kiddie porn.

      You can't fight supply and demand. The regular sick exploitive stuff is already illegal, and yet still being made. Until you can find some way to make people not want this stuff, the existence of an animated substitute that doesn't involve a financial incentive for live action child porn doesn't seem like a bad thing.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14, 2006 @11:54AM (#17238856)
      o
      \|/ -- Naked twelve year old girl!
      / \

      0
      \|/ -- Naked prophet Muhammad!
      / \

      There, now I can never go to the UK *or* the middle east!
  • Mixed Blessing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Orclover (228413)
    Sounds like a long overdue idea at the forefront but where does the line get drawn? Do they stop at the internet "fantasy" sites that have started popping up or will they suddenly include Anime? What about some Mod for The Sims that some kid cooks up that makes all the characters naked? Would hate to think some poor bastard out there gets 10 years in prison for mixing together the perfect nudist colony on his sims block. Any chance they will just limit this to the internet pr0n sites that have cropped u
    • Re:Mixed Blessing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:44AM (#17237426)
      Would plain nudity qualify then? If so, does this qualify:

      (_|_) - butt of a minor

      Either way, I sympathize with the intent but I doubt it will do any good in practical terms.
    • by Qzukk (229616)
      or will they suddenly include Anime?

      At least Pretty Sammy/Magical Project S is safe, after all, in the original story, Sasami is 700 years old!

      Now if only there was such an excuse for Nanoha...
    • by DrSkwid (118965)
      > Sounds like a long overdue idea at the forefront

      sounds like one, but it isn't

      Keep the fuck out of my drawing book, mother fuckers.

      There's a world of difference between fucking a baby and some pixels.

      Reid is a fucking Nazi. I hope he dies soon.

      Did I make the depth of my feeling plain enough ?
      • by mikerich (120257)
        Reid is a fucking Nazi. I hope he dies soon.

        Actually he isn't.

        He did use to be a Marxist and he did accept hospitality from Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadic whilst Sarajevan civilians were being shelled in the streets - but he's not a Nazi.

        Just one question - is he worse than Blunkett?

    • because of the internet who gets to decide what the age of a child is?

      and what are the physical characteristics are we going to measure it by?

      and whats constitutes porn? Provocative poses? Skimpy clothing? No Clothing? touching or not touching?

      too many ways to bite everyone in the ass
  • I hate to tell people what they can and can't create on their computer, but if there were a situation that warranted it this might be it. I guess the real question is whether this starts down the slippery slope.
    • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:43AM (#17237404)
      I hate to tell people what they can and can't create on their computer, but if there were a situation that warranted it this might be it. I guess the real question is whether this starts down the slippery slope.

      As soon as start restricting anything people do *without hurting other people* on a moral basis, you're already slipping on the slope. I understand banning real child porn because children are hurt making it, and I can understand banning photoshopping greenbacks because the fiduciary system, and society in general is hurt, but whatever people do that hurts no-one should be nobody's business to regulate or ban, including peddling or collecting Nazi-ware, which is banned in Europe for some stupid reason I might add.

      Any state trying to prevent you from making or watching Hentai smells of police state. Plain and simple. And given the UK's recent track record in this domain, I can't say I'm surprised.
      • by balsy2001 (941953)
        Very good comment, I agree but for some reason it just doesn't feel quite right. But alas, feeling is not a good reason to make a law.
        • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <[Satanicpuppy] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday December 14, 2006 @11:20AM (#17238114) Journal
          It's hard to say, "Yea, people should be able to create animated child porn and collect Nazi memorabilia" because most people feel that that crosses an ethical line. No "decent" person should want that stuff, so who are we hurting when we ban it? Bunch of sickos? Who cares?

          But that's a bad precident to set, where the majority arbitrarily decides what is and is not acceptable for society. As long as no one is hurt/exploited/etc, society should be able to tolerate oddball fringes.

