NationStates Jolt Archive

Child Protection Act

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency Strength: Strong Proposed by: LLJK
Description: Children are the future and as such should not be photographed naked. This act bans all pornographic material involving minors. It's the only decent thing to do.
As I was reading through the approved resolutions I noticed the only resolution regarding children made it illegal to touch and molest minors, there was no mention of child pornagraphy. Hopefully you'll support me in passing this proposal which closes that avenue of discusting acts.

Er...as far as I can see this doesn't even allow exemption for photographs for medical purposes.

Also, your argument seems rather lacking. If I believe nuclear power is the future, should I ban photographing an unclothed plutonium rod? A better argument is that children are ill-equipped to give consent.

i strongly agree with this however i have no idea how to agree with a proposal

Don't agree with the proposal. (Far to many people vote for proposals merely because the like the idea, even when the functionality or practicality of it is horrible).... This is one of those examples... the idea is good, the proposal for it's implimentation is bad. So it's a vote against. Remember, voting against, unlike how some people try to protray it, does not mean you disagree with the idea.... just with how the proposal author has implimented the idea.

Description: Children are the future and as such should not be photographed naked. This act bans all pornographic material involving minors. It's the only decent thing to do.

Not to seem like I am supporting child porn or the people who make it in anyway, but the way this is phrased also bans pictures of children which are not pornographic. Was that deliberate, or would it be possible to rewrite it?

Not to seem like I am supporting child porn or the people who make it in anyway, but the way this is phrased also bans pictures of children which are not pornographic. Was that deliberate, or would it be possible to rewrite it?
While it says that children should not be photographed naked in all circumstances, it only bans child pornography.

Er...as far as I can see this doesn't even allow exemption for photographs for medical purposes.

Also, your argument seems rather lacking. If I believe nuclear power is the future, should I ban photographing an unclothed plutonium rod? A better argument is that children are ill-equipped to give consent.
medical pictures aren't pornography.
My arguement is that child pornography screws kids up for life, and since kids are the future, we don't want a society of screwed up adults.

I agree with most everyone here. Good idea but the proposal isn't worded properly.

How about:

"Bans nude pictures of minors taken for the express purpose of sexual stimulation and/or release."

This is just off the top of my head. I bet with some thought you could come up with something much better. :)

The Republic of Family Freedom 93 would be happy to work with LLKJ concerning this issue. Although, keep in mind the the leadership would have very limited time to invest. :(

This has nothing to do with the United Nations. The United Nation's duty is not to determine the domestic policies of nations, so I am against this proposal.

Children are the future and as such should not be photographed naked. This act bans all pornographic material involving minors. It's the only decent thing to do.


It's a matter of legality. And lack of stipulation in law, which these proposals in fact become *IF* they make it past vote to resolution. And proposal authors *need* to treat them as such. (There should be a minimum word limit to UN proposals. Let's say 100-150 words or more.)

"Children are the future and as such should not be photographed naked. That sentence manages to define the antecedent, "This act bans all pornographic material involving minors." Pornograhpy is a relative noun, and has multiple definitions (of which one would cover even medical photography).
Truthfully ambiguity needs to be removed. Stipulations should have been added to prevent Medical photography being construed as pornography and such. This proposal simply does not do that. It's too small and too generic for an important topic.

Should you submit a proposal that is a bit more bulkier (maybe 1 or 2 sentences longer, with stipulations), I would likely push for it's endorsement and vote in favor. As it stands, I cannot.

Should you submit a proposal that is a bit more bulkier (maybe 1 or 2 sentences longer, with stipulations), I would likely push for it's endorsement and vote in favor. As it stands, I cannot.
For whatever reason, the author chose to post his updates in two additional topics. The revised topic is here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358905

I recommend that nobody comment further on this topic, and suggest that LLJK call for it to be locked in favor of the other one. (LLKJ, next time, just add your updated drafts to the original topic.)