NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

PROVIDED that all participants in the production and/or marketing of the material in question are of age, which is open to definition by the government, and consenting to the acts in which they partake, the possession, production and marketing of any pornographic material is declared legal in all member nations. This includes websites, magazines, strip-clubs, videos and/or movies.

This act encourages all member nations to realise and accept that the sexual behaviour of an of-age individual is their own personal business PROVIDED that it is gone about in an appropriate manner. This proposal is made in the interests of personal freedom.

To ensure the safe practice of this act, all pornographic agencies are to register with their nation's leader/s so that their actions and materials will be operating within the law and be monitored to ensure the protection of minors, the public etc.

Other currently passed acts which this resolution recognises include the 'Sexual Freedom' and 'Child Protection' acts and it is subject to slight change with proposals passed in future.

THE FOLLOWING, however, are not endorsed by this act. In fact, they are hereby declared illegal in all member nations when this proposal is passed.

1. The selling, showing or distribution of pornographic materials to persons under the age of consent.

2. The exhibition of these materials and images without some form of warning or in an inappropriate/public location.

3. The involvement of a minor, animal or non-consenting person in the pornographic material.

4. The operating in any form of pornography-related business without approval from the authorities or without registration.

IN SHORT: The viewing, possession or production of pornographic material is hereby legalised as it is an individual's own business what they do once they are over the age of consent. Any involvement of or distribution to a minor is deemed abuse and negligence respectively and is a serious offence.

EDIT: Better now?

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Worth: Waste of proposal.

PROVIDED that all participants in the production and/or marketing of the material in question are of age, hereby defined as a global minimum of eighteen years old for both genders, and consenting to the acts in which they partake, the possession, production and marketing of any pornographic material is declared legal in all member nations. This includes websites, magazines, strip-clubs, videos and/or movies.

You do realize this resolution is in violation of the ban on pedophilia, right? After all, not all sentient species age at the same rate.

The UN is full of more than just humans. Sarkarasetans, the people of my nation, reach that level of maturity at the age of sixteen. Certain others don't even live eightteen years and others don't reach sexual maturity until well in their thirties or later.

Therefore, this proposal is illegal.

This act encourages all member nations to realise and accept that the sexual behaviour of an of-age individual is their own personal business PROVIDED that it is gone about in an appropriate manner. This proposal is made in the interests of personal freedom and for the betterment of society, in that it will stop the continued enforcement of the idea that a person's perfectly normal feelings are wrong or shameful, which today results in confusion for many young people of any gender or orientation.

The Sexual Freedom resolution partially covers that. The rest are societal problems a UN resolution won't solve.

Oh, the Universal Bill of Rights protects free speech and that reasoning may violate it.

To ensure the safe practice of this act, all pornographic agencies are to register with the government of their nation so that their actions and materials will be operating within the law and be monitored to ensure the protection of minors, the public etc.

What about nations with no governments?

Other currently passed acts which this resolution recognises include the 'Sexual Freedom' and 'Child Protection' acts and it is subject to slight change with proposals passed in future.

The "subject to slight change" is unneccessary.

THE FOLLOWING, however, are not endorsed by this act. In fact, they are hereby declared illegal in all member nations when this proposal is passed.

Potential violation of the UBR, but not enough to worry about.

1. The selling, showing or distribution of pornographic materials to persons under the age of eighteen.

See above about the age issue. This has sunk more than a few proposals.

2. The exhibition of these materials and images without some form of detailed warning or in an inappropriate/public location.

Why is a warning needed? If people can't handle it, they can leave.

3. The involvement of a minor, animal or non-consenting person in the pornographic material.

Which is self-contradictory due to the age issue.

4. The operating in any form of pornography-related business without approval from the government or without registration.

Once again, issue about governments comes to mind.

IN SHORT: The viewing, possession or production of pornographic material is hereby legalised as it is an individual's own business what they do once they are over the age of eighteen. Any involvement of or distribution to a minor is deemed abuse and negligence respectively and is a serious offence.

Once again, the age issue. If you wish this limited to humans, specify them.

Any future alterations to this act should be considered and further proposals of the sort are encouraged to be recognised.

Illegal. You cannot amend a resolution.

Okay then,

a) Sorry; I didn't realise we were dealing with more than humans, okay. Forgive my narrow mind.

b) I didn't know that some UN nations opperated without any form of law, leader or possible form of national change and betterment.

c) The warning is like MA, G, X ratings. May contain nudity etc.

d) If you want me to change the age thing I will. Sorry, aight.

DLE, do you know why you can't amend a resolution? I know that it's in the game rules, I'm just curious as to why they set it up that way.

Several nations operate under theocratic rule, something that the UN respects. Many of these theocracies, having foundations of basic moral character and human goodness, would be opposed to a forced legalization of sacreligious material such as pornography. Therefore, would it not be better to leave the legalization of pornography up to the individual nations if they so choose to follow that path? I see no reason why this is enough of an international issue to warrant UN intervention.

That's why it's only a proposal now.

Okay then,

a) Sorry; I didn't realise we were dealing with more than humans, okay. Forgive my narrow mind.

b) I didn't know that some UN nations opperated without any form of law, leader or possible form of national change and betterment.

c) The warning is like MA, G, X ratings. May contain nudity etc.

d) If you want me to change the age thing I will. Sorry, aight.

a) No worries. You have no idea how hard I have to fight to get the major minority looked at.

b) I think we have a couple that are UN members.

c) Okay. Sounds not bad.

d) The few resolutions that deal with it were written either in a way they only apply to humans or were written without thinking of the nonhuman members. Recently, that's changed. I would just change it to "reached age of sexual maturity" and leave it at that.

DLE, do you know why you can't amend a resolution? I know that it's in the game rules, I'm just curious as to why they set it up that way.

Programming issues. I know as much about that as you do.

What good can come of forced legalization of pornography on all nations? While I realize that the FAQ allows for the breach of national sovereignty, I believe that it should still be upheld unless the issue is international or a human rights travesty. Basic and morality-based laws such as those concerning sexuality should be addressed by the state.

What good? Citizens of member nations will no longer have one more rightful freedom denied them.

One problem. Making distribution to minors a serious offence. It's all but impossible to prevent minors accessing pornography via the internet, and so we would probably have to prosecute ISPs for instances where a minor used the internet to access porn, because the ISP has given them access to said material. There also needs to be an explicit exception for educational materials, and preferably for texts (including novels) which include descriptions of a sexual nature - these are not comparable to other types of pornography, and you could be denying many children access to good books, simply because they include a couple of sexual events in the stories.

In fact, I think the details of the issue of minors' access to porn are best dealt with individually by each nation, because the differences between societies and cultures mean that what is appropriate for one nation's children will be grossly inappropriate for another's. Perhaps you should replace your ban with an urging that member nations implement appropriate, reasonable measures to restrict the access of children to pornographic materials.

It's all but impossible to prevent minors accessing pornography via the internet, and so we would probably have to prosecute ISPs for instances where a minor used the internet to access porn, because the ISP has given them access to said material.


But what if the father/mother/older brother/sister (etc) were looking at porn on the web, went to answer the phone and the minor wandered in and saw it. There the ISP is not at fault, but the family involved.

What good? Citizens of member nations will no longer have one more rightful freedom denied them.

In the nation of Myopia, access to pornography may be viewed as a rightful freedom. However, in several theocracies and moralistic democracies, pornagraphy is viewed as a crime against basic human dignity. I understand that the delegate from Myopia will find this absurd, but that's why he/she can recommend legalization of pornography to his/her national government. Let those nations that despise a practice ban that practice if they so choose. If this was about educational, religious, or political information access, I would have a different stance, but the UN should not be concerned with a person's right to be entertained in any way they wish. Nargopia has legalized pornography and has limits on the distribution of it, but respects those nations who decide that they wish to outlaw a practice they believe will thrust their society into a cycle of moral decay.

To ensure the safe practice of this act, all pornographic agencies are to register with their nation's leader/s so that their actions and materials will be operating within the law and be monitored to ensure the protection of minors, the public etc.

You should watch the wording here. This could be construed to make pornography illegal by allowing nations to "monitor" the situation, especially without any strict guidelines to follow in doing so.

1. The selling, showing or distribution of pornographic materials to persons under the age of consent.

As Myopia said, this should be edited, and we believe edited out. Science books could be considered "pornographic" under this proposal, as well as several works of art. In addition, we don't believe it's the government's call to decide what's appropriate for minors, as we don't believe that something as arbitrary as "morals" should be dictated by the government. Maturity is not a definable condition in such that it can arrive at any age, and we believe that education will foster a better understanding and appreciation for the human body than "shielding" the public will.

(To step OOC for a second, in Italy, you'll regularly see naked women in prime time advertising, and on the beach, with no societal "breakdown" and, in general, European men are considered "more mature" than their North American counterpart. So, in RL legalization of pornography =/= "moral/social decay")

Maturity is not a definable condition in such that it can arrive at any age, and we believe that education will foster a better understanding and appreciation for the human body than "shielding" the public will.

The only problem with the arguement that maturity can arrive at any age is that it means someone will be old enough to have sex at any age, destroying the idea of "minors" in relation to sex.

I think the age of consent is a suitable age to pick, because it is the age at which the nation recognises the right of the person to become sexually active (whether they have been before or not)

)edit(

Or just slap me and tell me to shut up - was it the distribution to those under the age of consent you had a problem with, or the punishment for doing so?

The only problem with the arguement that maturity can arrive at any age is that it means someone will be old enough to have sex at any age, destroying the idea of "minors" in relation to sex.

I think the age of consent is a suitable age to pick, because it is the age at which the nation recognises the right of the person to become sexually active (whether they have been before or not)

)edit(

Or just slap me and tell me to shut up - was it the distribution to those under the age of consent you had a problem with, or the punishment for doing so?

It's more the distribution and display to minors that I am contending. I believe it's more up to the parents to decide if their children are "suitable" enough to see pornography, not the government.

(To step OOC for a second, in Italy, you'll regularly see naked women in prime time advertising, and on the beach, with no societal "breakdown" and, in general, European men are considered "more mature" than their North American counterpart. So, in RL legalization of pornography =/= "moral/social decay")

Ah, but the argument is not that pornography does cause moral decay, but that governments of sovereign nations may believe that it will. The UN should recognize that government's right to choose legislation that it believes is best for its people.

On a side note, if this proposal were changed to only regulate pornography in nations that have or may have it, Nargopia would be in support.

Ah, but the argument is not that pornography does cause moral decay, but that governments of sovereign nations may believe that it will. The UN should recognize that government's right to choose legislation that it believes is best for its people.

On a side note, if this proposal were changed to only regulate pornography in nations that have or may have it, Nargopia would be in support.

Yeah, but if pornography does not cause moral decay, then a government cannot think that it does, since that statement would be false. It'd be the same as a government taking the position that the sky is red.

Yeah, but if pornography does not cause moral decay, then a government cannot think that it does, since that statement would be false. It'd be the same as a government taking the position that the sky is red.

First of all, citizens living in a theocracy who have never been exposed to pornography may easily become part of an epidemic of immoral behavior. Pornography has been shown signs of being addictive and is a known catalyst of nymphomania. If a country is prepared to deal with those consequences, then fine, it can legalize pornography. But if a nation does not wish to spend extra tax dollars regulating the pornography industry, then it should be allowed to outlaw the practice altogether.

Secondly, in Nargopia the sky is red. Well, half of it at least. The other half is a sort of bluish-green color. Every night before the sun and the highly-reflective moon set, a brilliant white eclipse occurs, providing enough solar energy to power Nargopia's energy needs for a month. The excess energy is packed into fuel cells and sold at a high profit.

Secondly, in Nargopia the sky is red. Well, half of it at least. The other half is a sort of bluish-green color. Every night before the sun and the highly-reflective moon set, a brilliant white eclipse occurs, providing enough solar energy to power Nargopia's energy needs for a month. The excess energy is packed into fuel cells and sold at a high profit.

Well, you get the idea.

First of all, citizens living in a theocracy who have never been exposed to pornography may easily become part of an epidemic of immoral behavior. Pornography has been shown signs of being addictive and is a known catalyst of nymphomania. If a country is prepared to deal with those consequences, then fine, it can legalize pornography. But if a nation does not wish to spend extra tax dollars regulating the pornography industry, then it should be allowed to outlaw the practice altogether.

I don't agree, mainly because I don't like the idea that people can be conceived as mindless robots who will be triggered by anything. Plus, I'm sure that even in the most strictest of theocracies there will be people who will have seen a naked body, and those people don't all turn into lustful animals.

RL: The first time Jenna Jameson saw the nude pictures of herself, she broke down into tears and was inconsolable. Studies have shown that pornographic subjects and viewers tend to be more insecure and easily influenced in both major and minor decisions. Pornography has the capability to ruin lives and healthy relationships. It fosters preconceived notions of what sexual activity "should" be, and catalyzes unhealthy sexual relationships when those notions are disproven. Now, in Nargopia, the citizens are mature enough to accept pornography for what it really is: entertainment. However, many nations, especially nations that have intelligent life other than humans as their dominant species, citizens cannot be counted on to be that mature. Let the individual nations, the governments that know the citizens best, be the judge of whether their citizens are capable of a pornography industry.

Can I get a comment on my suggestion that this proposal be scaled back to the point of regulation in nations that have pornography industries? I really would be in support of a regulatory resolution.

RL: The first time Jenna Jameson saw the nude pictures of herself, she broke down into tears and was inconsolable. Studies have shown that pornographic subjects and viewers tend to be more insecure and easily influenced in both major and minor decisions. Pornography has the capability to ruin lives and healthy relationships. It fosters preconceived notions of what sexual activity "should" be, and catalyzes unhealthy sexual relationships when those notions are disproven. Now, in Nargopia, the citizens are mature enough to accept pornography for what it really is: entertainment. However, many nations, especially nations that have intelligent life other than humans as their dominant species, citizens cannot be counted on to be that mature. Let the individual nations, the governments that know the citizens best, be the judge of whether their citizens are capable of a pornography industry.

Can I get a comment on my suggestion that this proposal be scaled back to the point of regulation in nations that have pornography industries? I really would be in support of a regulatory resolution.

All of this may be true for some people, but you may be missing some factors, such as education. People are not mindless robots- teach them and they will understand.

All of this may be true for some people, but you may be missing some factors, such as education. People are not mindless robots- teach them and they will understand.

Like I said earlier, many nations may not want to spend the tax dollars necessary for this type of education. Let them legalize it if they want to and avoid the economic dip if they don't.

Like I said earlier, many nations may not want to spend the tax dollars necessary for this type of education. Let them legalize it if they want to and avoid the economic dip if they don't.

Not to blast you or anything, but there's a lot of things that I'm sure UN members don't want to pay for but have to. There's no difference here.

THE FOLLOWING, however, are not endorsed by this act. In fact, they are hereby declared illegal in all member nations when this proposal is passed.

1. The selling, showing or distribution of pornographic materials to persons under the age of consent.

2. The exhibition of these materials and images without some form of warning or in an inappropriate/public location.

3. The involvement of a minor, animal or non-consenting person in the pornographic material.

4. The operating in any form of pornography-related business without approval from the authorities or without registration.

Asshelmetta will oppose this resolution with all the DLE Nukes at our disposal.

In the nation of Myopia, access to pornography may be viewed as a rightful freedom. However, in several theocracies and moralistic democracies, pornagraphy is viewed as a crime against basic human dignity. I understand that the delegate from Myopia will find this absurd, but that's why he/she can recommend legalization of pornography to his/her national government. Let those nations that despise a practice ban that practice if they so choose. If this was about educational, religious, or political information access, I would have a different stance, but the UN should not be concerned with a person's right to be entertained in any way they wish. Nargopia has legalized pornography and has limits on the distribution of it, but respects those nations who decide that they wish to outlaw a practice they believe will thrust their society into a cycle of moral decay.
the fact that some countries see something differntly than other dosen't mean that the UN can't take position about it.
this is the whole idea of the UN. national decisions are way below the UN decision in matters of power. since that arguments based about issues inside your nation can't stop proposals or resolutions. that is the power of the UN.

Ah, but the argument is not that pornography does cause moral decay, but that governments of sovereign nations may believe that it will. The UN should recognize that government's right to choose legislation that it believes is best for its people.

On a side note, if this proposal were changed to only regulate pornography in nations that have or may have it, Nargopia would be in support.

Yeah, but if pornography does not cause moral decay, then a government cannot think that it does, since that statement would be false. It'd be the same as a government taking the position that the sky is red.

Are you honestly saying "It must be true, because the Government thinks it's true, and the government can't be wrong and/or stupid"?

What good can come of forced legalization of pornography on all nations? While I realize that the FAQ allows for the breach of national sovereignty, I believe that it should still be upheld unless the issue is international or a human rights travesty. Basic and morality-based laws such as those concerning sexuality should be addressed by the state.

Like, say "Gay Rights"....? :D

Sorry, been trampled already.

RL: The first time Jenna Jameson saw the nude pictures of herself, she broke down into tears and was inconsolable.

Who cares?



Studies have shown that pornographic subjects and viewers tend to be more insecure and easily influenced in both major and minor decisions.

Studies by whom, under what controls? Considering the people I do know, who view/are in/do both, I find your statement to be... uneducated at best.



Pornography has the capability to ruin lives and healthy relationships.


So does normal growth and development. Should we ban that too? How about having children? That ruins relationships. So does "worry about money matters" (#1 in most surveys). Outlaw money?



It fosters preconceived notions of what sexual activity "should" be, and catalyzes unhealthy sexual relationships when those notions are disproven.


Prove it. Most adults we are aware of do not have these problems. We also don't believe what we see on tv, nor do we trust politicians, nor believe any one world view is comprehensive and complete.



Now, in Nargopia, the citizens are mature enough to accept pornography for what it really is: entertainment. However, many nations, especially nations that have intelligent life other than humans as their dominant species, citizens cannot be counted on to be that mature.

Racist statement - in the purest sense, you are stating that other races cannot be counted on to be mature.



Let the individual nations, the governments that know the citizens best, be the judge of whether their citizens are capable of a pornography industry.


Given what we see come out of so many governments, that would be "none of them".



Can I get a comment on my suggestion that this proposal be scaled back to the point of regulation in nations that have pornography industries? I really would be in support of a regulatory resolution.

Do you mean "have a pornography industry" or "have a legal pornography industry"? Because EVERYONE has one. Legality is the only difference in most.

RL: The first time Jenna Jameson saw the nude pictures of herself, she broke down into tears and was inconsolable.
What does this mean? Could have been tears of joy. Could have been tears of frustration that she didn't get paid enough. Might have had a migraine at the time. Maybe the photographer got the lighting all wrong. Maybe the airbrusher missed the pimple on her left nipple. <shrug> I don't know for a fact that she *did* cry, so this is irrelevant.

Studies have shown that pornographic subjects and viewers tend to be more insecure and easily influenced in both major and minor decisions. Pornography has the capability to ruin lives and healthy relationships. It fosters preconceived notions of what sexual activity "should" be, and catalyzes unhealthy sexual relationships when those notions are disproven.
What studies? A study can show anything the initiator of it wants the study to show. It's all a matter of method and finances.

Now, in Nargopia, the citizens are mature enough to accept pornography for what it really is: entertainment. However, many nations, especially nations that have intelligent life other than humans as their dominant species, citizens cannot be counted on to be that mature. Let the individual nations, the governments that know the citizens best, be the judge of whether their citizens are capable of a pornography industry.
Huh? What does the maturity level of non-humans have to do with anything? And when did they start watching human porn? And why? Wouldn't they watch their own? Why would you even say this? Are non-humans, by definition, less mature than humans?

Funnily enough, I don't disagree that the UN shouldn't be involved in this. But your reasoning is a bit.... bizarre.

Can I get a comment on my suggestion that this proposal be scaled back to the point of regulation in nations that have pornography industries? I really would be in support of a regulatory resolution.
Not practical. Define and deal with the sex industry as a whole rather than piecemeal it.

Not practical. Define and deal with the sex industry as a whole rather than piecemeal it.

The UN has passed many resolutions that regulate practices or industries without forcing legalization or illegalization. Why can it not do this again here?

Like, say "Gay Rights"....?

Sorry, been trampled already.

I realize this! Yes I have read the FAQ. Yes I know the powers of the UN. However, I also realize that even though the UN has the power to trample over national sovereignty, and that this is sometimes necessary, it should not be the body's main goal. The UN should supercede national power when necessary, and have the respect to avoid issues that should be a matter of national policy.

The UN has passed many resolutions that regulate practices or industries without forcing legalization or illegalization. Why can it not do this again here?
I didn't say it couldn't. I said it would be more productive to legislate the sex industry as a whole as opposed to piecemealing said legislation. That's called an opinion.

I realize this! Yes I have read the FAQ. Yes I know the powers of the UN. However, I also realize that even though the UN has the power to trample over national sovereignty, and that this is sometimes necessary, it should not be the body's main goal. The UN should supercede national power when necessary, and have the respect to avoid issues that should be a matter of national policy.
I find this immensely entertaining considering your "if you don't like it leave the UN" position I just responded to on another issue where someone felt that national sovereignty was being blindsided. Consistency, people. Consistency. Without it you run the risk of people quoting your own words back to you, looking foolish, etc.

Several nations operate under theocratic rule, something that the UN respects.

If the United Nations respected theocratic rule, we wouldn't have resolutions called "Gay Rights", "The Definition of Marriage", "Abortion Rights", and "Legalize Euthanasia". The UN has absolutely NO regard for theocracies and never will. Sad, but true.

Many of these theocracies, having foundations of basic moral character and human goodness, would be opposed to a forced legalization of sacreligious material such as pornography.

Such as mine. The Armed Republic of Florida Oranges isn't in the least bit religious or theocratic, but its peoples were raised to believe certain things. Our nation was founded by very moralistic folks; there are certain things Floridians just don't want in their nation, certain beliefs they hold. Unfortunately the UN tramples on those beliefs. Sadly enough, there's no room for theocracies in the UN; only left-wing extremists.

Therefore, would it not be better to leave the legalization of pornography up to the individual nations if they so choose to follow that path? I see no reason why this is enough of an international issue to warrant UN intervention.

I see no reason why the UN should be able to legalize this in its member nations either. But who knows, maybe somebody else does.

I find this immensely entertaining considering your "if you don't like it leave the UN" position I just responded to on another issue where someone felt that national sovereignty was being blindsided. Consistency, people. Consistency. Without it you run the risk of people quoting your own words back to you, looking foolish, etc.

What I find outrageously frustrating is that you took one thing I said and took it out of context. The person I told to leave the UN wasn't contributing any ideas to the proposal in question, he/she was only complaining about the state of the world. As for your ignorant mockery of my "consistency" --

However, I also realize that even though the UN has the power to trample over national sovereignty, and that this is sometimes necessary, it should not be the body's main goal. The UN should supercede national power when necessary, and have the respect to avoid issues that should be a matter of national policy.

I specifically state that national sovereignty does not apply in every situation. When I feel that an issue is in the jurisdiction of the UN, I will argue for a proposal giving the UN power in that area. When I feel that an issue should be left up to the state, I will bring up national sovereignty. In this case, this issue should be a matter of national concern, so I brought that up because it applies here. Please make sure you understand my words before you take them out of context for the purpose of embarrassing me.

Are you honestly saying "It must be true, because the Government thinks it's true, and the government can't be wrong and/or stupid"?

No. I understand that governments are human and make mistakes, and that not everything they say is the truth. My point was that a good government does not take a position on an issue that is blatantly incorrect, because then that would lead to the wrong decisions being made for the people.

I would just change it to "reached age of sexual maturity" and leave it at that.


And who's the judge of when that would be? In my opinion, it would be when the person is old enough to reproduce, which isn't that old.

And who's the judge of when that would be? In my opinion, it would be when the person is old enough to reproduce, which isn't that old.

The nation in which the person resides. The age of adulthood and consent in TilEnca is 14. In GeminiLand you reach the age of consent at 18, but the age of adulthood at 21.

Why is the age of consent (or the age of adulthood) not a suitable age to allow people to view pornography?

What I find outrageously frustrating is that you took one thing I said and took it out of context. The person I told to leave the UN wasn't contributing any ideas to the proposal in question, he/she was only complaining about the state of the world. As for your ignorant mockery of my "consistency" --
Actually, they were. You just didn't care for the way they went about it. Not quite the same thing. Taking it out of context? Nope... don't think so. You seem to feel that the only acceptable post is one that contributes to the proposal. An opinion that slams the proposal is useless and complaining and therefore the person should leave the UN. At least, that is all I am able to determine from what I have seen. As to consistency, one of the ways to attain it is to be concise in what you write. If you leave what you mean open to interpretation, there will, unfortunately, tend to be confusion. Trying to lay the blame for that confusion on the head of the reader is a dubious tactic at best.