          The Nazi stuff is a good example. Europe is working hard to remove any hint that Nazism ever existed, but is that good for society? I've got a copy of the Krampf on my bookshelf at home...It's an excellent reminder of how some pointed hate rhetoric tailored for the masses can screw up the whole goddamn world. It's especially nice because there is a lot of that rhetoric still in play in the world, and it's good to be able to put it in it's proper category.
      • I can understand banning photoshopping greenbacks because the fiduciary system, and society in general is hurt

        I can't. In fact, that sounds remarkably like the other side of this issue! It's not the photoshopping that's harmful; what's harmful is the act of trying to pass the result off as real money. Therefore, it's that act that should be (and is) illegal, not the photoshopping.

        In the same way, it's the real child porn that's harmful, not the animated kind, so only the former should be illegal.

    • by Mr2cents (323101) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:45AM (#17237448)
      I disagree. I thought that the reason those photo's are forbidden was becauce you'd need to abuse children to make such photo's. If you just draw something on your computer, you're not harming anyone. Sure it's sick, but is that a crime?
    • by mikerich (120257)
      I hate to tell people what they can and can't create on their computer, but if there were a situation that warranted it this might be it. I guess the real question is whether this starts down the slippery slope.

      You might hate telling people what to do, but the corrupt authoritarian technocratic millionaires who run New Labour thrive on telling people what they can't do, what they must do, what they must pay to do it, where they can do it and where they can't, what they can eat, drink or smoke when doing

  • by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:37AM (#17237266) Journal
    What would constitute a child in a drawing? Would one of the figures have to be small? What if the creator said it was a midget? Would it have to say it was a child in a caption? Would it have to have pigtails or some streotypical childish feature? Would they ban people from play acting as kids during sex?

    How about realizing that you can't legislate away all the bad things in the world.
    • by BenjyD (316700)
      Exactly, I doubt this will ever get beyond committee stage in Parliament, it's just too hard to define. That, and the lack of any clear victim.
    • by PingSpike (947548) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:52AM (#17237566)
      You hit on all the points I was going to make. Its easy to get caught in the shock factor of "they're disgusting perverts!" but if you think about the implications of this law its a pretty dangerous precident. Child pornography laws already tread into some pretty iffy areas here in the US. (There are examples of parents being arrested for innocent naked pictures of their babies, although no convictions that I know of)

      You already touched on this...but I still feel like expanding. Sure, this might stop a few people from creating some hardcore fake porn featuring kids...but a fake child is hard to quantify isn't it? No one is going to write "kiddie porn" on their works so that leaves it up to the discretion of some fat busy-body somewhere to decide. Its a little easier to make the laws featuring real humans, since its easy enough to seperate them into 18 and not 18.

      It is a slipperly slope, because once you stop using their actual age as a factor and instead the appearance of their age all bets are off.
    • by testadicazzo (567430) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:58AM (#17237670) Homepage
      Do you know the robert crumb cartoon "big baby"? It's a character that looks like a huge curvy woman with a baby head sucking on a pacifier who just says "goo" and thinks cocks are big pacifiers, and cum is just like mothers milk. When she appeared on the cover of the "complete crumb" reprints he put a little blurb saying "relax folks, she's 18", for what I guess are obvious reasons. In the stories there's no reason to think she's 18.

      outlawing child porn to protect children is reasonable. But outlawing thinking about child porn, whether it be in a drawing or CGI is just though policing, and I'm thoroughly against thought police. In the example of R. Crumb, he was originally thought of as a big pornographer, and had a lot of troubles becuase of the things he decided to draw about. But the things he drew, although they were absolutely certainly without a doubte graphically depicting sexual child abuse in a cartoon form, are gradually being thought of as art rather than horrible seedy pornography. His stuff routinely gets shown in art galleries in the US and across Europe now, and consider pretty sides of the human psyche.

      I actually tried to bring this debate up at a party, shortly after the netherlands initiated a debate about outlawing virtual child porn (what happened with that anyway?). Everyone at the party (it was an office party, not really friends. I just wanted to bring up something more interesting than the banal shit they were bandying around) was grossly offended at the idea of virtual child porn, and one particularly stupid individual told me that once I had children I would understand that virtual child porn was wrong.

