NationStates Jolt Archive

Pornography and Consent

Category: Probably Moral Decency/Mild, unless I can make an acceptable argument that by insisting on consent, I am protecting human rights.

The General Assembly,

Recognising that some nations prefer to prohibit the production, distribution and possession of all pornographic material (defined for the purposes of this resolution as media used to provoke sexual excitement),

Believing that freedom of expression is important,

Believing that it is the basic right of every individual not to be featured in pornographic visual and/or audio recordings (such as, but not limited to, photographs and film) (as opposed to drawn or similar depictions, or written fiction) without their explicit consent having first been obtained,

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 for the purposes of this legislation by each member nation - it is recommended that the age of consent for pornography be at least as high as that for sexual intercourse) 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).








I accidentally wrote this draft whilst trying to explain in LLJK's "Child Proctection Act version 2 DRAFT" thread what I thought was a better approach to the problem (I intended only to outline my idea, but it turned into a full draft text). Anyway, it seems a shame to let it go to waste, so I'm looking for feedback on anything about this with a view to possibly submitting. A main problem is how to clarify the issue of children appearing in, say, a film in a totally innocuous role and scene, but where another scene in the film is of pornographic nature.

Hopefully, this solution will be more amenable to all sides, because it doesn't infringe on national sovereignty (no actions are mandated, only recommended) and tackles the problem more from the side of protecting rights than enforcing "moral" standards.

Pornography and Consent

Category: Probably Moral Decency/Mild, unless I can make an acceptable argument that by insisting on consent, I am protecting human rights.

The General Assembly,

Recognising that some nations prefer to prohibit the production, distribution and possession of all pornographic material (defined for the purposes of this resolution as media used to provoke sexual excitement),

Believing that freedom of expression is important,

Believing that it is the basic right of every individual not to be featured in pornographic visual and/or audio recordings (such as, but not limited to, photographs and film) (as opposed to drawn or similar depictions, or written fiction) without their explicit consent having first been obtained,

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 for the purposes of this legislation by each member nation - it is recommended that the age of consent for pornography be at least as high as that for sexual intercourse) 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).


Moral Decency is the appropriate category.

My "Good Samaritan Laws" (GSL) proposal attempts to protect lives by slightly establishing laws limiting silly and counterproductive law suits. You are protecting the freedom from exploitation, by developing standards.

Moral Decnecy is not a bad thing ... it "laws" and "rule of order" were so bad, there would be no need for governments to exist whatsoever.


I added spaces to your text, but like it. However, I'm wondering if we could work a reference to Stephanistan's resolution about Children in here as part of your justification. That nation built the human rights, now you are acting on the agreed upon human rights. I would say, "Recalling its resolution The Child Protection Act, adopted Aug. 2, 2003, which stated ..." as your first preambulatory clause.

Thanks, that's an excellent idea.

I'd just have preffered to categorise as human rights, partly to reflect the approach of protecting rights/freedoms rather than imposing illiberal measures, and partly because it would probably win more votes. But you are, of course, correct.

Having looked at Stephistan's resolution, I think this might be appropriate:

Recalling its resolution The Child Protection Act, adopted Aug. 2, 2003, which stated that "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of ... exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)",

A main problem is how to clarify the issue of children appearing in, say, a film in a totally innocuous role and scene, but where another scene in the film is of pornographic nature.


That really depends on whether you want to permit children to see porn of any type. To sidetrack to the real world for a moment, children can be in films such as these, but they can not appear in any scenes where sexual behaviour is taking place.

If you want to permit that, then children can appear in scenes where sex is taking place, as long as they themselves do not take part.
If you don't then you can say that children can not appear in any scenes of a pornographic nature, but may appear in a film where these scenes exist.

(or something like that)

Well, im new in the NationsStates so im playing catchup. I did read over all the resolutions to get a idea of what we have passed before i joined this game. Im very pleased to see we are looking to keep children out of porno films. As a christian I believe pornography shouldnt be tolorated at all. Im at the moment working on a proposal with some friends, so i will hold off on dealing with porno resolutions.
Though I will vote for any resolutions that fight against porno in anyway. Im not the best of readers but I ask that you include in it that altogether children are not permitted to be in any pornographic scenes. Make your "final draft" and ill throw my final 2 cent at it.

