NationStates Jolt Archive

The act is still far from passing, of course, but it always helps to plan ahead, and so I have decided to draft a repeal which adresses the resolution's flaws.

The World Assembly,

CONFIRMING the importance of prohibiting the forcing of children into sexual acts,

GREATLY APPLAUDING the efforts made by "Prohibit Child Pornography" to work towards this goal,

SUPPORTING ALSO the important societal unit: the family,

HOWEVER SADLY NOTING critical flaws in the wording of Prohibit Child Pornography which would punish families for acts which are clearly NOT child pornography,

RESOLVED not to punish innocent families with even the taint of the accusation of child pornography,

ALARMED at the social disturbance the wording errors in Prohibit Child Pornography may cause, including endless court debate and trials of mothers and fathers which would work negatively on the original intent: The protection of children,

ALARMED GREATLY at the possibility of international prosecution of families due to the wording of Prohibit Child Pornography:

1. CITES resolution #16, Prohibit Child Pornography, as stating "Child pornography is defined as any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, computer generated images, or videos) of children whom are naked";

2. NOTES WITH ALARM that this includes perfectly innocent pictures of children taken by mothers and fathers to preserve memories of children and without the slightest interest in exploitation, SUCH AS a picture of a baby, naked, that the baby's parents might have in a family photo album;

3. DETERMINES not to make it a criminal act to take innocent family pictures of babies;

4. NOTES FURTHER problems in the wording regarding turning over of child pornography suspects (including innocent parents) to international courts;

5. DECLARES the need for replacement legislation on child pornography, legislation which does not criminalize innocent families and which does not vaguely attempt to try these parents internationally:

6. REPEALS resolution #16, Prohibit Child Pornography.

So, what do the ambassadors think? Any defenestration of problems needed? New things to put in?

Aside from some spelling mistakes and style issues, it pretty much covers everything.

I just wonder how many people will actually READ it before voting "Hell, no! I'm not going to legalize child porn!"

It is sad that most people do not read the whole content of a proposal, but that is the WA we are living in. But this repeal (hopefully not needed, but I fear otherwise) starts very strongly against child pornography. So maybe that will convince the readers to go on and give support to this repeal when time is right.

But maybe more will come out of the discussion in the thread about the proposal now at vote.

Ambassador Desh-Shrik, my support you already have. I hope I can convince the nations in my region (Intelligentsia Islands) not to force me in favour of the current proposal at vote in the WA. In that case I will have to go to another region so I do not have to vote that way.

Regards

Please do point out any mistakes New Illuve. While I'm quite adept at the English language (it's not my native) I do make mistakes. (Because old habits die hard)

I would add a statement about the original argument "that a child does not have the capability to determine whether or not to partake" while also banning "computer generated images [and] cartoons" -- situations where there is no "child."

Good idea, Ancion. I've added it. (It is now point 2, and the rest have moved up a space)

This could definitely work, the Confederacy had noted and voted against the act for many of the failures noted above in the repeal, sadly it will likely still pass but this is what the repeal is for!

This could definitely work, the Confederacy had noted and voted against the act for many of the failures noted above in the repeal, sadly it will likely still pass but this is what the repeal is for!

I agree. I am trying to sway delegates while I can, however, this repeal is likely to be filed and Rutianas will definitely support it. It saddens me to see that many people only read the title of these resolutions and make their choice at that point to support or oppose.

I wonder how many people realize that innocent photographs of an infant wearing nothing but a bow as a symbolism of 'gift from god' is going to be illegal under section 4 of the current draft of this resolution.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Keep this handy if it passes because it lacks section regarding victims of crime.

I have explained my country's opinion at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13989036&postcount=31 .

Personally, I think the support of victims should go in another resolution.

This one only illegalizes child pornography, not rape. Support of rape victims is a section better fitting for a resolution banning rape. Rape is not actually internationally illegal.

(It occurs to me, it is a bit backward to try to ban depictions of an act, but not the act itself...)

This proposal, should PCP be passed, will also be supported by the Peoples of Sasquatchewain.

It has also occurred to this State the fact that it may be impossible for the WA to efficiently legislate against child pornography. We do not (for once...) stand against such a proposal due to ideological beliefs, but simply due to the practical requirements of such a proposal.

