Legislating against obscenity

[fenghuang]

The UK press reported yesterday about the possibility of changing the legislation surrounding obscene drawn or computer generated imagery.

The idea is to close a loop hole apparently used by paedophiles who cannot currently be prosecuted for having sexual images of children if they are drawn, animation etc and do not invlove real children.

Those arguing for and against this change of law are unsurprisingly very polarised, and not IMHO always entirely objective.

One of the most interesting comments from the debate was - how do you legislate for non human images eg can you depict faeries having sex and how do you detremine their age?
The strongest argument on the other side seems to me to be that if it does actually lead to even one child being abused then it should be prevented.

First things first : obviously child abuse is completely indefensable in all circumstances and surely children's safety must be the priority.

It's a complicated debate, (and paralelled by another bit of legislation being reviewed, outlawing violent sexual images, eg staged S&M photography) but I'm interested to hear the thoughts of a sexually liberated crowd like Lit on how to approach these issues.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

The UK press reported yesterday about the possibility of changing the legislation surrounding obscene drawn or computer generated imagery.

The idea is to close a loop hole apparently used by paedophiles who cannot currently be prosecuted for having sexual images of children if they are drawn, animation etc and do not invlove real children.

Those arguing for and against this change of law are unsurprisingly very polarised, and not IMHO always entirely objective.

One of the most interesting comments from the debate was - how do you legislate for non human images eg can you depict faeries having sex and how do you detremine their age?
The strongest argument on the other side seems to me to be that if it does actually lead to even one child being abused then it should be prevented.

First things first : obviously child abuse is completely indefensable in all circumstances and surely children's safety must be the priority.

It's a complicated debate, (and paralelled by another bit of legislation being reviewed, outlawing violent sexual images, eg staged S&M photography) but I'm interested to hear the thoughts of a sexually liberated crowd like Lit on how to approach these issues.

forget faeries, how do you know how old a character in an image regardless of, what, species?
I agree with the intent, but unless the character in the picture is, say, under 12, you are going to have a hard time proving otherwise.
Jeez, I know girls who are 25 and look no older than 16.
I don't see how they can enforce this, or even how they could charge someone.
Its almost like saying "if you draw a black and white picture and one of the walls represented in that picture is blue (though still in black and white) you are a criminal"
How could you prove the wall was blue?

 

[PertPerth]

I love Faeries, and can tell you that they don't age...or rather, they're what ever age they want to be...as they don't really exist....they're just energy and an illusion.
Excuse the ramble, I'm a D&D fan.

Reading this post made my mind boggle...what about the Anime world? Does this mean that there are not going to be anymore anime movies or cartoons??
I'm so totally 100% against pedophiles (as I was molested as a child) but banning sexy cartoons??? I'm lost for words.

 

[silverwhisper]

in CG images it's next to impossible to discern age IMX, as vail indigo already noted. this is, to my way of thinking, pointless, feel-good legislation that makes people think the government is doing something.

pertperth: careful, i've got the fae subtype!

ed

 

[Vail_Indigo]

in CG images it's next to impossible to discern age IMX, as vail indigo already noted. this is, to my way of thinking, pointless, feel-good legislation that makes people think the government is doing something.

pertperth: careful, i've got the fae subtype!

ed

I agree that it is 'feel good' legislation, but I don't think that it quite deserves the negative connotation.
We do have a real problem with kiddie porn. We do need laws to prohibit it. And you can't tell me that the lawmakers feel much different than the general populace. And they must feel twice as helpless so it isn't surprising that they might, from time to time, do something pointless and desperate.

 

[silverwhisper]

vail indigo (may i shorten that to VI?):

i'm exceedingly suspicious of the motives of political officials, esp the elected ones, myself, so while i'm sure they're just as horrified as the rest of us, i don't think that vote-pandering is ever more than a second or two from their thoughts. and this legislation is de facto useless, AFAICT--is there an objective standard against which such images will be measured, with sentencing to be determined by the degree of deviation from that standard?

no, there isn't, at least AFAICT.

and absent that, the legislation will be applied in subjective and hence more or less incredibly unreliable ways. this does not IMHO inspire any confidence in how it will be used, and indeed, at least for me, inspires great concern.

i submit that it's bad law, and bad laws make for bad cases. since british law is dependent upon precedent, that makes the impact of bad laws particularly significant.

