NationStates Jolt Archive

Prohibit child pornography

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Reefi

Description: REALISING that in an interconnected World, pornography will circulate.

UNFORTUNATELY some of this pornography will contain children who are being forced to partake.

ARGUING that a child does not have the capability to determine whether or not to partake.

PROPOSING to outlaw child pornography, under international law (which would not breach Section 1, Resolution 2)

A CHILD, for purposes of this Resolution, is DEFINED as a person under the age of 18.

Article 1: It will be in defiance of international law to possess, or have voluntarily viewed, child pornography. This offense shall be known as POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Article 2: It will be in defiance of international law to knowingly permit the circulation of child pornography, unless for law enforcement purposes in which case the circulation should stop as soon as possible. This offense will be known as CONSPIRACY TO SUPPLY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Article 3: Selling or providing child pornography shall be an additional offense under international law, in addition to possession as defined in Article 1. This offense will be known as SUPPLYING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Article 4: Child pornography is defined as any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, computer generated images, or videos) of children whom are naked or involved in sexual acts or in sexual positions. This includes computer generated images or cartoons.

Article 5: Exceptions may be made, at the discretion of an international court. Possible exceptions include when photographs have been taken exclusively for medical or scientific purposes.

Article 6: If any parties are outside the World Assembly's jurisdiction, an extradition may be requested by an international court or by a member state's law enforcement.

Article 7: National law enforcement agencies will have the responsibility to find any offenders and to transfer them into international custody, if it is decided they will be prosecuted.I know some people will be more concerned about defining a child as 18, and that's fine, but right now my animus is that we're going to have to go through the Quintessential Gallery of Art destroying a lot of our paintings! About half of the versions of Madonna and Child in there are now defined as child pornography. This is to say nothing of the photo of my nephews playing in the bath I have pinned to my office wall - hold on, I can hear jackboots in the corridor outside...

Any chance that Article 6 makes this an attempt to legislate on non-WA members?

OOC: I can't log into Quod right now, but does anyone else fancy TGing to knock this back from quorum? Because if it's legal, I think it's going to pass by a huge margin.

Meanwhile, I shall be browsing Raphaelite hardcore porn (http://www.aiwaz.net/uploads/gallery/madonna-and-child-3463-mid.jpg).

I really am against child pornography. But this proposal is sadly to much top down and the powers are to big. I agree with Quintessence of Dust.

Article 4 states that child pornography is defined as any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, computer generated images, or videos) of children whom are naked or involved in sexual acts or in sexual positions.

Your children on holiday at the sea or your first born on a picture?
Ok, the international court can tell this will be allowed. But why not taken out the words
"are naked or". I do not believe this is a proposal against nudity, but it can be used as such.

And all is top down from international court. I like to work the other way round. The national court will held trials, looks what is the intention of this law. An international court can be used for appeals, but not as the first court.

So sadly, if I will not be convinced to think else, I will be firmly against this proposal.

Regards

I like the idea, but woulod not support this resolution. For example, it would be an offence to "posess or voluntarily view" child pornography. This would make it hard for law enforcement, no, if they can not view or even posess the evidence?

The resolution also needs to better define child pornography. First of all, it should only be something that is for pornographic purposes. Secondly, it should actually have to have children used for it to be made from. I don't see anything wrong with a painting of two children engaged in sex (well, I do, but I wouldn't see it as illegal) if there were never any children having sex involved in the painting process.

Article 6 sounds illegal to me. And while article 5 would void my above complaints, this would get international courts a lot of useless paperwork. (To be filled out quadruply, of course)

-High Council Member M. Stuart

Sure Clause 4 is the definition?

Sure Clause 4 is the definition?


Thank you esteemed and respected Ambassador for your correction of our oversight. We apologise for our objection on these grounds.

Instead we should point out that almost every family album contains photographs of naked children, perfectly innocently so!, and that according to this resolution family snaps may be considered pornography and those in posession of them will surely be prosecuted under the provisions of this poorly written resolution.

Is this what the venerable mebership of this organisation wants? We will be interested to see who speaks in favour of this resolution should any one wish to do so.

Child pornography absolutely must be banned every where it exists if possible but this resolution is not the method of doing so.

yours e.t.c. ,

You could always define child pornography as "any representation where children are used, or appear to be used, to perform sexual or sexually enticing acts."

This would should remove madonna and child from the scope, and also hopefully QUOD's own family photo.

Meanwhile, I'll try hitting the delegates to knock it under 95.

In fact, because I am bored, have this rough re-write I cobbled together. I'm a little rusty on the whole resolution writing thing, so apologies for any errors or omissions.

AWARE of the existence of pornography;

UTTERLY CONDEMNING WITHOUT EXCEPTION the circulation of child pornography and the abuse of minors such material involves;

ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED to protect children from all forms of abuse

DEFINES child pornography as any representation or media where children are used, or appear to be used, to perform sexual or sexually enticing acts;

RESOLVED that it shall be illegal to possess, distribute, circulate or voluntarily view child pornography, with the sole exception of for law enforcement purposes and even then only where absolutely neccessary are subject to strict oversight;

DETERMINED that those found guilty of illegal acts cited in this resolution shall have their identities and criminal records distributed to law enforcement agencies throughout the world assembly;

REMINDS member states of their soverign right to deny access to their nation by any individual;

URGES member states contact relevant agencies if those found guilty of acts cited in this resolution either go into hiding, or attempt to leave the country with the intention of travelling to another member state.

The list says that this resolution is in queue and yet it has only 98 approvals is this correct?

yours e.t.c. ,

The list says that this resolution is in queue and yet it has only 98 approvals is this correct?

yours e.t.c. ,Yeah it needs 95 to reach quorum.

NMH has removed our vote on request of Hirota. I hope the proposal is better written next time.

NMH has removed our vote on request of Hirota. I hope the proposal is better written next time.You have my thanks NMH.

Rutianas had initially voiced it's support, but has since withdrawn that support. Should this proposal go to vote, we will be voting against it in its current form.

A CHILD, for purposes of this Resolution, is DEFINED as a person under the age of 18. Our so called children by age ten have gained citizenship rights in our nation and males take wives at that time. Females due to nature wait to age twelve but have citizenship rights at age ten like males. They are limited rights as they still need to finish two years national service to be granted full citizenship rights. Thus setting an age here that makes citizens children until they are 18 we will not allow. Our so called children have many times proven they are adults as the very existance of our Grear Empire is proof of their dedication to the Empire. Thus to us this is a major reason not to be for this but leaving the age out setting it at say majority age.. which lets the nations set what that is.. and then each nation needs to know what every state sees as child or adult... a hard thing to do.. since we all may not be of the human race and age 18 that magic number in age.


Also the fact that those charged with these crimes as noted shall not be tried in our nation is something we will not allow. If a person violates crimes here we try them here then hang them if the crime is major or they do time if it general.. Murder, Rape, and Treason are major others are general.
Article 7: National law enforcement agencies will have the responsibility to find any offenders and to transfer them into international custody, if it is decided they will be prosecuted.As anyone caught here will be tried here by our court system for their crimes then sentence carrried out here or they set free.



As far as A6 going to those outside the WA I wonder where there is a World Court to send them to or this so called international court as I've not seen anything of one being established and just how it runs... So with no court to send them to what do you under this do with those caught and charge but to try them in individual nations under their laws. As far as extridition between two nations that is betwen them not the WA.. as don't think their has been anything passed on it and if so it would have little effect on the issue when one party is not a member and a member nation wants a criminal back or one out of their nation and don't want to dump them on another nation that will let them go on doing their crimes.

Right, that's all of them done. I imagine someone else needs to take up the cause as well, because whilst I have got a couple of delegates to withdraw, it looks like a couple have signed up for it. I have TG'd them as well.

OOC: Well done! At this stage, they'll probably keep approving as fast as they drop off, but I can log into Quod now, so I'll TG any newcomers (Charlotte Ryberg excepted :rolleyes: ).

I have telegramed my own regional delegate on the matter and hopefully there will be one less approval as a result of it.

Is anyone afraid this is going to inspire you-know-who to return to the forums? So is he like Voldemort now? His name must never be spoken? :p

The extradition thing is only a request, so it's probably still legal, worse luck. Still, do we actually have an international court to take cases to? We can gum up the works quite effectively making appeals for everything to an institution that doesn't exist!

So is he like Voldemort now? His name must never be spoken? :p
No, I just didn't want to be accused of baiting lest he actually has an active puppet. Cheap shot, I guess :p

It's down to 92 approvals! But new ones keep signing on to approve it.

Probably futile now, but if anyone wants to try a last-ditch attempt, I'm going to bed, and have done as far as Wulffenlands. So anyone who approves after that could be TGed.

But I suspect it will go to vote in the morning.

Edit: Also interesting how many anti-FoMA delegates are in that approval list. How is this proposal not enforcing sexual morality?

Any chance that Article 6 makes this an attempt to legislate on non-WA members?I don't think so as the non-WA nation can simply ignore the request.

Royal British States, the new WA Delegate of the region, Spine of the World hereby declares its support for this resolution.

P.S. You can see that I'm the first to vote for the resolution and thats why my nation name is the first one lol. =P

OOC - As I feared it would reach a vote I held a vote on how to vote and my region is 100% against the bill most think it illegal. So ive voted my 19 against it. in hopes that it wont pass while knowing it will because people only read titles. ( I dont put titles in my votes people have READ the resolution. And for give the redundancy its 5 am lol) And if this passes can someone tell me if the WA is going to pay for the transportation fees to the court that doesnt exist (A7) and how the WA plans to do anything about non WA members has it has NO authority to do anything to them (A6) And are we sending parents to jail now because they took pictures of their babies taking there first bath for example? What a waste of a resolution. And IMO an infringement of the right to self jurisdiction, otherwise whats the point to having it , if you can simply overrule it on a whim.


Royal British States, the new WA Delegate of the region, Spine of the World hereby declares its support for this resolution.

P.S. You can see that I'm the first to vote for the resolution and thats why my nation name is the first one lol. =P

Care to give any reasoning as to why?

And you may be the first but far from the last.

At the moment, my only concern (besides the static definition of a child, i.e. anyone under the age of 18) is what will occur should the possibility of a "Child Protection Act" comes into play. Any well-written act of that kind would (or at least, in my honest opinion) include such a clause which prohibits the possession of such...filth. I'm all for the resolution, but I do feel it could be superceded by a more all-encompassing resolution.

For now, I shall ABSTAIN

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Regional Delegate, The Galapagos Islands

The Holy Empire of New Illuve, while understanding and supportive of the intent behind this Resolution, cannot support it as it is written, for the following reasons:

1. The age set at 18 is arbitrary and may not reflect the culture and society of a WA member nation sufficiently well.

2. Article 2 requires the "knowingly permit the circulation" of child pornography. That requires knowing the age of those shown. There is no provision here for "reasonably knowing" so ignorance of the age of the person or people involved is a sufficient defense as this Article would not be violated.

3. Article 4 over defines child pornography as any representation of a naked child, yet fails to define what a sexual act or sexual position is. Sexually provocative acts or positions fall outside the definition. And, for those nations that have legal definitions for sexual activities, this would also be a limiting factor.

4. Article 5 contains two fatal flaws. Firstly it references an international court, that does not exist, to create exceptions to "naked pictures". Therefore, no exceptions CAN be made. Any and all pictures or representations of naked children are now child pornography - including (as suggested may be appropriate) medical photographs. And as computer representations and cartoons fall under this Resolution, medical textbooks over child anatomy are now child pornographic. The second fatal flaw is that this article only allows for two exceptions by failing to add the phrase "... such as, but not limited to, ..." or similar.

