Graphic Artists Condemn UK Ban On Erotic Comics 408
mdwh2 writes "Graphic artists, publishers and MPs have condemned the UK's Coroners and Justice Bill, which will criminalize possession of sexual depictions that appear to show someone under 18 (the age of consent is 16 in the UK), as well as adults where the 'predominant impression conveyed' is of someone under 18, and even if they are merely drawn as being present whilst sexual activity took place between adults. The definitions could include Lost Girls, Watchmen, and South Park. The Comic Book Alliance has launched a petition against the law."
Just like... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like here in Australia, where we said that Bart and Lisa were real people and if you draw/possess/distribute pictures of them naked, you go to jail. In the UK, that extends to South Park.
Well, that's a'right. I'm listing Bart, Lisa and Maggie as dependants on my tax return this year, as well registering Maggie to get the baby bonus (she's obviously only a year old or so so she counts- every year too!). I recommend UK citizens do the same for Kyle, Stan, Kenny and Cartman.
Of course, the UK government will not see the humour in that. Ridiculous extremes only apply when used against the people, not for them.
Re:Just like... (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Sasayaki
The IRS has it on good authority that you owe approximately $529,000 in unpaid child support for your children Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson. Our records show you are delinquent on every payment since the birth of each child. Your tax rebate has been rejected and you now owe us $528,500.
Love
The IRS
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dear IRS,
Do you accept drawings of dollar bills as payment?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The IRS will get you no matter where you go, even if you're holding the wrong citizenship.
Re:Just like... (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be kind of ironic considering some of the comments when the logo for the 2012 London Olympics was first shown.
Standard (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand the need to keep an eye on the perverts who pass themselves off as artists, but guys, myself included, routinely joke about checking ID before sleeping with a chick for good reason.
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the need to keep an eye on the perverts who pass themselves off as artists
Why?
Cops should deal with perverts who touch kids. Victimless crimes are just tools for fearmongering politicians to get the attention and votes of self-centered parents.
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
What difference does that make?
Seriously, do you get some sort of moral authority from parenthood? Is there a badge?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What "facts" only come into existence once one has children?
Oh! You mistook your irrational craziness for facts! Now I understand.
Re:Standard (Score:5, Funny)
The difference it makes is that if you've never had kids then you can only reliably argue half the facts, meaning your argument is flawed from the get-go.
This is exactly why I only listen to child molesters.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is exactly why I only listen to child molesters.
I have candy. Now get in the van!
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Get off it.
The problem with a law like this is that it affects everyone in society, regardless of whether parasites have erupted from their groins. Despite the fact that I do not have children, I am very much a part of society, and I don't want to live in a society where fake things are considered real.
Furthermore, just because I haven't had kids myself doesn't mean I don't know anything about them. It may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but I actually spent quite a few years as a kid myself, and I can report that I can't imagine much lewd material even getting to me in the first place (my parents did their job), and what little did did not seem to scar me irrevocably. What's worse about this particular law is that, as children, my friends and I often drew (admittedly poor) renditions of girls in class whom we liked sans clothes. This is pretty normal for heterosexual boys growing up, and such a law would very definitely have hurt me during those times.
Child molestation is so ridiculously rare, that, like terrorism, all the trouble of trying to stop it is far worse than the problem. Kids aren't molested by dirty pictures; they're molested by their family members and the clergy. Don't come around bothering me over dirty pictures while Father O'Malley sodomizes little Timmy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially given that the consequences are harmful to society.
hat's worse about this particular law is that, as children, my friends and I often drew (admittedly poor) renditions of girls in class whom we liked sans clothes. This is pretty normal for heterosexual boys growing up, and such a law would very definitely have hurt me during those times.
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because none of us were ever children.......
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference it makes is that if you've never had kids then you can only reliably argue half the facts, meaning your argument is flawed from the get-go.
And if you have kids, then you've forgotten what's it like to not have kids. And of course, you can't have a legitimate opinion on child molestation until you've molested a child. Do I have your argument down correctly? I think I do.