ed

 

[Vail_Indigo]

vail indigo (may i shorten that to VI?):

i'm exceedingly suspicious of the motives of political officials, esp the elected ones, myself, so while i'm sure they're just as horrified as the rest of us, i don't think that vote-pandering is ever more than a second or two from their thoughts. and this legislation is de facto useless, AFAICT--is there an objective standard against which such images will be measured, with sentencing to be determined by the degree of deviation from that standard?

no, there isn't, at least AFAICT.

and absent that, the legislation will be applied in subjective and hence more or less incredibly unreliable ways. this does not IMHO inspire any confidence in how it will be used, and indeed, at least for me, inspires great concern.

i submit that it's bad law, and bad laws make for bad cases. since british law is dependent upon precedent, that makes the impact of bad laws particularly significant.

ed

1. yes, VI is fine
2. I am also suspicious of politicians, but sometimes I give them the benefit of the doubt.
3. It is a moronic law that will never be able to be enforced.

actually, kiddie porn laws in the US aren't any better.
A couple years ago, this guy (transexual, I think) had been in trouble with the law a few times with regards to some kind of obscenity or some such.
At some point, once he was free, they discovered that he had written kiddie porn on his PC and I think had drawn pictures. The cops admitted that there was no evidence to suggest he was using these for anything other than self-gratification, but they still started harassing him and he took some minor punishment (6 months or something). The entire thing was a sham, but I'm guessing the guy wasn't completely clean anyhow.
My point is that the cops were very willing to cross the law in this case, and the constitution.
I dunno why I'm relating this, I think I need more coffee.

 

[silverwhisper]

VI: you know, i may not have much sympathy for pedophiles, but civil liberties have to exist for all of us, or they really aren't civil liberties, IMHO.

heh...it's early: more caffeination = better, i've always felt re: mornings. :>

nice to meet you, btw.

ed

 

[Vail_Indigo]

VI: you know, i may not have much sympathy for pedophiles, but civil liberties have to exist for all of us, or they really aren't civil liberties, IMHO.

heh...it's early: more caffeination = better, i've always felt re: mornings. :>

nice to meet you, btw.

ed

yeah, its unbelievably frustrating to have to stand up for people like, say, Fred Phelps. But if it isn't ok for you to be massively offensive, how long before it isn't ok for me to be mildly disagreeable?

nice to meetcha too!

 

[silverwhisper]

VI, we appear to be of the same mind WRT civil liberties.

always nice to meet someone else who understands what the founders of this nation actually meant. :>

ed

 

[littleninja]

I suppose the concern with cg or drawn images of children is that it can only lead to child abuse. I would also be concerned about this, but then I know that people are also concerned that playing grand theft auto can only lead me to drive over pedestrians shoot prostitutes and steal their money. Watching the Matrix doesn't make me think I can jump 50 ft gaps or inspire me to blow up elevators. And when it comes to sexual fantasy and the images I enjoy, and I'm referring in particular to those fantasies and images that are violent or "deviant" (according to some) these do not inspire me to unleash them on the unsuspecting neighbors.....

I realize that not everyone is as balanced (read repressed) as I am, so I'm basically asking what you guys think.... does fantasy automatically lead to acting out said fantasy?

And if not, wouldn't we rather have pedophiles oggling cg children than real ones?

Either way, I'd agree, that a law like this is difficult to both define and enforce, and is not likely to go a long way towards accomplishing its intention.

 

[silverwhisper]

littleninja queried:
does fantasy automatically lead to acting out said fantasy?

no, it doesn't. indeed, as a player of roleplaying games, a hobby that was falsely attacked in the 80s for being satanic and whatever other idiocy, i've seen this particular lynch mod already.

the problem is that some people are unstable, and anything, even something completely innocuous, can send them over the edge. wrapping the entire world in packing foam is neither sustainable nor desirable.

ed

 

[fenghuang]

no, it doesn't.

For you it doesn't, but is it safe to say that it doesn't for anyone?

the problem is that some people are unstable, and anything, even something completely innocuous, can send them over the edge.

Fair point, but which is more likely to push someone over the edge - CG images of their chosen fantasy or something less obviously connected. If it's the former, and it servers no purpose other than to titilate those so disposed, and the protection of those who cannot protect themselves is paramount, are we not morally obliged as a responsible society to legislate against it?