Having looked at Stephistan's resolution, I think this might be appropriate:

Looks great to me! :)

I'm neutral with respect to the other suggestions, meaning you've got my vote and support in debate with or without them added in.

That really depends on whether you want to permit children to see porn of any type. To sidetrack to the real world for a moment, children can be in films such as these, but they can not appear in any scenes where sexual behaviour is taking place.

If you want to permit that, then children can appear in scenes where sex is taking place, as long as they themselves do not take part.
If you don't then you can say that children can not appear in any scenes of a pornographic nature, but may appear in a film where these scenes exist.

(or something like that)

I think I'll add "featuring in a sexual role". If nations want to be stricter, they can, and if they don't, they don't have to. I think you're right that this is linked to whether kids are allowed to see porn, and since the text is already reluctantly neutral on censorship, I think it's best to keep it that way.

Oh, and to close up a loophole I just noted, I'm going to add in that adults shouldn't be able to give consent on children's behalf in this matter.

Santonsia, it's good to see a newcomer looking at past resolutions and participating in debate. Although I suspect that we'll disagree on many issues (beginning with your apparent stance on censorship), I wish you luck and welcome you to the UN. As to your request, I'm going to go with the stance outlined above, so as to allow nations as much choice as possible as long as the child's right not to be an object of sexual attention is protected - compromise is often needed in a UN with such diversity.

So the current text is as follows:




Pornography and Consent

Category: Probably Moral Decency/Mild

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution The Child Protection Act, adopted Aug. 2, 2003, which stated that "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of ... exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person(s)",

Recognising that some nations prefer to prohibit the production, distribution and possession of all pornographic material (defined for the purposes of this resolution as media used to provoke sexual excitement),

Believing that freedom of expression is important,

Believing that it is the basic right of every individual not to be featured in pornographic visual and/or audio recordings (such as, but not limited to, photographs and film) (as opposed to drawn or similar depictions, or written fiction) without their explicit consent having first been obtained,

Believing that those too young to consent to sexual intercourse are also too young 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 for the purposes of this legislation by each member nation - it is recommended that the age of consent for pornography be at least as high as that for sexual intercourse) are not able to give consent to be featured in a sexual role in pornographic material, and that no adult may give consent on behalf of a child in this matter, 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).

Just a thought...

Not all nations/people find pornography wrong, in fact they may not even agree about what it is. It is only people, over time who have decided that the act of sex is morally wrong to view, if time was replayed would it still be offensive, or would something else be deemed distasteful...e.g. dancing or singing?

Just a thought...

Not all nations/people find pornography wrong, in fact they may not even agree about what it is. It is only people, over time who have decided that the act of sex is morally wrong to view, if time was replayed would it still be offensive, or would something else be deemed distasteful...e.g. dancing or singing?

This proposal is not setting out to ban pornography in general - just porn that involves those below the age of consent for the nation they live in. And not because they object to those children appearing in it, but because if a child can not consent to sex, they can not consent to having sex in a film.

And so if the country passes laws forbidden children to sing or dance then yes - this proposal would cover that as well. But then that is a matter for the nation to decide, and should be covered by the proposal.

However I would venture to say that in the majority of countries this proposal would only cover those who would make films of children having sex (of any type).

I support this proposal, but I think that it should be added that they have the option of backing out of the film at any point until the filming is complete.

Well, im new in the NationsStates so im playing catchup. I did read over all the resolutions to get a idea of what we have passed before i joined this game. Im very pleased to see we are looking to keep children out of porno films. As a christian I believe pornography shouldnt be tolorated at all. Im at the moment working on a proposal with some friends, so i will hold off on dealing with porno resolutions.
Though I will vote for any resolutions that fight against porno in anyway. Im not the best of readers but I ask that you include in it that altogether children are not permitted to be in any pornographic scenes. Make your "final draft" and ill throw my final 2 cent at it.

*Whap* Not all of us are christians, and not all of us are anti-pornography. I'm all for it. In fact, my schools have "Instructional Pornography" as a required class.

I really like the way this proposal leaves most definitions in the hands of the individual nations, making it less of a "UN OR ELSE" and more of a "Let's all get on the same page" proposal.