Let's consider one of those amateur moral debates. Suppose you had to chose between my life and the life of your child or children. You probably would chose the life of your own. Similarly for me. This is, if you will, a normally minor conflict of interest between us.
My view is that you are confusing your interests with some sort of moral knowledge. I don't have children, but I believe I would maintain my views even if I had children. I have considered those other viewpoints. At a wild and perhaps unfair guess, I'd wager that you had an awakening when you have one or more children and experienced a new way of viewing the world. To continue, you probably now view that former self as ignorant or worse. My take is that you are being too unfair on people like your former self. We never will have a full view of the world or of implications of moral dilemmas. We must decide based on incomplete knowledge and experience, subject to our biases.
My view is that no matter how this law is interpreted or implemented, it will never have a measurable effect on the evils of exploiting children for pornography and sex. In exchange, it burdens society with more pointless restrictions and increases the power of government. Allowing politicians to make laws with negligible moral impact and thereby rewarding those politicians with increased power is one of the worst things a democracy can do.
Opposing laws like this are some of those things that you should do for your children.
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes... But then perverts might have satisfaction. They might be able to hide amongst us and function as normal members of society, rather than being ostracized and constantly punished for being born that way. Surely you agree that sacrificing a few children is an acceptable price for the righteous cause of making pedophiles less comfortable?
The thing is, p
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They may think they want kids and will do a good job but you just don't see the whole picture until they have kids.
It's cute when parents get all defensive about their little precious child and try to get the whole world and its laws to revolve around their child. But while telling the world to fear the guy drawing a naked 16 year old they forget to tell you that it
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
How does some weirdo drawing Lisa Simpson naked harm my kids any more than it does me?
No one is arguing that actual child molesters shouldn't be punished, but passing laws against even depicting such things is not just nonsense; it's dangerous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Standard (Score:5, Funny)
All of my children are fictional drawings, and until you have fictional drawings of your own you can't understand how important it is to protect them with laws like this one. Parents of real children may consider laws like this repressive to artists and irrelevant to public safety, but that's because they don't know the pain of having your beloved pixels molested.
Dear Politician... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind that lot, it means virtually all St. Trinian's TV shows are now illegal to own or watch, and all BBC General Directors since the 1960s will now have to file as sex offenders.
(Well, that last part isn't too bad, I suppose.)
Re:Dear Politician... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dear Politician... (Score:4, Insightful)
How do we know it wasn't for their sexual gratification. That's before even considering ideas like "rape is more about power than sex" or even that there are plenty of people who find power to be sexually arrousing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because as with other crimes it often isn't the motive of perpetrator but rather the effect upon the victim. Motives are just convenient to persuading juries that the crime actually did occur. I'd love to see a study done to determine whether the many actions humans perform necessarily have a registrable motive. I suspect many actions don't. Certainly many actions aren't premeditated as such.
Re:Dear Politician... (Score:4, Insightful)
But cartoons aren't ART!
For it to be art, it has to be old!
Stick figure porn (Score:2, Interesting)
XKCD should draw stick figure porn in protest..
We should all protest with placards showing stick figure porn.. I am sure the children won't understand it.
What next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Talk about B.S.
What next?
Getting arrested for stalking or mugging just because you and some paranoid idiot were walking the same direction on a mostly deserted street?
Hey, I'm over 16. (Score:2)
which will criminalize possession of sexual depictions that appear to show someone under 18 (the age of consent is 16 in the UK)
Well, since the age of consent for this law is 16, then can't I simply not consent to be governed by this law?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you go to school at St. Trinian's [youtube.com], apparently, where you can not only sexualize under-18s [youtube.com] but be totally disrespectful of the armed forces [youtube.com], avocate the illegal destruction of Government property [youtube.com] and violate international law. [youtube.com]
Ban the Bible = Incest, Rape, Murder, Genocide (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all in there!
Perverts have been forcing it on children for thousands of years!
The sickness must stop!
