NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7063138
Go Here to talk about this issue

I agree, my nation has been having some problems with crime involving pornography, our nation is deciding to ban websites, books and magazines about sex and pornogrophy. But the Empire of the Japanese People agree with you.


Japanese Prime Minister
Ashikaga Naomi

For the 'the age of consent' thing, change it to 'the age of consent in the signing nation' so that people can enforce different age of consent laws as neccesary.

No Adult may create or view any Pornography involving Minors.


Can other minors create it?

Plus it might be "humanity's" rather than "humanities" if you intend to imply the possessive. This won't affect the proposal so much but I don't know how strict the UN over-seers are on grammar and so forth :}

Since every other proposal I've made had been flamed to death or too unclear I am opening this one up to suggestions before I submit it.
Please help with definitions and what I should code this as.
Congratulations on the substantial improvement of both what you wrote and how you've presented it. Bringing it to the forums first can only improve your chances.

As to coding, it should be Moral Decency. As to grammar, there are some improvements that others have noted, and I'd also lose the capitalization of various nouns for no apparent reason.

We don't happen to think that ANY Moral Decency proposal proposed thus far should be decided unilaterally by the UN, and this one qualifies. Frisbeeteria won't support this because we beleive it to be a national, not international issue ... but that's true for 99% of what gets proposed here, so it's not necessarily a deal-breaker for other members.

Much better job, LLJK. Remember, the UN is a body of concensus and compromise. You'll always have to work with us, and this approach is the best way.

OK, if nobody has any other objections I'm going to submit this tonight.

Actually, this could be regarded as a human rights issue - protecting the child's rights.

OK, if nobody has any other objections I'm going to submit this tonight.

I really would think the part about No Adult may create or view any Pornography involving Minors. because it does leave the door open for those who are just under the legal definition of Adult who could still have the urge to create this.

Also, it doesn't cover material which wasn't intended to be pornographic. E.g. someone might take a photo of their child totally innocently, and that photo might then be obtained by a paedophile. Since the material wasn't created with the purpose of sexual excitement, it could be argued that this is a loophole in the definition:

Pornography: Any form of entertainment with the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer.

There's one other thing. Given how much _Myopia_ cherishes freedom of expression etc, we are only prepared to countenance banning a form of expression if it is harmful to others whose consent has not been or cannot be obtained. Thus while we fully support a ban on pornography involving real minors, we cannot support banning pornography which didn't involve real minors. As it reads, your proposal does not allow books or animations, which whilst abhorrent to us, do not harm anyone and so should not be banned.

Also, it doesn't cover material which wasn't intended to be pornographic. E.g. someone might take a photo of their child totally innocently, and that photo might then be obtained by a paedophile. Since the material wasn't created with the purpose of sexual excitement, it could be argued that this is a loophole in the definition:

Once the material is used for sexual gratification, it is pornography. Since it was not created as pornography then the parents are still innocent yet the paedophile has viewed it as pornography and is therefore guilty.

Once the material is used for sexual gratification, it is pornography. Since it was not created as pornography then the parents are still innocent yet the paedophile has viewed it as pornography and is therefore guilty.

This opens up quite the legal conundrum. If a photo is only pornographic once a person uses it for sexual gratification, then any condemnation or arrest for child pornography would be conditional on proving that the defending party had used the item for sexual excitement. This conviction would be incredibly difficult, unless there were some witness to the act.

Simply saying, "He masturbated in the same room as the picture," is insufficient, as that would make any teenager up on the computer at night guilty of child pornography if there's a picture of his little brother or sister on the wall, whether or not he was looking at it. The ambiguity of proving that the picture was indeed being used creates all sorts of troubles.

It's very obvious when someone is using a picture of a naked child for sexual gratification vs innocent purposes. I honestly cannot think of a better way to phrase the language, and too be honest it is the job of the courts to deal with deciding whether an image is used as pornography or not.

I think you're oversimplifying when you say that it's obvious. You're putting an enourmous amount of authority in simple assumptions. Under your legislation, if a man pleasures himself to a picture of a fully clothed minor, he is a pedophile and guilty of a crime. How then, do you differentiate between a man having a picture on his desk because he loves that particular child or he wants to make love to that child?

Aside from catching them in the act, you have no way of telling. That legal ambiguity only protects pedophiles while putting normal people at risk. Pushing the responsibility of protecting ordinary citizens to the courts only ignores the fact that the legislation is ineffective in the first place.