Strength:Mild?

Vastiva gives it's support to this as stated.

Sinjin Lefkowitz al-Din, Sultan and State of Vastiva

Just a thought...

Not all nations/people find pornography wrong, in fact they may not even agree about what it is. It is only people, over time who have decided that the act of sex is morally wrong to view, if time was replayed would it still be offensive, or would something else be deemed distasteful...e.g. dancing or singing?

I agree that pornography should not be banned, but that isn't what my proposal is about. It's merely a recommendation that nations recognise in law that:

1) People should not be featured in pornography without giving consent
2) Children should not feature in entertainment as targets of sexual attention.

I think these are things that the vast majority of us can agree on, no? In fact, my text only "reluctantly" recognises the right of governments to censor porn.

Ramjuk, that's a slightly different subject which does not fit in my proposal. Plus, many nations, especially those of a more libertarian bent, would regard this as a matter to be dealt with contractually between the actor and his/her employer.

Vastiva, thanks for your support.

Interesting concept.

*Whap* Not all of us are christians, and not all of us are anti-pornography. I'm all for it. In fact, my schools have "Instructional Pornography" as a required class.

Thanks for the news flash Vastiva. The reason why i included I am a Christian is so that you know why my opinions are the way they are. What i really ment to say is. Anything that limits pornography i will support. Reason being is that i dont think it should be legall period but freedom is something we all deserve and people should be allowd to make a living off of it (of course ones who are at legall age to be considered adults). But I just feal that, If 18 is the legall age for people to have sex then that should be the min age for people to be included in porno. Add in moral standards, pornography can really curpupt mens minds. THus i can only amagine what it would do to a minors. Just like drugs, you start with Cigs, you got to Mary Jane, and then you go to bigger things. You do porn, you go to stripp clubs, you then get into prostitues (and with some mens cases, your commiting adultery) and before you know it, your life is officaly based around sex. You are then no greater then the drunk man on the side walk or the heroin addict who has shoot up for the rest of his life.
Wow that sounds pretty harsh.....
Anyways, i will indeed support you and will encourage my delegate to support the proposal.
GoodLuck

Thanks for the news flash Vastiva. The reason why i included I am a Christian is so that you know why my opinions are the way they are. What i really ment to say is. Anything that limits pornography i will support. Reason being is that i dont think it should be legall period but freedom is something we all deserve and people should be allowd to make a living off of it (of course ones who are at legall age to be considered adults). But I just feal that, If 18 is the legall age for people to have sex then that should be the min age for people to be included in porno. Add in moral standards, pornography can really curpupt mens minds. THus i can only amagine what it would do to a minors. Just like drugs, you start with Cigs, you got to Mary Jane, and then you go to bigger things. You do porn, you go to stripp clubs, you then get into prostitues (and with some mens cases, your commiting adultery) and before you know it, your life is officaly based around sex. You are then no greater then the drunk man on the side walk or the heroin addict who has shoot up for the rest of his life.
Wow that sounds pretty harsh.....
Anyways, i will indeed support you and will encourage my delegate to support the proposal.
GoodLuck

I'm sorry to argue with you, but the whole idea of one thing leads to another is not always the case. Some of my fiances friends appriciate their pornography, and none of them ended up cheating on their partners. Plus you seem to be totally over looking the fact that a lot of women like porn as well - are they going to be corrupted, or is it just men who are that feeble minded?

I fully support keeping children out of the porn business until they reach the age of consent (and the age of majority, since they have to sign contracts, or should have to sign contracts at least!) because they deserve their childhood, and being raped on film will not do them any good. But in no way would I support this as a starting point for banning other types of porn. Once someone is old enough to decide for themselves, the government has no place in interfering unless they are putting someone else's life at risk by doing it (and to some extend their own life, but that is a gray area which my government doesn't really want to get in to unless it has to).

Porn can corrupt mens minds, but only if the men are in a position to be corrupted anyway.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites approves of the current version of the resolution and will endorse it when it is submitted.

Are we starting to get Frivolous UN Proposals now?

