NationStates Jolt Archive

ACHTUNG, DELEGATES:

THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT THREAT THAT THIS DANGEROUS BILL WILL REACH QUORUM:

Not only does it violate national sovereignty almost as much as the Cato Acts, but it also ignores the varying definitions of children in different nations.

I for one do not want the United Nations defining what "child" is and what "pornography" is.

This resolution is nothing short of an attack on the freedom of the press and other values we free peoples hold dear.

I URGE all delegates who have approved this to withdraw their approval.

Even if you believe child pornography should be outlawed, the clause about a harsh crackdown on the Internet sets a VERY dangerous precedent as to the ability of both teh United Nations and individual countries to regulate the free and NON-PRIVILEGED flow of information.

To quote the Real UN's Declaration of Rights, "As the Americans so painfully learned in this past century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. Those once-chained peoples whos leaders at last lost their grip on information soon burst out with freedom and vitality, while the free nation that began to constrict its grip on information has already begun the slide into despotism. BEWARE of he who would seek to control your information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

An End to Child Pornography
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency Strength: Strong Proposed by: Lillian the Last
Description: One of the filthiest practices of them all, child pornography, continues to plague us despite its aversion to social conscience. We must act to remove this exploitative stain from global society.

This does not mean simply passing a resolution condemning it. This requires a harsh crackdown by both national and international police, including elimination of it from the internet. Practicers of child pornography should be subject to lengthy re-education programs, jail terms, or worse...as each country sees fit to deal with it.

Approvals: 44 (Debaermania, Friends of the Earth, Sulon, Seocc, Emperor Kevin, Meallan, Butthole, Independent Antarctica, Scyphia, Beanbag Chairs, Jaysus Khrist, Britannia and Hibernia, Free Socialism, Dionalka, Saint Mooby, Namaste, Polka Fans World Wide, Bocca, Braxtaria, Rianisis, The Bruce, Whats it to you, Josh World, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Ammler, Amaradon, Power people, Tatina, StIlTz, Thunderground, Ubotxus, Arbasland, Rehella, Roban, Teratopia, Christus Rex, Tarrican, Erthsphere, Beanaville, Anomolies, Dragonmaster Anroca, Lamoni, Cinar, Right-Wing Seperatists)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 76 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Oct 9 2003

The Commonwealth of The Global Market has not approved this proposal. [Approve]

While this proposal doesn't actually delve into the definition of a child, we have to agree with the Global Market on this one. We don't want international police snooping around in our nation. Also, while we have statutory rape, molestation, and child prostitution laws in our nation, we have nothing against pornography, as long as all parties can legally consent to all actions (which, in our country, means they must be at least 17 years old or have demonstrated to our courts that they are exceptionally mature and can be considered an adult for all purposes).

In addition, this resolution ISNT ABOUT PROTECTING CHILDREN.

If it was its category would be "Human Rights". Just like Steph's Child Protection Act was. Instead it is categorized as RESTRICTING rights in the name of moral deceny.

This bill's intention is NOT protecting children. It IS censorship.

In addition, this resolution ISNT ABOUT PROTECTING CHILDREN.

If it was its category would be "Human Rights". Just like Steph's Child Protection Act was. Instead it is categorized as RESTRICTING rights in the name of moral deceny.

This bill's intention is NOT protecting children. It IS censorship.

for once I'm going to have to agree with you.

Should this resolution pass, West Moon will not accept it.
We are prepared to go to war to defend our national soverignty.
The supporters of the resolution should bear in mind that we are willing to use nuclear weapons to prevent enforcement of this resolution.

We agree with The Global Market. The internet censorship imposed by this proposal is frightning. First it's porn. Is it political expression next?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

In WestMoon, all porn is considered art and is therefore legal.

This definitley a violation of a nation's rights and should never be allowed to be up for a full vote. Child Pornography can be viewed many different ways, including as a way out of poverty for the many low-income families. Why dash some families last hopes of financial security to protect the few children that might get abused?

This definitley a violation of a nation's rights and should never be allowed to be up for a full vote. Child Pornography can be viewed many different ways, including as a way out of poverty for the many low-income families. Why dash some families last hopes of financial security to protect the few children that might get abused?