I specifically state that national sovereignty does not apply in every situation. When I feel that an issue is in the jurisdiction of the UN, I will argue for a proposal giving the UN power in that area. When I feel that an issue should be left up to the state, I will bring up national sovereignty. In this case, this issue should be a matter of national concern, so I brought that up because it applies here. Please make sure you understand my words before you take them out of context for the purpose of embarrassing me.
As to understanding your words, read the above. As to my purpose... let's not get carried away here. I am not attempting to embarrass you. I was pointing out a perceived flaw. If you feel embarrassed, well... what can I say other than I have no power over how you feel. If the shoe fits and all that.

So we can attempt to move this discussion away from a purely personal response (and the resultant flamebait) and back to the debate it is supposed to be, let me make clear what I am saying. I perceive your argument in one venue to be diametrically opposed to your statement in another venue. I have pointed it out. I do not feel it is misrepresenting your statement, nor do I feel it is out of context. If you disagree, then you do. <shrug> Time to move on.

Can anyone give me a solid reason as to why this is UN business?

Freedom of choice, freedom of expression, freedom of speach. If you make pornography legal then - by extention - it can be made with no problems. Which speaks to freedom of expression.

A good thing for the UN to deal with :}

THE FOLLOWING, however, are not endorsed by this act. In fact, they are hereby declared illegal in all member nations when this proposal is passed.

2. The exhibition of these materials and images without some form of warning or in an inappropriate/public location.

Say WHAT?
Why would you want to include that?
It's unnecessary for the NSUN to declare that illegal. Let the nationstates determine what's appropriate and what warnings they want to require.


3. The involvement of a minor, animal or non-consenting person in the pornographic material.

Not that I'm into bestiality, but someone please explain to me why the NSUN should care about animals.
The part about minors I'd be likely to support, except I'm sure it's already covered by past resolutions.


4. The operating in any form of pornography-related business without approval from the authorities or without registration.

So now I have to set up a government agency to approve amateur pr0n sites?
I have to police a registration database for people who are complying with the previous provisions?
I don't like it.




OK, and now for the biggie:
What is pornography? - answer seriously, please. If you can't define it, this whole resolution is gibberish.
And I don't think you can define it satisfactorily. "I know it when I see it" doesn't cut it.

Once you've defined what subject matter this resolution is about, please define the media a little more clearly. At one point you mention "materials or images", or some such. So what kinds of non-images are pornographic? Statues? Erotic writing?

Freedom of choice, freedom of expression, freedom of speach. If you make pornography legal then - by extention - it can be made with no problems. Which speaks to freedom of expression.

Please explain. Freedoms of choice are often the jurisdiction of the state, as it is in a better position to decide which choices should be free and which should be restricted. I don't see how pornography falls under freedom of speech...also, please expand your point on how legalizing it can allow it to be "made with no problems." I am interested.

Please explain. Freedoms of choice are often the jurisdiction of the state, as it is in a better position to decide which choices should be free and which should be restricted. I don't see how pornography falls under freedom of speech...also, please expand your point on how legalizing it can allow it to be "made with no problems." I am interested.

I was just trying to indicate how banning pornography is censorship, and a violation of freedom of expression as you are preventing people from expressing themselves.

My "made with no problems" point was that if you legalise it, then there can be better controls on the production of pornography, instead of it being an underground business that has no controls at all.

)edit(

Also - if "freedom of choice" is in the jurisdication of the state that would indicate a dictatorship, rather than a democracy. Freedom of choice should be in the hands of the people (assuming they are not causing harm to anyone else).

No. I understand that governments are human and make mistakes, and that not everything they say is the truth. My point was that a good government does not take a position on an issue that is blatantly incorrect, because then that would lead to the wrong decisions being made for the people.
good goverment (and I don't know how you define that) maybe not. but many goverments are far from good.
sometimes the interests of the goverments aren't like the interests of the public, and therefore they take position that bad for the people.
that is the way (most) politicians are.

Woo hoo! No.