It is good to be getting support from more than one part of the political spectrum, and I'd like to thank everyone who has offered input so far. However, I will say that I will fight tooth and nail against any attempt to censor pornography outright at an international level. As far as I am concerned, unless s/he is infringing on the rights of others, it should be up to the individual to decide what is the right thing to do. If someone wants to base his/her life around sex, as long as it is all consensual and overage, IMO the government shouldn't try to stop them.

EDIT: Syndra - I don't know why you think this is frivolous. It is a statement of the UN's position that people should not be featured in pornography without consenting, and that kids - however that is defined in each society- shouldn't be able to consent to it (just as in most nations they can't consent to sex).

BUMP - any more feedback?

BUMP - any more feedback?

Something very, very sneaky just occurred to me.

What if you are in a situation where you are required to film something that could be defined as porn, but you can not possibly get consent?

Say for example my law officers were watching a building, because they believed that various crimes were going on. And as part of that they end up recording two consenting adults having sex.

Now would this be classed as porn, given that it might have the ability to induce sexual excitement in people, even though it is soley created for the purpose of evidence?

And if so would the person who filmed it be in violation of this proposal, because they did not (and, logically, could not) obtain consent from the people in the film?

I know - this is a pretty contrived example, but if I can imagine it then it is possible it could hapen.

Say for example my law officers were watching a building, because they believed that various crimes were going on. And as part of that they end up recording two consenting adults having sex.
I don't claim to be an expert on law but I would figure that since they didn't intend to film the sex act that they would not be in violation of the law.

This really depends on national law - as it should.

In Vastiva, cameras are omnipresent in all public areas. If you get on film doing something ridiculous, well you were in public and deal with it. Further, once police get the warrant, they have the right.

And that is where this should remain - a national decision of how to deal with such events.

Thanks for the news flash Vastiva. The reason why i included I am a Christian is so that you know why my opinions are the way they are. What i really ment to say is. Anything that limits pornography i will support. Reason being is that i dont think it should be legall period but freedom is something we all deserve and people should be allowd to make a living off of it (of course ones who are at legall age to be considered adults). But I just feal that, If 18 is the legall age for people to have sex then that should be the min age for people to be included in porno. Add in moral standards, pornography can really curpupt mens minds. THus i can only amagine what it would do to a minors. Just like drugs, you start with Cigs, you got to Mary Jane, and then you go to bigger things. You do porn, you go to stripp clubs, you then get into prostitues (and with some mens cases, your commiting adultery) and before you know it, your life is officaly based around sex. You are then no greater then the drunk man on the side walk or the heroin addict who has shoot up for the rest of his life.
Wow that sounds pretty harsh.....
Anyways, i will indeed support you and will encourage my delegate to support the proposal.
GoodLuck


I'm sorry to argue with you, but the whole idea of one thing leads to another is not always the case. Some of my fiances friends appriciate their pornography, and none of them ended up cheating on their partners. Plus you seem to be totally over looking the fact that a lot of women like porn as well - are they going to be corrupted, or is it just men who are that feeble minded?

I fully support keeping children out of the porn business until they reach the age of consent (and the age of majority, since they have to sign contracts, or should have to sign contracts at least!) because they deserve their childhood, and being raped on film will not do them any good. But in no way would I support this as a starting point for banning other types of porn. Once someone is old enough to decide for themselves, the government has no place in interfering unless they are putting someone else's life at risk by doing it (and to some extend their own life, but that is a gray area which my government doesn't really want to get in to unless it has to).

Porn can corrupt mens minds, but only if the men are in a position to be corrupted anyway.

As much as I'd love to debate this one (as in "open minds, both sides listen and look into what is brought up"), it is not Vastiva's desire to hijack this thread. If you would like to debate this, we can create another thread.

As much as I'd love to debate this one (as in "open minds, both sides listen and look into what is brought up"), it is not Vastiva's desire to hijack this thread. If you would like to debate this, we can create another thread.

I have no desire to debate it either, and also didn't mean to sidetrack the thread - so if you have no objection we leave it where it is :}

Something very, very sneaky just occurred to me.

What if you are in a situation where you are required to film something that could be defined as porn, but you can not possibly get consent?

Say for example my law officers were watching a building, because they believed that various crimes were going on. And as part of that they end up recording two consenting adults having sex.