As opposed to the mythical so-called "RL," where the ancient books of lore state there supposedly was only one recognized sapient being, we live in a world of many cultures and, far more importantly, genetic variants. Whereas in that mystical land all beings matured at approximately the same rate, we live in a land where some beings mature quickly, others where puberty and mental development occurs far later in life, some beings which, even after reaching full maturity, maintain many drastically child-like features, which might make them similar to the infants of another Nation, who when mature have a far more "adult" look. This problem, standing alone, however, can be covered by allowing nations to name their own definition of "child" and age of maturity.

The problem is raised, however, by the global culture we all inhabit. If an inhabitant of Livelongia, where the age of maturity is 50 due to their life-span of 200, imports pornography from Diequickia, where the age of maturity is 2 due to their life-span of 10, can he be convicted of possession of child-pornography due the inclusion of 2-(Diequickian)-year-olds? Even if the physiological appearance and mental maturity of the "3-year-old children" is equal and comparable to that of a Livelongian 60-year-old?

And the proposal cannot entirely cover this by instating a simple conversion of age-of-maturity/life-expectancy equation (a 2-year-old Diequickian is the same as a 40-year-old Livelongian and is therefore considered child-pornography within Livelongia) due to the fact that, even with this equation in place, physiological differences can still create "pedophilic" situations:

An individual from Lookoldia imports pornography from Childia. Both nations have similar age of maturity (18) and life-expectancy (80), rendering the above equation moot. However, male citizens of Lookoldia develop hairy chests and females, expansive breasts, at the age of 7, while citizens of Childia have no record of facial hair or protruding breasts in their history, and the average height of an individual is 1,40 meters. While the pornography seen by the Lookoldian is legal in every way, he is observing sexual relations between individuals which, in his culture and (almost therefore) mindset, would most easily be considered minors.

As well, instating the equation would quite simply be a huge blow to the pornographic industry, since they would have to choose whether to employ "barely legal" individuals and therefore only be able to market their product in a small selection of Nations (including their own) or employ older and therefore, in the eyes of many clients, less attractive actors, increasing their market but quite possibly decreasing their profits.

As well, the proposal would have to cover such situations as:

A Livelongian makes child pornography (making him guilty of a crime) and exports it to Diequickia. The Diequickian who purchases the pornography can be charged with ownership of illegal materials, but can he be charged with ownership of child-pornography? By Diequickian standards, after all, that pornography is in fact perfectly legal (a 40-year-old Livelongian is considered a minor, but is the same as a 2-year-old Diequickian, which is considered legal).

I think 8 is your strongest argument, and I question the value of trying to point out every little thing in the proposal. It might be better to concentrate on the really damaging errors.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench will support a repeal of the resolution curently at vote, and probably this one in particular in its final form.

Currently however we are concerned that this resolution is too long and unfocused to acheive the support of the generality of the membership who are often loathe to fully read any resolution which is too long and rambling.

We commend the authors of this resolution for their good foresight in drafting this resolution so soon.

Subsidiarily we are concerned that the resolution at vote has no official thread which could be used to canvass a no vote thus obviating the need for a repeal. Of course we will defer to any nation experienced enough to suggest that to open a debate on this resolution would be counter productive and that a repeal would be more efficacious.

yours e.t.c. ,

Thank you for your support. I have split the resolution into three sections, listing the major flaws, the reasons of its unenforcebility, and listing smaller flaws.

And on a note to the ambassador from Urgench, the thread originally aimed at preventing it from reaching quorum seems to have become the gathering place for the debaters, however it is mainly populated by non-supporters, leaving little room for debate. Starting an official topic would be arbitrary, I think. In the way it is now, the WA seems more unified in its non-approval.

-High Council Member M. Stuart

Like Quod said, don't pile it on. Highlight a few major flaws, string it together with language commending the resolution's purpose and recognizing the importance of protecting the kiddies, blah blah blah, and you're done. At the very least, drop the excessively nitpicking "knowingly allow" thing. Please.

Best of luck.

I've now trimmed it quite a bit, which includes removing two of the "impossible to enforce" flaws and just mentioning the fact nobody can be prosecuted.

I agree with QoD and Kenny. If this resolution passes it will do so in part because of the mindless fluffies. They don't read detail and get lost by it. You need to make your argument so plain that a simple 5 second scan of the repeal will cause them to long for your position. Remember that unlike the resolution, the "repeal" of the resolution already gives you two strikes because of it's unfriendly and unfluffy nature.

Perhaps I should take my inspiration from a certain repeal of Freedom of Marriage, and just write the repeal as:

"Banning child pornography is unholy and wrong and I am against that."