Concerned nations,
I understand your worries. The language of the resolution is particularly brutal, and it was probably a mistake choosing 'moral decency' over 'human rights'. It IS designed to protect children, to clarify for those in doubt. However I believe fundamentally human rights are merely a subcategory of what powerful Western states constitute to be 'morally decent'; it is a subcategory which has grown disproportianately large (I think this is a good thing regardless). Most laws in domestic society on protecting people are founded on pity...'pragmatism' can only be called in as a secondary reason for protecting people.
Accordingly, I wish to enforce this resolution as a minimal MORAL standard across the world. Whether it chooses to accept it or not is their wish. Everyone should know that the compassion of this resolution is implied.

I do not believe this is precedent for political repression. Children are above politics, and therefore are acutely separated from ideological clashes over repressive systems. The same holds for control of information on the Internet. Child pornography does not benefit anyone except those whom society deems most serious help, and for the same reason as above cannot be used to invoke further control of information. I'd like to bring everyone's attention to a liberal society, the UK, which has cracked down on child pornography on the Internet. It will work in practice.
I would like everyone to reconsider your votes and end this cancer,
Lillian the Last.

An End to Child Pornography
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

This does not mean simply passing a resolution condemning it. This requires a harsh crackdown by both national and international police, including elimination of it from the internet. Practicers of child pornography should be subject to lengthy re-education programs, jail terms, or worse...as each country sees fit to deal with it.

I have approved the resolution, and, for the present time, I will not withdraw my approval.
In my personal opinion all pornography is disgusting, but I will not make it illigal in my nation as long as the parties are concenting adults (age 18 or older).
I do think the resolution could be greatly to be improved, it should be more specific about what a it means by 'child' and HOW it plans to eliminated it from the internet. . . also, I think it would be better under the 'human rights' catagory.

Queen Bean
Long Live the Pants

So long as it neither defines what a child is, or what pornography is, nor forces Takians who look at what would be considered child pornography in other counties *the age of concent in Taka is 16, where are others have it set at 18 or highter, thus a takian looking at pornography involving a 17 year old woman who is still considered a child in her home country woud be legal within ours* to face charges in that country, then we will support this proposal. In this instance, its vaugness allows national soverinty to remain intact, and should it reach the UN, I will gladly add my vote for it. The only issue we have iwth it what soever, is that it seems to be in the wrong catagory, and while we dislike the restraining of civil liberties for morality, we see that in this case it may be appropriate.

JEHOVAH BE PRAISED!!!! WE FINALLY AGREE WITH THE GLOBAL MARKET ABOUT SOMETHING!!!!

The repulsive practice of Child Pornography is absolutely prohibited in Ursoria. But we reserve the right to define "child" according to our own legal traditions, and to set our own laws and punishments. We don't want any kind of "international police" coming in to handle our affairs.

We do stand ready to VOLUNTARILY cooperate with any other nations in stamping out Child Pornography.

This definitley a violation of a nation's rights and should never be allowed to be up for a full vote. Child Pornography can be viewed many different ways, including as a way out of poverty for the many low-income families. Why dash some families last hopes of financial security to protect the few children that might get abused?

The poverty TGM's heros helped to create, ironically.

This definitley a violation of a nation's rights and should never be allowed to be up for a full vote. Child Pornography can be viewed many different ways, including as a way out of poverty for the many low-income families. Why dash some families last hopes of financial security to protect the few children that might get abused?

The poverty TGM's heros helped to create, ironically.

...the povery which existed for well over ten millenia before any of my "heros" (sic) were even born....

No Pornography, no prostitutuion.

Period.

If a proposal is against those dehumanizing acts then I am for it.

And the problem with the Cato Acts as you know very well, were the phrases "taxpaying citizens" and "and corparations [in the right to emigrate]".

You were told by numerous people that if those were fixed we would have voted FOR it.

Please stop playing confused TGM.

It ill befits you.

Not only are the notions of "child" and "pornography" overly vague, but juxtaposing them creates its own problems.

Certainly the *use* of children in the creation of pornography is an abomination (they are unable to truly consent), and with a satisfactory definition of both terms, we in Gurthark would happily endorse a resolution prohibiting such use.

But "child pornography" is a label that has often been applied to pornography *depicting* children, but involving no children in its actual creation (drawings, "young-looking" performers, fiction, etc). As repulsive as I personally find such material, it is not exploitative and falls, Gurthark believes, in the category of protected free expression.