      Well, I'm not young, and I've been around the block a few times, and it's my considered opinion that pretending that certain things don't exist, and censoring their depiction or discussion don't eliminate those things. I don't think they even reduce them. I'm not sure of it, but I think open discussions and the ability to confront such things, and other peoples thoughts, ideas, and fantasies, even when grossly disturbing, actually helps reduce these things. It's the same reason I think it's reprehensible that some school libraries choose to censor mark twain, since his work depicts racism. It's anti racism, but they don't care. They don't like the fact that he shows an ugly side of American history.

      Put another way, and I guess I'm ripping this off of Noam Chomsky, freedom of speech is measured by how much freedom one has to say things we don't like to hear (or in this case see). Stalin and Hitler were perfectly content to let people communicate ideas and concepts they approved of, but we don't say they supported free speech.

      So yeah, kiddie porn is creepy and disturbing. But if no one was hurt in the production of such kiddie porn, it must not be made illegal. Same goes for depicting violent and nasty or disgusting sex acts. Deal with it, reality contains many creepy and difficult to face concepts. If you don't like them, stick you head as deep in the sand as you must. If you want to shelter your kids from these facts, then stick their heads in the sand too. But don't be surprised if they suffocate, and especially don't be surprised when they find themselves unable to deal with real dangers, threats and disturbing concepts that they might one day have to face.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:39AM (#17237324) Homepage
    At what point is it a good idea to attempt to regulate thoughts, feeling and their expression? At what point does it become bad? I find myself asking that question at every turn when I see laws regulating "morality."

    Some easy cases for regulation is in the constant sexually oriented marketing and the results it has on children. We like to turn a blind eye to the fact that "adult targetted advertisment" affects the way young developing minds perceive the world. (Yet at the same time, we recognize the fact when we are talking about tobacco and alcohol advertising?)

    I don't feel up to making cases against regulation -- I think they don't need to be stated -- I think they are pretty obvious. It's just bad to attempt to control thought.

    But perhaps what needs more control is the attempts at controlling thought themselves!!! Better controls on advertising. Better controls on laws on morality. Those kinds of controls might actually have a better chance at addressing the causes of the problems and not just the symptoms. The way I see things, frustrated and confused children growing up to be frustrated and confused adults are the problems and these crimes against children are the symptoms.
    • At what point is it a good idea to attempt to regulate thoughts, feeling and their expression?

      As soon as the government can get away with it

      Seriously, almost every single one denegrates towards this batshit-crazy stuff in the end before it's overthrown.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kopl (1027670)
      There is NO regulating thought. I find such an idea disturbing. Freedom of thought should be a more fundamental right than even freedom of speech. There is a better alternative. Law. Let them know that when they do do something illegal they will be arrested(and not enjoy the results). Morality doesn't just disappear when it isn't enforced. Most people eventually gain it.
  • Roald Dahl? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BenjyD (316700) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:42AM (#17237382)
    I expect they'll be arresting Quentin Blake for his illustrations of child abuse in Roald Dahl'sMatilda then.
  • by s31523 (926314)
    People must have some serious problems if they are taking the time to generate this kind of stuff.
  • Canada... (Score:3, Informative)

    by cbirkett (904502) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:53AM (#17237578) Homepage
    It's already illegal in Canada. Our criminal code practically outlaws dirty thoughts. Writing in your diary about sex with someone under 18 is enough to get you brought up on child pornography charges. Apparently it is much better if you go out and actually do the deed with a 14 year old (age of consent here).


    http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/280586.html#Sect ion-163.1 [justice.gc.ca]

    • by Jugalator (259273)
      That's funny... It means Canadians can't produce movies illustrating "lolita" behavior as the film with the same name did. Not that I care for such movies really, unless they'd have a really good script, in which case they'd be our loss. I also have to wonder if Brooke Shields actually suffered any psychological trauma from the recording of that movie? If not, and if it's not common, who are we protecting in this case, really?
  • Moo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chacham (981) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:53AM (#17237596) Homepage Journal
    We must ask for the facts sometimes, because perhaps it has lost its original meaning in the emotional charge the masses have given to it.

