Politics

Zin5ki said:
Well, I was happily minding my own business today before I became somewhat enraged. Insert the expletive of your choice here.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why anyone would oppose this, unless you are a consumer of child pornography. And if you're a consumer of child pornography then I have absolutely zero sympathy for you. This bill should (and probably will) be passed.
 
CitizenGeek said:
Zin5ki said:
Well, I was happily minding my own business today before I became somewhat enraged. Insert the expletive of your choice here.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why anyone would oppose this, unless you are a consumer of child pornography. And if you're a consumer of child pornography then I have absolutely zero sympathy for you. This bill should (and probably will) be passed.
Click to expand...

depends how the bill chooses to define a child, if they mean under 16 (UK age of concent) then thats probably fair enough, if they mean under anything above 16 then it shouldnt pass as it contradicts the uk age of consent law.
 
A "child" is defined as a person under the age of 18.

Given that a large proportion of all adult anime, manga, and doujinshi feature characters of high school age, this presents something of a problem.
 
It's a daft measure that probably won't even hold up in court, but as CG is saying, meh. It's hard to feel hard done by losing civil liberties that you'd never had any intention of using.
 
fabricatedlunatic said:
A "child" is defined as a person under the age of 18.

Given that a large proportion of all adult anime, manga, and doujinshi feature characters of high school age, this presents something of a problem.
Click to expand...
Exactly my problem. The number of 'overnight criminals' this would create would be large.
Also considering the absurdity of considering a drawing to be a person.
 
Well I certainly draw the line of what is and isn't a crime at the fantasy / reality divide. I have little sympathy for sex offenders, but if there is no victim there is no crime. Everybody has fantasies, most probably have the odd one which would be illegal if acted on. But they should only be illegal if they are acted on. How many people wish death on someone at some point in their lives? Maybe a kid writes in their diary they "wish someone was dead". Without any other proof, should that hold up in a court of law as intent to commit murder? Because that's exactly what this law would do - make people criminals based on their thoughts rather than actions.

Is it just me or does the idea of Thoughtcrime being a reality seem very disturbing?

Hopefully, as the ANN article mentions, Alan Moore's Lost Girls might prove very useful in stopping this in it's tracks, or will be exempted as art leaving a massive loophole. I just wish V for Vendetta had managed to stop the security cameras...
 
ayase said:
Is it just me or does the idea of Thoughtcrime being a reality seem very disturbing?
Click to expand...

Well, I think this law deals specifically with the exchanging of child pornography drawings and not just thinking about having sex with a child or drawing an image of that yourself. At least that's how it should work.
 
CitizenGeek said:
Well, I think this law deals specifically with the exchanging of child pornography drawings and not just thinking about having sex with a child or drawing an image of that yourself.
Click to expand...
It specifically deals with possession.
This means that if a person were to create an image by and for themself, they would nontheless have committed a crime according to this bill.
 
CitizenGeek said:
ayase said:
Is it just me or does the idea of Thoughtcrime being a reality seem very disturbing?
Click to expand...

Well, I think this law deals specifically with the exchanging of child pornography drawings and not just thinking about having sex with a child or drawing an image of that yourself. At least that's how it should work.
Click to expand...
The bill talks about prosecution simply for possesion of prohibited images, not just sharing them. Even then, it's the sharing of a fantasy. Again, this is like saying someone who says "I wish someone would shoot George Bush dead" out loud in the prescence of others should also be arrested. They're sharing with others a fantasy that, if acted on, would be illegal.

Whilst I'm not into loli stuff, I would rather people who were could indulge their fantasies without hurting real people. I think it's dangerous to legislate against something that may well be stopping some people from committing sex offences. We might well prefer it if no-one had these urges at all, but I don't presume we can force them to stop having these feelings anymore than you can force someone to be straight or gay. Someone got into trouble for saying something similar recently so I'll clarify - I'm not saying paedophiles are like homosexuals. I'm saying they're like straight people as well (and presumably zoophiles and necrophiles) in that I don't think you can help who or what you are sexually attracted to. This doesn't mean you should be allowed to act on these feelings of course, as I think consent (or lack of) is the best way of legislating against real life sex crimes. Fantasy sex crimes with no victim should not be legislated against at all.
 
That is simply ludicrous.

This will outlaw Karekano, saikano and gunsmith cats. Are they doujinshi? not at all, they even depict sex in a healthy way, BUT they depict "children" practicing (consented) sex.

I wish the line between politically correct and ridiculous would have been drawn already.
 
You're completely missing the point. That article explicitly states that the bill will outlaw depicting children in a pornographic way. The distinction between sex and porn is very, very obvious so I'm surprised that you've missed it entirely.
 
CitizenGeek said:
You're completely missing the point. That article explicitly states that the bill will outlaw depicting children in a pornographic way. The distinct between sex and porn is very, very obvious so I'm surprised that you've missed it entirely.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that you have that much faith that they won't get lazy and will classify nudity as pornographic as well.

