Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: UK may ban "child porn" drawings  (Read 14849 times)
LoisWakeman
Guest
« on: May 28, 2008, 11:34:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Further to the Bill Henson thread elsewhere, you may be interested to hear that there is a proposal to ban non-photographic "child porn" images here in the UK.

Whilst I am no advocate of such work, I am deeply uneasy about this move for all sorts of reasons, some of which I list below.  

Practically - how will clodhopping lawyers and politicians draw the line between valid artistic expression, and material that is intended only to satisfy the lust of paedophiles? I can't, and their record is hopeless in such nice distinctions. Likewise in identifying what was perhaps generated from a photograph and therefore involved real abuse, and what came directly from someone's mind and didn't.

Most such work is - presumably, based on imaginary scenes - so are we to be prosecuted for imagining illegal acts? This is very Orwellian.

Will they ban manga - which often depicts young girls in scenes that I guess will fall foul of this proposal?

And finally, this smacks very much of "Mummy knows best; we don't want you to see this nasty thing so we are going to ban it". Next year, they might decide that something else is not fit for us proles to look at.

Read more
Logged
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2008, 05:53:42 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a fine line..

The parent in me says burn the lot, but in reality that could go too far as well because I like art and free speech.

My problem with the Henson photos is that IMHO they're not very good and he needs somthing controversial like nude underaged girls to get any attention with them.
If feels like a big PR stunt to me.

To use the girls in that fashion is very wrong.

I think the big risk to kids at the moment is not from rude drawings, bad photos from Bill Henson or roving bands of on-line pedophiles but the mountains of porn available 24/7 on about half the web.
No other part of society allows the same level of freedom to publishing as on the web and IMHO there needs to be some changes because the web has proved it can't manage itself.
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5744



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2008, 01:21:21 PM »
ReplyReply

No other part of society allows the same level of freedom to publishing as on the web and IMHO there needs to be some changes because the web has proved it can't manage itself.

That's a huge issue because the web is international and has no one set of 'rules'.  In Holland, I believe, child pornography is legal, or at least used to be.  In an Islamic nation like Iran, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition might get you into trouble.  That's speculation, but it illustrates the wide range.  Then there are things like what laws to uphold and which are being broken, who decides, who has jurisdiction, what the 'source' of the images are - is it the server or computer on which they're stored?  Who does the enforcement?  Can people in one country charge people in another country for violating  a law when it isn't illegal in their home country?  Do these people deserve to be arrested if they (knowingly or unknowingly) visit the country where the law is different?  The list goes on and on...

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2008, 03:13:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I take the view expressed by David A. He spoke as a parent, I do the same as a grandfather. I would beat the crap out of the lot of them.

There was a time back in the 60s when my kids were being created that a child in a pram was able to be left outside a shop as mama went in to buy what she needed; my son had great hair and, as a photographer, I agreed with my wife that it was far too lovely to cut. People we didnīt know would smile at him in the street, reach out and rub the top of his head. We were thrilled, as proud parents, that he was seen to be so attractive. I have often felt the same innocent pleasure at seeing some kid looking great. BUT, no way on Earth would I even smile, and certainly not even think about reaching out. The innocence has gone, replaced by fear.

Were we nuts to feel no fear then? Somehow I donīt think so. Sure, there were reports now and again about some terrible crime, but it was not a constant companion to everyday life. So what changed? I think it was part of the 60s legacy. We did gain a lot of freedoms, but we also released a hell of a lot of genies which would have been best kept screwed down. Itīs like the opening of poor old Pandoraīs box. Even as I write, I have this cursed mental twitch that says you canīt use the word box in that context. Whom to thank for that? The media, of course, where the connection was first made for me.

Frankly, to what purpose would one wish to have a drawing, painting or photograph of a child one does not know?

Mike: the situation you refer to is happening right now in the UK with the return from foreign parts of Gary Glitter.

Policing of the internet is probably not the problem it is said to be. I imagine that much of the crap which is said to be out there is out there because somebody is making money. If they do so, I suppose it has to be via credit cards or existing formats of internet buying. Do those money companies not know who their clients are? I donīt believe in their innocence, I do believe in their total cynicism, lack of ethics. Start to chase those mothers and I think the rest of the garbage will quickly melt away.

