Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Proposes Banning Computer Generated Abuse

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-even-with-unicorns dept.

The Internet 740

peterprior writes "The UK Justice Minister is planning to outlaw computer generated images and drawings of child sex abuse. While photographs and videos of child sex abuse are already illegal, undoubtedly to protect children from being exploited by these acts, what children will be protected by this new law? If there is no actual child involved is the law merely protecting against the possibility of offenders committing future crimes against real children?"

cancel ×

740 comments

That's it! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582643)

Any further goatse, 2 girls 1 cup, or tubgirl links will result in the poster being modded -1 Troll and reported to the UK computer police.

Re:That's it! (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582871)

You mean the poo in 2Girls1Cup was CGI!

I have to say, I always suspected it.

Pedophiles (-1, Flamebait)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582685)

Pedophiles make me sick. The sooner a law is instated that allows us to slaughter the lot of them, the better. Computer generated child porn is still child porn. Snuff movies are still snuff movies when nobody really dies. It's the idea of it, not the act.

Re:Pedophiles (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582703)

Gee, I had no idea South Park was considered snuff. Oh my god, you killed free expression! You bastard!

Re:Pedophiles (5, Insightful)

Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583135)

NOOO! There goes all my Lolicon hentai...=(

No seriously though, this is really, discrimination against thought crime. Just because someone gets turned on by that kinda stuff doesn't mean they're going to go out there and do it. That's like saying "We should ban all TV's that contain themes such as murder". There's a HUGE difference between seeing Saddam Hussein's execution and watching the latest action flick at the movies. Likewise, if you have animated porn featuring controversial themes - underaged girls, rape, etc - how is that the same as videos which actually have real girls?

I'm sure there are heaps of guys out there who watch hentai or other animated pornography which feature underaged girls, rape and whatnot. And I'm sure these same people are sickened when they hear about pedophiles going out there and doing shit to little kids - I'm sure all of them are just as likely to want to beat the crap out of rapists and Michael Jackson, and so on.

The whole point is its a fantasy - a fantasy one could enjoy without their conscience coming and biting them. It's not like watching an animated 15 year old being raped in a high school is gonna make them more likely to go to a high school and do it...unless they're already messed up in the head.

Honestly, what's next? Banning of violent video games...? Oh wait...

~Jarik

Re:Pedophiles (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582737)

I think we should dismantle every buildiing with naked babies with naked babies perched on top of massive, rock-hard shafts. So what if they're just statuary on the top of columns of every major cathedral in every Christian nation? That'll serve those awful pedophile priests right!

Re:Pedophiles (5, Interesting)

admiralfurburger (76098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582827)

Side question:
Why is it Ok for people to have statues of little boys peeing in their garden, with fully functional stream, but not little girls?
Just curious...

Re:Pedophiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583151)

Side question:
Why is it Ok for people to have statues of little boys peeing in their garden, with fully functional stream, but not little girls?
Just curious...
not ladylike?

Re:Pedophiles (5, Insightful)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582747)

So you have no problem with the concept of thought crime [wikipedia.org] ?

Killing people because of what they think is most likely not a good idea.

Re:Pedophiles (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583017)

That is what I was thinking. And where do you draw the line? Hentai? Crudely drawn comic books? Or will even a stick figure get you thrown in jail since a stick figure doesn't have breasts and therefore must be underage? While I am for getting rid of the producers of REAL child porn,a drawing is simply thoughts made form with pixels or paint. And as we have seen lately any power given to the state WILL be abused,and abused badly. Not to mention the child pron laws have already reached the level of insanity that a 15 year old can go to prison for taking pictures of her own body and giving them to her boyfriend. The "save the childrens!" excuse doesn't really fit in this case unless they are determined to save imaginary kids as well. But that is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Pedophiles (5, Insightful)

Martian_Kyo (1161137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583155)

Agree with both posters. This is very blurry area. Borders thought control. We should never feel guilty about thoughts we have, and feeling we have. Cause we cannot control either. What we CAN control is our actions.

There is a world of difference between someone who thinks about committing an illegal or immoral act and someone who actually commits the act.

We should recognize that difference.

Preventive action, where you would imprison people who have dangerous thoughts or intentions is a very tricky and dangerous thing.

Very reminiscent of certain religions where impure thoughts are punished.

I am all for arresting and prosecuting producers and to some extent consumers of child pornography.

However this law will get abused, for political games I assure you.

By this line of reason. Anyone who watches an action flick is a killer.

