NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal Child Pornography Prohi

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Human Insturmentality

Description: The repealing of UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #169 "Child Pornography Prohibition"

Realizing the good and noble intentions of the UN in establishing this resolution and that unified and decisive action on this topic must be carried out in order to establish international standards for this manner of behavior.

Further realizing that issue #169 fails to adequately define the terms "minor", "child", and "pornography" and is extremely open to abuse by member nations.

Further realizing that referred issues #22 "Outlaw Pedophilia" and #25 "The Child Protection Act" also fail to adequately define the terms "minor", "child" and "pornography" and are extremely open to abuse by member nations. And that further repeal of these issues may be a necessary next step in this process to insure adequate international protection of children.

Further realizing that in literal terms all issue #169 requires is that member-nations have laws prohibiting what they have already illegalized and for said nations to enforce said existing laws.

Further realizing that one strong, unified, concise resolution is necessary for the true enforcement of regulations of such an extremely grotesque and unique nature.

Resolving that in order for this to happen we must wipe old, ineffective, and pointless resolutions from the records and start from scratch in order to affirm our goal of protecting children all throughout the world.

Begins the act of getting these necessary strong anti-pedophilia resolution in place by moving to remove UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #169 "Child Pornography Prohibition"

Further pointing out that this resolution will have to be followed by a strong and defining resolution that will truly protect children from sexual molestation in all member-nations by defining "child", "minor", "age-of-consent", "sexual contact", "molestation", and any other term to be used in the prosecuting of these sickening crimes.





All discussion is encouraged.

Illegal, all repeals must be submitted in the "Repeal" category.

oops.

Um...Thanks. It was my first proposal and I guess I failed to realize that. Do I e-mail an administrator to fix the mistake, or just re-submit it in the correct category?

You can file a Getting Help Request (http://www.nationstates.net/95260/page=help) and ask that it be removed.

Ok, I submitted it though the proper procedure this time but I don't know of a way to delete my previous one that I did wrong. Any way I can delete the proposal seeing as I created it or anything like that?

Sorry about this.

thank you Iron flex

The correct proposal has been submitted and hopefully won't be deleted. The bad one was submitted to them for deletion.

Sorry about the mistake

Now debate and discussion is encouraged on the actual proposal.

thank you Iron flex


I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing at that. http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

Provide a definition of "minor" that works. Then we can start talking about a repeal, but until then, it's silly to repeal something in search of a vague promise.

Provide a definition of "minor" that works. Then we can start talking about a repeal, but until then, it's silly to repeal something in search of a vague promise.Oh come now, a minor snag like that hasn't stopped the "Repeals are Great" crowd before.

I accept your challenge!

DEFINES Adulthood as a perdiod in a being life when it has fully matured, having ceased growing and being fully capable of procreation.

DEFINES A minor as a being who is not yet matured to full adulthood.

Do it up.

As far as I know a repeal can't define anything, as that seems to me to be tantamount to breaking the "cannot create new legislation" rule.

I don't see this Resolution being repealed. I don't know if I would personally put the effort into it, but if a good repeal comes along, I would likely support it.

He's saying that, before you repeal a resolution for a problem, be able to fix the problem.

In this case, your repealing (among other things) because the resolution fails to define a minor, thus it is suggested you have an effective definition of a minor before you launch a repeal.

Which is pretty hypocritical as he (Gruenberg) has in the past been quite vociferous about refusing to even discuss a replacement in the context of a repeal.

A repeal is not required to "fix" the legislation it is attempting to repeal, merely note the reasons the repeal is being put forward.

Go on and read Gruenberg's comment again. He's saying there is no way for the United Nations to define child that will work for all the different cultures and realities in this multiverse. So it's useless to repeal based on the grounds that "child" isn't defined clearly enough.

On the contrary. That makes it an even more excellent reason to repeal. If core terms cannot be satisfactorily defined for the international audience, this body has little business wading in with prescriptive legislation.

Or are you (and Gruenberg) suggesting that this assembly in the future refuse to entertain repeals whose reasoning is based on the lack of proper definition of terms in the originating legislation? That would certainly break a wheel on the repeal wagon.

On the contrary. That makes it an even more excellent reason to repeal. If core terms cannot be satisfactorily defined for the international audience, this body has little business wading in with prescriptive legislation.The UN cannot define child in a way that would be amenable to all nations, so that means the UN cannot legislate on matters regarding children? That makes a lot of sense.

Or are you (and Gruenberg) suggesting that this assembly in the future refuse to entertain repeals whose reasoning is based on the lack of proper definition of terms in the originating legislation? That would certainly break a wheel on the repeal wagon.No, I'm saying we shouldn't repeal based on vague definitions for terms that cannot be defined in the first place. I have the utmost confidence in most members of this body to define these terms for themselves. This isn't kindergarten, you know; we don't need teacher to hold our hand.

And Gruenberg can speak for himself.

I'm going to say that the lack of a definition of minor is not a repealable offense for this Resolution. There simply is no good way of defining a minor to suit the whole of the UN, and I'm not going to split hairs to find one.

There's a reason to repeal this Resolution, its definition of minor is not it.

I accept your challenge!
That's a circular and abysmally spelled definition. Also, there are plenty of humans who are 18, 19, 20, but still growing. They're legal minors because their growth is coming a little later?

Which is pretty hypocritical as he (Gruenberg) has in the past been quite vociferous about refusing to even discuss a replacement in the context of a repeal.
Irrelevant. It's my argument now that's being considered.

A repeal is not required to "fix" the legislation it is attempting to repeal, merely note the reasons the repeal is being put forward.
I agree. But this repeal is trying to fix the legislation - and I don't think that's possible. "Minor" is a perfectly normal standard legal definition. But trying to tie that to some biological point won't work in the context of the NSUN.

On the contrary. That makes it an even more excellent reason to repeal. If core terms cannot be satisfactorily defined for the international audience, this body has little business wading in with prescriptive legislation.
I disagree - because the terms can be satisfactorily defined by the international audience. When it comes to an issue like legal majority, reasonable nation theory kicks in. And at the same time, it's going to be hard for the UN to account for the differing cultures and species inhabiting member nations. This is one of those definitions that is best left to member nations.

Or are you (and Gruenberg) suggesting that this assembly in the future refuse to entertain repeals whose reasoning is based on the lack of proper definition of terms in the originating legislation? That would certainly break a wheel on the repeal wagon.
It depends how important those terms are, and whether omitting definition damages the legislation. Forgive me for being so weird, but I prefer to judge repeals based on their arguments and the quality of the original, not on some abstract and irrelevant rules of conduct. If the UN doesn't define "chemical weapon", a resolution would be useless; if it doesn't define "minor", I think it would have still have some use.

But of course, snips at my character are far more important than any of this.

Irrelevant. It's my argument now that's being considered.And that makes it special how?

I agree. But this repeal is trying to fix the legislation - and I don't think that's possible. I'll admit to not being at all enamored with this repeal. However, with respect to its "lack of definitions" criticism, it in no way differs from a very large number of the repeals we have seen recently faulting older legislation with lack of definitions.

"Minor" is a perfectly normal standard legal definition. But trying to tie that to some biological point won't work in the context of the NSUN.I have never seen a statutory code that did not explicitly define "minor" somewhere in the code. As for a definition of "minor" in the NSUN, I'm a little more optimistic than you, and it would most likely be done in relation to a biological point--though I suspect the moralists wouldn't be very happy with it.

I disagree - because the terms can be satisfactorily defined by the international audience. When it comes to an issue like legal majority, reasonable nation theory kicks in. And at the same time, it's going to be hard for the UN to account for the differing cultures and species inhabiting member nations. This is one of those definitions that is best left to member nations.If core elements are left to member nations, why legislate on the topic at all? How is having such a resolution and then allowing enough loophole room for an elephant to walk through beneficial?

It depends how important those terms are, and whether omitting definition damages the legislation. Forgive me for being so weird, but I prefer to judge repeals based on their arguments and the quality of the original, not on some abstract and irrelevant rules of conduct. If the UN doesn't define "chemical weapon", a resolution would be useless; if it doesn't define "minor", I think it would have still have some use.I agree completely, and wouldn't have said anything if instead of saying "provide a definition that works then we'll talk" you had responded with "in my estimation it is unnecessary to define 'minor'". I reserve the right to disagree as to "minor" not requiring a definition, but that's a side-track at this point.

But of course, snips at my character are far more important than any of this.No, just an added benefit. ;)

I am acting to repeal this issue because
1) This resolution actually does nothing
2) This resolutions very existance prevents other resolutions from doing anything about the issue.

WHAT DOES RESOLUTION #167 ACTUALLY DO?

Primarially all it requires is that a nation have laws outlawing "child pornography"- an undifined term. I might as well put up a resolution requiring the outlaw of "supercalafragalisticexpialadocious". It is an undifined term that would do absolutely nothing. And number two it requires that nations enforce those laws. Which are undifined and probably already on the books. Third it requires nations to work together to enforce this law. This law by who's definition? Therfore this law says "We the UN expect member nations to enforce laws that you write about "child pornography". And therfore this resolution accomplishes nothing. And worse yet it is obscure regarding international cooperation regarding the issue.

Even in cases where member nations have the best intentions the can be problems.

Example:
Nation#1 defines "child Pornography" as "ponography involving a child"
Nation#1 defines a "child" as "any person under the age of 16 years."
Nation#1 defines pornography as "any image, video, or text physical or virtual that displays or otherwise depicts sexual activites between two individuals."
Nation#1 defines "Sexual Activites" as "any physical act between two or more individuals involving physical contact by one of the person or with a foreign object with the genital areas of another."
Nation#1 defines "genital areas" as "penis, vagina, and anus."

Fairly straight forward and completely addresses the issue.

Nation#2 defines "child Pornography" as "ponography involving a child"
Nation#2 defines a "child" as "any female person under the age of 20 years or male under the age of 15 years."
Nation#2 defines pornography as "any physical image, or video that depicts a sexual activity."
Nation#2 defines "Sexual Activites" as "any physical sitimulation of one persons genitals by that person, with a foreign object, or by another person."
Nation#2 defines "genital" as "penis, and vagina."

Once again very straight forward and completely addressing the issue.

However both address the issue in completely different ways. And how are these two nations supposed to coordinate to enforce these laws? If Nation#1 alows females under the age of 20 years to be in pornography, are they responsible for making sure none of their porn gets into Nation#2? And if it does manage to get there is Nation#1 responsible for sending the people involved in the production of it to Nation#2 for prosecution? And what about Nation#2 not inculding anal as "genital" and therfore not included in the definiton of "pornography" or the fact that they don't include text representation, or that they only include physical pictures and not data? And neither nation clearly has a stance on lolicon or simulated images not including real children. Things aren't very clear on how the nations are supposed to deal with these situations. If the UN is going to stick it's nose in and start legislating these things it has to do it all the way or else there will only be more problems. Thats like the United States govenment requiring that states put up laws regarding the issue but allowing the states to decide the boundries of those laws. You end up with a mess of tangled legislation where nobody knows how to deal with the laws of the others.

And worse yet what if the nations don't have the best intentions?

Nation#3 defines "child Pornography" as "ponography involving a inconsentual child"
Nation#3 defines a "inconsentual child" as "Any child not either giving explicit permision or having their parent/guardian giving explicit permission to have any act done to them."
Nation#3 defines a "child" as "Any person not yet to have reached puberty."
Nation#3 defines pornography as "any image, or video that depicts a sexual activity between one or more real person."
Nation#3 defines "Sexual Activites" as "any physical sitimulation of one persons genitals by that person, with a foreign object, or by another person."
Nation#2 defines "genital" as "penis, vagina, and anus."

Once again very straight forward and completely addressing the issue. I haven't even mentioned that the charge for child pornography possession, pedaling, and production in Nation#1 is community service, Nation#2 is 10 to 20 years in prision depending upon the serverity of the offense, and Nation#3 is Death. Everyone gets to define their own crime, their own penalty, and their own definition of enforcement. Is there anything the resolution actually does do?

Everyone defines it in their own way and it is open more and more to abuse and misinterpretations. That is why this resolution needs to be repealed. So we can put a real resolution in it's place that will actually do something about the issue rather than say some pretty words so we can feel good about taking a moral stand an writting it on a piece of paper.

Is there really a valid arguement against repealing this issue?

Primarially all it requires is that a nation have laws outlawing "child pornography"- an undifined term.

1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child, or any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
- "child" as any person below the legal age of consent in their nation of nationality;

That's fairly clear to me.

As I said, I see cause to repeal this Resolution, but the definitions is not it.

I have never seen a statutory code that did not explicitly define "minor" somewhere in the code.Statutory codes being "the entirety of law for a given jurisdiction". For example, the Michigan Compiled Laws contain a definition of "minor"; "Contribution To The Deliquency Of A Minor" does not.