In order to support any such proposal, we would need to be satisfied that:

1) "Child" will be defined restrictively enough to exclude people who are mature enough to decide what to do with their own bodies
2) "Pornography" will be defined so as to exclude, for example, important public health information or materials
3) "Child Pornography" will be defined so as to exclude anything that does not involve actual children in its production.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

ACHTUNG, DELEGATES:

THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT THREAT THAT THIS DANGEROUS BILL WILL REACH QUORUM:

Not only does it violate national sovereignty almost as much as the Cato Acts, but it also ignores the varying definitions of children in different nations.

I for one do not want the United Nations defining what "child" is and what "pornography" is.

This resolution is nothing short of an attack on the freedom of the press and other values we free peoples hold dear.

I URGE all delegates who have approved this to withdraw their approval.

Even if you believe child pornography should be outlawed, the clause about a harsh crackdown on the Internet sets a VERY dangerous precedent as to the ability of both teh United Nations and individual countries to regulate the free and NON-PRIVILEGED flow of information.

To quote the Real UN's Declaration of Rights, "As the Americans so painfully learned in this past century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. Those once-chained peoples whos leaders at last lost their grip on information soon burst out with freedom and vitality, while the free nation that began to constrict its grip on information has already begun the slide into despotism. BEWARE of he who would seek to control your information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

An End to Child Pornography
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency Strength: Strong Proposed by: Lillian the Last
Description: One of the filthiest practices of them all, child pornography, continues to plague us despite its aversion to social conscience. We must act to remove this exploitative stain from global society.

This does not mean simply passing a resolution condemning it. This requires a harsh crackdown by both national and international police, including elimination of it from the internet. Practicers of child pornography should be subject to lengthy re-education programs, jail terms, or worse...as each country sees fit to deal with it.

Approvals: 44 (Debaermania, Friends of the Earth, Sulon, Seocc, Emperor Kevin, Meallan, Butthole, Independent Antarctica, Scyphia, Beanbag Chairs, Jaysus Khrist, Britannia and Hibernia, Free Socialism, Dionalka, Saint Mooby, Namaste, Polka Fans World Wide, Bocca, Braxtaria, Rianisis, The Bruce, Whats it to you, Josh World, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Ammler, Amaradon, Power people, Tatina, StIlTz, Thunderground, Ubotxus, Arbasland, Rehella, Roban, Teratopia, Christus Rex, Tarrican, Erthsphere, Beanaville, Anomolies, Dragonmaster Anroca, Lamoni, Cinar, Right-Wing Seperatists)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 76 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Oct 9 2003

The Commonwealth of The Global Market has not approved this proposal. [Approve]

The quote about "The americans so painfully learned..." is actually from Alpha Centauri the game, and has never been said... ever!

TGM has a good point about this proposal. It neither defines nor limits the incidence of the crime in question.

It does not take into account any other factor (such as familial or cultural) which may leave a verdict of 'this is child porngraphy' incorrect.

An example: an English photojournalist had her exhibition of photos in London raided because of reports to local authorities that the exhibition contained incidences of child pornography. What the collection of photos included were pictures of her and her family holidaying on the mediterranean and some shots of her children (about 2 - 4 years old) with very lttle clothes on while playing on the beach. no action was taken against the photojournalist but the exhibition closed due to the furore.

I think we may be starting to mistake genuine concern about the welfare of children with panic and a ridiculous wowserism.

In essence it is a thoughtless proposal which would only serve to satisfy those who wish to see evil in all.

Anyway, it is badly written and would easily be a tool for use in the silencing of any and all forms of free speech.

I have to agree with Global on this resolution. It does not seem to protect the children of member nations at all.

I do like the harsh reprisals for those caught with child pornography, but the rest of the resolution needs to be re-worked/re-worded , and it needs to take the provincial and national law enforcement agencies of each respective member nation.

In addition, this resolution ISNT ABOUT PROTECTING CHILDREN.

If it was its category would be "Human Rights". Just like Steph's Child Protection Act was. Instead it is categorized as RESTRICTING rights in the name of moral deceny.

This bill's intention is NOT protecting children. It IS censorship.

We agree with TGM. Though the bill's intention is beyond our knowledge, its language is difficult to misconstrue. It is, quite simply, an attempt to legislate morality on an international level. Community standards have traditionally been the standard by which pornography is judged; on an international level, we believe this standard to be unworkable. Though the proposal's heart may be in the right place (or may not, to TGM's point), it would certainly be used as a tool for censoring expression and violating nations' sovreignty.