Or: "Angelina Jolie supports child porn. Do you?"

I'm not really good at writing short and sweet things. I prefer long essays, which are oh so sweet nonetheless. Any suggestions?

I like a version which gives some facts and reasons, not short statements of so called famous or holy persons.

But I am not important, I would support also a repeal without some text inside, because I know why I am so much against child pornography and the current proposal at vote now.

Regards

I invite you to look in the Internet "Madonna with Child", by Leonardo da Vinci. One of the most beautiful masterpieces of the Art of the Renaissance: Baby Jesus is stark naked, with his little sex in view. And even WORST (for the sexual obsessed moralist censors), the Virgin Mary has one of her breasts OUT and the baby is feeding from it!!!! A naked baby, in full contact with the naked breast of an adult female!!! ANATEMA!!!

This resolution is the most stupid thing that WA has ever done... And it has done a lot...

Perhaps I should take my inspiration from a certain repeal of Freedom of Marriage, and just write the repeal as:

"Banning child pornography is unholy and wrong and I am against that."

Or: "Angelina Jolie supports child porn. Do you?"

I'm not really good at writing short and sweet things. I prefer long essays, which are oh so sweet nonetheless. Any suggestions?

I wouldn't do that, the mindless fluffies may not read the text, but the mods do.

I'd switch 1) and 2) around so that the "this bans your baby photos" argument comes first. It's the stronger argument emotionally, and the first point in the list is the one most likely to be read. I'd split the lack of courts into its own point to make the important point shorter. A mass of text, even quite a short mass, will put people off.

What are you looking at me like that for? OK, so I like long sentences, I'm just aware that other people won't read them.

Anyway, I'm with everyone else, I'll happily support this should the resolution pass.

Should the "Prohibit Child Pornography" proposition be passed, the Free nation of Desh-Shrik can count on the United Socialist States of Jaynova's support of this repeal.

I cannot vote for this resolution in it's current form.

I'd propose a Child Protection resolution in place of this. I don't want to be the one blamed for a mother getting arrested for innocent photos of her newborn and DaVinci for his artwork. Another thing, Who confirms the age of cartoon character?

This resolution definitely needs to be repealed.

I think 8 is your strongest argument, and I question the value of trying to point out every little thing in the proposal. It might be better to concentrate on the really damaging errors. In complete agreement with the emphasized part. In fact, I would even state it as "you must find 1 damaging error that most will understand and construct the whole repeal text around that single lightning rod argument". I mean, if we truly believe that the little errors it has are problematic, we should have faith that they are self-evident to a conscientious populace. The text needs a single argument, though, that will be both novel and fundamental.

That is to say, we have to understand why exactly this resolution would pass. It's not because people in the WA aren't paying close attention to the proposal text. It's because people in the WA aren't paying attention to the proposal text in a proposal whose subject matter arouses a righteous indignation in them. They say "Child porno? Brrrrr.... Let's vote yes!"

The problem is that this instinct to oppose child pornography is good! It's a testament to the fact that these people are compassionate and understanding of the special rights children have to be protected. But the drive, that again is good, is being utilized incorrectly through an inferior text. The instinct voters are tapping into to vote FOR is good, but the proposal is bad.

It's super important that the repeal does not attack these voters for voting FOR. They did it with all the good intentions in the world. If you oppose that natural instinct their subconscious will identify you as an opponent to that instinct that told them to do it. They'll transfer the hate they have for child pornography to you and your repeal. If one goes out with tooth and nail after the proposal in the repeal, it might have a significantly lesser chance of passing.

There are two effects this has on a repeal proposal text. You must have very affirming language about the instinct in the preambulatory clauses. You must validate these people in their righteous dislike of child pornography. You are not repealing this proposal because child pornography is good and because they were wrong for thinking it was worthwhile to oppose it.