This was posted in the Rogue States topic, so I'm moving it to the correct locationOriginally Posted by LLJK
We still don't support it, but now we'll argue about it based on our national beliefs, rather than tearing apart its structure.You don't support it because you fail to see that the implimintation of the act still lies with each member nation, giving freedom to each state to determine age and punishment is acceptable to them. The proposal only mandates ACTION on the issue, not the specific details. It mandates UN States cannot stand without implimenting some ban on child pornography, whether that breaking that ban results in crusifiction of a slap on the wrist is up to the Nation to decide.
I don't support it because I fail to see the implementation of the act as a necessary thing for the UN to be involved in. The member states already have the freedom to choose age and punishment and how they choose to take action.

Ultimately, it comes down to you shoving your moral views down the throats of all other nations. The fact that most, if not all, of those other nations share your views is irrelevant. If they all agree with you, they already have such laws and this proposal is irrelevant. If they DON'T agree with you ... well, you have failed to show where your axiomatic statement, "A vote of yes is a vote for decency." is viable.

As Myopia, Sophista, and others in this topic have stated, this is a difficult area to judge. If you want to refine it and define it some more, I won't stop you. But I still won't vote for it, because I don't think the UN has any business dictating my nation's morality.

To Put It The Easy Way All Peadophiles Should Rot In Helll :gundge:

It's very obvious when someone is using a picture of a naked child for sexual gratification vs innocent purposes. I honestly cannot think of a better way to phrase the language, and too be honest it is the job of the courts to deal with deciding whether an image is used as pornography or not.

So if this is a matter for the courts, it should be beyond the power of the UN to state what is permitted and what isn't.

Plus if you have a picture of a child in a bikini/swimming trunks it could have a sexual effect on some people, but not on others.

A ruling from the UN can not be subjective, because it loses all of its authority and power if it is. Something is either porn or it isn't - regardless of how a person may use it.

From the way this is turning out, this really does sound like it is becomming a matter for nations to decide on their own, rather than having it enforced by the UN. There is just too much that is subjective and open to interpretation.

So if this is a matter for the courts, it should be beyond the power of the UN to state what is permitted and what isn't.

Plus if you have a picture of a child in a bikini/swimming trunks it could have a sexual effect on some people, but not on others.

A ruling from the UN can not be subjective, because it loses all of its authority and power if it is. Something is either porn or it isn't - regardless of how a person may use it.

From the way this is turning out, this really does sound like it is becomming a matter for nations to decide on their own, rather than having it enforced by the UN. There is just too much that is subjective and open to interpretation.
All laws are open to interpretation! It is the duty of the UN not to write specific proposals that its members must comply with, its duty is to be a guiding force in the world.
This proposal is a guide. If it comes to the point where minimum sentencing for this(and other) crimes are needed, we can write that proposal then. Right now it just needs to be clear that no UN Nation can allow this kind of behavior unchecked.

All laws are open to interpretation! It is the duty of the UN not to write specific proposals that its members must comply with, its duty is to be a guiding force in the world.
This proposal is a guide. If it comes to the point where minimum sentencing for this(and other) crimes are needed, we can write that proposal then. Right now it just needs to be clear that no UN Nation can allow this kind of behavior unchecked.

Fair enough. However, despite my nation's desire to bring an end to child porn, I can not bring myself to support this proposal. I don't believe it is the remit of the UN to decide whether what my people do inside the borders of my country is moral or not.

Actually, there is a way to tell if the image is pornographic and that is whether the child is sexually possed in the photo. Pictures of children swimming may also be classified as pornography depending on who it is found on. If it is found on a single male with no kids and shows no interest in kids (apart from pornographic images of them) then there is reason for the courts to show concern and he may be put under investigation.

Actually, there is a way to tell if the image is pornographic and that is whether the child is sexually possed in the photo. Pictures of children swimming may also be classified as pornography depending on who it is found on. If it is found on a single male with no kids and shows no interest in kids (apart from pornographic images of them) then there is reason for the courts to show concern and he may be put under investigation.

But even that is not a hard and fast way of telling. Because this single male might be the uncle of the kids in the picture, so he would have a lot of photos of the children. Which would only be fair and right. However he might also find them sexually stimulating, which woudl not.

But I think that the idea of the proposal is to indicate that UN States have to action over this, rather than to define what "this" actually is. (If I am wrong, correct me).