Hitler studied to be a Catholic Priest.
Stalin studied to be an Orthadox Priest.
Almost everyone convicted of a violent crime in the US is religious. Worldwide, every single major terrorist incident was committed by religious people.
So again, if we are going to ban something for the good of everyone it should be the Bible, not comic books.
Re:Ban the Bible = Incest, Rape, Murder, Genocide (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a better idea. Ban penises. Then kill anyone who has one.
Some people hurt other people. Therefore all people are bad and should be outlawed. If all the men are dead, humanity will die out within a century. There will be no more war, no more violence, no more hypocrisy.
The plan is foolproof.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, the parent comment gets +3 Insightful, and I get Flamebait for agreement?
The slope begins here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Absurd and naive (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if anyone would be so bold as to do the right thing, and suggest a law protecting artistic expression in the UK, equivalent in scope to American Freedom of Speech?
Re: (Score:3)
Erm, I wouldn't say American Freedom of Speech is all that wide in scope. If what I read on Slashdot is correct, American Freedom of Speech only applies where the government wants it to apply and when the government wants it to apply.
Facebook and cell phones are full of pr0n (Score:5, Insightful)
If it hasn't happened already, I imagine that pretty soon the number of "child" porn (by the legal definition) images on social networking sites and cell phones will out-number all the other child porn images ever created.
There's just no sense in laws that make images of naked people under the age of 18 illegal. Punish the people who actually commit crimes of child abuse.
A little too alarmist (Score:2, Informative)
But I don't see how any of those works are threatened by the definitions.
If anything, the law is less threating to legitimate art than existing obscenity laws in the US. If this law simply means possession of child porn is illegal regardless of how it was p
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thoughtcrime, of course.
Re:A little too alarmist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A little too alarmist (Score:5, Insightful)
Appear? (Score:5, Interesting)
Appear to show someone under eighteen? Under such a law, there would be two possible responses:
1. Only depict people who are obviously middle-aged or older having sex.
2. Write stories in which all of the characters are androids. This could include, of course, androids that look like three-year-olds having sex with robots that look like dogs.
While I have no particular interest in seeing either option, I certainly hope someone puts both in the same comic book and sells it in every comic store in the UK.
Pornography? (Score:2, Insightful)
"An image is "pornographic" if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."
That's a rather broad definition... Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, Victoria's Secret catalogues, and just about anything that directly or indirectly invokes the "sex sells!" marketing theory.
Once again (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm almost 30 and I own several thousand comic books, probably 30 graphic novels, and actively collect 6 or 7 titles every month. I own the Watchmen and several other titles that would be taboo under this law. None of what's in any of these is more pornographic that he Clan of the Cave Bear series by Jean M. Auel, which my parents gave me to read when I was 13. They'd already read the books a couple of years before and knew about the sex scenes. My wife read Flowers in the Attic around the same age and she tells me that the oldest boy rapes his sister.
Neither of these books come with warnings about the graphic nature of their content or laws to prevent their dissemination to children 2 years above the legal age of consent (WTF, this is akin to the difference between the draft age and legal purchase of alcohol in the US).
My wife is pregnant with our first child and I hope that I never become so irresponsible that I want the government to censor artistic expression because I'm too lazy to investigate the media my children are interested in before I let them consume it. My parents used the Clan of the Cave Bear books as a starting point for the discussion of, not only reproduction, but relationships and human sexuality. I'm sure my parents were embarrased, but that was there job NOT the governments.
For the most part people have little problem with sex or sexuality in visual art. How many nude paintings did you see on your field trips to art museums growing up? For the most part people also have little problem with sex or sexuality in written art. I can't count the number of novels I read in middle school and high school that at least made reference to sex. However, when you combine the visual and written medium everyone looses their Fracking mind if anything taboo comes up (Drugs, sex, etc were the original reason for creating the Comics Code here in the US).
It's all just Nanny State BS.