You should connect the core reason for the repeal (remember it's strongest if it has only 1 reason for repeal, not a laundry list--why diffuse focus and readers' attention?) to an equally powerful and righteous instinct. Or if possible a more powerful instinct.
With this said, I think you've done a good job, though I would have a few suggestions. How about this (that in bold has been changed)?
The World Assembly,

CONFIRMING the importance of prohibiting the forcing of children into sexual acts,

GREATLY APPLAUDING the efforts made by "Prohibit Child Pornography" to work towards this goal,

SUPPORTING ALSO the fundamental societal unit: the family,

HOWEVER SADLY NOTING critical flaws in the wording of Prohibit Child Pornography which would punish families for acts which are clearly NOT child pornography,

RESOLVED not to punish innocent families with even the taint of the accusation of child pornography,

ALARMED GREATLY at the possibility of international prosecution of families due to the wording of Prohibit Child Pornography:

1. CITES resolution #16, Prohibit Child Pornography, as stating "Child pornography is defined as any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, computer generated images, or videos) of children whom are naked";

2. NOTES WITH ALARM that this includes perfectly innocent pictures of children taken by mothers and fathers to preserve memories of children and without the slightest interest in exploitation, SUCH AS a picture of a baby, naked, that the baby's parents might have in a family photo album;

3. DETERMINES not to make it a criminal act to take innocent family pictures of babies;

4. NOTES FURTHER problems in the wording regarding turning over of child pornography suspects (including innocent parents) to international courts;

5. DECLARES the need for replacement legislation on child pornography, legislation which does not criminalize innocent families and which does not vaguely attempt to try these parents internationally:

6. REPEALS resolution #16, Prohibit Child Pornography.
This text focuses on the principal flaw--the definition of child pornography--and focuses specifically on how it would negatively affect something people also have a natural instinct to protect: traditional families. I threw in the flaw of the resolution of "international courts" to give it a sense of departure and return. This departure and return further emphasizes the original subject of families because...oh nevermind. It's just the right way to express it. Nevermind why.

So. Yeah. I think this is the approach which will cut you the biggest slice of the WA-vote-pie. It should pass. If it doesn't, I'd wager the WA-vote-pie is rotten and needs to be thrown into the garbage. But maybe that's just the pride in my own work talking...

In complete agreement with the emphasized part. In fact, I would even state it as "you must find 1 damaging error that most will understand and construct the whole repeal text around that single lightning rod argument". I mean, if we truly believe that the little errors it has are problematic, we should have faith that they are self-evident to a conscientious populace. The text needs a single argument, though, that will be both novel and fundamental.

That is to say, we have to understand why exactly this resolution would pass. It's not because people in the WA aren't paying close attention to the proposal text. It's because people in the WA aren't paying attention to the proposal text in a proposal whose subject matter arouses a righteous indignation in them. They say "Child porno? Brrrrr.... Let's vote yes!"

The problem is that this instinct to oppose child pornography is good! It's a testament to the fact that these people are compassionate and understanding of the special rights children have to be protected. But the drive, that again is good, is being utilized incorrectly through an inferior text. The instinct voters are tapping into to vote FOR is good, but the proposal is bad.

It's super important that the repeal does not attack these voters for voting FOR. They did it with all the good intentions in the world. If you oppose that natural instinct their subconscious will identify you as an opponent to that instinct that told them to do it. They'll transfer the hate they have for child pornography to you and your repeal. If one goes out with tooth and nail after the proposal in the repeal, it might have a significantly lesser chance of passing.

There are two effects this has on a repeal proposal text. You must have very affirming language about the instinct in the preambulatory clauses. You must validate these people in their righteous dislike of child pornography. You are not repealing this proposal because child pornography is good and because they were wrong for thinking it was worthwhile to oppose it.


You should connect the core reason for the repeal (remember it's strongest if it has only 1 reason for repeal, not a laundry list--why diffuse focus and readers' attention?) to an equally powerful and righteous instinct. Or if possible a more powerful instinct.
With this said, I think you've done a good job, though I would have a few suggestions. How about this (that in bold has been changed)?This text focuses on the principal flaw--the definition of child pornography--and focuses specifically on how it would negatively affect something people also have a natural instinct to protect: traditional families. I threw in the flaw of the resolution of "international courts" to give it a sense of departure and return. This departure and return further emphasizes the original subject of families because...oh nevermind. It's just the right way to express it. Nevermind why.

So. Yeah. I think this is the approach which will cut you the biggest slice of the WA-vote-pie. It should pass. If it doesn't, I'd wager the WA-vote-pie is rotten and needs to be thrown into the garbage. But maybe that's just the pride in my own work talking...



This re-draft is doubtless very elegant respected Ambassador, and it certainly makes good use of the strongest positions it may take to best assail the resolution currrently at vote.

However we caution against thinking this will be easy since this resolution is passing without having any vocal proponants in debate and is seemingly possessed of a motive force all of its own.

