UK Wants To Ban Computer-Generated Child Porn

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."

Ban bad thoughts too

[Hoi Polloi (522990)]

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.

Re:Ban bad thoughts too

[testadicazzo (567430)]

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.

Roald Dahl?

[BenjyD (316700)]

I expect they'll be arresting Quentin Blake for his illustrations of child abuse in Roald Dahl'sMatilda then.

Explicit girlfriend in schoolgirl outfit illegal??

[SpecialAgentXXX (623692)]

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?

Re:Legislating Morality vs Preventing Crime

[StewedSquirrel (574170)]

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

Diverting from real issues

[NorbrookC (674063)]

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.

The difference is

[oliverthered (187439)]

In real child porn a child is being abused.
In 'virtual' child porn no children are being abused.

Re:The difference is

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Furthermore, it could be argued that this kind of stuff existing could alter the behavior of pedophiles.

Indeed -- argued both ways, no less! It could alter the behavior by making them want to act on their urges with real children more, or it could alter the behavior by satisfying their urges so they no longer feel the need to go after real kids.

Re:The difference is

[mutterc (828335)]

Somehow I doubt that was original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Pornography certainly did exist during the time of the Founding Fathers (heck, it probably dates back to the first cave paintings). I imagine if they didn't want free speech protections to apply to porn, they could have said so.

Re:The difference is

[Zenaku (821866)]

Even if it doesn't, I'm a little tired of this idea that free speech extends to pornography. Somehow I doubt that was original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Don't elevate "the intent of the founding fathers" to some kind of pedestal. I'm a little tired of the idea that the intent of the founding fathers defines the intractable limits of our rights. They were men, not gods. They didn't intend freedom of speech, or assembly, or the right to bear arms, or the right to due process to extend to black people, after all. They didn't intend voting rights to extend to females.

Re:Oh noes!

[omeg (907329)]

That /is/ next. See, they will never be able to accurately define which drawn cartoons can be seen as child porn and which can't. That, in turn, will allow them to effectively ban a much wider range of them; in the end, all cartoon pornography is vulnerable.

I don't particularly care for cartoon pornography, especially when it depicts children, but I really wonder if it is the right way to ban it. Does anyone know of studies that prove this kind of stuff to be benevolent or malevolent? I don't ever recall hearing facts being stated when someone argues for this kind of stuff to be banned.

Re:Oh noes!

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

Reminds me of a post once where someone asked why China's Ministry of Truth was so effective at censorship.

By not saying "You're prohibited from discussing topics X, Y, and Z" and instead just hauling people off to prison when they decide the line has been crossed, people censor themselves far more effectively.

Re:I'll be the flamebait

[Rosco P. Coltrane (209368)]

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.

Re:I'll be the flamebait

[Mr2cents (323101)]

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?

Re:What's the big deal?

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

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.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Billosaur (927319)]

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?

I'd like to keep Joe Camel out of this

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

Joe Camel really has nothing at all to do with this. The violent video games and porn cartoons are directed at adults, and meant to be restricted from viewing or use by children. If you show a child hentai, you're guilty of child abuse.

The Joe Camel cigarette ads, on the other hand, were directed toward the general public and viewable everywhere, including places children would see them.

Re:Let's not play word games

[StewedSquirrel (574170)]

Wow, the only thing missing is

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"

Your post is a series of "yes, but" and "what if".

What if child porn incites pedophiles? Is there any evidence at all of this? No, there isn't. People claim it's "common sense" and site statistics that show 70% of molestors have viewed child porn.

Know what? I'd bet 90% of married men have viewed straight porn. Can I conclude that porn incites marraige?

There is no provable connection, nor is there even anicdotal evidence that shows a causal link.

I, personally, believe that porn is a great outlet for people who would otherwise do freaky things... like that guy in college who had the bestiality porn.... (not joking).

Stew

Words are not Deeds

[The Monster (227884)]

We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed. It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal".

I don't believe this. I think you've got cause and effect reversed. There's plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that letting people look at porn diffuses their 'lustful mentality' so that they are not as likely to commit an act of physical abuse. That some people's appetites cannot be satisfied by the porn does not equate to the porn causing the appetite itself.

Let's suppose that you're chosen for a jury in a kiddie porn case. In order to render a verdict against the accused, you'll have to look at the porn. Will this make you go out and rape kids? No, it won't. That's because porn doesn't make normal people commit physical acts against others.

But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. Making pictures that 'encurage' activities is the expression of an idea, which isn't the same thing as the activities themselves. If someone abuses a child, they have committed an act against an actual person, which is justly punished. If all they're doing is looking at pictures and thinking about it, no one has been harmed, so there is no justification for sending Men With Badges And Guns to stop it.

Got that, pervs? Look, but don't touch, m'kay?

Re:Let's not play word games

[TFloore (27278)]

We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed. It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal". It's the same problem that is caused by allowing pre-teen and teen models to be dressed up as if they were adults by clothing advertisers.

How is this different from trying to ban violent video games?

Either you know the difference between fantasy and reality, in which case CGI child porn should not be banned... or you don't, and violent video games should be banned also, by the same reasoning you use above.

Be very careful with your thinking, lest it be applied in ways you won't like. Decisions are not made in isolation, and consistency of thought is important.

Re:Let's not play word games

[NeutronCowboy (896098)]

It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal".

Does it really? Do you have some evidence for that? Or is that just random extrapolation "because it makes sense?" From what I've seen and read, paedophilia is triggered in the vast majority of cases by the abuser having been abused himself. They're merely perpetuating their own experiences. Child porn never caused someone to become a child molester. Besides, are you really arguing that paedophilia has increased since people had more access to child porn?
The potential benefit of a law has to always be weighted against its potential drawbacks. In this case, benefits are imaginary, while the drawbacks will happen immediately. Or are you planning on relying on all artists labeling their art with "child porn here", so that law-enforcement doesn't have to rely on completely arbitrary yardsticks?

Re:What's the big deal?

[neoform (551705)]

We should also ban images depicting murder.. and books.. and movies.. and talking about crime.. and thinking about crime.. and thinking.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Total_Wimp (564548)]

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:What's the big deal?

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

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.

Re:What's the big deal?

[AndersOSU (873247)]

Just for slashdot's education, based on my non-lawyer reading this has been illegal in the US for some time:
(a) In General.-- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

...

(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.-- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

source [cornell.edu]
(emphasis mine)