Now would this be classed as porn, given that it might have the ability to induce sexual excitement in people, even though it is soley created for the purpose of evidence?

No, this would not fit into the classification of pornography, on the premise that was done respectfully and as a matter of evidence. From 'personal perspective' the classification of something as pornography is entirely dependant on one's thoughts (ie. to a pervert, the Mona Lisa could be classified as pornography). However, as this is hardly able to be controlled, managed, or legislated for or against, legal definitions should only be concerned about, I believe, the intentions of the creator of the suspected pornography.

Sometimes the intention of the creator is very hard to discern, as there are many who will readily lie about this. Such as when President Bill Clinton admitted that he'd touched Monica Lewinsky's breasts, but "not with the intent to arouse" (a -rough- quotation)...right. His intentions which seemed obvious before have become hazed slightly. This makes it hard to prove what his intentions were. One's intentions can at times be sensed from other, surrounding evidence (ie. if the video of evidence included background music, this would point towards a different intention for its recording than otherwise). But this is not always the case. Sometimes it's impossible to prove either way.

Although it is at times hard to derive intention from observation, it's a problem that is everywhere and I'm certain that judicial systems in many NS countries will have to deal with it sooner or later.

So, no it is not pornographic material because it was created without the purpose "to provoke sexual excitement". True, someone may abuse this media (a cop after-hours, in the archives), but this cannot make the creator punishable. Certainly, we don't try to prosecute those Chinese celebrators who first made gunpowder every time someone dies from a gunshot wound.

OOC: this post may have a few good points in it, but reading back, it sure is a chore to get them out of it, isn't it?

No, this would not fit into the classification of pornography, on the premise that was done respectfully and as a matter of evidence.

That's what I thought. But I knew if I didn't at least bring it to light it would bug me quite a lot in the future.

I like the idea, but without Myopia's alterations.

TilEnca, you bring up a very good point. Since my text is a recommendation for each nation to enact their own appropriate laws, nations would be free to consider each possible exception that occured to them and deal with it as they saw fit. Powerhungry Chipmunks, nations would equally be free to legislate on their own definition of pornography, although the recommendations of this resolution work on a definition based on the use of the material to provoke sexual excitement.

Despite nations' abilities to work these things through themselves, though, I think I'll add an operative clause saying:

5) Urges national governments to legislate upon possible exceptions such as warranted law enforcement-related surveillance in such a way as to maintain the spirit of this resolution as far as is deemed reasonable.


Onion Pirates, what don't you like exactly?

TilEnca, you bring up a very good point. Since my text is a recommendation for each nation to enact their own appropriate laws, nations would be free to consider each possible exception that occured to them and deal with it as they saw fit. Powerhungry Chipmunks, nations would equally be free to legislate on their own definition of pornography, although the recommendations of this resolution work on a definition based on the use of the material to provoke sexual excitement.

Despite nations' abilities to work these things through themselves, though, I think I'll add an operative clause saying:

5) Urges national governments to legislate upon possible exceptions such as warranted law enforcement-related surveillance in such a way as to maintain the spirit of this resolution as far as is deemed reasonable.


Onion Pirates, what don't you like exactly?

I am suitably impressed. The clause should remove any problems my nation's law officers should have with the proposal. Thank you :}

I'm pleased that you're pleased - that's one step closer to a version that might pass. :)

I like it. You have my support. However, perhaps it should be taken one step further, and make a minimum of age of consent for sex and porno the same age. seems to stand to reason.

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,

I really like this clause. This allows member nations to maintain control over their culture and society while still adhereing to the UN's beliefs on things.

I like it. You have my support. However, perhaps it should be taken one step further, and make a minimum of age of consent for sex and porno the same age. seems to stand to reason.

I'm going to leave that up to individual nations, though I have recommended that the age of consent for porn is at least that for sex (in the UK in reality I think it's 18 for porn, whereas it's 16 for sex. Nations that allow minors to have sex still might not be happy at filming it.). It seems fairly pointless to specify any further when the rest is merely recommendation.

It is good to have your support, though.

I'm going to leave that up to individual nations, though I have recommended that the age of consent for porn is at least that for sex (in the UK in reality I think it's 18 for porn, whereas it's 16 for sex. Nations that allow minors to have sex still might not be happy at filming it.). It seems fairly pointless to specify any further when the rest is merely recommendation.