Esteemed Representatives,
In light of debate on this subject, specifically considering the definitions and implementation of the resolution, and taking into account the subsequent agreement that this should be a guiding force within the United Nations, I respectfully submit the following revised resolution for debate, after communicating with officials from my home government.
-Ambassador Ivana Garcia-Lopez, United Nations Representative of the Latin Union

Child Protection Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Latin Union

WHEREAS the Member States of the United Nations recognize that the mental and physical health of the children of the world are sacrosanct, guaranteed to them as basic human rights, and highly important to the future of the world, and WHEREAS the Member States recognize that placing said children in sexual situations before they are deemed mature can be mentally traumatic and physically dangerous, the following resolution is proposed with the following definitions included:

DEFINITIONS:
Pornography: Any form of entertainment with the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. Specifically, the depiction of humans during masturbation, sexual intercourse, or other sexual acts, such as fellatio or sodomy. This may also include the depiction of humans in various states of nudity, as determined individually by each signing nation.
Minor: Any human under the age of consent in the signing nation.
Adult: Any human over the age of consent in the signing nation.
Entertainment: The transmission of ideas meant to be (in total) pleasing to the viewer over any medium.

RESOLUTION:
HENCEFOREWARD, the production or ownership of Pornography that features or includes Minors in any capacity at any time is to be prohibited within all Member States of the United Nations. Punishment for violation of this Resolution is to be decided within each Member State, as is the age of consent that differentiates Minors from Adults.

ADDENDUM:
This Resolution, though formally proposed and finally drafted by The Incorporated States of the Latin Union, was originally conceived and drafted by The United Socialist States of LLJK.

Esteemed Representatives,
In light of debate on this subject, specifically considering the definitions and implementation of the resolution, and taking into account the subsequent agreement that this should be a guiding force within the United Nations, I respectfully submit the following revised resolution for debate, after communicating with officials from my home government.
-Ambassador Ivana Garcia-Lopez, United Nations Representative of the Latin Union

Child Protection Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Latin Union

WHEREAS the Member States of the United Nations recognize that the mental and physical health of the children of the world are sacrosanct, guaranteed to them as basic human rights, and highly important to the future of the world, and WHEREAS the Member States recognize that placing said children in sexual situations before they are deemed mature can be mentally traumatic and physically dangerous, the following resolution is proposed with the following definitions included:

DEFINITIONS:
Pornography: Any form of entertainment with the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. Specifically, the depiction of humans during masturbation, sexual intercourse, or other sexual acts, such as fellatio or sodomy. This may also include the depiction of humans in various states of nudity, as determined individually by each signing nation.
Minor: Any human under the age of consent in the signing nation.
Adult: Any human over the age of consent in the signing nation.
Entertainment: The transmission of ideas meant to be (in total) pleasing to the viewer over any medium.

RESOLUTION:
HENCEFOREWARD, the production or ownership of Pornography that features or includes Minors in any capacity at any time is to be prohibited within all Member States of the United Nations. Punishment for violation of this Resolution is to be decided within each Member State, as is the age of consent that differentiates Minors from Adults.

ADDENDUM:
This Resolution, though formally proposed and finally drafted by The Incorporated States of the Latin Union, was originally conceived and drafted by The United Socialist States of LLJK.


My problem is still with the enforcement of punishment. Unless what defines "punishment" (mostly whether punishment has to be punative or not) can be completely at the discretion of the member nation I would still have to vote against this should it come to the floor.

My problem is still with the enforcement of punishment. Unless what defines "punishment" (mostly whether punishment has to be punative or not) can be completely at the discretion of the member nation I would still have to vote against this should it come to the floor.

The text which grants nations the right to decide punishments contains no reservations whatsoever.

edit: Though i still have issues with this, because it doesn't specify that the material should only be illegal if a real child has been involved in its production. The revised text suggested still would ban cartoons etc. (see my previous posts in this thread for an explanation of my position)

My problem is still with the enforcement of punishment. Unless what defines "punishment" (mostly whether punishment has to be punative or not) can be completely at the discretion of the member nation I would still have to vote against this should it come to the floor.
Both my proposal and the revised one allow the member nations to decide punishment.
I prefer my version because the definition of pornography is very difficult to pin down, and I would like to leave it as open as possible to not allow peadophiles to slip through.

But in my view the only justification for a ban on this kind of material is the infringement on the child's rights. If a paedophile is not infringing on a real child's rights (in this case, by using animated cartoon material), he should not be punished. If this isn't dealt with, I cannot support the proposal.