(Just a question for debate, not necessarily a statement of opinion.)

 

[silverwhisper]

fenghuang: the problem with suggesting [x] automatically leads to [y] is that it's a form of the slippery slope argument, which i happen to detest as it's a logical fallacy.

i would argue therefore that it's not meaningful to legislate on the basis of slippery slope, but rather, to get these people some kind of treatment to get them to see healthier attractions.

you present a false dilemma, IMHO, when you suggest (inadvertently?) that the only alternatives are either legislate against or bear it, i think.

i think folks who are prone to pederastic attraction need to seek help and understand that they're fantasizing about rape.

ed

 

[fenghuang]

fenghuang: the problem with suggesting [x] automatically leads to [y] is that it's a form of the slippery slope argument, which i happen to detest as it's a logical fallacy.

Driving past a school at 70 doesn't automatically lead to killing children ...
How do you pick the slippery slopes that are acceptible?

 

[silverwhisper]

a slippery slope is never acceptable b/c it assumes a chain of events in inevitable and that there are no exceptions.

ed

 

[fenghuang]

Then you are an advocate of Anarchy as the ideal political system, rather than Democracy?
(Not that any of us live in a true Democracy, but rather, in most of "The Free World", Elected Oligarchies.)

 

[silverwhisper]

i don't understand how you make that logical leap. ?

ed

 

[PertPerth]

I was wondering how strict they'd be...but it seems that the context (of the image in question) is still a valid argument in the 'for' case. (not sure if I worded that correctly...basically I'm saying that there is a place for art - being photos or drawings.)


Apparently all had parental consent :
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23819320-2,00.html
If it were my child, they'd not have been allowed.

 

[fenghuang]

i don't understand how you make that logical leap. ?

ed

Laws work on assumptions. If you remove all assumptions from laws you move towards a state of lawless ie Anarchy.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Well, it's happening. Clicky

I do think that banning things like this simply makes it more desirable to the wrong people. I mean, I've seen cartoons of Bart and Lisa Simpson having sex, are those illegal too now? With most drawn images it's difficult to determine age unless we're talking small kiddiwinks but if this law goes through, no discretion of any kind will be shown, as per usual.

I am 28 and happen to look 15/16. I get asked ID every time I buy alcohol, lottery tickets, you name it. I get sold child bus and train tickets. This has been my status quo for 10 years now. Does that make Master and I's home videos illegal? I might be kissing 30 but if a casual observer saw me on screen they'd probably be horrified.

 

[silverwhisper]

fenghuang: that's really, really goofy.

ed

 

[alaskabibear]

fenghuang: the problem with suggesting [x] automatically leads to [y] is that it's a form of the slippery slope argument, which i happen to detest as it's a logical fallacy.

i would argue therefore that it's not meaningful to legislate on the basis of slippery slope, but rather, to get these people some kind of treatment to get them to see healthier attractions.

you present a false dilemma, IMHO, when you suggest (inadvertently?) that the only alternatives are either legislate against or bear it, i think.

i think folks who are prone to pederastic attraction need to seek help and understand that they're fantasizing about rape.

ed

IMO, it's not the misguided hope that some new law will prevent pedophiles from acting out their illness. Nor is it the hope that they will recognize and seek treatment for their addiction - addicts of all stripes rarely have enough desire/strength to end the pleasure they obtain from the addiction.

But, instead of ill conceived laws to try to curb the viewing of questionable material, I think laws should be enacted that would address the known/convicted pedophile. I don't know the exact statistics, but it is my understanding that the majority of such crimes are committed by repeat offenders. My question is; why do these men still have their nuts intact? If they can't control themselves, castration or lifetime incarceration should be required for the protection of the innocent - these men have squandered their chance at a normal life. I don't see this as "cruel/unusual punishment", but simply the only real way to control their sickness for the good of society. They have simply been allowed to "get away with it" for far too long, and the damage inflicted on the innocent - and the ruination of lives - needs to end.

(Also, I'm not too convinced of the "deterrent factor" associated with various criminal punishments, but this one would probably get through to a few of these nut cases!)

 

[N_B]

I know it's a bump, but I can't believe no one's made this association yet...

Image/art/print censorship in the interest of curbing devient behavior...
Thought Police. Scary. Real fucking scary.