The membership may not be quite so perceptive as you may think they have become. We fear there might need to be some sort of stick with the carrot that is your draft by which we mean the threat of the dire consequences of this resolution somewhere spelled out in the repeal. To leave a chill in the yes camp's bones.

yours e.t.c. ,

The membership may not be quite so perceptive as you may think they have become.
I assume this is in response to this statement of mine:I mean, if we truly believe that the little errors it has are problematic, we should have faith that they are self-evident to a conscientious populace. The text needs a single argument, though, that will be both novel and fundamental.My statement needs clarification. I meant that there are two types of voters: “perceptive” and “non-perceptive”. My point was that those that are perceptive, or a "conscientious populace" will on their own recognize the more nuanced problems of this resolution, since they are self-evident and easily reasoned by those disposed to such rationality.

The “non-perceptive” voters, however, are not proactive like the “perceptive”. They’re completely passive in the WA, and uninterested in stretching their understanding. They don’t like or are unused to critically examining proposals and working past their initial impressions and superego-assumptions regarding them--for this they are “non-perceptive”. If they critically considered proposals they would be “perceptives”.

My point is that you will have almost 100% of the "perceptive vote": the problems with the proposal are pretty self-evident if one tries to examine the proposal. But this 100% “perceptive” vote is clearly not enough. I mean, if the perceptive vote were enough, this proposal wouldn’t pass in the first place. So we need to cut out a chunk of the non-perceptive voting bloc. This is done by catering to their assumptions, preconceived notions: by illustrating how what the "perceptives" think is exactly what the “non-perceptives” think, they just didn't know that they thought it. This is through a simple, fundamental plea to an instinct already held. It teaches from known to unknown. Known = families are good. Unknown = this proposal negatively effects families.

And yes, I feel that alienation needs to be avoided. If you alienate all those who don't recognize off hand the problems with the proposal (i.e. the entire non-perceptive voting bloc) there's little chance to break off a piece of that voting bloc.

I assume this is in response to this statement of mine:My statement needs clarification. I meant that there are two types of voters: “perceptive” and “non-perceptive”. My point was that those that are perceptive, or a "conscientious populace" will on their own recognize the more nuanced problems of this resolution, since they are self-evident and easily reasoned by those disposed to such rationality.

The “non-perceptive” voters, however, are not proactive like the “perceptive”. They’re completely passive in the WA, and uninterested in stretching their understanding. They don’t like or are unused to critically examining proposals and working past their initial impressions and superego-assumptions regarding them--for this they are “non-perceptive”. If they critically considered proposals they would be “perceptives”.

My point is that you will have almost 100% of the "perceptive vote": the problems with the proposal are pretty self-evident if one tries to examine the proposal. But this 100% “perceptive” vote is clearly not enough. I mean, if the perceptive vote were enough, this proposal wouldn’t pass in the first place. So we need to cut out a chunk of the non-perceptive voting bloc. This is done by catering to their assumptions, preconceived notions: by illustrating how what the "perceptives" think is exactly what the “non-perceptives” think, they just didn't know that they thought it. This is through a simple, fundamental plea to an instinct already had by them. It teaches from known to unknown. Known = families are good. Unknown = this proposal negatively effects families.

And yes, I feel that alienation needs to be avoided. If you alienate all those who don't recognize off hand the problems with the proposal (i.e. the entire non-perceptive voting bloc) there's little chance to break off a piece of that voting bloc.


Fear is not allways alienating, indeed it may galvanise the critical faculties in ways which sympathetic treatment may not. A vivid allusion to the mummies and daddies of the membership being carted off to be dumped in a diplomatic and legal netherworld, accused of perversion while their children are left to the tender mercies of social services could well have enough nations spluttering into their cocoa and frantically clicking "for" to carry the day.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota has noted its opposition to the proposal to be repealed in the appropriate area, and happily supports this repeal should it become necessary (hopefully it does not, but no one ever died from being over-prepared).

I've attempted to take the Powerhungry Chipmunk's version, and have tried to edit in some suggestions made by others (which is hard in such an awesome piece of legislation you've come up with).

I'm also thinking about drafting a new replacement resolution which legalizes fictional child porn, that is, child porn in which no children were ever used in the making of it. But that is another story...

In my nation it is obligatory to be nude.... does the WA have a problem with that?

I agree with the analyse of the Powerhungry Chipmunks about how to try to get lots of nations, which work with their instinct rather than with their logic, on our side.

