As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
animated kiddie porn: legal or illegal?
amateurhour
One day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
One day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7422595.stm
The UK wants to ban computer generated and hand-drawn depictions of child sex.
For the debate and discourse, I guess the big question is weather or not this is a violation of basic freedoms, namely speech (print) and tolerance of alternate lifestyles.
For my side, I'm all fucking for banning this stuff, it does nothing to serve the greater good of humanity and promotes horrible and unexcusable social behavior.
I know it's a slippery slope and a fine line and yadda yadda, but eventually we need to lay down some ground rules for this whole free speech thing and stick to them. This seems like a good place as any to start.
So, anyone here against me, and therefore all about child abuse?
(see what I did there?
)
The UK wants to ban computer generated and hand-drawn depictions of child sex.
For the debate and discourse, I guess the big question is weather or not this is a violation of basic freedoms, namely speech (print) and tolerance of alternate lifestyles.
For my side, I'm all fucking for banning this stuff, it does nothing to serve the greater good of humanity and promotes horrible and unexcusable social behavior.
I know it's a slippery slope and a fine line and yadda yadda, but eventually we need to lay down some ground rules for this whole free speech thing and stick to them. This seems like a good place as any to start.
So, anyone here against me, and therefore all about child abuse?
(see what I did there?
) are YOU on the beer list?
amateurhour on
0
Posts
Yes. Fucking ankle-biters never did anything for me.
Seriously, as long as no actual children are harmed, I don't see how drawing or animating child pornography could be made illegal. Again, if no actual children are used in its production then it's really not much different from the creator's own thoughts.
I'll bite.
Kiddie porn is bad because it uses children in a way that (a) they are not old enough to consent to and (b) will likely cause psychological / emotional damage to the child as s/he grows up.
It is bad because it is abusing the child(ren) used to make it.
Show me what child is being abused in creating a hand-drawn or computer-generated picture.
I will tolerate a lot of things that I wouldn't participate in... but I have a hard time swallowing the idea of whacking off to child porn as a valid "alternate lifestyle".
*rimshot*
Too bad. If it doesn't hurt anyone it's none of your business.
On the other hand, banning artistic depictions (computer generated/drawn) brings up proof that it's supposed to be underaged drawings. Without a confession or blatantly obvious (hi2u 5 year old I guess?), and breaking slightly out of the idea of "kiddie", how do you prove a drawing of porn subject is supposed to be 15, as opposed to 18.
Actually, if this law becomes wide-spread enough, it'll ruin Japan's cartoon industry.
For good measure you could also drop some drawings of marijuana leaves and bongs on his PC, too.
That's pretty much the biggest argument in the UK right now as well. Basically since it's cartoon or CGI, no child is being harmed so it should be okay. It's kind of a shitty loophole though, because it's basically a way of promoting illegal activity either way you slice it.
plus, most of this stuff is in comic book form, and that opens up a whole new can of worms as to who gets their hands on it. I'm not saying "lol if a kid gets it he'll be a pedo bear". but the fact is that it does conform to a medium that shares a lot of shelf space with your average comic book.
How about allowing perverts to keep their stills, but putting the axe on the comics?
Completely agree with this. As repulsive as most of us think these drawings are, we're basically punishing people for commiting thoughts. As long as there is no real child involved, I can't call it child abuse.
Hey, no more worrying about crawling out of your rat hole to get film and a shitty camera to take naked pictures of your nephew. That's convenience.
How about putting it with all the other pornographic comics, and then telling people "pornographic comics be here"?
The chief misconception here is that kids read comic books. (They don't.) If they had kiddie porn cell phone themes I might be more worried.
Are you A) Jack Thompson,
Because there is a pretty serious fucking flaw in your conclusion.
It's not particularly open for abuse in terms of framing people compared to other laws.
How is it any different from Omaha, The Cat Dancer or any other "adult" comic book?
Hint: Omaha doesn't share shelf space with anything kids can get their hands on. If your comic book shop doesn't have an 18-and-over section, they keep it behind the counter.
Your logic sounds exactly like the people who think that GTA should be banned because it's a game, and kids play games, so obviously kids will be playing GTA. Except it makes even less sense, because there are LAWS restricting these things to legal adults, as opposed to just a ratings system for games.
No, seriously, this is retarded. As far as I can tell, telling paedophiles that "You can look at kiddie porn as long as it's not made with real kids" can only prevent child abuse.
awesome.
::shrug:: I'm against kiddie porn in all forms, it's sickening to me, so I'll support legislation to put a stop to it in all forms.
If they wanted to ban something I liked, like regular porn, I'd speak out for it.
I guess we could just sit back and see who comes out to defend their right to have animated kiddie porn.
right?
Exactly. I would never actually rape someone.
If you include hand-drawn or computer-drawn pictures of their drivers' licenses, and they're over 18, is it okay, then?
Also a very good point.
Why does your post make me think of that creepy old man who does the Werther's candy commercials
Oh god, their website.
http://www.storck.com/imperia/md/images/_inet_marken/storck_wo_all_kv_de.jpg
Anyway, if drawings of Bad Things are to be illegal, then Books, Games and Films about Bad Things are also to be illegal.
Don't worry that's (already) banned too.
The case was US vs. Williams. One telling passage would be:
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Hey, y'all.
OK, see, here's where you've got a double standard going.
Many, and I mean MANY very vocal people feel that "mainstream" porn is, by definition, abusive and degrading to women.
But you're all fine and dandy with that, so I guess you're all about abusing women too, right? (see what I did there? ;-) )
Outside of that, or credible evidence that such simulations legitimately lead to increased abuse or exploitation of children, there's little grounds for such a ban. There's too fine a line between porn and legitimate exploration of issues. Boogie Nights explored porn. KIDS explored children engaging in all manner of fucked-up stuff. Both were legitimate cinema, though films like the latter could be penumbra'd out of existence by such bans.
Better than making it illegal, let's just make this shit taboo. If word gets out that you get off on pics - even fake ones - of pre-adolescents getting it on, you're a sick fucker and deserve to be ostracized by everyone you know. Works well enough for me.
Yes, I am against you.
Hand drawn pictures of child sex is not an example of child abuse. And the law should be concerned with directly preventing child abuse, not guesstimating at how media consumption possibly indirectly affects child abuse. Until there is a provable causal link between these things, then this is a violation of freedom of speech in my opinion (which is regulated differently in the UK, I know). The reason that, say, kiddie porn films are illegal is because the creation of said films requires the abuse of children. And protecting freedom of speech is seen by almost everyone as less important than preventing the direct abuse of children. You cannot protect both at the same time; they contradict. However, hand-drawn kiddie porn doesn't harm anyone directly. Therefore, the higher imperative should be to protect artistic expression.
For the record, I think kiddie porn is disgusting and would be happier without people in society that want to produce it or consume it, but I think allowing the government to dictate the boundaries of media that cannot or has not been sufficiently proven "harmful" is a far worse thing. Sometimes doing the right thing means allowing some bad things to exist. It will never be a perfect world.