No victim, no crime is also complicated. If I start giving hate speechs, there is no victim from them, some who hear might feel offended only. BUT, hate speechs may lead some to believe that being racist is acceptable and so on.

While I praise the idea, I'm afraid the implementation will be totally screwed.
 
chaos said:
No victim, no crime is also complicated. If I start giving hate speechs, there is no victim from them, some who hear might feel offended only. BUT, hate speechs may lead some to believe that being racist is acceptable and so on.
Click to expand...
But that's just freedom of speech; "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Bigots and racists should be free to say their piece, then it is the duty of people who don't believe in discrimination to counter their flawed arguments and make people see that they are wrong. It's just that now people have gotten lazy, can't be bothered to stand up for themselves or others and think it's easier to make laws stopping them from saying these things in the first place.
 
ayase said:
chaos said:
No victim, no crime is also complicated. If I start giving hate speechs, there is no victim from them, some who hear might feel offended only. BUT, hate speechs may lead some to believe that being racist is acceptable and so on.
Click to expand...
But that's just freedom of speech; "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Bigots and racists should be free to say their piece, then it is the duty of people who don't believe in discrimination to counter their flawed arguments and make people see that they are wrong. It's just that now people have gotten lazy, can't be bothered to stand up for themselves or others and think it's easier to make laws stopping them from saying these things in the first place.
Click to expand...

depends on the context imo, jokes are fine, but i think openly inciting hatred is a crime, its why the pope should not be allowed to the UK, nor should we have diplomatic relations with him as he preaches hatred toward gay people. (just a relevant example, im sure there are others)
 
SundayMorningCall said:
depends on the context imo, jokes are fine, but i think openly inciting hatred is a crime
Click to expand...
In that sort of case though, the speaker intends to do more than just express their views- they're calling on others to do their dirty work, something which I believe has a different legal status.
 
Zin5ki said:
SundayMorningCall said:
depends on the context imo, jokes are fine, but i think openly inciting hatred is a crime
Click to expand...
In that sort of case though, the speaker intends to do more than just express their views- they're calling on others to do their dirty work, something which I believe has a different legal status.
Click to expand...

Inciting Hatred means telling people that you hate them and telling others to hate them as well, often this will lead to the perpatration of a crime against the hated group, but not allways.
 
Zin5ki said:
Well, I was happily minding my own business today before I became somewhat enraged. Insert the expletive of your choice here.
Click to expand...

"Sweet Zombie Jesus Christ!" is the expletive I'd put there. Neither of the 13 year old chav or the that 15 year old chavette he knocked up haven't been prosecuted, despite clearly committing a crime, and now they're putting these laws up?

I'd emigrate if I could. This country's going down the drain, and it's not Illegal Immigrants who are causing the problems, no matter what the Newspapers say, it's all the people already here!
 
Zin5ki said:
Well, I was happily minding my own business today before I became somewhat enraged. Insert the expletive of your choice here.
Click to expand...

Hmm... its taken 2 years to notice those new laws.

Here is the original consultation document, pulbished in April 2007:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/consulta ... raphic.pdf

And last summer:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease280508a.htm

But its very funny seeing the misguided knee-jerk reactions from some of you lot ;)

fabricatedlunatic said:
A "child" is defined as a person under the age of 18.

Given that a large proportion of all adult anime, manga, and doujinshi feature characters of high school age, this presents something of a problem.
Click to expand...

But they don't depict them involved in acts of a graphic sexual nature or sexual abuse. Therefor not a problem.

Do you see genitals? Do you see penetration? If the answer is no then you're very likely to be safe as its not 'porn'.

chaos said:
That is simply ludicrous.

This will outlaw Karekano, saikano and gunsmith cats. Are they doujinshi? not at all, they even depict sex in a healthy way, BUT they depict "children" practicing (consented) sex.
Click to expand...

Again its not graphic sex. BIG difference. If an anime has already been passed by the BBFC it is not going to be affected by these new laws. If the BBFC thought it was really porn it would have been cut to death or given an 18R rating.

CitizenGeek said:
You're completely missing the point. That article explicitly states that the bill will outlaw depicting children in a pornographic way. The distinction between sex and porn is very, very obvious so I'm surprised that you've missed it entirely.
Click to expand...

Give the man a cigar :)

Sex in films and TV: some shots of someones butt bouncing up and down, some boobies jiggling, stuff hidden by bedsheets and maybe shots of pubic regions. But its not the main story.

Porn: EVERYTHING and the focus is on just the sex act and pretty much nothing else.

IIRC in saikano you see Shuji and Chise sharing a bed and also them naked after they made love, barely even 60 seconds worth of footage. It was rated 15 with no cuts. Not a problem.

Elfen Lied, you see Lucy/Nyu naked quite a lot, you also see Mayu being abused by her stepfather. 15 rated, no cuts, no problem.

Now if Elfen Lied had been just about Mayu getting abused then maybe you'd be in trouble.

Seriously people, find something to worry about that actually will affect you or spend more time researching things ;)
 
Back
Top