I really dislike "SUPPORTING ALSO the fundamental societal unit: the family". I will have to control my emotions big to support such a repeal, but maybe I can, because if "Prohibit Child Pornography" becomes an approved resolution, I can only stay a few more days longer in the WA to support such a repeal, before the bikers gangs in my nation will have killed me. But I hope some can make that sentence a bit less fundamental.

I would go along with "SUPPORTING ALSO the very important societal unit: the family"

Regards

In my nation it is obligatory to be nude.... does the WA have a problem with that?

The WA is not against that, but I am. Because if I have to work for long ours on the field chopping tree logs, I will burn from the sunshine and I will get skin cancer.

Is also article 6 of the "Prohibit..." resolution a non-sensical one? (May all deities bless the soul of its author, and then send him or her to the proverbial hell whose path is paved with so good intentions...). Non-WA Nations may be subject to WA resolutions too...? Does the author think he or she is in RL UNICEF, and not in NS?

Basically, what article 6 does is allow nations to ask non-member states to hand over child porn makers.

"Hey..erm.. It's the chancellor. Could you give us that guy you caught...Please?"
"No. Go away."

The proposal maker wanted to dish out a little more power than he (or we) has.

We of Karthonia fully support it. The wording of the first one, with paintings, electronical displays and family photos disturbs me. It is overreaching. Anything not harming a child is unnecessary. It is unfortunate that so many delegates vote blindly.

We will back this in any way necessary. It appears it will soon be needed.

We support the Powerhungry Chipmunks draft, and reject the idea (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13990847&postcount=30) of bestowing international protection on pornographers who only use actors who look like children, as opposed to actual children. As if any grade of pornography deserved international protection.

[cell phone rings]

[sighs] That'll be President Fernanda. I yield the floor.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

I agree with the analyse of the Powerhungry Chipmunks about how to try to get lots of nations, which work with their instinct rather than with their logic, on our side.

I really dislike "SUPPORTING ALSO the fundamental societal unit: the family". I will have to control my emotions big to support such a repeal, but maybe I can, because if "Prohibit Child Pornography" becomes an approved resolution, I can only stay a few more days longer in the WA to support such a repeal, before the bikers gangs in my nation will have killed me. But I hope some can make that sentence a bit less fundamental.

I would go along with "SUPPORTING ALSO the very important societal unit: the family"

RegardsUnderstandable and supported.

The repeal worded in the way I originally wrote it brought up an unrelated subject (how "fundamental" the family is to society), which means yet another division among non-perceptive voters. Deciding that the family is "very important" and setting aside any debate as to whether it qualifies as "fundamental" would only help the repeal effort. Of course, I do believe firmly that the family is "fundamental", but why would we need to push that idea in this repeal?

I've changed "fundamental" to "important". Let the debate rage on if the family is "greatly" important, "very" important, "somewhat" important, or "just a little bit" important.

I think 8 is your strongest argument, and I question the value of trying to point out every little thing in the proposal. It might be better to concentrate on the really damaging errors.

Well I agree not to pile on every detail. I also think from the few corrected mistakes , this is a very sound repeal, should PCP repeal; I will approve and support this repeal.

I will support any proposal deemed reasonable and descriptive enough. I recommend a consortium if there isn't one already which should put all the ideas together into one ideal proposal.

I've changed "fundamental" to "important". Let the debate rage on if the family is "greatly" important, "very" important, "somewhat" important, or "just a little bit" important.

Totally agreed!

This pretty much is already the consortium, Charlotte Ryberg.

As the votes are going currently, it looks like "Prohibit Child Pornography" will either pass with a very small margin (which means a repeal will be easier to pass) and it might just be voted off. Victory is at hand...

-High Council Member M. Stuart

As the votes are going currently, it looks like "Prohibit Child Pornography" will either pass with a very small margin (which means a repeal will be easier to pass) and it might just be voted off. Victory is at hand...

-High Council Member M. Stuart

Indeed, just telegram every new WA delegate who approves to change their opinion because of the problems of this proposal and tell them that you are against child pornography and that soon a new proposal will come without banning pictures of your first born nor banning art like Madonna with child and no, not needed, international court.

I believe we can win this...

I think classifying paintings of naked children as illegal is wrong; the exploitation of children as subjects to be painted (when not done in the context of the family as specified by Wierd Anarchists) is clearly to be outlawed, but a painting opf a naked child is different. A rethink is required on this aspect too.