Spoffin
21-06-2004, 21:42
I don't want to waste this post by having it be merely in the UN forum.
A recent proposal for a resolution banning child pornography in the NationStates UN was suggested. It was one of the best suggestions for a law on the issue I'd ever seen, and yet I was still most unsatisfied. It and my comments follow. Read it and give me your thoughts, or don't read it and post your first instinct.
Outlaw Child Pornography (5th draft)
A resolution to restrict civil rights in interest of morality.
DEEPLY DISTURBED by the continued proliferation and distribution of pornographic material featuring minors by member nations.
CONDEMNING such practices by all nations, especially member nations.
NOTING WITH SATISFACTION that the greater assembly has already passed a resolution banning child molestation.
1) CALLS UPON the greater assembly to, effective immediately, ban the sale, publication, and distribution of all forms of child pornography.
2a) DEFINING “child pornography” as any media, including, but not limited to, photos, videos, and digital media, featuring a minor involved in a sexual situation, including, but not limited to, masturbation, fondling, any form of penetration (excluding consumption of food), or depiction of a minor in a state of sexual arousal.
2b) INCLUDING, in the definition presented in clause 2a, any written media featuring detailed accounts of acts described in aforementioned clause.
3a) DESIGNATES the right to decide upon the definition of “minor” to each individual member nation, on the condition that all non-minors be considered adults in the eyes of the law.
3b) SETS the minimum acceptable age at which one becomes an adult to 12
4) NOTES that exempt from clause 2b of this resolution are any media recognized by a private board assembled by the respective peoples of the individual member nation as documentary or informative in nature.
I'm sorry, but I'm a delegate, and I have to oppose this. Its not because I like child pornography, or think that people's freedoms should come above a child's security, its because its a reactionary issue. Whenever anything like this comes up, almost invariably no provisions are provided for the defination of child pornography (creating a situation where effectively you're saying little more than "Bogglywoggly: BAD!!!" without anyone knowing what Bogglywoggly is.) This resolution isn't too bad on that front, but I'm still not happy with the definitions, they are too broad-encompassing and would allow people to be prosecuted for, for example, pictures of their own young children naked which most parent possesses, or photographic art collections such as Jock Sturges', who is an artist who has had a lot of trouble with people trying to get him prosecuted for his art. To say that these photos would not be "erotic" is quite frankly, not in the UN's remit. Its not up to the UN to define art (not within this resolution anyway), or to perscribe how people ought to feel when they look at a picture or read an article.
There are also no provisions for accidental possession of material, through an unspecified download, as in a fairly recent case in the UK. Nor are there provisions for pictures of people of questionable age; the difference between an erotic or pornographic photo of a less developed person over the age of 12 and a more developed 11 year old is impossible to define without locating the model. (In this resolution the minimum age limit is 12, but any age can be used here, and personally I would set it higher.) To take, for example, the fact that a website or video company claims that all their models are of a legal age is clearly not enough of a gaurentee (as they could be lying or misinformed), and it is not clear in a case such as this whether the person who viewed images which they believed to be legal would be prosecuted if they didn't know, it is impossible to tell whether or not they did know, and it is difficult or impossible to tell whether or not the company or individual providing the images knew, did not know, was misled or did not ask, so who is to blame in such cases is not easy to define.
It is also possible for a company to advertise images as "under age", when they are in fact not. Would they be punished in that case? Would a viewer or reader be breaking the law if they intended to take material which was illegal but was in fact not?
The aim of the resolution is important here as well, and while extremely admirable, I do not believe that it fulfils it's own goal. Say for example I set the age of majority at 18 in my country. Imagine someone who consented to have a photo taken of them at the age of 17, and who consented again when they were 18 for that photo to remain or be put in whatever form of media distribution it was placed in. Surely there can be no suggestion that the person in question has been exploited? They have consented when the picture was taken, they have consented when it is to be distributed. What purpose does it serve to criminalise the distributer, viewer or participant of this photo? Protection of the subject? Protection of the moral fabric of society? No.
Furthermore, I can think of at least one work of literature which is about sexual acts with a minor, is a fictional account so neither informative nor documentary and would be rendered illegal by this resolution. I am referring of course to Lolita. Would every individual or organisation owning a copy of this book held accountable under this resolution? Currently, I believe they would be. The Silver State of Spoffin would in fact be forced to prosecute its own leader, as I have read the book and own a copy.
In short, I'm voting no because the resolution does not achieve what it sets out to do, and I don't think that any amount of amendments or rewording can change that.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3344231#3344231
A recent proposal for a resolution banning child pornography in the NationStates UN was suggested. It was one of the best suggestions for a law on the issue I'd ever seen, and yet I was still most unsatisfied. It and my comments follow. Read it and give me your thoughts, or don't read it and post your first instinct.
Outlaw Child Pornography (5th draft)
A resolution to restrict civil rights in interest of morality.
DEEPLY DISTURBED by the continued proliferation and distribution of pornographic material featuring minors by member nations.
CONDEMNING such practices by all nations, especially member nations.
NOTING WITH SATISFACTION that the greater assembly has already passed a resolution banning child molestation.
1) CALLS UPON the greater assembly to, effective immediately, ban the sale, publication, and distribution of all forms of child pornography.
2a) DEFINING “child pornography” as any media, including, but not limited to, photos, videos, and digital media, featuring a minor involved in a sexual situation, including, but not limited to, masturbation, fondling, any form of penetration (excluding consumption of food), or depiction of a minor in a state of sexual arousal.
2b) INCLUDING, in the definition presented in clause 2a, any written media featuring detailed accounts of acts described in aforementioned clause.
3a) DESIGNATES the right to decide upon the definition of “minor” to each individual member nation, on the condition that all non-minors be considered adults in the eyes of the law.
3b) SETS the minimum acceptable age at which one becomes an adult to 12
4) NOTES that exempt from clause 2b of this resolution are any media recognized by a private board assembled by the respective peoples of the individual member nation as documentary or informative in nature.
I'm sorry, but I'm a delegate, and I have to oppose this. Its not because I like child pornography, or think that people's freedoms should come above a child's security, its because its a reactionary issue. Whenever anything like this comes up, almost invariably no provisions are provided for the defination of child pornography (creating a situation where effectively you're saying little more than "Bogglywoggly: BAD!!!" without anyone knowing what Bogglywoggly is.) This resolution isn't too bad on that front, but I'm still not happy with the definitions, they are too broad-encompassing and would allow people to be prosecuted for, for example, pictures of their own young children naked which most parent possesses, or photographic art collections such as Jock Sturges', who is an artist who has had a lot of trouble with people trying to get him prosecuted for his art. To say that these photos would not be "erotic" is quite frankly, not in the UN's remit. Its not up to the UN to define art (not within this resolution anyway), or to perscribe how people ought to feel when they look at a picture or read an article.
There are also no provisions for accidental possession of material, through an unspecified download, as in a fairly recent case in the UK. Nor are there provisions for pictures of people of questionable age; the difference between an erotic or pornographic photo of a less developed person over the age of 12 and a more developed 11 year old is impossible to define without locating the model. (In this resolution the minimum age limit is 12, but any age can be used here, and personally I would set it higher.) To take, for example, the fact that a website or video company claims that all their models are of a legal age is clearly not enough of a gaurentee (as they could be lying or misinformed), and it is not clear in a case such as this whether the person who viewed images which they believed to be legal would be prosecuted if they didn't know, it is impossible to tell whether or not they did know, and it is difficult or impossible to tell whether or not the company or individual providing the images knew, did not know, was misled or did not ask, so who is to blame in such cases is not easy to define.
It is also possible for a company to advertise images as "under age", when they are in fact not. Would they be punished in that case? Would a viewer or reader be breaking the law if they intended to take material which was illegal but was in fact not?
The aim of the resolution is important here as well, and while extremely admirable, I do not believe that it fulfils it's own goal. Say for example I set the age of majority at 18 in my country. Imagine someone who consented to have a photo taken of them at the age of 17, and who consented again when they were 18 for that photo to remain or be put in whatever form of media distribution it was placed in. Surely there can be no suggestion that the person in question has been exploited? They have consented when the picture was taken, they have consented when it is to be distributed. What purpose does it serve to criminalise the distributer, viewer or participant of this photo? Protection of the subject? Protection of the moral fabric of society? No.
Furthermore, I can think of at least one work of literature which is about sexual acts with a minor, is a fictional account so neither informative nor documentary and would be rendered illegal by this resolution. I am referring of course to Lolita. Would every individual or organisation owning a copy of this book held accountable under this resolution? Currently, I believe they would be. The Silver State of Spoffin would in fact be forced to prosecute its own leader, as I have read the book and own a copy.
In short, I'm voting no because the resolution does not achieve what it sets out to do, and I don't think that any amount of amendments or rewording can change that.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3344231#3344231