5. Article 7 contains two fatal flaws. The first is the requirement to hand over suspects to an international court. Not only is the court not specified (potentially an international court for trade and tariff violations, or for international maritime borders, could now have jurisdiction over child pornography cases) but there are currently no international courts under the auspices of the WA. Therefore, national law enforcement cannot turn any suspects over for trial. The second fatal flaw is requiring national law enforcement agencies to turn suspects over to the international court without the possibility of trying the suspects in national courts. The only other option listed is not bringing prosecution. Therefore, no trials can be currently held.

The net effect of this Resolution is that child pornography, instead of being outlawed, is effectively set outside the law and no prosecution for it is possible. Notably, the lack of a competent international court would mean that holding any suspect would violate his or her rights under WA Resolution #13, notably points 2 and possibly 5 (depending on the jurisdiction of any future international courts) listed under the section "The Hearing".

The Holy Empire of New Illuve votes NO to this Resolution for the above reasons, and recommends to Her Regional Delegate to do the same.

This resolution is ILLEGAL by the FUNDAMENTAL RULES of the NationStates Game as a whole due to Article 6. I am very concerned about the precedent being set here.

WA member nations needs to remember that many non-WA members choose to do so because they do not acknowledge the existence of the WA in any capacity. Perhaps a group of non-WA members have their own such "assembly". At any rate, a thing as simple as a "request" therefore places the WA in the realm of a nation that wishes to have not acknowledge it as a part of their NationStates gaming experience. I could also get into the whole "refusing a request would then cast your nation in an unfair light to the rest of the world, when the request is illegal to begin with" argument, but that's for another time.

It's a shame that this had to be placed in a resolution that really didn't need it. I am NOT asking for people to vote against it. I am asking the moderators to delete the proposal from voting entirely due to its illegality on the fundamental principles of the NationStates game, itself.

]I am asking the moderators to delete the proposal from voting entirely due to its illegality on the fundamental principles of the NationStates game, itself.[/B]

I agree and would request likewise though I doubt it will be forthcoming

And I'm guessing there's nothing wrong enough to violate Game Mechanics by mandating trials go to a non-existent court to void this Resolution, either.

In the meantime, I have sent messages to the delegates that have cast their vote for this version of the resolution to please consider changing their votes. If anyone else can do this as well, maybe the pressure will change their minds.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

The argument "that a child does not have the capability to determine whether or not to partake" while also banning "computer generated images [and] cartoons" sounds like the proposal invents a victim. Those are situations where there is no actual "child," so no real victim, and therefore, no real crime except in the mind of the author.

I hope to be the first nation to send his citizens to a world court for possessing photos of their children. I won't view their photos myself, as that might make me a criminal; I'll just report that they might be illegal under this statute.

It is extremely difficult to determine our position on this resolution, because this resolution is promoting what we have aimed for at a national level in the past: to win the battle against child pornography. We congratulate Reefi for trying so hard to expand our cause overseas because child pornography is not on.

Besides cementing the age of maturity to 18 (which happens to match ours), it lacks phrases which requires WA nations to support victims of such crimes. In our country, and since 1987, we offer our victims extensive and sometimes radical counseling/support such us giving them extra years of official childhood to make up for their ordeal, longer stay in education, or the Right to Reincarnate.

The Reincarnation means that the victim is given a completely new life and identity, yet family and friendship ties are preserved at their discretion, and significant achievements such as A level passes or Honours are converted and carried on into their new life. Relatives swear and oath by Apollo to never refer to the victim by their old incarnation.

Recently, one victim officially became an adult at a tender age of 32. A reform implemented on 1 July 2005 added more options, including the replacement of expulsion of offenders with all-out irrevocable life sentence in exceptional serious cases where the death penalty is not viable. This was because the offenders who were expelled were known to commit similar crimes elsewhere, which isn't on.

Therefore I cannot see any intention to vote yes without improvements being made. Make the most of the 3460 character limit. I can offer to show our draft if you wish and if the current resolution-at-vote gets defeated. I urge others to say no in support of me, but please don't harass Reefi for trying: remember not to just skim-read and click so quickly.

Sildavialand laws already outlaw child pornography. But this project of resolution has major flaws:

A CHILD, for purposes of this Resolution, is DEFINED as a person under the age of 18.

This doesn't take into account the national laws concerning majority or consent age. In Sildavialand, majority age is 22 years old, but consent age is 15 years old. Therefore, in Sildavia a 15, 16 or 17 years old is not a 'child' in the sexual sense of the term. Why 18?


Article 4: Child pornography is defined as any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, computer generated images, or videos) of children whom are naked ...

So it's forbidden a good part of the classical art, statues of naked little angels (the famous 'putti' in fountains, paintings and frescoes, and even many images of the Baby Jesus... If pedophiles may be qualifies as sicks, the mentality of certain censors are as sick as them... And I am not speaking of the naked babies and children pictures of naturist sites, family albums... Don't you see a difference between 'nakedness' and 'sexualilty'? Then you are obseded, or even sexual maniacs.

Therefore, our vote is "NO"

In Jey, an 18 year-old is approximately 3 years old in Gregorian calendar years.

We don't want 4 year olds being the majority and voting anymore.

Against.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Ambassador

The ambassador from Darkesia rises, filling her lungs with the air, and her heart with the courage, necessary to stand up against a usually hostile crowd for what her nation believes is the correct course of action. In the midst of rising to speak, she realizes that her concerns have already been voiced by others and she is in agreement with the majority. For a change, she won't be alone in voting against a proposal with good intentions and poor execution.

The shock causes her to faint.

An ambassador from the mind of Charlotte Ryberg comes to the rescue, reviving the Darkesia ambassador in 5 minutes. The No camp of the nation are overjoyed, knowing that a life may have been saved.

Back on topic, we are impressed on Jey's decision to say NO as we can't force a specific age restriction level on all WA nations behind ambassador's backs. I strongly urge others, especially that of delegates with big voting power to change their minds.

An ambassador from the mind of Charlotte Ryberg comes to the rescue, reviving the Darkesia ambassador in 5 minutes. The No camp of the nation are overjoyed, knowing that a life may have been saved.

Back on topic, we are impressed on Jey's decision to say NO as we can't force a specific age restriction level on all WA nations behind ambassador's backs. I strongly urge others, especially that of delegates with big voting power to change their minds.
You approved the proposal, even while there was an unendorsement campaign going on. I really don't understand how you think you have any authority to now speak against the resolution.

Has someone TGed Reefi to let them know this thread is here?

Royal British States, the new WA Delegate of the region, Spine of the World hereby declares its support for this resolution.

You know I really miss the days when there was a fully functional death star that was hovering over the south pole. Things like that wouldn't happen back then. Likewise it's a shame I sold my fleet of Battlestars on ebay last year.

The assumption of the existence of an international court and especially an international police force in Clause 7 strike me as MetaGaming, borderline illegal police force. Doesn't help defeat the proposal, I know, but for future reference, are such wild assumptions usually acceptable in resolutions?

By the way I have to agree with QoD on this one; the nation of Charlotte Ryberg is guilty of endorsing this resolution. The nation of Charlotte Ryberg is definitely smart enough to know that the mindless fluffies would vote for this on the title alone. This resolution should never have come up for a vote. Should this resolution pass the nation of Charlotte Ryberg will be forever known throughout the halls as the nation that disgraced all the great painters of all time by equating them with child ponographers and making anyone who has viewed their works a criminal.

Breaking news!

I've been having a debate with Reefi, the maker of the resolution, through my telegrams, and I told him that I wanted to legalise child porn (while keeping rape illegal, of course). I told him "I see no problem with abstract sexual tastes as long as they are not damaging to anyone." His reply was "Child porn is." To which I asked "Do enlighten me as to why child porn is different."


And here comes his big argument, the reason for all this controversy he's stirred up:

*drumroll*

It... js... is.

To me, he's lost all credibility.

Tzorsland: I only endorsed this resolution because I wanted the whole of the WA to have a good chance to have their voices heard right on the voting floor: all 18,583 nations now have an opportunity to voice their opinions. Can you be more fairer than that?

I would welcome an improved version of the resolution. It doesn't mean that if this resolution does not pass, it can't get revived in a better form.

I think this does need to change and be reformed in the very near future. Despite me thinking that Child Pornography has no place anywhere, this proposal is far from perfect.

You could argue that, indeed, this may satisfy as a temporary solution, but this is all I see this as. I feel some changes need to be made, as the terms set within are rather strict.

Unless the goal of Atneas is to effectively prohibit the trial of suspected child pornographers, the Holy Empire of New Illuve fails to see how this Resolution could remotely be viewed as a temporary solution. Those that are involved will be beyond any court of law until a Resolution is passed creating a competent international court.

I invite you to look in the Internet at "Madonna with Child", by Leonardo da Vinci. One of the finest masterpieces of art of the Renaissance. Baby Jesus is stark naked, with his litttle sex in view. Even WORST, oh you obsessed Inquisitors, the Virgin Mary has one of her breasts out and the baby is feeding from it!!!! What a scandal. WA will forbid, burn and hammer this painting. A naked guy, younger than 18 years old, and in full physical contact with the breast of an adult female! ANATEMA...

Where, oh where is going this crazy WA...?

Is this the best you people can come up with? Prohibition of Child Pornography?

The World Assembly is NOT a world government. The World Assembly is a collection of governments for the purpose of trade, defense, and peace. I'm sure 99% of all nations have already banned this.

The World Assembly is NOT a world government. The World Assembly is a collection of governments for the purpose of trade, defense, and peace.

The World Assembly is exactly what the members make it. If they want it to be a world government and a majority vote to make it so, that's exactly what it is. Don't confuse NationStates with the real world and its powerless United Nations. Things are different here.

The World Assembly is exactly what the members make it. If they want it to be a world government and a majority vote to make it so, that's exactly what it is. Don't confuse NationStates with the real world and its powerless United Nations. Things are different here.

So..they're making it into a laughable circus joke. Forgive me but the UN accomplishes more then WA , as this body is more focused on making resolutions for issues SO domestic the UN won't ever touch

So..they're making it into a laughable circus joke. Forgive me but the UN accomplishes more then WA , as this body is more focused on making resolutions for issues SO domestic the UN won't ever touch
The UN has passed resolutions on child pornography: it's in the UNCRC, and the ILO Worst Forms statute contains language on commercial sexual exploitation of children.

The UN has passed resolutions on child pornography: it's in the UNCRC, and the ILO Worst Forms statute contains language on commercial sexual exploitation of children. They have passed resolutions on nearly everything, however the question I was more inferring was as to their enforcement, which is usually lack luster, that is if they actually do anything to begin with, this resolution would force people to do things. I dont really care for the UN myself but I can't really say the WA is any better. (and if you're talking about this - Commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) constitutes a form of coercion and violence against children and amounts to forced labour and a contemporary form of slavery- I would say the issues here *points at current resolution* and this are almost far enough apart to be on different planets. As this one could arguably by its own language have parents arrested for taking pictures of their new born baby. Or of its first bath or anything that parents tend to.

God, I'm forgotten how annoying you were. Nevermind.

Anyway, I've been in contact with the author, and they can't post in this thread because of Jolt technical difficulties.

Is this the best you people can come up with? Prohibition of Child Pornography?

The World Assembly is NOT a world government. The World Assembly is a collection of governments for the purpose of trade, defense, and peace. I'm sure 99% of all nations have already banned this.


Despite this resolution's abundantly obvious faults it is still significantly more valuable a contribution than any made by the respected Ambassador's great nation.

yours e.t.c. ,

Maybe this isn't the time to throw personal insults back and forth? Of course thats your choice either way.

I contacted him also , however I simply did not get a response. Nice to know he is trying.

18 years of age by whose standards? Humans?

This proposal collides with the reality that has also prevented us from finding common ground with Age of Consent.

Member states are comprised of countless varying forms of sapient life - from space creatures that may live thousands of years, to gnats with a lifespan of 6 months, to advanced human beings that may live over a many centuries.

As much as we applaud the effort to battle child pornography, we must cast our region's vote AGAINST, for reasons of incompetency.

______________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

This is really too strict for my support. Many classical paintings depict naked children. And what about fake sexual activity. Should movie producers be thrown in jail because they depict teenage characters engaging sexual activity (this proposal is really broad and if we are going to include paintings and hentai why not adult actors who are depicting teenagers).

As much as we applaud the effort to battle child pornography, we must cast our region's vote AGAINST, for reasons of incompetency.
And, of course, because the WA shouldn't get involved in matters of sexual morality.

You approved the proposal, even while there was an unendorsement campaign going on. I really don't understand how you think you have any authority to now speak against the resolution.What do you expect, they're trying to break WZ Forums' record for the most proposals approved.

Tzorsland: I only endorsed this resolution because I wanted the whole of the WA to have a good chance to have their voices heard right on the voting floor: all 18,583 nations now have an opportunity to voice their opinions. Can you be more fairer than that?

I would welcome an improved version of the resolution. It doesn't mean that if this resolution does not pass, it can't get revived in a better form.I'm sorry, but as a delegate it is your responsibility to insure that crap such as this DOESN'T come up for vote.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Unless the goal of Atneas is to effectively prohibit the trial of suspected child pornographers, the Holy Empire of New Illuve fails to see how this Resolution could remotely be viewed as a temporary solution. Those that are involved will be beyond any court of law until a Resolution is passed creating a competent international court.

I understand this, and do not get me wrong. I want citizens to be punished to the full extent allowed by law, when concerning malicous operations such as child pornography. But the guidelines set in the current proposal are too harsh.

Some of the finest pieces of art in the world would be banned. We need to approach this with great sensitivity, as there are two sides of the argument.

I feel that simply banning it, would technically work, but it would be a knee-jerk reaction and unnecessary to say the least.

Yes, the majority of cases are relatively simple, but this matter isn't. There needs to be a compromise. Or at least some more thought into this. I cannot support this cause as it is. Despite the amount of good in it.

I endorse this. We simply don't need any allusions at all to children engaging in sexual acts.

-Mandrivia
WA Delegate

I endorse this. We simply don't need any allusions at all to children engaging in sexual acts.

-Mandrivia
WA Delegate

While the resolution would do that, yes, it will also ban any and all images of children just being naked. There's a distinction between pornography and innocent nude. A clear distinction. It would also require nations to go into all of their art museums and remove any paintings and sculptures that depict children nude. Madonna and Child images, cherubs, etc.

This can be viewed as an attack on culture as well. Rutianas has a number of these innocent paintings on display in our numerous museums. If this resolution passes, we will, of course, remove them, and place temporary clothing on the cherubs, until such time that a repeal is enacted and a more logical resolution banning child pornography is in place.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

Fellow ambassadors to the World Assembly,

I think that most of us (surely a majority) would agree that Child Pornography, that is, the depicting of children involved in sexual acts, is harmful, immoral, and wrong. However, this resolution before us today is flawed in so many ways that the USSJ cannot vote "Yay." Take, for instance, a country of nudists. In a nudist country (and a proposition to make the USSJ came before our own congress; we did not vote it into law), anyone taking pictures would have to make sure that no one in the shot was under the age of 18. In other words, though nude children would be the norm, and would not be sexualized, the photographic images would be pornography.

Besides this, I and my fellow citizens have the same reservations about this resolution as the others who have spoken against it (it names an international court that does not exist, it defines a child as a person under the age of 18, and it would ban images such as paintings of Madonna and Child and many other works of art.)

That said, we feel that the issues of child sexual abuse and child pornography ARE issues that this World Assembly SHOULD be involved in. We would welcome a proposition that addressed this issue while taking the above concerns into consideration.

On the current proposal, The United Socialist States of Jaynova votes "Nay."

So we've got Gatesville, Narnia and all the WA regulars on the same side of the argument? I'd better let my region know we've got a major apocalypse coming!

Tzorsland: I only endorsed this resolution because I wanted the whole of the WA to have a good chance to have their voices heard right on the voting floor: all 18,583 nations now have an opportunity to voice their opinions. Can you be more fairer than that?

Yes. You can do your job as a delegate and be a crap filter. Frankly, if you were my delegate I'd be calling for your resignation.

This is the first time I have posted on a resolution, but I wish for folks to look carefully at this resolution.

I have a problem with a WA resolution that seeks to define the age of consent for my country, and I strongly oppose forceable extradition, especially to nations that have more objectionable human rights stances where prisoners are concerned.

Tzorsland: I only endorsed this resolution because I wanted the whole of the WA to have a good chance to have their voices heard right on the voting floor: all 18,583 nations now have an opportunity to voice their opinions. Can you be more fairer than that?I understand your reasoning and sympathize with it. I mean, just that the WA are bad at inspecting resolutions doesn't mean they don't deserve their right as autonomous rational beings (or whole nations of them) to determine the issue on their own. I find no need to disapprove of or even in the slightest way disrespect the delegation from Charlotte Ryberg for approving the proposal. We respect the decision to approve the proposal, and the reasoning behind giving it approval :)

The net effect of this, contrary to skeptics, will likely be that more of the general WA membership will be informed about why this proposal is lacking. It's a mistaken proposal, of course, in my opinion. But is it coming to vote a mistake? Why not let the membership of the WA consider a bad proposal if it so desires. That way they can learn why it's bad. It's a wonderful learning opportunity for those many in the membership who otherwise would not become educated on proposals and what makes a good proposal or bad proposal.

If it were killed before coming to quorum, only us in the forum and a few regional delegates perhaps would learn the lessons of this proposal. Now the whole membership gets to learn them. Meaning more work for us, perhaps. But this is work that'll pay off with a more educated populace and increased political dialogue. I mean, do we hold the general WA membership's hand forever or let them fall every once in a while so they can move toward standing on their own two feet?

OOC: seriously, look at the effect of bad proposals so far. Many proposals have come to vote in the UN (and now the WA) that probably shouldn't have. These proposals needed more careful delibration, more drafting, better attention to details--or even better attention to the rules--than they received before they were submitted. But I would say that through the process of the urgent debate these bad proposals give rise to that the WA membership is growing in its understanding of what a good proposal is (and its awareness of the rules). It's my personal assessment that the WA is a lot more educated and willing to shoot down a bad or disagreeable proposal than it was two years ago when I left--let alone four years ago when PC started in the UN. We're learning and in the best way possible, through our own experience...sad experience it may be, but it's still our sad expereince.

I understand your reasoning and sympathize with it. I mean, just that the WA are bad at inspecting resolutions doesn't mean they don't deserve their right as autonomous rational beings (or whole nations of them) to determine the issue on their own. I find no need to disapprove of or even in the slightest way disrespect the delegation from Charlotte Ryberg for approving the proposal. We respect the decision to approve the proposal, and the reasoning behind giving it approval :)

The net effect of this, contrary to skeptics, will likely be that more of the general WA membership will be informed about why this proposal is lacking. It's a mistaken proposal, of course, in my opinion. But is it coming to vote a mistake? Why not let the membership of the WA consider a bad proposal if it so desires. That way they can learn why it's bad. It's a wonderful learning opportunity for those many in the membership who otherwise would not become educated on proposals and what makes a good proposal or bad proposal.

If it were killed before coming to quorum, only us in the forum and a few regional delegates perhaps would learn the lessons of this proposal. Now the whole membership gets to learn them. Meaning more work for us, perhaps. But this is work that'll pay off with a more educated populace and increased political dialogue. I mean, do we hold the general WA membership's hand forever or let them fall every once in a while so they can move toward standing on their own two feet?

OOC: seriously, look at the effect of bad proposals so far. Many proposals have come to vote in the UN (and now the WA) that probably shouldn't have. These proposals needed more careful delibration, more drafting, better attention to details--or even better attention to the rules--than they received before they were submitted. But I would say that through the process of the urgent debate these bad proposals give rise to that the WA membership is growing in its understanding of what a good proposal is (and its awareness of the rules). It's my personal assessment that the WA is a lot more educated and willing to shoot down a bad or disagreeable proposal than it was two years ago when I left--let alone four years ago when PC started in the UN. We're learning and in the best way possible, through our own experience...sad experience it may be, but it's still our sad expereince.

Respected Ambassador this would be fine if we could be sure that should this resolution pass it's repeal might also, the first is likely,the second is made less likely by the likelyhood of the first.

yours e.t.c. ,

Respected Ambassador this would be fine if we could be sure that should this resolution pass it's repeal might also, the first is likely,the second is made less likely by the likelyhood of the first.

yours e.t.c. ,True. I guess we just don't feel a repeal will be hard to pass. ;)

The Environmental Fiscal Union of Minnow Economies has noticed this most alarming piece of legislation, and after due thought and consideration, will vote against it. This resolution fits almost exactly the mold of what our nation considers to be a "farcical resolution". Though well meaning, it is badly planned, badly written, and directly breaches the sovereignty of WA nations to enforce their respective laws and statutes in regards to pornography. It also, once again, makes no provision for enforcing its laws. Should this resolution pass, we will be seriously reconsidering our membership of this World Assembly.

For a start, it seeks to universally force nations to deem the age of consent to be 18, which, although accepted in many nations, is not universally agreed upon. This breaches the right of the sovereignty of WA nations for self-government.

Additionally, the premise that a child "does not have the capability to determine whether or not to partake" is nonsensical when the resolution later calls for artistic interpretations to be prohibited as well. Cartoons cannot say "yes" or "no". They are not, in fact, alive. So why ban them, as well? We are forced to conclude that the author of this resolution believes them to be immoral. That means this resolution seeks to impose its morals on all WA nations. We cannot accept this on principle.

Furthermore, studies indicate to us, that were this resolution to pass and all nations to be brought into compliance with it, that cases of child molestation would INCREASE, and the black market community would thrive off the revenue brought to it from child pornography.

And AGAIN, this resolution provides no guidelines for the manner in which it will be enforced.

This resolution, apart from being a direct imposition of external moral values on our state, is unenforceable, a complete waste of time, and demeans and disfigures the purpose of this World Assembly. We will VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION, and we strongly advise you to do the same.

Khalix Singh
Minnow Econmixian and Environmental Nations Delegate to the World Assembly,
The Axe Office,
Minnow Economies.

A good idea executed poorly is no better than an evil idea executed well. The Parliament of the States-Federation has met in joint session, and voted to urge the Chancellery to oppose this legislation. The Lord Chancellor agrees.

Therefore, the States-Federation of Snefaldia, delegate of the Antarctic Oasis, votes AGAINST. My government urges all voting nations to do the same.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

[off topic]Do You Realize??
Do I realize what?

that life goes fast?

that it's hard to make the good things last?

that the sun doesn't really go down, it's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round?

I love that song--I listened to that song maybe five times today.

Then again, maybe you just put an extra question mark on accident. In which case...this is not a post. You're not really reading this. I'm not really here...
[/off topic]

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota respects and admires the intentions of this proposal. However, we feel that a ban on pornographic cartoons and computer generated images is too harsh. We are also concerned about this attempt to define an age of consent for our nation, and feel that the provisions on extradition and enforcement carry too much potential for abuse. We therefore vote AGAINST this proposal.

Wataru Nishii, Ambassador to the WA for Imota

It's my personal assessment that the WA is a lot more educated and willing to shoot down a bad or disagreeable proposal than it was two years ago when I left--let alone four years ago when PC started in the UN. We're learning and in the best way possible, through our own experience...sad experience it may be, but it's still our sad expereince.

This is a very interesting point PC, perhaps one that deserves a separate discussion. Personally, I'm a little more cynical of the WA membership, in that I think the WA is about as apathetic as it was when I joined (2005). Not that this is an intrinsically bad thing; NS or the UN/WA wasn't ever really meant to last this long or receive this much attention from its members.

Many things remain the same now: most WA members won't ever post in the forums, and a lot of those that do post once about a particular resolution they felt strongly about. I don't think most of the WA actually knows when a resolution is good or bad (perhaps a case of the ReadNothings), so we're still seeing ridiculous resolutions like Max Barry Day pass through.

Though, I do think there has been a dramatic increase in the quality of resolutions since I've been here (which is great; it's what I wanted to happen with all those damn repeals). Though, I think this is much less the result of a more knowledgeable WA and much more so the effort of a 15-nation or so group of multi-resolution authors who spend a significant amount of time drafting resolutions. Hopefully these better quality resolutions will rub off on the general membership.

Unfortunately, the proposal was already a quorum when we did; whatever our position was, yes or no, would have done nothing to change it. Now I do not want to create any more controversy of any genre, or even war because I already believe that the WA is showing signs of very deep divisions ever since the Neutrality of Nations vote.

Dear Charlotte Ryberg,

If you mean that the division is deep between ambassadors who read the full text of a resolution, think what it means for them, think what it means for others, think what it means for the WA and rethink and vote and the ambassadors who only barely read something, follow their emotions or instinct and than vote, you are absolutely right.

But, as we all can see in this thread, I am pleased that almost all of the people who visit the forum of the WA and post a lot agree that we are against this proposal on child pornography. And to see myself together with some other nations, which I really dislike because of their political and moral views, united on this topic I should not speak a very deep division. I have the hope that the big regions will change the outcome of the vote so that a repeal is not needed.

Sad I am that the author of this proposal Reefi cannot post on this forum. I have discussed some of the issues of this proposal with them before. And I am willing to post for them what they want to say about remarks made in this thread. I am sure they can telegram others to do the same, because the free debate is very important to many of us.

OOC: Also I had to log in twice before I could post this. And logging in automatically fails already for 3 days.

Regards

I am against this resolution, but like others here not because I am a pedophile or support others viewing child porn, but because the resolution is too extreme. It is the nations decision to make it illegal and to what extent illegal. Also I am sick of Adults making rules about children because they think children don't know anything. I am under 18 but I can critically think and make my own decisions... I don't need someone breathing down my back saying that until I turn 18 I am not capable to think things through

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden votes AGAINST this resolution.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli
Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the World Assembly

Child pornography is the shame of every nation! It's a bad thing to take someones life by murder, but taking someones life in these matters is straight down dreadful.

I vote for.

Child pornography is the shame of every nation! It's a bad thing to take someones life by murder, but taking someones life in these matters is straight down dreadful.

I vote for.

I'm assuming you just came here and stated your opinion without reading through what every other person here has said.

Originally Posted by Holm IV View Post
Child pornography is the shame of every nation! It's a bad thing to take someones life by murder, but taking someones life in these matters is straight down dreadful.

I vote for.
I'm assuming you just came here and stated your opinion without reading through what every other person here has said.

You are quite correct, I doubt they read anything other then the title. "Prohibit child pornography" "Wow thats a easy choose because child pornography is bad why bother reading when the title says it all! And why bother reading what others have to say they probably all agree with me!!" Or something to that effect

Wish the majority would start reading the resolutions before stating their views on it; let alone voting on it.

Child pornography is the shame of every nation! It's a bad thing to take someones life by murder, but taking someones life in these matters is straight down dreadful.

I vote for.

Hold on a second, murder is bad, and rape is dreadful? So murder is below rape on the universal scoreboard of unsavory things? But then...what about rape, followed by murder? Or rape, followed by murder, followed by super rape? :rolleyes:

I personally think getting raped is preferred to being mashed into a pulp, or to have my eyes gouged out, and my elbows broken. To have my kneecaps split, and my body burned away, and my limbs all hacked and mangled... My head smashed in and my heart cut out, my liver removed and my bowels unplugged and my nostrils ripped and my bottom burnt off and my peni-*ahem*.

With appreciation of the Quintessential ambassador's critique, Plutoni votes against this resolution. We would consider supporting a more specific version of a similar resolution.

-Plutonian ambassador Raymond Gardner

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden votes AGAINST this resolution.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli
Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the World Assembly


The United kingdom of Brutland and Norden should not have a vote since it is currently in flagrant violation of current W.A. resolutions. And since it does not regard this organisation's statutes with any respect we hardly see why they would bother to vote against a resolution which they could simply ignore and dissmiss as they have other resolutions.

Indeed they should be expelled from this organisation in any case obviating their need to vote on this resolution or any other.

yours e.t.c. ,

Originally I voted "I'm voting against this, but with some minor adjustments it'd be ok".

I have since changed my mind. I wish to vote for "I'm voting against this, because it's dreadful".

According to currently voting, my region will be voting unanimously against. The main arguments being brought forward by regional members against this resolution are as follows:

- That the resolution does not state anything specifically about the creating of pornography, and the act of exploiting the children in the first place. The resolution only focuses on possession, transportation, distribution, and purchasing/receiving of said images, including cartoons.

- Article 4 confuses nudity with acts of sexual nature: That nudity is not sexual, and that those who conceive it as being sexual are the real perverts. There are high concerns that there is a current trend to view nudity as sexual. No doubt nudity can be responded to in a sexual manner (and in an adult/consenting/non-exploitive manner), but to categorise it as pornography is a sweeping generalisation that is archaic and dangerous.

- If this were to happen in real life, and this passed what would happen: All images that would be classified as child pornography according to article 4 be destroyed? If that were the case, there would be a lot of invaluable, significant works of art that would be destroyed (The Birth of Rome, Cupid and Aphrodite, The Sistene Chapel, just to name a few).

- That the resolution is built on a hysterical view of protecting children, and fails to address the root cause or initial stages of child pornography and seeks to restrict the viewing of it.

- That nudity is not an sexual act, and it is this point that naturist organisations have been trying to put forward. The way this reads would make these kinds of organisations (most of which are based on Christian principles) seem to the public as perverts because they allow adults, teens, and children to be naked. They try to promote self-esteem and pride for the body that you have (feeling comfortable with the skin your in), and I can accept and tolerate their practices. However this bill is clearly by overly modest people, who consider seeing nude people as being some form sexual pleasure, which in turn makes them the perverts.

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

Besides this, I and my fellow citizens have the same reservations about this resolution as the others who have spoken against it (it names an international court that does not exist, it defines a child as a person under the age of 18, and it would ban images such as paintings of Madonna and Child and many other works of art.)

That said, we feel that the issues of child sexual abuse and child pornography ARE issues that this World Assembly SHOULD be involved in. We would welcome a proposition that addressed this issue while taking the above concerns into consideration.

On the current proposal, The United Socialist States of Jaynova votes "Nay."

Also, what about parents having their babies pictures taken? I'm fully against child pornography, however, this bill is flawed in many ways, therefore, I shall vote no. However, I would fully support a revised bill, which corrected these flaws.

The United kingdom of Brutland and Norden should not have a vote since it is currently in flagrant violation of current W.A. resolutions. And since it does not regard this organisation's statutes with any respect we hardly see why they would bother to vote against a resolution which they could simply ignore and dissmiss as they have other resolutions.

Indeed they should be expelled from this organisation in any case obviating their need to vote on this resolution or any other.

yours e.t.c. ,
:rolleyes:

*dons polychloroprene eyeglasses and earplugs to protect himself from caustic comments read and heard.

I was originally for this proposal but with Article 4 not being too clear on what is child porn, I have decided to vote against it. The voting is now, 2,805 For and 2,000 Against.

:rolleyes:

*dons polychloroprene eyeglasses and earplugs to protect himself from caustic comments read and heard.


Respected Ambassador what caustic comments are you expecting to read? From whom?

yours e.t.c. ,

Unfortunately, the proposal was already a quorum when we did; whatever our position was, yes or no, would have done nothing to change it. Now I do not want to create any more controversy of any genre, or even war because I already believe that the WA is showing signs of very deep divisions ever since the Neutrality of Nations vote.

And yet none of this changes the simple fact that Your Excellency voted for debate on a crap proposal that goes against the wishes of Your Excellency's government, and possibly against regional consensus. That is very nearly unforgivable. Krioval will, from time to time, approve proposals that may conflict with our popular consensus, but that is a rare occurrence, and only happens if we feel that the quality of the proposal merits a discussion and vote on the floor of the World Assembly. If Your Excellency is truly averse to controversy, please consider withholding approval on controversial proposals. And please avoid giving delegate approval to proposals that only tangentially address the issue at hand while making a total mess of policy.

Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

Child pornography is a bad thing. That is something most of us present in this assembly can agree on.

We can't however support this proposal as it stands. For starters our age of majority in the Space Federation is 16 years old and by this time boys and girls are doing military training and service. We are able to take action against child pornography on our own regardless of if this passes or gets voted down.

Also the description of child pornography is too broad and not tight enough to crack down on the real offenders. Our police officers would also be dealing with innocent artistic pictures in museums as well as cases which might reach our homeworlds.

So for now we must vote against but if an improved version comes up for vote as we hope it will it stands a good chance of gaining our vote.

Ambassador Sakura Yamamoto
Neo Kirisuban Space Federation

Yes. You can do your job as a delegate and be a crap filter. Frankly, if you were my delegate I'd be calling for your resignation.Somehow I don't think her region mates get much of a say in who their delegate is. Check their region page (http://www.nationstates.net/50699/page=display_region/region=funen) and you'll find this.
One tradition is that WA members must endorse Charlotte Ryberg, the WA Delegate for Funen; don't worry: she will endorse you to make it even.
(OOC: I actually wouldn't have known that if their region hadn't been the featured region the other day)

Unfortunately, the proposal was already a quorum when we did; whatever our position was, yes or no, would have done nothing to change it.Yes and your approval of it, helped get it to quorum. Let's face facts here, there are three lines of defense in preventing crappy proposals from becoming crappy passed resolutions.

The Regional Delegates
The Mods
The General Assembly
Now, number three there you can't count on because they'll vote for just about anything, and the mods only deal with the illegal ones. Which leaves us with only one line that can be counted on.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The nation of Ruzan is strongly against any kind of child porn, however, we agree that this proposal is badly written, and we will vote NAY! Hopefully this Assembly will craft a better proposal next time.

Should this law be passed, my nation will not abide by it lest the following alterations be made:

1.
Redefine a child as one beneath the age of fifteen.

2.
Reword article four so that it reads:
Child pornography is defined as any photograph or video of a child or children engaged in a sexual act or sexual position.

3.
Define "sexual" as 'Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.'

Should this law be passed, my nation will not abide by it lest the following alterations be made

If this legislation passes, you won't have a choice but to abide by it, and now that it's up for vote, alterations can't be made to it. This is all the more reason to vote against this flawed resolution.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I also have to agree with Q of D. He's right the law is a little too inflexible. And Article 6 is way outside our jurisdiction.

If we work on defining child pornography better and remove Article 6 or at least qualify it that one of the nations involved is a member of the WA then I am all for it.

True. I guess we just don't feel a repeal will be hard to pass. ;)

Got that right. And let me say, you have good taste in music.

On to the topic at hand: Are you guys trying to get me fired? Honestly? You know if this passes I'm going to have to take the time to get a repeal smashed through.

You guys're stuck on how inflexible this is. I've got an easy way out of this, until it's repealed. As per article 7: choose not to prosecute whenever it doesn't fall in line with your national laws. Simple, no?

Also: This is illegal, as there is no international court system yet. We're required to hand them over to international custody. That means this resolution is going to require the indefinite confinement of all offenders we choose to prosecute. Indefinite confinement is in violation of WA 13. Congratulations, we've completed a circle and the prisoners are released because we didn't give them a trial without undue delay.

OH, it makes it impossible to prosecute any child porn cases. Wow, I bet that is soooo not what the author was wanting. Oops. He should've paid better attention.

Oh yeah, this one will go down on one or all of those counts. If not by me, then someone else.

Lets hope it fails so kiddie porn doesn't have a safe haven in WA nations for any amount of time.

Sparta votes against this resolution.

We encourage a more precise definition of "child pornography." Under the current definition, non-sexual material may be falsely classified as pornography.

Voted AGAINST, but that's not a huge shock.

Should this law be passed, my nation will not abide by it lest the following alterations be made:

1.
Redefine a child as one beneath the age of fifteen.

2.
Reword article four so that it reads:
Child pornography is defined as any photograph or video of a child or children engaged in a sexual act or sexual position.

3.
Define "sexual" as 'Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.'

I agree, however in the country I live RL (Australia), the age of consent is 17. I would add to the redefinition of a child as someone who is below the national age of consent (or 17/18 years of age).

I also agree with the rewording to define what is considered to be pornographic.

Can I suggest that someone starts a separate redrafting thread before we get too deeply into what should or shouldn't be considered kiddieporn? You don't want me doing it; Gobbannium doesn't seem to have the hangups about sex that a lot of other nations do.

Against.

Language is flawed. Being naked is not pornographic. Parents with pictures of their naked children would be considered criminal in all cases.

The people of Gruve are wholly against child pornography, however, cannot back the draft as it stands.

Article 4: Child pornography is defined as any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, computer generated images, or videos) of children whom are naked or involved in sexual acts or in sexual positions. This includes computer generated images or cartoons.

Nope.

Article 5: Exceptions may be made, at the discretion of an international court. Possible exceptions include when photographs have been taken exclusively for medical or scientific purposes.

Vague, vague, vague.

Article 6: If any parties are outside the World Assembly's jurisdiction, an extradition may be requested by an international court or by a member state's law enforcement.

Illegal much?


Against.
Revise!

[I]Article 6: If any parties are outside the World Assembly's jurisdiction, an extradition may be requested by an international court or by a member state's law enforcement.

Illegal much?

No. Asked and answered before this went to the floor.

This proposal doesn't mandate any activity by non-WA members. It offers members a method to request extradition from non-WA members, which is not at all the same thing.

Honestly, people - the time to ask about illegalities is while it's still in the proposal queue. Given that the mods have generally had 4 days to look at it, it's likely that we've already been asked and responded by the time it hits the floor.

I've just spotted a very interesting loophole in the proposal's text: As it refers to using "an international court" rather than specifically to "a WA court", any court that was set up & recognised by at least two nations should be able to hear the relevant cases: In fact, I don't see why two or more nations couldn't simply give mutual recognition to each other's national courts as being "international" ones for this purpose...
And thenArticle 5: Exceptions may be made, at the discretion of an international court. Possible exceptions include when photographs have been taken exclusively for medical or scientific purposes. which should let us take care of all the other potential problems involved too.

:)


Borrin o Redwood
Regional Delegate to the World Assembly,
International Democratic Union
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed

I believe that not only is the wording in this legislation poor, but Article 6, while not technically illegal, leads us down a dangerous path of attempting to enforce laws outside of our member nations. We may not be able to compel action, but we shouldn't even be going down that path.

Considering the magnitude of this issue, it would be FAR worse to pass this horrible legislation and have to spend the time having it repealed, modified, and repassed.

I'm voting against it.

However, it seems as if that may be a futile action at this point.

I'm a little bit disturbed that the nations that make up the WA would so casually pass dangerous legislation on supposed moral grounds.

I definitely support whoever said they would try to push a repeal through.

I believe that not only is the wording in this legislation poor, but Article 6, while not technically illegal, leads us down a dangerous path of attempting to enforce laws outside of our member nations. We may not be able to compel action, but we shouldn't even be going down that path.

Considering the magnitude of this issue, it would be FAR worse to pass this horrible legislation and have to spend the time having it repealed, modified, and repassed.

I'm voting against it.

However, it seems as if that may be a futile action at this point.

I'm a little bit disturbed that the nations that make up the WA would so casually pass dangerous legislation on supposed moral grounds.

I definitely support whoever said they would try to push a repeal through.

I might if I have time work on a repeal. I'd just need some help on defining what constitutes kiddieporn so the law is actually enforcable

We rise to support the intent of this resolution however we vote to against it due to the international court clauses. There is no such thing and we here in Philimbesi have laws to legislate this sort of actions.

Nigel S Youlin
WA Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

Our delegation has contacted the author of this resolution and, apparently, the author's delegation is willing to support a repeal proposal depending on the wording of the repeal itself.

We believe it would be important to mention that even the original author of the resolution is against it otherwise we are convinced no one will vote a resolution whose title reads Repeal "Prohibit Child Pornography".

What I'm not getting is the amount of people that are voicing against it, the polls swaying to be against it, but the votes say otherwise. I really haven't been seeing any change in ratio as more people vote. Against is still a bit behind by almost 1000 votes.

The only thing I can think of is there are too many people who don't participate in the forums (whether that be region forums or this forum) along with not really paying attention to what they read when reading these resolutions. So, I'm afraid that since most people are definitely against child pornography, there won't be enough votes to throw this resolution out so that revisions can be made.

So? Like some have said and even some that are already making a repeal, there is a way to try to retract this. However, will that work out? If we're getting the negligent responses for this resolution, how are we to convince these people who don't pay attention to know that we're doing this for the better of the WA and not a bunch of perverts who want child porn?

To put it simply, 86 people have answered to the poll in this thread.

Thousands have voted regarding the proposal.

So? Like some have said and even some that are already making a repeal, there is a way to try to retract this. However, will that work out? If we're getting the negligent responses for this resolution, how are we to convince these people who don't pay attention to know that we're doing this for the better of the WA and not a bunch of perverts who want child porn?

Ambassador,

Our delegation is convinced that only massive telegrams to all delegates can pass a repeal to this resolution. And this repeal ought to specifically mention the need to approve a better and actually functional resolution against a proper definition of Child Pornography. But as we have said elsewhere, we believe it is even more urgent to ban child abuse, which we will be doing with a resolution we will be presenting soon when the drafting phase is finished.

To put it simply, 86 people have answered to the poll in this thread.

Thousands have voted regarding the proposal.

Yes, I realized that even before I said anything. The point was this is A sample. Not to mention so many posts against resolution. What I'm saying is, since this is a resolution that's a little "too big for it's britches," trying to repeal this almost seems like a very steep slope in success as with the rest of the points I made.

Ambassador,

Our delegation is convinced that only massive telegrams to all delegates can pass a repeal to this resolution. And this repeal ought to specifically mention the need to approve a better and actually functional resolution against a proper definition of Child Pornography. But as we have said elsewhere, we believe it is even more urgent to ban child abuse, which we will be doing with a resolution we will be presenting soon when the drafting phase is finished.

Best of luck.

I really haven't been seeing any change in ratio as more people vote. Against is still a bit behind by almost 1000 votes.

Update as of...right now, no...now, wait...as of right now.

Votes For: 3,571

Votes Against: 3,238
This may be simply the effect of a few flopped pacific delegates, too--they really do hold a lot of power. I remember some fun forum/telegram campaigns aimed at gaining the pacific delegate votes when trying to pass a couple tightly desputed repeals and proposals (ahhh...memories...I knew all that gray stuff in my head would be good for somethin' one of these days). It seems that there is a realistic chance this proposal may be voted down.

Voting ends Wednesday, so we're not out of the woods yet.

Update as of...right now, no...now, wait...as of right now.


This may be simply the effect of a few flopped pacific delegates, too--they really do hold a lot of power. I remember some fun forum/telegram campaigns aimed at gaining the pacific delegate votes when trying to pass a couple tightly desputed repeals and proposals (ahhh...memories...I knew all that gray stuff in my head would be good for somethin' one of these days). It seems that there is a realistic chance this proposal may be voted down.

Voting ends Wednesday, so we're not out of the woods yet.

Whoa! Lot of voting going on from the time I saw it last which was only a couple hours ago. That's promising.

though i am against child pornography, i must refuse to vote for this resolution.

there are 3 problems i have with this resolution.

1. children are defined as below 18. i disagree as if we allow children aged 15 or 16 to take part in sex, why are we still refusing themn the right to take part in porn?

the resolution says that children below 18 cannot give logical permission to participate in porn , but 15 and 16 year olds can give logical permission to participate in sex ??

and there will be arguments about at what age do actually qualify as an adult in the first place ? perhaps when u can legally have sex ???

2. i disagree with live actual pics or vids of child porno, but anime n cartoons ??

it is not real n does not harm anyone leasat of all children. it is merely an expression of individual rights to draw or sketch whatever u like. dont we allow people to draw cartoons of politicians being cruelly n gruesomely murdered n dismemberd ? why not child porn ??

an attempt to legislate agsinst this is an infringement of basic human rights. so long as no child is harmed n the individual not actually carrying those activities out.

also, will pics of naked children for art be made illegal. it is also a breach of the right of free expression and creativity. consider the recent incidents in australia.

3. the matter of international courts mentioned above. though i support international efforts to right the world. but leaving child porn matters to international courts is overkill. wouldnt there be too much for the courts to handle ???

why not leave it to national courts, but maybe high courts or special courts, international courts wud consider international distrinution n supply of child porn as well as appeals.

cheers !!!


_______________________________________________________________________

" aut viam inveniam, aut faciam "
_______________________________________________________________________

one more thing,

i feel that most of those who have voted on his resolution simply looked at the title and seeing that it prohibits child porn voted for it. not all of them are actually scanning every bit of detail.

one more thing,

i feel that most of those who have voted on his resolution simply looked at the title and seeing that it prohibits child porn voted for it. not all of them are actually scanning every bit of detail.

Yes I for one , would agree with you.

Also- I went out to pick up dinner down a large amount of votes.. then I come home and BIteland has switched to Against. Quite the happy sight.

Originally the Republic of Western Dentrasia voted in favour of this motion, though it was brought to our Delegate's attention by several parties the inadequecies and shortcomings of this particular proposal.

We Western Dentrasians are again child pornography in any form, though we do feel that condeming people for viewing art such as the much quoted Madonna and Child, or persecuting families for having pictures of their children is ridiculous and hints towards unwanted totalitarianism.

Also we find these suggestions of unilateral enforcement in non-member states unacceptable, and the mentions of an international court to be unfeasible, untenanble and against the ethos of this great body.

Albert Sigvardssen, Western Dentrasian Delegate Elect to the World Assembly.

Nations of our Region have spent much time discussing the current WA Resolution regarding Child Pornography. No one in this Region has gone on the record as being for Child Pornography. Emphatically, Nations have indicated that Child Pornography ought to be illegal.

The problem with the current WA Resolution is as follows:

Article 4: Child pornography is defined as any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, computer generated images, or videos) of children whom are naked or involved in sexual acts or in sexual positions. This includes computer generated images or cartoons.

Most of our Nations consider these parameters as far too broad of a definition of Child Pornography. The mere photo of a baby being born; taking their first bath; suckling her mother while bare; would be considered pornography under this Article. May religious depictions of baby Jesus would hence be considered pornography. Grandparents and parents would be arrested for innocent pictures of their children.

The human naked body is not pornography in and of itself. Webster defines pornography as follows:

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

Article 4 zealously prostitutes this definition.

Resolutions ought to be passed upon their merits not upon their intentions. Though this Resolution has good intention, it's zealous and misguided definition does NOT merit passage.

Mikeswill
WA Delegate
121 Votes Against
NationStates Region

I am in support of this resolution. However I voted against it being passed. My personal problem was with Article 2 which states:

It will be in defiance of international law to knowingly permit the circulation of child pornography, unless for law enforcement purposes in which case the circulation should stop as soon as possible. This offense will be known as CONSPIRACY TO SUPPLY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Now this is fine with the exception of the following.

unless for law enforcement purposes in which case the circulation should stop as soon as possible

This is like cops selling cocaine and then jailing everyone who buys from them. And then there's the chance of cops running their own rings and saying it's just their jobs. I'm also pretty sure that this could legally be argued as entrapment.

There's my 2c

I'm glad to see the vote is going better, but then again, who knows what it will be like by Wednesday.

If this gets pushed through, I propose we immediately reorganize in a forum aimed towards drafting a repeal if possible.

I agree with what many have already stated: there are just too many leaders voting FOR this resolution without understanding what it means or how it can affect them. Many are not taking part in their regional forums, and less are taking part in the WA forums

Article 4 and 5 should include two definitions that would make this reasonable and less all inclusive of families who have pictures of their babies taking a bath:

1 – A Minor is a person below the age of majority (the age of majority is up for debate) – vice using the word child, and

2 – Child Pornography is still or moving images (digital, paintings, photographs, drawings, film, etc.) that appeal to a “prurient interest in sex.”

The key word is prurient – commonly used in legal definitions related to pornography.

I think we need a more creative approach.

Anything specifying age or content is going to be far too restrictive. Anything that leaves it open is going to leave huge loopholes for nations to exploit.

Perhaps we should concentrate on a broader proposal which would, in effect, also include what we consider to be child pornography.

Have children been defined in a resolution before?

Perhaps we could focus on child abuse laws or pornography laws in general, and let those rules indirectly govern child pornography.

1 – A Minor is a person below the age of majority (the age of majority is up for debate) – vice using the word child, and



note i have just recently proposed a resolution to amend the legal age of majority or the legal age of children, please if you are WA delegates ..please support this resolution which should fix , if passed any problems regarding the ages of children ...

this problem is one that also arises in the prohibition of child pporn ..in this resolution, children are defined as below 18 only. i am proposing to lower it to 16, and though it is not a huge change, but it is still a huge start.

It should have said 'A CHILD, for purposes of this Resolution, DEFINED as a person under the maturity age set by a member nation' or similar. That may be more generalized

i am proposing to lower it to 16, and though it is not a huge change, but it is still a huge start.

Some nations have an even lower age of consent. I think you'll find that they disagree with age 16. It should be worded that each nation may set their own, and failing that it falls back to some generic age.

Against has taken the lead as I am going to bed (7:09 am) est. So maybe the repeal might not be needed.

There are many suggestions being made in this debate for a better resolution on this issue, but who is writing such a resolution?

Urgench, and we suspect almost all the other nations of this organisation, already has strict laws against child pornography, and since there is no international court or international police force we fail to see how a resolution on this subject will be of any use.

We are glad this resolution might fail since our nation abhors the crime of child abuse and we fear that this resolution would interfere with our ability to properly punish those who commit this crime within our jurisdiction.

We suspect that any resolution dealing with this issue will run into many complications mostly arrising from the multiplicity of species and cultures within this organisation's membership. The resulting compromise will surely have faults and lacunae, and loopholes as a result of having to try to account for all these species and cultures. These loopholes will undermine the laws of member nations on this issue, this will allow many vulnerable young people to continue to be exploited.

We suspect that the tailored nature of national law on this issue is far better prepared to comprehensively outlaw and prosecute this heinous crime.

A resolution which streamlined extradition processes and increased international cooperation on this form of crime would be far more usefull.

yours e.t.c. ,

There are many suggestions being made in this debate for a better resolution on this issue, but who is writing such a resolution?

I am working on one, taking the suggestions into account. I will post a draft when I have a working draft.

Unless someone else has done so prior to myself.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

While I strongly believe in the protection of children from sexual assault and pedophiles, I feel that this proposal gives too much power to any assembly. Who are they to decide what is moral? There are too many court cases already that are ludicrous based on a child photographed in a bikini while vacationing with family... Or statuatory rape cases involving a sex between a 18 and 17 year old.

I would vote for much stiffer penulties for sexual preditors and pedophiles over 'morality' legislature.

There are many suggestions being made in this debate for a better resolution on this issue, but who is writing such a resolution?I already have (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13986436&postcount=7). Not that it is perfect, I'm sure, but it's a starting point.Urgench, and we suspect almost all the other nations of this organisation, already has strict laws against child pornography, and since there is no international court or international police force we fail to see how a resolution on this subject will be of any use.True, but there is certainly scope for co-operation between police forces within a resolution. Besides "almost all" isn't the same as "all."

I wished to say, My nation agrees fully with Urgench, especially that any resolution on this subject will likely make it harder and more complicated for our nations to deal with this....despicable acts. I believe it should stay a National Matter.

I already have (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13986436&postcount=7). Not that it is perfect, I'm sure, but it's a starting point.True, but there is certainly scope for co-operation between police forces within a resolution. Besides "almost all" isn't the same as "all."

Our position will remain, unless we can be provided with a compelling argument to the contrary, that this crime is best dealt with by national laws and that this organisation should legislate to allow ease of extradition between nations for these particular kinds of criminals, based in closer cooperation between member states in the investigation of this kind of crime.

yours e.t.c. ,

Our position will remain, unless we can be provided with a compelling argument to the contrary, that this crime is best dealt with by national laws and that this organisation should legislate to allow ease of extradition between nations for these particular kinds of criminals, based in closer cooperation between member states in the investigation of this kind of crime.

yours e.t.c. ,So be it.

I can cite some benefits for international legislation - for a start the international nature of the internet and other mediums for the distribution of such material. Secondly international legislation can carry a stronger weight when dealing with internet service providers who can transcend international borders.

Thirdly, there is scope for international forums and the dissemination of best practices and technologies to address the dissemination of child pornography to be included within a proposal.

Finally, there is scope for a proposal to encourage the development of a common long-term strategy where a child-friendly cultural climate is fostered and the concept of a virtual civil society is encouraged.

But I think you are overplaying the differences here. You are fundamentally suggesting there is no need for a supranational legal framework created by the WA, and I agree. But that does not eliminate the exploration into the possibility of legal harmonisation of national law encouraged by WA legislation, for example a series of commons fundamental standards which act as a fundamental framework for national governments to legislate upon further.

RL example of where international harmonisation can benefit:
"Although France and the United States, for instance, agree that child pornography and sexual abuse of minors constitute serious offences, the two countries have a very different approach in keeping with their respective legal traditions. Indeed, in the United States, the First Amendment of the constitution, guaranteeing freedom of expression, can lead to certain excesses which, unfortunately, benefit, in some instances, criminals."
-Source (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001147/114734eo.pdf)

(That source goes on to discuss an example of international co-operation which would also be a benefit of such legislation - but I don't think you are disagreeing with any exploration of such a proposal which encourages co-operation).

So be it.

I can cite some benefits for international legislation - for a start the international nature of the internet and other mediums for the distribution of such material. Secondly international legislation can carry a stronger weight when dealing with internet service providers who can transcend international borders.

Thirdly, there is scope for international forums and the dissemination of best practices and technologies to address the dissemination of child pornography to be included within a proposal.

Finally, there is scope for a proposal to encourage the development of a common long-term strategy where a child-friendly cultural climate is fostered and the concept of a virtual civil society is encouraged.

But I think you are overplaying the differences here. You are fundamentally suggesting there is no need for a supranational legal framework created by the WA, and I agree. But that does not eliminate the exploration into the possibility of legal harmonisation of national law encouraged by WA legislation, for example a series of commons fundamental standards which act as a fundamental framework for national governments to legislate upon further.

RL example of where international harmonisation can benefit:
"Although France and the United States, for instance, agree that child pornography and sexual abuse of minors constitute serious offences, the two countries have a very different approach in keeping with their respective legal traditions. Indeed, in the United States, the First Amendment of the constitution, guaranteeing freedom of expression, can lead to certain excesses which, unfortunately, benefit, in some instances, criminals."
-Source (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001147/114734eo.pdf)

(That source goes on to discuss an example of international co-operation which would also be a benefit of such legislation - but I don't think you are disagreeing with any exploration of such a proposal which encourages co-operation).


We do not dissagree with much of what you say honoured Ambassador, our only real concern is with the creation of legal statuses and definitions which will have lasting and pervasive effects on future national and international legislation on a range of entirely seperate issues.

In our opinion the promotion of child friendly law would only be usefull in the context of pre-existing statute outlining the rights of the child or the "common fundamental standards which act as a fundamental framework for national governments to legislate upon further." of your description.

In the debate on the respected delegacy for Rutianas' statute on child pornography we have offered a form of words, which in the absence of a statutory basis for the rights of the child will, we think, clearly outline the extent of an international legal competence in this area which is sensible and will not prejudice other legal outcomes. Below is the link to this suggested form of words :

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13996903&postcount=4


yours e.t.c.,

I would suggest that we keep a clear watch on every WA delegate that is voting in favour of the resolution. If you see one you know, you will start telegram them and hopefully they will switch their opinion. I managed to get some WA delegates changing their votes.

And if this resolution is knocked down, I would say Reefi the author of this proposal should get another chance. He is already in favour of a repeal as our colleague from Mendosia has declared. And in this thread and in the thread about a repeal there is enough to find to make a proposal which we can approve.

I am glad that so much nations are contributing to achieving a better world.

Regards

one more thing,

i feel that most of those who have voted on his resolution simply looked at the title and seeing that it prohibits child porn voted for it. not all of them are actually scanning every bit of detail.

Yeah, that usually happens, we call it the "sheep vote" or the "lemming vote".

If this gets pushed through, I propose we immediately reorganize in a forum aimed towards drafting a repeal if possible.Already being done here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565251).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The East Pacific just went against: pushes the margin to about 500 against.

Lady Phedre and Fudgetopia, the big voters also voted against. it is appearing to be the revenge of the 'No' voters. I stand by my position, and I do not deserve to be harassed for whatever my opinion.

Lady Phedre and Fudgetopia, the big voters also voted against. it is appearing to be the revenge of the 'No' voters. I stand by my position, and I do not deserve to be harassed for whatever my opinion.


Indeed respected Ambassador, you do not deserve harassment for your position, but surely you will admit that this has been a terrible waste of the time and efforts of this orgnisation, including the authors of this resolution?

yours sincerely,

I has indeed a tough decision for me to say no, of course we are often faced with very difficult decisions whether it is the daily issues or WA resolutions: but the fact that setting the age of maturity of 18 at the back door was very concerning for me, as well as the lack of encouragement to support child pornography victims.

However if everyone is happy I can have a go at creating my own version one day, with credit to Reefi.

I'm sure that will not be necessary honoured Ambassador, many many other nations seem bent on producing another version of this resolution despite its complete lack of efficacy or rationale.

yours sincerely,

However if everyone is happy I can have a go at creating my own version one day, with credit to Reefi.

For the record, I'm not happy.

This resolution is, of course, at it's heart an honorable one. However, many lines, specifically line 2 ("UNFORTUNATELY some of this pornography will contain children who are being forced to partake.") contain massive gaps of logic.

The logic the author is attempting to follow is that since children, being defined as a human under 18 years old, is unable to make proper decisions, he/she may do something that he/she, with the reasoning of an 'adult', would not do.

But...
- What about someone 17 1/2 years old? There is no logical reason why someone of this age will somehow gain some massive, complete reasoning ability once they turn 18. Had the bill only covered children of ridiculously low age, (i.e., 10 years old) I would have accepted it.

- Conversely, many studies have shown that the brain, including its many decision-making centers, are not fully developed until later ages (the early 20's). Why then, set the age at 18?

- What about those under 18 who have chosen, with full knowledge of all results, to be in such videos?

I cannot support this resolution until these and other gaps are dealt with.

Some interesting regional comments:
NS has been hijacked my extremist wackjobs who think Gay Marriage and Child Porn is perfectly fine. This is beyond liberalism.
Adn this Proposal failing is a disgrace. Pedophiles are the lowest form of human beings and should all be put to death to burn in hell. And it appears we have over 4700 of them on NS.
I would like to congratulate Darkesia on defeating this current Resolution.

I think it appropriate to credit Darkesia with this, personally, given the following statistics:

I. The measure is being defeated by, as of the time I made these calculations, 4798 to 3832.
II. 76.2% of the votes against this resolution were put there by Delegates, 3658 out of the 4798.
III. That is caused by Darkesia having asked many Delegates to vote against it; I know that the well-crafted message she sent me (Zemnaya Svoboda) had an influence on our forum vote even though you guys declared war on us just a few days ago.

To make it clear just how spectacularly I believe that paid off, only 25.4% of the Delegate votes (1248 vs 3658) were cast in favor of the resolution.

Perhaps more interesting is that this is with 51.9% of Delegates voting FOR it. The average weight of Delegates' votes for was 16.63-- against was 5.27-- The high endorsement Delegates voted AGAINST.

With Darkesia's argumentation, all five pacific delegates (including myself as Zemnaya Svoboda) as well as many other high-endorsement Delegates such as Mikeswill and Dalimbar voted against-- the overwhelming power of the high-endorsement Delegate votes stopping this resolution is the result.

Darkesia, you killed this resolution. Congratulations. :)

Idiosyncracy and lunacy are incestous twins, as is evinced by some of the comments which the revered Ambassador for Quintessence of Dust has quoted.

Gatesville's entire raison d'etre is schizophrenic and self defeating, it is no coincidence that its denizens should have fantastical delusions of grandeur and have convinced themselves of a halucinagenic victory.

Those nations who imagine that this resolution does anything to protect children from exploitation are frighteningly poor at reviewing legislation and should invest as much as they can afford in training new legal experts.

yours e.t.c.,

snip

Please, Khan Mongkha, tell us how you really feel.

N.T.
etc

Hmmm... If i cared, I suppose I would get all puffed up at the Urge person for his rudeness. However, I just take it as blatant proof of how these jolt forums have no actual connection to the game they claim to represent. I also find it interesting how much those who play the game are resented by those who spend all their time on this forum pretending to play NationStates.

No matter. You play your game and we will play ours. There's room for everyone, no matter how rude.

O.O.C. you seem to be answering out of character so i am forced to do so too, you seem to be creating a controversy where none exists. My nation thinks what it thinks, i think what i think, as Mongkha would say " the difference is profound" , call Urgench's ambassador rude if you want, but please dont presume to patronise me or to expound your rather silly theories about how this game works as though you were an expert. An expert in what? It is after all only a game.

Instead of calling me rude, which i am not in real life, you could learn to see the difference between role play and reality. But perhaps you have lost sight of what this is all about, fun, make believe, pretence, role play.

U.

Hmmm... If i cared, I suppose I would get all puffed up at the Urge person for his rudeness. However, I just take it as blatant proof of how these jolt forums have no actual connection to the game they claim to represent. I also find it interesting how much those who play the game are resented by those who spend all their time on this forum pretending to play NationStates.

No matter. You play your game and we will play ours. There's room for everyone, no matter how rude.Good to know you're not bitter about it.

Idiosyncracy and lunacy are incestous twins, as is evinced by some of the comments which the revered Ambassador for Quintessence of Dust has quoted.

Gatesville's entire raison d'etre is schizophrenic and self defeating, it is no coincidence that its denizens should have fantastical delusions of grandeur and have convinced themselves of a halucinagenic victory.They are helping defeat the resolution, and your response is to attack them? Talk about "schizophrenia."

Respected Ambassador the help of a region who's aim is to undermine and repeal all laws promulgated by this organisation regardless of the worth of the laws in question is really not help at all.

Gatesville despises this organisation regardless of the good it may do, it seeks to overthrow it and replace it with a hegemony of Gatesvillian origin. Though this aim is utterly vainglorious and completely beyond the actual capabilities of Gatesville this makes any assistance they may care to offer highly suspect.

Besides their claim is to complete victory for Gatesville, a claim which is insulting to all the other nations and regions who have involved themselves in the campaign against this resolution, should we smile and congratulate these boasting poseurs? Especially since the vote is not yet won.

yours e.t.c. ,

Respected Ambassador the help of a region who's aim is to undermine and repeal all laws promulgated by this organisation regardless of the worth of the laws in question is really not help at all.Except it helps defeat a bad resolution. It's not very smart to smear the people who are (apparently) helping yield the result you've done nothing yourself to achieve.

In fact we have sent numerous telegrams outlining the flaws in this resolution to delegates with whom we have had telegramatic discussions on this resolution as a result.

Our efforts have been in proportion with our nation's abilities and resources and we could never claim the sort of overblown victory which Gatesville have done but we have certainly done our bit so to speak. We expect no thanks or congratulations for doing our duty but perhaps that is the difference between ourselves and Gatesville.

yours e.t.c.,

For the record: That post was made by the delegate of The North Pacific. It was placed on Gatesville's RMB, but it was not posted by a citizen of Gatesville. You ASS U ME that it was made by a member of Gatesville.

It would also do a world of good for your image, if you did not assume things about what Gatesville wants.

I'll leave you all to your debates now. Thanks for your time.

I was mainly posting those comments out of amusement: I wasn't trying to distract from the issue at hand. And this resolution has not been defeated yet, so let's not get ahead of ourselves in apportioning blame/credit/muffins.

For the record: That post was made by the delegate of The North Pacific. It was placed on Gatesville's RMB, but it was not posted by a citizen of Gatesville. You ASS U ME that it was made by a member of Gatesville.

It would also do a world of good for your image, if you did not assume things about what Gatesville wants.

I'll leave you all to your debates now. Thanks for your time.


It was not the origin of the post which was in question, but rather the pleasure gatesville took in the plaudits it received from its flatterers, and the fact that it was happy to be hailed as singularly responsible for a success which is not yet acheived in an organisation it despises. The claim your region made to victory, respected Ambassador, was in not disclaiming the victory wreaths handed to you by others.

We will take no advice in how to conduct p.r. from a region peopled with oddball paranoiacs and habitual dissenters who care little or nothing at all for the furtherance of international peace and prosperity.

yours e.t.c.,

We might have our differences, here, but in this thread we have agreed that the resolution needs to be defeated. We have a common enemy, and we shouldn't start fighting right here and now.

I say we save our arguments for the redraft. ::p

We might have our differences, here, but in this thread we have agreed that the resolution needs to be defeated. We have a common enemy, and we shouldn't start fighting right here and now.

I say we save our arguments for the redraft. ::p

Agreed. As far as this resolution is concerned, Ruzan is in full agreement with Gatesville. Any other differences we may have can be aired elsewhere.

Agreed. As far as this resolution is concerned, Ruzan is in full agreement with Gatesville. Any other differences we may have can be aired elsewhere.

We oppose this resolution too, that was not the source of the dispute.

yours e.t.c.,

I think that it should consider the child's decision in the issue. If the child gives consent while clearly informed on the consequences of such a decision, it shouldn't be the international community's place to stop them.

And analogously it shouldn't be the international communities to stop adults who wish to look at or watch material of sexual natures if the child's informed consent has been given.

There should, however, remain a stiff hand in pornographic material of children who haven't given consent, and, as always, there should be ample protection for children forced into any kind of prostitution.

But it can't be the international community's place to stop anyone from doing something that they want, or to stop people from enjoying something that others want to do.

That opens up doors that no one wants opened.

The People’s Democratic Republic of Sukeban Deka thanks the good representative of Ouarchonia for kindly agreeing with their position on violence.

More importantly, the People of Sukeban Deka asks that the representative of Ouarchonia, in her capacity as regional delegate, please pledge to stop this oppressive resolution before the World Assembly.

The People of Sukeban Deka will not give up their millennium old practice of idol veneration, will not stop in transporting and distributing the artistic nude photographic depictions of our idols, and will not bow to this cultural imperialism. The Democratic Republic of Sukeban Deka is determined to leave the World Assembly in protest if such a culturally imperialist act is passed.

Please take our position to the debates over the issue and make our case to the world.

Council on Foreign Relations
The People’s Democratic Republic of Sukeban Deka.

The People of Sukeban Deka denounce the WA's attempt to suppress the indigenous culture of Sukeban Deka and our people's ability to share our culture with the world. Sukeban Deka has a long history of promoting young women, as young as ten, as idols to be venerated and worshiped, often portrayed in the nude. With the advent of photography these depictions became photographic representations. With the completion of our glorious anarcho-syndicalist revolution, the idols are no longer worshiped but tasteful and artistic depictions of them in the nude, often in photographic form, are still an important part of our cultural, and for some spiritual, practices.

The People of Sukeban Deka urge our good representative to the world assembly to argue as strongly as possible against such a repressive measure that will negatively impact the cultural heritage of Sukeban Deka.

It was not the origin of the post which was in question, but rather the pleasure gatesville took in the plaudits it received from its flatterers, and the fact that it was happy to be hailed as singularly responsible for a success which is not yet acheived in an organisation it despises. The claim your region made to victory, respected Ambassador, was in not disclaiming the victory wreaths handed to you by others.

We will take no advice in how to conduct p.r. from a region peopled with oddball paranoiacs and habitual dissenters who care little or nothing at all for the furtherance of international peace and prosperity.

yours e.t.c.,

Firstly, Gatesville did not state that it was singularly responsibly-- only I ever said Darkesia was to be congratulated. I gave good reasons why.

In addition, I did not say Gatesville was to be congratulated-- I said Darkesia was.

Over 1000 worth of delegate votes were, in my assessment, indirectly affected by Darkesia's message-- I checked this looking at the offsites of The North Pacific (http://z13.invisionfree.com/tnp), The West Pacific (http://twp.nosync.org), The South Pacific (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php), and Equilism (http://www.equilism.org/forum/), as well as possibly others I cannot recall at the moment. Together that is 341 + 284 + 230 + 59 = 914. In addition, the delegates of the Pacific, the East Pacific, and Gatesville voted against the resolution-- the last two certainly under Gatesville and Darkesia's influence. Lady Phedre with Guns and Darkesia add another 255 + 203 = 458 votes. (In case some are unaware the East Pacific was recently taken over by a Gatesville-friendly regime known as the Empire. The North Pacific is unfortunately at war with both).

While the North Pacific currently has no love lost for Gatesville, who have assisted dictatorial coups in our past, who support the Empire in the East Pacific, and who recently declared war on us threatening to take our region from us yet again... I could not help but be impressed by the effect I saw Darkesia's clear, concise, and massively reproduced message give.

By all means, continue opposing Gatesville. In fact, the North Pacific would never mind a few more nations willing to help in its defense. But please don't yell at Gatesville for the respect I showed Darkesia, and please don't yell at Darkesia for helping to stop this terrible Resolution.

~Eluvatar aka Eluvataran Isles aka Zemnaya Svoboda

Okay, that's about enough going back and forth about what region did what and who deserves what accolades.

If any of you had a child who had been the victim of child pornography, perhaps you wouldn't be so nit-picky about the wording.

I have, and frankly I don't think this goes far enough. Biased? You bet your last penny I am.

Well, at least you're honest.

Firstly, Gatesville did not state that it was singularly responsibly-- only I ever said Darkesia was to be congratulated. I gave good reasons why.

In addition, I did not say Gatesville was to be congratulated-- I said Darkesia was.

Over 1000 worth of delegate votes were, in my assessment, indirectly affected by Darkesia's message-- I checked this looking at the offsites of The North Pacific (http://z13.invisionfree.com/tnp), The West Pacific (http://twp.nosync.org), The South Pacific (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php), and Equilism (http://www.equilism.org/forum/), as well as possibly others I cannot recall at the moment. Together that is 341 + 284 + 230 + 59 = 914. In addition, the delegates of the Pacific, the East Pacific, and Gatesville voted against the resolution-- the last two certainly under Gatesville and Darkesia's influence. Lady Phedre with Guns and Darkesia add another 255 + 203 = 458 votes. (In case some are unaware the East Pacific was recently taken over by a Gatesville-friendly regime known as the Empire. The North Pacific is unfortunately at war with both).

While the North Pacific currently has no love lost for Gatesville, who have assisted dictatorial coups in our past, who support the Empire in the East Pacific, and who recently declared war on us threatening to take our region from us yet again... I could not help but be impressed by the effect I saw Darkesia's clear, concise, and massively reproduced message give.

By all means, continue opposing Gatesville. In fact, the North Pacific would never mind a few more nations willing to help in its defense. But please don't yell at Gatesville for the respect I showed Darkesia, and please don't yell at Darkesia for helping to stop this terrible Resolution.

~Eluvatar aka Eluvataran Isles aka Zemnaya Svoboda


It is not the custom of Urgenchis to speak above a whisper honoured Ambsassador, to "Yell" is a barbaric habit, unknown to us.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Well, at least you're honest.

Yep honest....They are Honestly foolish. Failing the grasp that the resolution would actually make loop holes large enough to float a navy through, under this resolution no WA state could effectively try someone for the crime, We would drop them off in a parking lot where they would await a bus to the International Court.. Ya the one we DON'T HAVE. So since they cant be tried they cant go to prison. And they would just go free. It INHIBITS prosecution. Why don't you understand that? It really isn't that complicated.. And Nit Picking about wording? Do you not understand how important wording is in a law..*sigh*. There are other rather flawed aspects of the bill. But I think thats enough for ranting. /end rant

If any of you had a child who had been the victim of child pornography, perhaps you wouldn't be so nit-picky about the wording.

I have, and frankly I don't think this goes far enough. Biased? You bet your last penny I am.

When such "wording" issues include the resolution punishing people for non-pornographic work, would cause a seizure of a massive amount of art that is not pornographic, and prevent people who are child pornographers from being prosecuted perhaps the "nit-picking" is slightly important.

If any of you had a child who had been the victim of child pornography, perhaps you wouldn't be so nit-picky about the wording.

I honestly can't get that worked up about kiddieporn. Compared with actual sexual abuse of a child it pales into insignificance.

The Holy Empire must agree with the Gobbannean WA Mission. Child pornography is simply a symptom. It is simply evidence of the sexual exploitation of children. Banning child pornography will not, in the opinion of the Holy Empire, serve to remove that underlying aspect.

Unfortunately, She is not of the opinion that legislation is an effective method of dealing with child sexual exploitation. Such legislation may serve as punishment for those caught, but the causes are left undealt with.

The resolution "Prohibit child pornography" was defeated 6,098 votes to 4,068.

The resolution "Prohibit child pornography" was defeated 6,098 votes to 4,068.

Thank the gods for that. We were pleased to vote against such a flawed piece of legislation.

And to Myrgh Kernowes, while I sympathize, the wording really does matter when it comes to resolutions. Bad wording can easily prevent the resolution from actually addressing the problem it seeks to end.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The Holy Empire must agree with the Gobbannean WA Mission. Child pornography is simply a symptom. It is simply evidence of the sexual exploitation of children. Banning child pornography will not, in the opinion of the Holy Empire, serve to remove that underlying aspect.Uhh, we very much disagree. Using children for pornographic materials is sexual exploitation of children, not merely a "symptom" of it. It is the view of the Federal Republic that the the international trade of child pornography be banned, and its sale and production criminalized. We look forward to supporting a reasonable resolution to that end.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

We are extremely gratified by the signs of good sense and foresight evinced by the democratically expressed will of this organistion in voting this resolution down.

We hope that those who are interested in protecting children will lend their support and advice to the drafting of the esteemed delegacy of Rutianas' child protection statute.

yours e.t.c. ,

It makes me sick that there are people out there that think that child pornography is only a symptom of exploitation and not exploitation in and of itself. Spending a very long time study humanity, psychology, and criminology, this IS child exploitation and NOT a symptom of something else. You are misusing a child for sexual deviance and forcing them to do something against their will. No child wants to participate in having their naked body photographed or videotaped. I will agree that it is apart of a larger problem, but one part. We should do our best to rid ourselves of exploitation on all levels, this was a step in the right direction. All child pornographers should be executed and will be executed in Amston. Sexual deviance is one thing I am certain there is no cure for and no amount of rehabilitation can work (did you know that it is more likely and SAFER to rehabilitate a murder than it is a sexual offender? This is because most murders are a one-time occurance while sexual deviance is ongoing).

Further, Amston will have NO relations with nations who do not have anti-child explotation laws/child pornography laws. I immediately declare any nation not having such laws and allowing such things to continue to be a criminal nation and hereby place an embargo on them.

Further, Amston will have NO relations with nations who do not have anti-child explotation laws/child pornography laws. I immediately declare any nation not having such laws and allowing such things to continue to be a criminal nation and hereby place an embargo on them.

Then I would hope I would have your support on my draft proposal Child Protection Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565606).

Yes i will. I voted for this one to pass, I will surely vote for that one!

My biggest problem with it was that it defined the age of adulthood. Should that not be up to each individual nation? Also, should it not be at the discretion of each nation to define what is/not pornograpy or child pornography? And like someone else said, what if I am caught with pics of my kids when they were young and running around the house naked?

My biggest problem with it was that it defined the age of adulthood. Should that not be up to each individual nation? Also, should it not be at the discretion of each nation to define what is/not pornograpy or child pornography? And like someone else said, what if I am caught with pics of my kids when they were young and running around the house naked?

Please see the newly drafted Child Protection Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565606).

I believe it covers those specific issues as well as others.

So long as pornography is banned, I have no hassle in implementing such laws.

It makes me sick that there are people out there that think that child pornography is only a symptom of exploitation and not exploitation in and of itself.

It's neither. It's (usually) a product of exploitation, but it is not exploitation "in and of itself". It's the making of it that's the exploitation.

Further, kindly remember that nations have different definitions of the age of consent. Given your attitude, I suspect that there's rather a large age range where you'd consider the results child pornography and I'd consider them adult pornography. Which isn't necessarily any less exploitative, but for some reason no one seems to be concerned about that today.

Further, kindly remember that nations have different definitions of the age of consent. Given your attitude, I suspect that there's rather a large age range where you'd consider the results child pornography and I'd consider them adult pornography. Which isn't necessarily any less exploitative, but for some reason no one seems to be concerned about that today.

Personally, exploiting an adult for the purposes of pornography isn't the same as exploiting a child in my mind. The adult typically knew what they were getting into. A child doesn't always know.

Uhh, we very much disagree. Using children for pornographic materials is sexual exploitation of children, not merely a "symptom" of it. It is the view of the Federal Republic that the the international trade of child pornography be banned, and its sale and production criminalized. We look forward to supporting a reasonable resolution to that end.

Well said. I wholeheartedly concur.

_____________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Further, Amston will have NO relations with nations who do not have anti-child explotation laws/child pornography laws. I immediately declare any nation not having such laws and allowing such things to continue to be a criminal nation and hereby place an embargo on them.

We in Tzorsland would have no problems with laws against child exploitation, although I haven’t really considered all the ramifications of such a category of law; forcing a child to work is a form of exploitation. We in Tzorsland have no problems with laws against “child pornography.” Our objection was against any graphical depiction of nudity as pornography. In the first place classical painting of babies in their birthday suits should not be considered suddenly “porn.” In the second place there are I believe a number of nations in the WA where nudity is the norm, or at least common, for adults and minors.

Then I would hope I would have your support on my draft proposal Child Protection Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565606).

As I see this I have a concern that what might be considered reasonable "discipline" would be considered "physical abuse." Other than that the resolution may be a little narrow in scope for my tastes, but it's easier to raise the bar on WA law than to lower it.

As I see this I have a concern that what might be considered reasonable "discipline" would be considered "physical abuse." Other than that the resolution may be a little narrow in scope for my tastes, but it's easier to raise the bar on WA law than to lower it.

Honoured Ambassador the resolution on child protection would not outlaw what you call "reasonable" ( what ever that means ) discipline, so long as this discipline is not singularly intended to physically, emotionally or sexually harm the child being disciplined. We invite you to lend your voice to the drafting debate on this statute where it may be of use.

yours e.t.c.,

To mark the glorious failing of this atrocious piece of proposed legislation, it is my pleasure to present the traditional "Fraganoo Dance of Thanks", performed by Fraganoo tribesmen and women in their traditional garb

A man, his father and his son, along with his daughter, his wife, and his pet dog walk into the middle of the World Assembly hall, in the traditional costume, which resembles the most kinky S&M gear you can imagine, and start to perform. It is impossible to describe what follows without using profanity, and causing the reader to retch uncontrollably. Imagine the bulk of a particularly horrific "Aristocrats" joke. It's like that, but worse