NationStates Jolt Archive

In trying to get all the ideas together and formulate one proposal, this is what I have come up with. This is my first attempt at writing a proposal, so forgive me if there are things that could be better worded or things that just don't belong.

AWARE that pornography exists and will circulate between nations.

CONDEMNING the use and abuse of minors in such material.

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

DETERMINED to protect children from this form of sexual abuse

PROPOSING to ban child pornography

A CHILD, for purposes of this Resolution, is DEFINED as a person under the age of consent in member nations.

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, for the purposes of this Resolution, is DEFINED as any media that involves a child in sexual acts, in sexual positions, or implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activities.

Article 1: It will be illegal to possess, or have voluntarily viewed, child pornography.

Article 2: It will be illegal to knowingly permit the circulation of child pornography, whether or not for profit.

Article 3: Law enforcement agencies may possess and view child pornography if it is in direct relation to a case, but not circulate outside what is necessary to form a case.

Article 4: Prosecution of an individual accused of any crime where child pornography is concerned shall be up to the individual member nations.

Article 5: Any individual found guilty of the acts cited in this resolution shall have their identities and criminal records that pertain to this resolution distributed among the law enforcement agencies of member nations.

Article 6: In the case that child pornography has circulated across national boundaries,
a) member nations will cooperate by sharing information as it pertains to the criminal activities in this resolution
b) extradite the individual to the nation who made the initial charge


Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Our position on this statute is made clear in this post -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13996829&postcount=131

yours e.t.c. ,

I added a section to make extradition easier between member nations.

Article 6 is far too broad and unspecific, it allows nations to extradite anyone they wish from another member nation, they need only trump up a charge of child pornography to do so.

The rest of the resolution is inert.

Article 6 could read ;

" a) Member states must cooperate with each other in the investigation of this crime, and in the apprehension of those who have commited it. Especially where the commission of the crime is trans-national in nature.

b) Member states should readily offer up those accused of this crime by other member states, on receipt and evaluation for veracity of the appropriate investigatory materials pertinent to the charges brought against the accused. Where this evidence can be deemed manifestly bogus, states will retain the right not to extradite those thus falsely accused. Member nations may also refuse to extradite any one accused of this crime where they are convinced that the accused will be tortured or face capital punishment.

c)However the applicant nation in this case must retain the right to make formal appeal to the relevant courts and authorities within the nation in which they have made the extradition application to obtain the extradition of the accused, subject of course to the judgment of these courts and authorities. "

Or words to this effect.

yours e.t.c. ,

Why is this crime so important? We're not tackling any other form of child sexual exploitation, such as prostitution or domestic abuse. We're not tackling other forms of non-consentual pornography, such as that involving rape or taken without knowledge of the participants. No one's going to vote against a good child pornography ban, but it seems a relatively minor issue that should more properly be part of broader legislation.

This is exactly our point, statutes covering the rights of the child, sexual crimes and the other issues would deal with this problem much more efficiently, that is why the only aspect of a resolution dealing with this crime our government would support is the part we have outlined above, though in fact we would rather see this included in a more comprehensive statute in any case.

The reeason this seems to be a current fixation is because certain nations have made promises to rewrite the resolution at vote in order to secure the vote against it.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Holy Empire of New Illuve applauds that this Proposal is being put forward for public discussion and debate and hopes that it produces a better Resolution than what is currently in front of the august body for vote.

She would also like to point out that legitimate reasons for possessing and viewing child pornography exist beyond purely law enforcement reasons. There may very well be areas of scientific and/or academic study in which the possession and/or viewing would be appropriate. The Holy Empire would like to see an expansion of Article Three.

She would also like to point out that, as Article Two is currently written, providing (physical) evidence of child pornography to law enforcement agencies is now illegal and will result in the prosecution of the party involved. Also, Article One would result in the same thing.

Article Six can better refer to the extradition laws between member nations, rather than set up a new set of rules just for this one crime. By referring to the extradition laws already in place concerns such as the rights of the accused, due process, and others should already be dealt with, and therefore will not impede this Proposal.