Rob C

P.S.  All that rubbing of my sonīs head has done little for the state of what remains of his hair. Perhaps we were wrong after all.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2008, 03:16:36 AM by Rob C » Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2008, 04:18:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In Holland, I believe, child pornography is legal, or at least used to be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's an outrageously ignorant and wholly incorrect statement.
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5744



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2008, 11:57:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's an outrageously ignorant and wholly incorrect statement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If that is so, then I apologize.  I meant no offense and wasn't offering judgment either way. The basis was an article on global internetworking by Douglas Barnes, published in 1994, which included the following (emphasis mine):

"The swamp is just beginning to fill, and truly international examples are still sparse. But one of the early flashpoints will certainly be the widely varying international standards regarding sexual images. The laws are all over the map: in Saudi Arabia, distributing Sports Illustrated Online Swimsuit Edition would likely be grounds for involuntary amputation without anesthetic; in Amsterdam, pretty much anything goes, including what most of the world considers child pornography. In Japan genitalia are OK, but displaying pubic hair can get you thrown in jail; in the US, even the tamer skin mags show pubic hair, with special censure reserved for the actual genitalia -- depending, of course, on community standards. We already have convictions resulting from differences in standards just within the US; there is growing pressure here and elsewhere to punish those who electronically publish offensive materials, regardless of what country they're in or what nationality they are.

A key question, then, is on what basis, and through what mechanisms, will countries be able to punish those who violate faraway local ordinances through their participation in global internetworks? I believe that as the Internet grows in importance, both socially and commercially, nations will be more and more motivated to extend jurisdiction to the very source of what they perceive as offensive or illegal content. Moreover, it won't just be naughty gifs, but insider trading, espionage, libel, anti-trust, blasphemy, sedition, breach of contract, money laundering, and violation of patent, trademark, copyright and trade secrets law -- a grab bag of offenses with wildly varying treatment on the international scene."
« Last Edit: August 24, 2008, 11:58:31 PM by wolfnowl » Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2008, 03:55:39 AM »
ReplyReply

on
Quote
nations will be more and more motivated to extend jurisdiction to the very source of what they perceive as offensive or illegal content. Moreover, it won't just be naughty gifs, but insider trading, espionage, libel, anti-trust, blasphemy, sedition, breach of contract, money laundering, and violation of patent, trademark, copyright and trade secrets law -- a grab bag of offenses with wildly varying treatment on the international scene."[/i]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



It has already started. The European Community now has in place new rules whereby funds held by memebers of the EEC in offshore accounts are now under attack. The offshore banks have two options which they must offer their customers: a. accept that the bank make a withholding charge payable, without identity included, to the government of the country within which the account holder resides; b. send details of the account to that government for, presumably, direct taxation.

Without going into the rights or wrongs about even further taxation on money earned elsewhere, taxed at source, deposited offshore only to be taxed again by the government of a country which played no part in the creation of that wealth, one has to wonder about the ever-stronger strangulatory force being exerted by brothers, both big and small.

And thereby lies the problem: when does government (worse, collective governments) have the right to impose particular laws in a general way? I think the thing is a minefield, not because a common morality, as in the case of sex crime, cannot be found and accepted, but because the need to screw money to finance political agendas designed to win votes at home is an ever-present danger. On top of the local national issue, we now have the added burden of the EEC with its virtually unregulated, unelected bosses, ever mindful of their gravy train and the building of fresh empires to rival Rome or Constantinople. And the people, as ever, pay for it all.

So, in the case of internet porn/abuses, I would have thought resolution would have been simple - cut the money supply. The banks behind the credit cards would probably think twice if their account holders were shown publicly to be in that trade. I canīt believe, either, that it is too difficult to trace back the route of credit card transactions: it seems possible in the case of some crimes... After all, unless the guy who buys this stuff also changes cards every download, then one only has to link the transactions between seller and buyer, and at least one side of the mess will be caught, even if only the consumer.

But like everything else, itīs all a matter of having the will to do it. Why bother, when you can fritter away billions on sporting ego-trips, meaningless displays of national pride and so on and so on? Who cares how many cancer patients die in the meantime because their local health department has no money to finance specific forms of chemotherapy, itīs only a few thousand people... I guess the Romans knew what they were doing when they created the Colosseum. Funny that that, scene of so much pain, became art too.

Rob C
Logged

BFoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2008, 12:05:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The basis was an article on global internetworking by Douglas Barnes, published in 1994, which included the following (emphasis mine):

[[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, then thats the ignorance isn't it!

To quote a source thats 15 years old and from the net is not exactly good research, especially for such a controversial topic.
Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2008, 12:05:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hysteria is taking over otherwise reasonable people's mind too; there is nothing new on that. The UK proposal is already law in Canada, but it goes further: even writings are banned, and not only creating and spreading such writings, but having them as well.
Logged

Gabor
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad