NationStates Jolt Archive

This may sound like a dodgy and trivial subject, but seeing as there are different kinds of porn, I think one should opt for the one were there are conscentual adults involved. Please view the proposal (currently last on the list, on pg. 14) for details.

MM

As a courtesy, always post the text of your proposal, being sure to include the category and effect section. Page numbers change and are useless.

Also, who says we currently don't allow porn?

Also, who says we currently don't allow porn?

Who says we currently don't allow civil rights? Noone. So we shouldn't bother to write a resolution addressing them, right?

Who says we currently don't allow civil rights? Noone. So we shouldn't bother to write a resolution addressing them, right?
Took the words right out of our lawbooks, Tex. {{grin}}

Porn is gooooood, but only certain kinds. Sometimes hard core goes too far! I know what goes in and out, I have a vivid imagination. I DON'T NEED TO SEE IT!!! It teaches the innexperienced and pisses off the anally retentive, which is always a bonus. I say watch what you want as long as it doesn't harm others, involve kids or Baboons. Our national animal is suffering because of an growing unhealthy obsession with them from our confused and ill educated (and quite frankly just ILL) citizens. You can't blame em really, you see a beautiful ass like that, you wanna go for it!!!

So, I suppose we'd be allowing child porn, too, right? :rolleyes:

So, I suppose we'd be allowing child porn, too, right? :rolleyes:

I do hope so. Children don't get to watch enough porn in my view!

(smirk)

Why is this even bein brought up? I can see an arguement for the current resolution (the surprising number of people who don't read past ones), a good arguement for the marriage ones (including banning marriage), and even a good one for such silly resolutions as providing weapons to bears and regulating zombie armies. But this one has truly gone beyond my ability to provide excuses. This is definitely something only the individual nations should regulate.

Now, the resolution.

Many believe porn should be outlawed, but by doing that you'll only end up with more illegal porn, and perhaps more prostitution.

1) Prostitution is legal in all UN nations. I find it surprising how few people actually know that. Resolution 46:

As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession. If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by. In return, the government could use the money collected from taxes on prostitution income to support programs that help the poor. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?

2) Why would someone want porn when they can get a prostitute legally? If they're that much of a social outcast, then they have bigger problems to worry about. So they lose a few pictures here and there.

By allowing porn with two or more conscentual, STD-tested adults, we limit the production and usage of perverted porn involving the sexual exploitation of children, women, animals or indeed men.

The Outlaw Pedophilia and Child Protection Act resolutions have children covered. Plus, the illegal stuff will happen anyway. Look at the problem the US has with illegal snuff films, child porn, and similar problems despite having porn as legal.

The legal porn would be cheap to buy on VHS and DVD, and easy to view on TV after 10 PM. Of course, there would be warnings of adult material on TV before it is displayed on the screen, giving parents and other adults the time to tuck in their children or switch channels.

In some cultures, public nudity and even reproduction in public may be legal. In my own there are no laws against public nudity, so the warnings may be unneccessary. Put in a clause that it depends on the culture next time.

The amount of porn shown on TV each week could be regulated according to each nation's will to buy and/or produce porn, broadcasting routines and TV channel options.

And with this clause you undermine the entire proposal, effectively making it worthless. Some nations will choose not to buy or produce porn, effectively keeping it illegal in those nations. All they have to do is change the wordings of their laws a minor amount.

So, I suppose we'd be allowing child porn, too, right?

Nope. The resolution specifically says it is to help eliminate that, despite the fact it can't.

So, I suppose we'd be allowing child porn, too, right? :rolleyes:
Is there any logic towards that statement at all or are you just slippery-sloping?

Is there going to be a copy of the proposal here, or am I going to have to go hunting for something that probably comes down to individual choice, rather than international?

Is there going to be a copy of the proposal here, or am I going to have to go hunting for something that probably comes down to individual choice, rather than international?

See my post where I argue against it.

See my post where I argue against it.

Thanks.

Having read it I could not stop laughing.

I am not however going to support it.

Took the words right out of our lawbooks, Tex. {{grin}}

Ours too. ;)

We sort our publications by the "ewww!" factor.

If most people who see it say "ew!" we put it in a back room and make people sign for it with ID.

At least it keeps the kids out.

Look at the problem the US has with illegal snuff films, child porn, and similar problems despite having porn as legal.

Allow me to drift off topic for a moment to pick a little nit here...

Snuff Films are urban legends. There are no documented cases of there ever having been one. Please take a look at Snopes' exhaustive report (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.htm). I should point out that while there's no images or anything, the link is still kinda disturbing, especially when you consider the subject matter.

Please, before anyone responds with "But what about...?" read the link. It deals with everything from the worthless Faces of Death to serial killers.

I now return you to your regularly schedualed thread.

Allow me to drift off topic for a moment to pick a little nit here...

Snuff Films are urban legends. There are no documented cases of there ever having been one. Please take a look at Snopes' exhaustive report (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.htm). I should point out that while there's no images or anything, the link is still kinda disturbing, especially when you consider the subject matter.

Please, before anyone responds with "But what about...?" read the link. It deals with everything from the worthless Faces of Death to serial killers.

I now return you to your regularly schedualed thread.

Actually, I was talking about the fakes. The last time I checked, they were illegal.

It's illegal in the US to fake a film which pretends to show someone dying? Really?

It's illegal in the US to fake a film which pretends to show someone dying? Really?

I can't seem to come up with a reply to this that doesn't involve flaming and indicating in some way that you are nonintelligent or lack sense.

Myopia, consider the context of the conversation carefully.

Well I'll be the first to admit that I very often lack common sense. Seriously, what "fakes" are you talking about?

Well I'll be the first to admit that I very often lack common sense. Seriously, what "fakes" are you talking about?

Fake snuff films. A snuff film is, iirc, a type of porn that involves an actor or actress being murdered on film for the sexual enjoyment of others.

Yeah I know what a snuff film is. But I would have thought that your first amendment would have protected fakes - filming someone pretending to die - given that nobody is actually getting hurt, and everyone's consenting.

Also, how can you draw the line between that and someone acting dying in a normal film?

(Just to clarify, I do find the concept disgusting, I'm just not in favour of illegalising consensual activities just because I find them distasteful. Also, sorry to drag this off-topic)

Yeah I know what a snuff film is. But I would have thought that your first amendment would have protected fakes - filming someone pretending to die - given that nobody is actually getting hurt, and everyone's consenting.

Also, how can you draw the line between that and someone acting dying in a normal film?

(Just to clarify, I do find the concept disgusting, I'm just not in favour of illegalising consensual activities just because I find them distasteful. Also, sorry to drag this off-topic)

I was talking about US law. Personally, I don't care.

To borrow from my link above...
As to what is or is not a snuff film, according to Kerekes and Slater, authors of Killing for Culture, the bible on the snuff film rumor:

Snuff films depict the killing of a human being -- a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetuated for the medium of film and circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment.
It's a simple definition, but a workable one.

Some will further claim that a profit motive must exist, that the final product has to be offered for sale (as opposed to being passed around without charge within a select circle, or remaining solely in the possession of its maker). That detail is extraneous. It's the recording of the death itself which constitutes the "snuff" in snuff films, not who makes a buck out of it. Likewise, claims that the filmmaker must have had no other motivation than the production of the film should be dismissed. A psychopath who tortures and murders solely to satisfy his personal demons but who videotapes the event to create a reliveable record of the experience has produced a snuff film.


As for fake snuff films, they most certainly are legal. The Guinea Pig series (including the infamous Flower of Flesh and Blood) is available on Amazon.com and damn near any video store will have at least one of the Faces of Death movies handy.

To borrow from my link above...



As for fake snuff films, they most certainly are legal. The Guinea Pig series (including the infamous Flower of Flesh and Blood) is available on Amazon.com and damn near any video store will have at least one of the Faces of Death movies handy.

Sometimes, I'm wrong. That's part of being human.

Eh, like I said, urban legends in general are a pet peeve of mine. My fiancee's called me obsessive about it before, so... no harm, no foul :)

* T.R. Kom recalls that movie " 8mm " ... certainly helped propogate the legend .. was not too bad a movie though ...

Still, " Should @ NATION NAME @ Allow Porn ? " COULD be a good National Issue ...

Your National Advisor on Culture @ RANDOM NAME @ asks you to consider the plee of those before you, as they flip through a glossy magazine ...

" Only because there are some very good articles " they add ...

:D

* If there is not one already ...