    I remember watching the debates on the flag burning amendment. One Representative burnt a napkin with a flag on it at the podium saying that if we ban flag burning, that action would be illegal.

    Regardless of the issue of flag burning, he had a point. Even those who are for the amendment don't intend it to go that so far as destroying any image resembling a flag, so perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of patriotism.

    I find the same point to be applicable here. Whether stopping child porn will help protect the children or not is irrelevant, those who promote child porn bans by saying it will help, probably don't intend for it to ban all images resembling it, and they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren [slashdot.org].

    There is another, at first helpful but then noticeably nefarious, movement here. Some find pedophilia in-and-of-itself to be so loathesome they want to strip all pedophiles of everything, regardless of whether it helps the children or not. This then would become an issue of freedom. If there is no victim, and they keep to themselves, why should anyone else care. If it is because it may in the future hurt a child, again, perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren [slashdot.org].
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      There is another, at first helpful but then noticeably nefarious, movement here. Some find pedophilia in-and-of-itself to be so loathesome they want to strip all pedophiles of everything, regardless of whether it helps the children or not.

      From the owner of www.perverted-justice.com and creator of "To catch a predator" on Dateline NBC.

      (and this is a direct quote)

      My goal is not to protect minors...It's to go after pedophiles...it's because pedophiles are disgusting people...That's why we go after them.
  • by SpecialAgentXXX (623692) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @10:57AM (#17237668)
    There are plenty of websites out there that feature "barely legal" young women who are 18 and over. They usually have them dressed in schoolgirl outfits or acting like a "girly high school girl." Would that be considered illegal because it "simulates" an underage girl?

    As for cartoons, how the hell does a court determine whether or not the drawn picture is of an underage girl, or a "barely legal" 18 year old? And why is this such a big deal? I thought the whole point in stopping child porn is because it exploits and abuses the children. Who is abused when an artist draws pictures? For there to be a crime, there has to be a victim. Where's the victim?
    • As for cartoons, how the hell does a court determine whether or not the drawn picture is of an underage girl, or a "barely legal" 18 year old?

      You zoom in really much on the pixels, and if they have fewer than 18 age rings on them, the pixels are too young. :-p

      Seriously, yeah, that judgment would be entirely left up for the law to make, and with as exaggerated erotica the computer generated art I've seen can be, that should be an interesting judgment to watch to say the least.

    • For there to be a crime, there has to be a victim. Where's the victim?

      You must be new here. And by here I mean to organized government.

    • And why is this such a big deal? I thought the whole point in stopping child porn is because it exploits and abuses the children.

      So there are at least two issues here. One is legislating morality. Lots of people in power like to do that. It's not justified.

      Second is preventing crime. The theory is if you take a mentally unstable person and bathe him in child porn, virtual or not, he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent
      • by StewedSquirrel (574170) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @12:21PM (#17239392)
        The theory is if you take a mentally unstable person and bathe him in child porn, virtual or not, he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.

        By this logic, 'gangsta' rap music should be illegal in the highest degree.

        Take an underprivledged kid, put them on the street and bathhe them in masoginistic, violent, crime ridden lyrics and he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.

        Now that I've said it that way, does it not reflect on how absurd the argument is?

        Stewed
  • What else should we expect since so many english politicians were recently caught in dirty affairs.
  • by NorbrookC (674063) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @11:05AM (#17237860) Journal

    Is it just me, or does it seem like every time there are real issues that need addressing, but require a lot of effort and a change in government policy, said government comes up with some diversionary issue?

    "We need to reevaluate our Iraq policy." "Right, here's a measure we need to fight child pornography!" "We've got an immigration issue." "BTW, did we mention this epidemic of child porn?" "We have to look at healthcare costs" "Look! Kid porn! Child molesters!" It's a quick hot-button issue that allows them to spend immense amounts of time pontificating, while diverting public attention from any lack of work on real issues.