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up a good point. In my policy analysis classes, we considered the validity of assumptions behind laws - causal, jurisdictional, etc. It seems that this is a portion of theory that scientists are held to relatively strictly, but which our lawmakers often fail to address.
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Child pornography is a subset of the term obscenity (at least, if you're a healthy individual it is).
Although drawing a naked baby being raped by guys in rabbit suits might not involve any children who once or ever will exist, it's still obscene. Lots of laws exist to prevent that level of obscenity. There are lots of reasons why it's obscene. Let's not get into that debate though, there's Wikipedia if we need to look up basic definitions.
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
And what's wrong with obscenity?
I understand obscene material bothers some people, but as long as they're not forced to watch it, I don't see why I can't.
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope to hell you're being ironic/joking, and I just got wooshed.
Otherwise, fuck off. It's irrelevant what 'decent people' think. It doesn't affect them, unless they want it to.
Sharia law is moral to Muslims... but we don't like when it's legislated. So stop being hypocrites and stop trying to legislate morality. How do you know that your morality is right? What if somebody did it to you? A muslim is every bit as convinced of their correctness as you are. Perhaps more relevantly, I am every bit as convinced as you are that my morality (who cares if it doesn't affect me) is correct, nay more correct.
Since we can't know either way, law has no business being involved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And frankly, I can handle Christian-based laws (to an extent). It's things like Sharia law that really scare me. I'm not keen on things like my wife being legally stoned to death for marrying a non-Muslim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
But drawing people being torn apart or burned or tortured (non-sexually) is not obscene? I suppose I must have missed the memo explaining how X+sex is evil and must be banned, when X is tolerated and "free speech" and what not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same applies to movies and TV. e.g. the first (1977) Star Wars movie was classified as suitable for all audiences, even though it includes the use of a WMD which killed huge numbers of people.
I suppose I must have missed the memo explaining how X+sex is evil and must be banned, when X is tolerated and "free speech" and what not.
The "violence is ok, sex is not" idea appears most common in the US. Where apparentl
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think *anyone* can be the go-to person for what's obscene. There's no point in trying to regulate things that exist solely in the mind of the beholder. They might as well make it illegal to draw anything except fine art, or only allow fine music to be played on radio stations.
If some people are allowed to revel in what they consider the best things that society can produce, why can't other people revel in the worst of society?
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where does prohibition figure in this I wonder. For example, in the USA there seems to be a big thing about seeing breasts (and topless bathing is, as I understand it, illegal), whereas in Europe (where it's mostly legal, especially the Med beaches), breasts are two a penny and not such a big deal!
Stepping over to the Scandinavian countries and there they have a still more open attidute, and full nudity seems to be no big deal.
Is there a frisson of excitement added to the pot for images deemed 'obscene'? Think of TubGirl (OK ... actually, let's not think of it!). How many of you have seen it? Is that obscene? I'd say it was obscene, and yet I've seen it (actually, of course without seeing it you can't really judge!). I've seen it and, strangely, it's not something I suddenly want to try for myself either! So can something be "obscene" and yet not "dangerous"? So it it's not dangerous why talk about making such images illegal?
As with all censorship, it's Mr. Outraged, of Middle England, trying to impose their values on everyone else, because they are right and we all need protecting from ourselves!
Do I think some things should be illegal - HELL YES! Culottes for a start, they're just Devil's Trousers!
In this case, do I think it's right to ban cartoon images of minors in sexual situations. Blimey! That's a tough one. A blanked YES will catch stuff like South Park, and is therefore, IMHO, obviously wrong - but for sure people are going "too far" in other areas and it makes sense to try and formulate a legal response in those cases. I don't know what the answer is, or even if it would be possible to distinguish South Park from South Pron in some useful legal way?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
whereas in Europe (where it's mostly legal, especially the Med beaches), breasts are two a penny and not such a big deal!
Really? I've got like $6.25 on me... can I get some of that brand of fun sent over here?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
If something done by A is harmful to B, and B hasn't consented to it (which includes being old enough to consent), then maybe there is a case for government involvement. But if there is no demonstrated harm then what the hell business is it of government????