By extension, it could be argued that the UN as a whole needs a definition of "minor", but a given piece of legislation doesn't. Furthermore, considering the fact that the UN is not solely composed of humans, nor is it composed of nations who put the age of majority at 18, any kind of universal definition of minor is doomed to failure. And I'm not even talking about the weirdos who grant majority to children at the age of 3.

Human Insturmentality i am very ahsumed with you for tryign to repeal outlaw child pornography and see you as a monster. no one in their right mind with legalize child porn. *pulls out her black materia* We must cleanse the world of such a vile nation!!!! *casts meteor on Human Insturmentality*

Human Insturmentality i am very ahsumed with you for tryign to repeal outlaw child pornography and see you as a monster. no one in their right mind with legalize child porn. *pulls out her black materia* We must cleanse the world of such a vile nation!!!! *casts meteor on Human Insturmentality*

Maybe it's just me, but I can't tell at all if you're being sarcastic or not.

oh i'm not. i find this very distrubing someone would try to repeal a law that blocks child porn. Think about it why would someone want to throw out a law manning such a thing. the way i see it only ones that do are the ones that like to do that kind of stuff and it sickens me to no end.

oh i'm not. i find this very distrubing someone would try to repeal a law that blocks child porn. Think about it why would someone want to throw out a law manning such a thing. the way i see it only ones that do are the ones that like to do that kind of stuff and it sickens me to no end.

Cool. I agree with you, then. My sarcas-o-meter seems to be on the fritz these days.

Further realizing that issue #169 fails to adequately define the terms "minor", "child", and "pornography" and is extremely open to abuse by member nations.Do we need to define these terms?

I'm inclined to believe in nations fulfilling their international obligations in good faith and exercising common sense. What is considered a minor (in human terms) has a relatively narrow range, from anything below 12, to anything below 18. I’m pretty certain the vast majority of nations would share similar views. Anything else outside these ranges either lacks common sense, or fails to fulfil nations international obligations in good faith.

But then, I’m an optimist, I’m sure some crackpot nations would like to do all they can to disrupt this perspective.

And that makes it special how?
I've lost track of what point you were making. If, though, it's that I've said something about a past repeal that doesn't square with this one, then as I say, it's irrelevant.

I'll admit to not being at all enamored with this repeal. However, with respect to its "lack of definitions" criticism, it in no way differs from a very large number of the repeals we have seen recently faulting older legislation with lack of definitions.
Cite them, and demonstrate that my reasons for supporting them are analogous to this situation. Until then, you're just flapping, really.

I have never seen a statutory code that did not explicitly define "minor" somewhere in the code. As for a definition of "minor" in the NSUN, I'm a little more optimistic than you, and it would most likely be done in relation to a biological point--though I suspect the moralists wouldn't be very happy with it.
Ok. Define it.

If core elements are left to member nations, why legislate on the topic at all? How is having such a resolution and then allowing enough loophole room for an elephant to walk through beneficial?
Because assuming some basic definition of "minor" - you yourself said that their statutory codes would provide this - isn't that big a step. I can't say what will stand for minority in all nations. If all nationals were humans, I probably - though again, I think there'd be mitigating factors - would have included an age of 16-18, but they're not.

I agree completely, and wouldn't have said anything if instead of saying "provide a definition that works then we'll talk" you had responded with "in my estimation it is unnecessary to define 'minor'". I reserve the right to disagree as to "minor" not requiring a definition, but that's a side-track at this point.
I'm so completely lost by what you're now arguing that I'll just cede the point.

No, just an added benefit. ;)
Fuck off ;)

Primarially all it requires is that a nation have laws outlawing "child pornography"- an undifined term.
Um, it does define it. That you don't agree with the definition doesn't negate its existence.

Which are undifined and probably already on the books.
So hold on. You're saying that without a definition, nations won't know what to do, but at the same time, that they'll know exactly what to do because they already have laws on it?

Third it requires nations to work together to enforce this law. This law by who's definition?
By the definition provided in the resolution, at a wild guess.

--huge snip--
None of which tackles the issue of the definition that the resolution actually provides: ""child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child, or any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;"

It's not a perfect definition - if I had the time again, I'd have Jiffjeff write it differently. But you need to demonstrate why it doesn't work, rather than simply pretending it doesn't exist.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Child Pornography is wrong. Children should not have to be degraded like that. Further more, what if one of their teachers or friends sees the pictures of them? Children also should not be having sex with each other, considering the fact that it’s enough of a problem with high school students.