EDIT: the "wide definition" approach you advocate will lead to the punishment of people who have technically violated the text but have done nothing really wrong. You may as well say "Let's scrap courts' obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and just convict people when it seems likely that they were guilty. That way, we can ensure that far fewer guilty people get away with it"

widest definition allows for widest interpretation. allows for us disparate people to comply. In Spoonskia definition of pornography is anything not beneficial for procreation of Spoonskians. Using petty 1d logic, it follows that a child is not a procreatable device and thus imagery causing sexual desire for such device is not legal under law.

How we execute this law is OUR business. Unless stupid death penalty proposal get approved and enacted.

the "wide definition" approach you advocate will lead to the punishment of people who have technically violated the text but have done nothing really wrong. You may as well say "Let's scrap courts' obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and just convict people when it seems likely that they were guilty. That way, we can ensure that far fewer guilty people get away with it"
the "Wide Definition" allows the courts and the nation states to decide for themselves what material is allowed and what isn't. This way conservative countries can enforce a strict definition of pornography and more liberal countries can enforce a looser one.

edit:Spoonskia's 4d logic supports my thoughts completely

Both my proposal and the revised one allow the member nations to decide punishment.
I prefer my version because the definition of pornography is very difficult to pin down, and I would like to leave it as open as possible to not allow peadophiles to slip through.

Here's the thing - my nation believes that pedophillia is a condition, and that it can be treated. Whether we are right to believe that doesn't matter - it is what we believe. So I would not be capable of supporting a law that would punish someone in a punative way for something I don't believe is a crime. However if we are free to define punishment as treating them in a hospital, and treating them for as long as is required, then I have no more issues with this proposal and would support it (with one exception that has just occurred to me).

How does this affect material that is transported across national borders? Does the child have to be of the age of majority in the nation the photo/film/whatever was created/taken, or the age of majority in which it is viewed?

Here's the thing - my nation believes that pedophillia is a condition, and that it can be treated. Whether we are right to believe that doesn't matter - it is what we believe. So I would not be capable of supporting a law that would punish someone in a punative way for something I don't believe is a crime. However if we are free to define punishment as treating them in a hospital, and treating them for as long as is required, then I have no more issues with this proposal and would support it (with one exception that has just occurred to me).
Mandatory treatment as a court sentence is completely within the language of the proposal.


How does this affect material that is transported across national borders? Does the child have to be of the age of majority in the nation the photo/film/whatever was created/taken, or the age of majority in which it is viewed?
Because countries are free to define thier own age of consent, it may be possible that creating pornography in own nation is legal but viewing the same image(or whatever) in another country is not.

Child Protection Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Latin Union

WHEREAS the Member States of the United Nations recognize that the mental and physical health of the children of the world are sacrosanct, guaranteed to them as basic human rights, and highly important to the future of the world, and WHEREAS the Member States recognize that placing said children in sexual situations before they are deemed mature can be mentally traumatic and physically dangerous, the following resolution is proposed with the following definitions included:

DEFINITIONS:
Pornography: Any form of entertainment with the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. Specifically, the depiction of humans during masturbation, sexual intercourse, or other sexual acts, such as fellatio or sodomy. This may also include the depiction of humans in various states of nudity, as determined individually by each signing nation.
Age of Consent: A specific age, as set by each signing nation, that differentiates Minors from Adults within that nation concerning only the matters addressed in Resolution.
Minor: Any human under the Age of Consent in the signing nation.
Adult: Any human over the Age of Consent in the signing nation.
Entertainment: The transmission of ideas meant to be (in total) pleasing to the viewer over any medium.
Punishment: Action taken toward any citizen of or visitor to a United Nations Member State by said State's government as a direct result of their violation of this Resolution.

RESOLUTION:
HENCEFORTH, the production or ownership of Pornography that features or includes Minors in any capacity at any time is to be prohibited within all Member States of the United Nations. Punishment for violation of this Resolution is to be decided by the government of each Member State, as is the Age of Consent that differentiates Minors from Adults.

ADDENDUM:
This Resolution, though formally proposed and finally drafted by The Incorporated States of the Latin Union, was originally conceived and drafted by The United Socialist States of LLJK.

-----

Esteemed Representatives,
It is clear that one apparent general consensus in this debate is that the Resolution not bind all Member States to enforce the same punishment for the violation of this Resolution. I have attempted to include that as best I can. This will allow some nations to place their offenders in solitary confinement, while still others may simply send their offenders to a government clinic for rehabilitations. Still others may choose not to take any action against people within their nation that violate this Resolution, because it does not directly state that Punishment be taken, but that it could should the signing nation decide to do so.
In addition, it is possible through this Resolution that what may be deemed as Child Pornography in one nation may be legal in another because of a difference in the ages of consent set by each nation. A reverse situation could occur, where something completely legal in one nation is illegal in another. A person returning home from an exterior nation in which they obtained Pornography that includes Minors as defined by his/her home nation could be arrested for possessing it. Likewise, a visitor to a foreign nation that has a higher age of consent than his/her home nation could be arrested for the same reason. All of this occurs because the definitions of Minor and Adult rely on the age of consent "in the signing nation," as originally drafted by my colleague from LLJK.
There seems to be general consensus among all debating nations that each nation has the right to define what Child Pornography is. To do this, however, there must be specificity in defining what Pornography is. If this is done, then it is simply up to each Member State to set their age of consent. A nation that has no reservations about Child Pornography could set their age of consent, hypothetically, at 1 minute, whereas a nation that wishes to outlaw all forms of Pornography could set their age of consent at 200 years. Furthermore, this Resolution provides for the fact that the age that decides who can be in Pornography in a Member State does not also affect who can vote, drive a vehicle, serve in the military, etc. All terms used within this Resolution are specific to this Resolution and won't affect other Resolutions or laws in individual Member States.

Regards,
Ambassador Ivana Garcia-Lopez
United Nations Representative of the Latin Union

Mandatory treatment as a court sentence is completely within the language of the proposal.


Because countries are free to define thier own age of consent, it may be possible that creating pornography in own nation is legal but viewing the same image(or whatever) in another country is not.

Then, as unbelievable as this might sound given my strong objections for most of the past week, I will be happy to support this proposal in the UN, but only if it comes to a vote since I don't think I am allowed to endorse things or whatever it takes to get it to a vote :}

(Also I meant age of consent, and not age of majority. But in my country they are the same age so it doesn't matter!)

A person returning home from an exterior nation in which they obtained Pornography that includes Minors as defined by his/her home nation could be arrested for possessing it.


But this is the same for all things bought in another country. And if a person is visiting another country, then they know they are going to be stopped when they return home, and should take that in to account when buying things.


Likewise, a visitor to a foreign nation that has a higher age of consent than his/her home nation could be arrested for the same reason.


Again this applies to everything. You are subject to the laws of the country you are in, not the country of your birth/residence.


A nation that has no reservations about Child Pornography could set their age of consent, hypothetically, at 1 minute, whereas a nation that wishes to outlaw all forms of Pornography could set their age of consent at 200 years.


But that would also mean it would be illegal to have sex under the age of 200. Because the age of consent is the age at which a person can legally have sex in that country. If it is set to 200 years then anyone having sex under that age would be breaking the law and (most likely) guilty of rape.

I am still not sure what your point is, and whether or not you oppose this proposal.

Esteemed Representative from TilEnca,

Thank you for your response. I will include excerpts from it in my own, following response:

But this is the same for all things bought in another country. And if a person is visiting another country, then they know they are going to be stopped when they return home, and should take that in to account when buying things.

...

Again this applies to everything. You are subject to the laws of the country you are in, not the country of your birth/residence.

I understand this concept. I was taking it into account when I wrote the second proposal, and was intending on clarifying this to representatives who may not have realized this. However, I failed to mention that it applies in all situations. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

But that would also mean it would be illegal to have sex under the age of 200. Because the age of consent is the age at which a person can legally have sex in that country. If it is set to 200 years then anyone having sex under that age would be breaking the law and (most likely) guilty of rape.

I stated near the end of my second proposal that the terminology in this Resolution applies only to this Resolution and not to other Resolutions or the internal laws of a Member State. However, this may not be entirely clear in this Revision, so I will go back and modify those sections of the Resolution to clarify this. Thank you for brining this to my attention as well.

I am still not sure what your point is, and whether or not you oppose this proposal.

I, and the nation I represent, are greatly in favor of a UN Resolution to keep our chidren safe. I am simply attempting to create a Resolution that takes into account all issues addressed during debate.

Regards,
Ambassador Ivana Garcia-Lopez
United Nations Representative of the Latin Union

the "Wide Definition" allows the courts and the nation states to decide for themselves what material is allowed and what isn't. This way conservative countries can enforce a strict definition of pornography and more liberal countries can enforce a looser one.