It is good to have your support, though.

It's not so much the filming of it that I would have a problem with. But if you are to appear in a film, you have to be of legal age to sign a contract, otherwise you could easily be exploited.

In my country the age of consent is the age of majority, so this would not be an issue.

I understand what you mean, but I'd rather not get bogged down in technicalities in a recommendation resolution. I will simply recommend that the age of consent for porn should be at least as high as the age at which individuals can make contracts and be employed.

Other changes have also been made according to suggestions made outisde this forum, so here's the text:



Pornography and Consent

Category: Probably Moral Decency/Mild

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution The Child Protection Act, adopted Aug. 2, 2003, which stated that "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of ... exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person(s)",

Recognising that some nations prefer to prohibit the production, distribution and possession of all pornographic material (defined for the purposes of this resolution as media used to provoke sexual excitement),

Believing that freedom of expression is important,

Believing that it is the basic right of every individual not to be featured in pornographic visual and/or audio recordings (such as, but not limited to, photographs and film) (as opposed to drawn or similar depictions, or written fiction) without their explicit consent having first been obtained,

Believing that those too young to consent to sexual intercourse are also too young 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, specific ages of consent, existing laws regarding contracts and employment) 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 and distribution of pornographic recordings (as defined above) when done without the explicit consent of those persons featured in sexual roles said recordings, and to do their utmost within reason to stop the production, distribution and possession of pornography produced in contravention of such laws;

3) Strongly urges member nations to enact laws declaring that children (to be defined for the purposes of this legislation by each member nation - it is recommended that the age of consent for pornography be at least as high as that for sexual intercourse and the age at which individuals may make contracts and be employed) are not able to give consent to be featured in a sexual role in pornographic material, and that no adult may give consent on behalf of a child in this matter, 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); and

5) Urges national governments to legislate upon possible exceptions such as warranted law enforcement-related surveillance in such a way as to maintain the spirit of this resolution as far as is deemed reasonable.

This has my total support. It is well written, well thought through and totally convincing.

I will be happy to vote for this when it comes to the floor.

Thanks very much :) . I wasn't intending to put a serious effort into this proposal but seeing the support I now feel it's worth a good push on my part. I guess I'll have to find time to squeeze in a TG campaign. Any advice from any experienced TG campaigners?

I, too, will support this proposal, and I hope my delegate will approve it.

Never done one myself, but from what I've heard from those who have had success, tg the delegates who have supported resolutions on the upcoming resolutions page. That way you know that if they don't give you an endorsement its because they don't agree - not that they are just to lazy.

Thanks very much :) . I wasn't intending to put a serious effort into this proposal but seeing the support I now feel it's worth a good push on my part. I guess I'll have to find time to squeeze in a TG campaign. Any advice from any experienced TG campaigners?

This is just *one* of many methods:

There is a Moral Decency (Mild) resolution on the floor. Start your TG campaign by focusing on the YES votes.

Copy the entire list into a word document. Break the list into smaller groups, I think around 5 lines per group might work.

Save the file as *.txt.

Open the *.txt file in MS Excel, but separate fields based on the "," character.

Transpose (clippit will tell you how to do this ... assuming you still have him operating on your machine) the rows into columns. Then go back and copy the columns and paste them to the end of the first column. Then sort the single combined column alphabetically.

Now, if you have others helping you, give them a part of the list, you can copy and paste the text directly, and make a note. You don't really want to double telegram Delegates. It might work, but I try to avoid that.

I take the slow route of typing each nation's name and then sending what is mostly a form letter, but I change it around if I've had prior contact with the Delegate.

I also have a Do Not Call list which includes delegates which already read and endorse proposals (they asked to be on it) and also includes all the people that responded to my telegrams with hostility. A nation sending a nuke my way (which I got in this last round) is instantly added to this list. Don't worry about that.

I think you need to telegram early. Many delegates don't stay on-line that long, and the longer lead time you give them, the more likely they'll endorse.