However, Article Four of this Proposal is a fatal flaw in that, while declaring some activities to be illegal, the decision to prosecute is left fully and completely to the member nations. However, if the aim of this Proposal is purely to deal with the international aspects of child pornography and leaving the domestic aspects for the member nations to deal with, this is not a major issue when Article Six is taken into consideration.

The majority view in the Federation is that child pornography is criminal in the extent to which actual people, particularly children, have their rights violated in the act of creating it. Depiction of children in sexual context that does not force actual minors to engage in sexual acts is not a criminal activity. This includes erotica making use of adults that have a childlike appearance or symbolic depictions of children engaging in sexual acts through pornographic literature, illustrations, or animation. I should note that some acknowledged great works of art depict putti, essentially naked children with wings. As this resolution prohibits acts that in no way tangibly harm others, I fail to see how such a sprawling ban amounts to anything more than censorship.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

I added a section to make extradition easier between member nations.

...which would guarantee my vote against. Automatic extradition is very vulnerable to abuse, and I'm flatly not prepared back it.

I'm just going to quote what I said in the Repeal thread.

It has 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).

Why is this crime so important? We're not tackling any other form of child sexual exploitation, such as prostitution or domestic abuse. We're not tackling other forms of non-consentual pornography, such as that involving rape or taken without knowledge of the participants. No one's going to vote against a good child pornography ban, but it seems a relatively minor issue that should more properly be part of broader legislation.

I can certainly broaden it to encompass all child sexual exploitation. It'll take me at least a day to do that, however. It is a good point though. One I didn't consider.

So are we to understand that you are writing a child sexual exploitation statute?

yours e.t.c. ,

So are we to understand that you are writing a child sexual exploitation statute?

I can easily scrap this and write up a statute on the rights of minor children that encompasses sexual exploitation. The consensus seems to be that this is only a small part of what should be looked at.

Again, it'll take me about a day to do it.

Well if you need any assistance the permanent mission to the w.a. of Urgench would be happy to lend you it.

yours e.t.c. ,

Well if you need any assistance the permanent mission to the w.a. of Urgench would be happy to lend you it.

Thank you, esteemed Ambassador. I will, of course, allow my new write-up to be seen in draft form prior to submitting it.

Honorable Delegates and World Assembly Member Nations,

It is our opinion that this and other "Child Pornography" proposals cannot create a fair system for criminal prosecution based on the following subjects not having a clear and legal definition, ratified by the World Assembly:

1. What constitutes "Pornography"? Also, what are recognised forms of media that can be judged as containing or transmitting "Pornography"?
2. When (or at what point in physical, mental,emotional, or social develpoment)is a child considered and adult?

We the Peoples of The Empire of Pau Lin acting as a Delegate to the Region of Aged Clefthoof do humbly request that some legal definitions, agreed on by the WA Member Nations, be ratified prior to any proposal put forth that rely on said definitions.

Thank you

It is our opinion that this and other "Child Pornography" proposals cannot create a fair system for criminal prosecution based on the following subjects not having a clear and legal definition, ratified by the World Assembly:
Any such definitions would have to be part of the proposals themselves. Resolutions that just contain definitions and nothing else are illegal.

1. What constitutes "Pornography"?
Most of the problem with the resolution at vote is that it did define "Pornography". Unfortunately it didn't define it very well.

Also, what are recognised forms of media that can be judged as containing or transmitting "Pornography"?
Sorry, this is legal weaselry. Pretty much any medium can be pornographic, self-evidently. If you seriously need this defined, you're just not thinking.

2. When (or at what point in physical, mental,emotional, or social develpoment)is a child considered and adult?
This worm-can has been opened several times in the recent past, mostly in association with Sexual Freedom proposals. I don't propose to repeat what's been said there yet again.

The main reason the Republic of The State of New York voted against the previous measure was Article 4 because it read:
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.The reason we voted against it was the fact it included paintings and computer generated images as part of the definition. Our country's Supreme Court ruled that if the images didn't use real children, it is protected freedom of expression under the Constitution. If it didn't have that section we would have voted for it. I recommend that the following be added to the current draft. "Child pornography is defined as any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, or videos) of real children whom are naked or involved in sexual acts or in sexual positions.

This topic about replacing the currently failing resolution at vote has been superseded by the replacement topic Draft: Child Protection Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565606). Please make future comments there.

Thread closed