Since UN resolutions are absolutely binding in NS, we would be forced to follow fully the exact definition set out in the resolution (i.e. catch anyone who comes under it, even if common sense tells us they've done nothing wrong), unless the resolution made it clear that this was a suggested definition.

And you still haven't responded to my concerns about banning animation.

Since UN resolutions are absolutely binding in NS, we would be forced to follow fully the exact definition set out in the resolution (i.e. catch anyone who comes under it, even if common sense tells us they've done nothing wrong), unless the resolution made it clear that this was a suggested definition.

And you still haven't responded to my concerns about banning animation.
Of course all nations are bound to follow the exact definition, that is why the language in mine is loose so nations have some freedom in enforcing it.

Addressing your concerns about animation, unless there are naked kids posing for the drawings, there is no involvement of minors in the creation of that form of pornography and it's legal.

Representatives,

I agree with my colleague from LLJK that animation pornography is legal unless real Minors are involved in its production. The primary focus of this Resolution is the protection of our children.

Conversely, the "loose definition" approach guarantees the safety of our children in no way at all. If nations are allowed to define Pornography in any way they see fit, there is no guarantee that several nations will simply not define it at all and allow their children to go on being molested. In addition, the current Resolution which I have proposed still allows extremist nations to keep their children in Pornography simply by defining a ridiculously low Age of Consent that pertains to the Resolution.

The general idea here is that we increase awareness of children in Pornography and that the Member States of the United Nations are encouraged to prevent our children from being traumatized. It is not even necessary that possession of child pornography be labeled a crime under this Resolution, so I have taken steps to allow nations to deal with owners of said material however they see fit.

We want to protect our children in ALL of our Member States. That is the intention here. By allowing Member States to define Pornography any way they see fit, we are not enforcing this intention. I would even take steps to agree upon a UN-wide Age of Consent pertaining to this Resolution, but I fear that extended debate on that issue would only prevent any form of Resolution from being enacted. As a result, the only loose definition I would allow Member States to mandate in the case of this Resolution is the Age of Consent. By keeping that open but strictly defining Pornography, we create an acute awareness of how and why child Pornography is wrong and must be controlled within the UN. We move our intention forward. It may not meet full fruition in some countries, but those that genuinely want their children to be safe will set an Age of Consent that protects them. Those that do not may be viewed by many other nations as extremists and could possibly lose support within the UN because of it. If a nation wants to stay popular and influential in the United Nations, they will protect their children from sexual trauma. That is the intention of the Resolution I have proposed.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Ivana Garcia-Lopez
Representative of the Latin Union

Conversely, the "loose definition" approach guarantees the safety of our children in no way at all. If nations are allowed to define Pornography in any way they see fit, there is no guarantee that several nations will simply not define it at all and allow their children to go on being molested. In addition, the current Resolution which I have proposed still allows extremist nations to keep their children in Pornography simply by defining a ridiculously low Age of Consent that pertains to the Resolution.

I would even take steps to agree upon a UN-wide Age of Consent pertaining to this Resolution, but I fear that extended debate on that issue would only prevent any form of Resolution from being enacted.

I realise there are problems, but this is the way it will always be. The UN should not be permitted to define what is moral for each country. And it certainly should not be permitted to define what the citizens of every country find obscene, as this will venture in to the realms of "thought-crime" and that is a dangerous area to go in to.

There's a difference between a wide definition, which is what you have, and a loose, open-to-interpretation definition - which you don't. If your text passed in its existing form, it would force nations to prosecute anyone and everyone who fell under the widest reaches of the wide definition you offer.

And although you say now that material not involving real children would be legal, you have not made it clear in the text itself, which is the only thing that really matters in the end.

A better approach to this problem would be to say that nobody can feature in pornography unless they give their explicit consent, and that minors are not capable of giving said consent (similar to the way sex and the age of sexual consent is handled in reality).

EDIT: THis approach would also justify a human rights categorisation for the resolution, which would increase your chances of passing it. But you MUST check with a mod before submitting this in human rights category (I may be wrong, and if it was illegal, you would get in trouble)

There's a difference between a wide definition, which is what you have, and a loose, open-to-interpretation definition - which you don't. If your text passed in its existing form, it would force nations to prosecute anyone and everyone who fell under the widest reaches of the wide definition you offer.

However it also states that the punishment for the offences is determined by the nation state. So if the prosecution is for something that is way, way outside the average definition of child porn, the nation could simply say the punishment is being told "well - don't do it again" and nothing more would be said.

(OOC: I'm quitting with the whole "esteemed representatives" deal. I think it might have got on peoples' nerves. So just imagine Garcia-Lopez speaking in a conference or something.)

I realise there are problems, but this is the way it will always be. The UN should not be permitted to define what is moral for each country. And it certainly should not be permitted to define what the citizens of every country find obscene, as this will venture in to the realms of "thought-crime" and that is a dangerous area to go in to.

I wholeheartedly concur with this opinion. Although I would greatly appreciate strong, decisive action to be taken against Child Pornography worldwide, I realize that the UN cannot be allowed to regulate the morality of the societies it encompasses. Given the fact that it appears a similar, morally-motivated proposed Resolution that would ban marriage under age 15 is currently losing in the polls, and given that my nation is against said proposal for reasons I will go into if asked, I move that this Resolution be dropped. In addition, I would like to state that the Latin Union is currently taking action against Child Pornography within its own borders, in an effort to protect Latin children.

However it also states that the punishment for the offences is determined by the nation state. So if the prosecution is for something that is way, way outside the average definition of child porn, the nation could simply say the punishment is being told "well - don't do it again" and nothing more would be said.

That's still a waste of the judiciary's time and the citizen's time - and thus an infringement on his rights. Why settle for a solution which requires fudging like this, when with a little work, it could be improved?

I wholeheartedly concur with this opinion. Although I would greatly appreciate strong, decisive action to be taken against Child Pornography worldwide, I realize that the UN cannot be allowed to regulate the morality of the societies it encompasses. Given the fact that it appears a similar, morally-motivated proposed Resolution that would ban marriage under age 15 is currently losing in the polls, and given that my nation is against said proposal for reasons I will go into if asked, I move that this Resolution be dropped. In addition, I would like to state that the Latin Union is currently taking action against Child Pornography within its own borders, in an effort to protect Latin children.

The UN is not attempting to regulate the morality of it's member nations. It is trying to protect the children, by requiring it's members to do something about what is considered child porn in each nation. It is not requiring that my nation do something about my neighbours, as that is none of my business.

There's a difference between a wide definition, which is what you have, and a loose, open-to-interpretation definition - which you don't. If your text passed in its existing form, it would force nations to prosecute anyone and everyone who fell under the widest reaches of the wide definition you offer.

Sorry I had another thought about this.

The text in it's existing form (as I understand it, though I should go back and re-read it from what you have said) says that the nation gets to decide what is prosectuable and what isn't. Not every nation has to follow the widest definition, only the definition that is applicable in their country.

The UN is not attempting to regulate the morality of it's member nations. It is trying to protect the children, by requiring it's members to do something about what is considered child porn in each nation. It is not requiring that my nation do something about my neighbours, as that is none of my business.

If we are to attempt to satisfy all governments with a broad, open-to-interpretation Resolution, we may as well not pass a Resolution at all, as either way nations who do not wish to take any action will not. If action is to be taken within the ENTIRETY OF THE UNITED NATIONS against child pornography, that action must be clearly defined and required for all nations to follow. Otherwise, the children of many Member States may still go on to be molested and abused for entertainment.

We are becoming so bogged down in trying to keep this Resolution open to any form of interpretation that the original intent of the Resolution is being lost. If we are to protect the children of all nations, we must do so with a definite decision on what makes a child and what makes pornography. Otherwise, children may still be traumatized.

For example, I would define Pornography exactly as it is stated in the draft of the Resolution I have proposed. There is a clause in the definition of Pornography that delineates certain forms of nudity as being pornographic, but those can be determined later. I would also define a child as anyone aged 14 or under.

If we are to attempt to satisfy all governments with a broad, open-to-interpretation Resolution, we may as well not pass a Resolution at all, as either way nations who do not wish to take any action will not. If action is to be taken within the ENTIRETY OF THE UNITED NATIONS against child pornography, that action must be clearly defined and required for all nations to follow. Otherwise, the children of many Member States may still go on to be molested and abused for entertainment.

We are becoming so bogged down in trying to keep this Resolution open to any form of interpretation that the original intent of the Resolution is being lost. If we are to protect the children of all nations, we must do so with a definite decision on what makes a child and what makes pornography. Otherwise, children may still be traumatized.

For example, I would define Pornography exactly as it is stated in the draft of the Resolution I have proposed. There is a clause in the definition of Pornography that delineates certain forms of nudity as being pornographic, but those can be determined later. I would also define a child as anyone aged 14 or under.