We are about to go through this in Canada where, after years of soap-boxing by a tiny number of ideologically oriented journalists, the government is about to find out if the law against polygamy is constitutional. They are going to prosecute s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you saying that you're the go-to guy on what's obscene?
No, but you seem to be saying that you are. Your posts repeatedly imply that obscenity is an absolute--that there is a basic definition (you even referred us to Wikipedia, as if that's an agreed-upon resource.)
Meanwhile, for many of us "obscenity" is a code word for "I want to impose my morality on others", for people out to do that are far & away the most likely to use the term. And you, like they do, imply that there can be an agreed-upon definition. But somehow the "obscenity line" is always a movi
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Weird. I thought anti-CP laws were about preventing child abuse. But if they are simply about obscenity... well, from now on I'll have to regard CP-producers as free speech activists!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I meant it in the sense that child pornography is obscene rather than all obscenity being child pornography. I could have explained that more clearly but I don't see how you got confused. Did you misinterpret that deliberately?
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Define the word. For me, "obscene" means: something that makes the prudes freak out.
Andres Serrano. HR Giger. Larry Flynt. 2 Live Crew. Mortal Kombat. Jyllands-Posten. Getting the idea now?
You just don't get do you? (Score:3, Insightful)
OTHERS WILL MISINTERPRET THIS ON PURPOSE!
The MOMENT you allow a matter of taste "obscene" to be part of law then you can just wait for SOMEONE to classify something as obscene that you don't agree with.
Jazz was obscene to the nazi's. Godwin be damned, either you have freedom of speech or you don't and if you don't want speech that you find obscene then you can't have free speech and sooner or later someone will find what you find normal obscene.
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Although drawing a naked baby being raped by guys in rabbit suits might not involve any children who once or ever will exist, it's still obscene.
What's obscene is that you consider it your business to tell people what they can draw.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
When your house gets raided and the material you intended to keep private gets seized and is no longer private, we'll see how you feel about that argument.
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just curious as to how the brits are taking the movie "The Reader" ?.. Course we are not talking about infants, and the fact that the one being 15 is a boy instead of a girl lets it slide I suppose.. but couldn't this movie fall under those laws ?
I liked the movie.. but you have to wonder what happens if you place it in modern day, and or reverse the roles to older man younger girl.. some people would be freaking out, you can be sure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Child pornography is a subset of the term obscenity (at least, if you're a healthy individual it is).
Well, if the UK law is anything like the US law, it's not a subset of obscenity -- in fact, child porn is another category entirely precisely so that prosecutors don't have to meet the "obscenity" standard in order to prosecute child porn (because, as the GP noted, child porn inherently exploits the children in the porn). This was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court a few years ago when dealing with "virtual child porn"; this case raises the same issues.
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not proven. And even if it were, not anybody else's business.
See above.
Not proven.
Not proven - so vague as to be meaningless, hence unprovable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That presumes that they can sublimate their urges with the piece of paper. I'm no expert but I've seen precious evidence of that(or the opposing view that seeing the piece of paper makes them more likely to act out). Humans are just too complicated to agree on a reaction to a single stimulus.
http://www.impactlab.com/2008/01/06/internet-porn-shown-to-decrease-incidence-of-rape/ [impactlab.com]
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as no actual child is harmed, I cannot argue with fictional representations of sexual acts involving children. Are they repulsive? Yes. I'll still fight hard to defend the right to create such content, on the grounds that no actual person is being hurt.
In short, I find your agreement with legislating morality as it pertains to freedom of expression to be obscene.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that sort of "reasoning" is the frictionless surface on the slippery slope to tyranny.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Although drawing a naked baby being raped by guys in rabbit suits might not involve any children who once or ever will exist, it's still obscene.
Yep.
Someone able to imagine so obscene things, with rabbits and so, and put them in a drawing, should be severely punished. 12 months in prision.
Allowing some reduction if the drawings are only drafts and not very detailed.
If they colored them, 6 extra months.
3-6 years for animation attempts.
Ah, and you will no go away free... ./
Expect for at least 3 months for writting the script. 3 extra for making it public in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Child pornography
This is not a law on child pornography (which involves the abuse of children), it is a law on fictional depictions of under-18s, as well as adults with a predominant impression of someone under 18. Please RTFS.
Secondly, we already have laws against obscenity - as you say yourself. What is the justification of a new law then, one that covers simple private possession? The justification for obscenity laws is ropey enough in the first place, but the concept of "Obscenity" only has meaning in t
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:4, Insightful)
furthermore, when drawing stick people, how do you tell a dwarf from a child...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Common sense would dictate that vanilla stick figures don't have the detail needed to accurately depict certain things. If you start adding more detail, they're not really stick figures anymore.
You might draw two perpendicular stick figures and write "guy fucking a baby" underneath it. Then I'd argue that the title would be considered obscene and the drawing is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might draw two perpendicular stick figures and write "guy fucking a baby" underneath it. Then I'd argue that the title would be considered obscene and the drawing is irrelevant.
Do you think that writing "guy fucking a baby" should therefore result in a three year prison sentence?
If so, you'd better report to the local police station, because you've just done it. If you don't, do you agree that it shouldn't for a drawing, either?
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Common sense would dictate
Law does not work that way :(
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No way...No doubt that it is preverse, but the only thing that should be illegal is is what the neighbor did to the baby - and maybe if you just watched it and jerked off instead of trying to stop it that should probably be illegal..
But if you were to talk about it or draw a picture. Why should that be illegal?
My theory that I just came up with is that repressed people don't like being reminded that they are capable of doing fucked up shit - therefore they try to repress it in themselves and others - the on
law direction: Control! (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is not to prevent anything, but to use the current 'witchhunt'-flavor of the day (or generation) to implement laws that enable government to 'optionally' criminalize everyone to allow selective enforcement.]
There is a threat that people might actually not break the law -- in which case, the power of a government is hampered in its ability to establish control through threat.
If there are few laws, then when the government wants to silence you, people ask why. If the law is so complex you that ever
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think obscenity is the diametric opposite of moral. The concepts don't exclude each other. It's fairly safe to assume that the side claiming to base its choices on moral arguments is the one most likely to describe something as obscene.
I think we all agree that obscene things can be made illegal to produce, but nobody agrees on the definition of obscenity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speak for yourself buddy. I'm of the opinion that making the production of "obscene things" illegal is an anathema to free society. And I think you'll be hard pressed to find many allies here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>I think we all agree that obscene things can be made illegal to produce
No we don't. The right to liberated speech should Not be curtailed if there are no victims. If I want to draw Wonder Woman or Supergirl as a young child without clothes, so be it. You cannot victimize ink-on-paper. No crime has been committed unless you imprison me, and then you've committed the crime of human rights' abuse.
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are things which considered obscene recently (illegal within the last 30 years) which I probably would have never considered doing if I had never heard of them.
OTH, there are other things that are legal (and lots of web sites for) that I didn't find out about until I was nearly 50 that I didn't have an interest in doing (and found distressing/repulsive).
So, for at least one person (me)
a) Some things I've done I would have never done unless I learned about them but I enjoy them.
b) Some things I would never have thought of/done and now would never even tho I learned about them.
So, I guess your mileage may vary.
Re:Does the law have the right direction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It does seem like they need to focus the law to deal with the sexualisation of minors in artwork, but you do have to wonder about the motives of some of the people pushing to have this overturned.
Um, why do they need to deal with *anything* in artwork? I firmly believe that harm minimisation should be the basis of all laws, which leads me to think that while child abuse should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner, if some pedophile is sitting in his back room drawing kiddy rape scenes while NOT hanging out at the local playground or trying to lure kids into his car with candy, then he's not doing anyone any harm.
Hell, he could be getting it out of his system that way, and (if I've read c
Re:so... (Score:5, Funny)