    That's not even asking the question of "Why didn't the last 10 laws you passed on this subject work, or why didn't you enforce them?" Which is the question I'm asking of them. Until they have a good answer, I letting them know that I expect them to stop trying to divert me, and get to work on real issues.

    • It's just you. Sort of. All governments constantly come up with stupid issues all the time. The correleation is merely preceptual bias, like people thinking there's more crime during the full moon.
  • IANAL but I thought CG depictions of child sexuality are already illegal in the United States. The relevent code, I think, is Title 18, Chapter 110 [cornell.edu] -- in particular, see Section 2252A [cornell.edu] and Section 2256 [cornell.edu].

    From 18 USC 2256:

    (8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where--
    (A) the production of such visual dep

    • by Jugalator (259273)
         o
        -+-
        / \

      Tee-hee... This is John, 13 years old, stark naked in a full frontal pose.
      Made you regret you clicked on this link, didn't I ??

    • by Jugalator (259273)
      graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;

      "lascivious simulated sexual intercourse"

      Seems they closed the legal loophole for creating sites with underage genital-nasal sex and not call it sexually explicit. ;)
  • by kahei (466208)

    The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the la -- hang on, I posted that yesterday or something.

    Are we reaching a situation where vague, ill-defined laws that basically criminalize whatever's unpopular or unprofitable or unlucky are actually being made faster than I can quote Tacitus? In the UK I'd say we are.

    • by alexgieg (948359)
      Brazil is worse. Last time the number of laws we have was in the 1.5 million range. Good luck we, the Brazilian people, have this custom of just ignoring it all. But more law-abiding countries surely have a huge problem on the horizon.
  • ... if progress can only be achieved by outlawing thought-crime.

    What I'd really love to see is some way to put a cost on creating legislation. Just so that people can't just create legislation for the sake of looking good.
  • by Wellington Grey (942717) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @11:18AM (#17238094) Homepage Journal
    O
    /|\
    |_
    / \


    So... is that ascii drawing child porn? What if I say it's a drawing of a child?

    -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
  • I'm sorry for UK fans of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi [wikipedia.org]. It's one of the funniest manga teen comedies I've ever read, but due to the protagonist being a 10-year old who is surrounded by partially naked teen girls, it might end up being targeted by such a dumb law. How absurd!
  • Check out the cover [airbrushaction.com] to this month's Air Brush Action.

    Now let's just assume that Dru Blair decides, for whatever reason, to paint a naked child and post it on the internet. Is that a violation of the proposed law?

    Humans have always created images. Humans will always create images. The computer is just another tool that happens to also be good at distribution.

    Even in cultures that frown upon "realistic" images art is created. Now, I don't know what is going through the minds of those that look at the a

  • Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child. This in turn makes it easier for themselves to justify or at least in some form allows them to rationalize that what they are doing is ok. Who knows how many more innocent victims there have been because of the availability of this type of material on the internet. We have all seen "To Catch a Predator" on TV.....this exact type of material is creating an e
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dunbal (464142)
      Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child.

      Proof, please?

      By the way, I guess I am doomed to become a child molester, since I regularly see and touch naked children every day as a physician? I might as well shoot myself now and save myself the embarrassment of a trial and then having to register as a "sex offender", right? Correlation does not equal causation.
    • Why? (Score:3, Informative)

      by rhombic (140326)
      Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes[sic] its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child.

      Unless you care to provide a source for this "fact" other than your ass, I'm curious why I should "face it". I could argue the opposite, allowing someone who feels such tendencies to view totally computer generated images could reduce the likelihood that they will engage in such behavior in a manner that actually harms a kid. But the honest truth is, I can
  • by Viol8 (599362) on Thursday December 14, 2006 @11:42AM (#17238576)
    Fine , ban these virtual images of child porn. Presumably all the carved cherubs and statues in fountains of pissing children will have to go too , not to mention numerous works of art. No? Oh and why's that then Mr Reid? Oh , of course , its called double standards, something politicians are past masters at.

Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.

Working...