And if I were to tell you that in my country people of the age of 14 are legally adults? With all the rights, including marriage, that adults have? Would you force me to pass a law that would categorize them as children, but only if they are naked?

I am fully behind a law preventing the abuse of children for the entertainment of other children and adults. But I am not willing to have another country tell my people what they should find obscene and what they can find acceptable. My people are capable of making up their own minds about that.

As this proposal stands (or as I thought it stood - maybe it has changed) I am happy to accept it. But if it starts to get in to the details of what and what isn't covered by this - if it starts to include absolutes - then I will be forced to reconsider my support.

And what about non-human citizens of UN nations? Many age at different rates to humans.

And what about non-human citizens of UN nations? Many age at different rates to humans.

I wasn't going to mention that, since this is a debate about most things. However if you class a child as "someone beneath the age of majority" then, in theory, each nation can define the age of majority for each race, or one across each race. But - and this is where it becomes important - it would be at the will of the nation, and the people of the races of the nation.

Again - I am all for the protection of children, and the prevention of child porn, but only as it stands within the boundries of each nation.

This situation is probably best suited to a resolution which simply "urges" nations to enact laws to combat the production and distribution of pornographic material featuring individuals too young to consent to it. If it's just a very strong recommendation, you don't have to fiddle with definitions, and lots of nations can still be assumed to follow. After all, the RL UN General Assembly doesn't issue binding resolutions, AFAIK.

This situation is probably best suited to a resolution which simply "urges" nations to enact laws to combat the production and distribution of pornographic material featuring individuals too young to consent to it.

If such a recommendation could be considered a Resolution, then I would vote for it without hesitation.

I must admit I had not taken non-human races into account when drafting my current version of the Resolution. If desired I can change that.

However, as far as humanity is concerned, I am not proposing we set a standard Age of Consent for all nations, because TilEnca did bring up a good point in stating that citizens of a nation under age 14 could be considered adults. The Resolution as currently drafted would not require a set Age of Consent.

Oh recommendation resolutions are perfectly acceptable rules-wise, also they're often more appropriate, and the less intrusive measures are more likely to gain support from the national sovereignty-ites.

I would suggest something along the lines of this rough draft:

Pornography and Consent

Recognising that some nations prefer to prohibit the production, distribution and possession of all pornographic material (that is, media used to provoke sexual excitement - or something along these lines),

Believing that freedom of expression is important,

Believing that if pornography is to be produced featuring visual and/or audio recordings of real people (such as, but not limited to, photographs and film) (as opposed to drawn or similar depictions, or written fiction), the uncoerced consent of those depicted should be obtained first,

Believing that those too young to consent to sexual intercourse are also too young to consent to be featured in pornographic recordings,

Recognising that for the different cultures, societies and species of UN member nations, different approaches to various features of the problem of consent in this context (including, but not limited to, methods of enforcement, exactly what is regarded as pornography, and specific ages of consent) will be appropriate,

The United Nations,
1) Reluctantly re-affirms member nations' right to prohibit any pornographic material, subject to any restrictions placed by previous resolutions and until such time as the UN decides to legislate further on the matter;
2) Strongly urges member nations to enact laws outlawing the production of pornographic recordings (as defined above) when done without the consent of those persons featured in said recordings;
3) Strongly urges member nations to enact laws declaring that children (to be defined by each member nation) are not able to give consent to be featured in pornographic material, and to do their utmost within reason to stop the production, distribution and possession of child pornography (defined as pornographic recordings featuring individuals unable to give consent to be featured by reason of age);
4) Notes that clauses 2 and 3 do not refer to material which does not feature recordings of real individuals (e.g. drawn animations, or written descriptions).


LOL I only intended to write a brief outline but it turned into a fairly full text. Well I guess it could still do with some work. Anyone got any suggestions? Once it's been refined, I might hand it on to someone interested in submitting and campaigning, as long as I get a nice credit at the end of the text ;)

The Latin Union greatly supports this new version of the Resolution. I would gladly take on the responsibility of submitting and campaigning for it, but I would require two endorsements in order to do so. If another nation that already has endorsements is willing to propose the Resolution formally, the Latin Union will join them in their campaign.

I have to go now, but don't submit this yet. It needs to be refined in its own forum topic, and then I'll hand it to someone else.

I've posted a slightly edited version of that draft in the thread on the link below for feedback. I think I might submit it myself, if I get good feedback http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361973