I wish you luck, and naturally my advise is just one of many ways. There might be easier ways to construct the lists. But I like having a hard copy to mark off nations. I also sometimes put stars or smiley faces next to Delegates that are extremely friendly or polite. I'll make no secret of it ... a polite response, means I will certainly go out of my way to help these nations in the future. :)

My region, the International Democratic Union, has a few tools (works in progress) that any active UN nation is free to use.

http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_IDU/index.php?showtopic=38

It is pretty sparse, but the delegates and liasons in the list all said they'd be happy to look over proposals and are all extremely open minded. :)

If you find other Delegates that want to be added to the list, or if you are a delegate, please me know. I plan on keeping the tools up to date as part of my duties to the IDU.

ARTICLE 2

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

Do I have to understand that this article is prohibiting publicities (commercials ?) targeting the childrens (mental abuse) ?

Good news !

PS: I can't understand why porn is more dangerous as violence (tv, films, video-games) for childrens.

I am very pleased to see a resolution about sex that leaves the age of consent up to individual nations. You have The Grand Duchy of Olwe's full support.

Mik, thanks very much for the advice, but your proposal passed before I could grab the list of approving delegates. You wouldn't happen to have a list I could borrow please?

Do I have to understand that this article is prohibiting publicities (commercials ?) targeting the childrens (mental abuse) ?

Good news !

Eh? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The bit you quoted, however, is from an already-passed resolution, not my draft, and if you want to ask about interpretations of it, I can't help so much because I wasn't around at the time of its passing.

PS: I can't understand why porn is more dangerous as violence (tv, films, video-games) for childrens.

I'm not asking you to stop kids watching porn, just to ensure that kids, and adults who haven't consented, aren't featured in porn. What you mention is an entirely separate debate.


Oh, and to the others, thanks for your support :)

Great Proposal. Not extreeme or irrational, just nice and neat. It has my full support.

In a rare instance of being relatively non-wordy (though perhaps still more talkative than others), I note that I support this one-hundred percent, and will do so when it goes up, providing no changes are made that I disagree with.

A bit too tired to come up with an amusing closing for this particular subject,
--Miss Chaly Merridew

Even though some consider porn offensive there is the freedom in my country to look at it or not.
Consider that if I should detest the words of the Bible and a growing number of people also did. Then in your type of stand the Bible would be outlawed.
The freedoms go both ways people. You take away a freedom from someone and soon that choice may come back to bite you.
These socialist type of views you people seem to share is the BIGGEST reason I choose not to enter the UN. We are a free people here in Stormosky and NO other countries are going to decide to take our freedoms away.

Even though some consider porn offensive there is the freedom in my country to look at it or not.
Consider that if I should detest the words of the Bible and a growing number of people also did. Then in your type of stand the Bible would be outlawed.
The freedoms go both ways people. You take away a freedom from someone and soon that choice may come back to bite you.
These socialist type of views you people seem to share is the BIGGEST reason I choose not to enter the UN. We are a free people here in Stormosky and NO other countries are going to decide to take our freedoms away.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. This proposal doesn't ban porn (in fact it is pro-freedom of expression, and only "reluctantly" acknowledges that UN member governments have the right to ban porn. If you or someone else writes a proposal to force UN members to recognise freedom of expression, I would gladly support it if I feel it works and is of a high quality), and I am not even Christian, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with your comments about the Bible.

My proposal is actually aimed at protecting human rights. It is "moral decency" because I feel it to be a moral obligation to recognise the human right of every individual to choose not to feature in pornographic material and because I think most people can agree that child porn is immoral (and because I think the mods would DEAT it if I put it under "human rights").

Given the apparent confusion over what this proposal actually does, I think a more accurately descriptive title is in order. Can anyone recommend something? (bearing in mind there is a fairly tight character limit on proposal titles)

Given the apparent confusion over what this proposal actually does, I think a more accurately descriptive title is in order. Can anyone recommend something? (bearing in mind there is a fairly tight character limit on proposal titles)

Something else occurred to me. Would this proposal outlaw secret filming of people? Outside of the law enforcement reasons I mentioned before, would this prevent you from filming a couple in a hotel and selling the tape?

Well it all comes down to how each nation chooses to legislate on the issue, how they choose to define porn, etc, and even whether they decide to follow the recommendations of the resolution. But I think that not to ban secret filming of sexual activity would not contravening the spirit of the resolution.