Re:Pedophiles (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582769)

So.... we should outlaw Jackie Chan movies too, right? Because... of... simulated.... killing...

uhm....

or... something...

you are definitely a noobixcube.

Re:Pedophiles (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582831)

Snuff movies are still snuff movies when nobody really dies. It's the idea of it, not the act.
Right. Stop watching action/horror/thriller movies then. Oh, and stop playing any game except perhaps bejeweled or tetris. And I hope you won't ever have a bad day and wish that someone had an accident... Real child porn is bad, children are hurt. CGI child porn is just sick, but if it's keeping real children safe, let the pedophiles enjoy it.

Greeting citizen (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582881)

I look foreward to your up comming shooting spree in Japan. I would appreciate you doing everything you can to spare Gravure Idols. I'm sure their enthusiasim for mass transit will present a number of attractive targets.

Hurting children is vile. Expression of vile ideas, is both forewarning and proof of freedom. The inability to recognize the difference is ignorance, and the first step towards tragedy.

Re:Pedophiles (2, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582911)

Terrorists make me sick. The sooner a law is instated that allows us to slaughter the lot of them, the better. Computer generated murders are still murders. Pretending to kill people is still killing people. Its the idea of it, not the act.

We need to kill every actor who has pretended to kill someone immediately! and ban every movie with a murder in it. The bible is right out! none of that simulated murder is fit to print. And that talk of abuse in our laws!

"Massachusetts General Law chapter 265 1:
The unlawful k***ing of a human being accomplished in one or more of the following modes:
(1) with deliberately premed****** malice aforethought; or
(2) with extreme at****ty or cru***y; or
(3) in the commission or attempted commission of a felony punishable by d**th or imprisonment for life."

We need to get rid of those laws immediately! No telling what kind of sick bastard might read them!

Re:Pedophiles (5, Insightful)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582989)

You make me sick.

Computer generated child porn is still child porn.
Who was harmed?

Snuff movies are still snuff movies when nobody really dies. It's the idea of it, not the act.
Well, better yet, don't watch it. If it's the idea of it, then all of Hollywood should be prosecuted.

But Hollywood is profit driven, so how about just not watching it? I've spent US$0 on US movies in the US in the last 10 years (and I'm not BitTorrenting stuff), and you?

I think society would be better served by putting people like you in jail than *anybody* else.

Re:Pedophiles (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583163)

Someone didn't catch the sarcasm...

Re:Pedophiles (4, Insightful)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583053)

Snuff movies are still snuff movies when nobody really dies.
No they aren't, since the very definition of a snuff movie is that the depicted acts are real.

Thought Police! (5, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582687)

This can only mean there are now illegal thoughts.

Re:Thought Police! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582843)

There already are.

Most child porn laws specify "sexual activity" OR "intent to arouse".

This means that an image can both simultaneously be not child porn (a mom takes a picture of her daughter naked on the beach) and child porn (a pedo is aroused after downloading a copy of it).

You could outlaw ALL nude images and prosecute parents for pictures of kids in the bath, but i'm not sure that's a good solution.

But even if you did, then you would have to point out the several ongoing cases in the US involving clothed kids dancing or posing, which are being tried under child porn laws, despite the kid's parents having signed a waiver and agreed to the photos.

So you could outlaw that, but then, how do you determine what is child porn?

At which point does a studio portrait become porn? And considering that PRODUCING child porn carries sentences on the order of 20 years plus lifetime registration, you better make that line damn clear.

Or you could just use the world "intent" and make sure it's nice and fuzzy so you can basically prosecute anyone who makes you feel squeamish, which is what happens now.

So yes, there ARE illegal thoughts already.

Welcome to the modern world. Thanks for joining us.

Re:Thought Police! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582913)

There always have been. If you thought that Communism was a pretty neat idea in America in 1950 I wouldn't have given much for your chances...

It depends (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583069)

I'm as big a fan of "freedom of thought" as anyone.

But what are the purposes of these images, from a social/personal/psychological perspective?

I can see a reasonable argument that their purpose is to create a feedback loop for someone who already has pleasurable thoughts about child sex abuse gaining additional pleasure from looking at them, which in turn feeds future pleasurable thoughts about child sex abuse. It is also not particularly hard to think that someone who obsesses about such things might be encouraged by that loop to make the jump into real life, for example when the computer generated images are no longer "extreme" enough.

There is, for instance, a recognised pattern with (adult) porn that certain types of user will inevitably seek out harder and harder stuff because the less extreme stuff no longer excites to the same degree.

If these images even slightly reinforce that sex with children is acceptable or pleasurable, and if (in addition) they have no other legitimate purpose or value, then I think there must be a reasonable basis for arguing that banning them does not in any way infringe a freedom worthy of protection.

Yes, yes, once you get on the slippery slope of making that judgment it's all very complicated and risky. I don't know that I totally buy the foregoing reasoning myself. But a society which champions freedom of expression/thought/speech/action must perhaps still draw some limits or find some coherent basis for existence, or else risk becoming utterly dysfunctional. I fear the death of western culture by relativism of values whilst other (much less permissive) cultures, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, thrive by virtue of their strict enforcement of specific values.

However I'd be interested to hear counter-arguments or suggestions of what other value these types of pictures could possibly have to anyone.

As a totally alternative argument, consider that kiddy porn is a form of serious mental illness or addiction (I personally regard it as a form of mental illness), with the potential for dangerous symptoms to arise in some sufferers. Controlling access to these images can then be regarded as analagous to controlling access to addictive drugs.

Re:It depends (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583187)

Careful now, you wouldnt want to upset Slashdot's significant pedophile community.

It's about psychology (-1, Flamebait)

Tarcastil (832141) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582713)

Allowing these images may make people think of child sex abuse as semi-normal if they can view them at any time without any repercussions.

Re:It's about psychology (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582767)

Even if you're right, that's the price of free speech. You either protect everything, even the vile, disgusting, hateful speech you disagree with or you don't have free speech at all.

Re:It's about psychology (0, Offtopic)

Tarcastil (832141) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582799)

While protecting liberties is important, where do you draw the line? Murder's obviously illegal, and it should be for its damage to another person (and others as well). The question is how these images have a real effect on children. (Please no 'think of the children' jokes).

Re:It's about psychology (4, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582899)

The effect they have on real children has not been demonstrated as far as I've seen, and certainly not to the high standard of evidence that should be required given what is at stake and the frightening precedent that would be set.

Re:It's about psychology (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582971)

Well, the argument might get distilled to this:

If seeing a simulation of something makes you MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT THE CRIME that is simulated, then ARE WE obligated to prevent all simulated crime, because it might lead to real crime?

Video games are far more interactive forms of simulated crime, in this case, killing. In my opinion (and despite the emotive rhetoric), murder is the worst crime there is and we regularly encourage people to engage in it. There are whole buildings where we drop children off for hours to pump coins into machines who's only purpose is to simulate murder for entertainment, with realistic looking guns, on realistic looking people.

In fact, some games simulate rape, drug running, murder, blackmail, embezzlement, kidnapping, theft and reckless driving all in the first level.

So if you're willing to state unequivocally, that viewing a simulation of a crime will necessarily cause more crime, then you will find some people who agree with you who are busy lobbying for the banning of games like GTA.

But I don't think we, as a society, should be allowed to say:

well, those guys over there are more creepy so we will ban THEIR favorite simulations, but let everyone else enjoy these

Think about it.

Re:It's about psychology (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583067)

While protecting liberties is important, where do you draw the line?

You don't. It's free speech. When the creep tries to abuse a real child, that's when it's a crime, and that's when you bust them.

The question is how these images have a real effect on children.

They don't. That's like asking what effect Bugs Bunny has on real rabbits.

Re:It's about psychology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582849)

What psychology? Any would-be molester knows pretty damn well that whatever he desires to do is not normal in anyway: It both has social no-no as well as law no-no. Generated pictures found on his PC would still generate social stigma and all kinds of nasty stuff from neighbors.

There is nothing making it "semi-normal" in anyones eyes, with exception of people with distorted reality but those would convince themselves that what they are doing is ok regardless of reality.

I prefer not frustrate them with lack of jerkoff material otherwise, they would be left with only two options: kidnap, rape and kill or use their own fantasy. And fantasy world leads them to believing that it is ok to do the real thing.

Also, you underestimate value of semi-legal pictures like these in tracing and identifying em. It is invaluable to get to know what person next door has in his porn folder. Any banned content will make it harder to identify him and potential molester because he won't likely store it on PC.

Re:It's about psychology (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582979)

someone is going to be substantially out of touch with reality if they assume that society nods at them doing it in reality because they are allowed to view CG images of it, but not real images (and are told that they're not allowed to do it).

It's about psychology -- LOL ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583057)

someone is substantially out of touch with reality if they think that someone could think that society nods at them doing it in reality because of CG... fixd

Re:It's about psychology (3, Informative)

arstchnca (887141) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583013)

And you know this because you are an image-thought-ologist, and you participate in research regarding this phenomenon? Truly leading in the field, I'm sure.

But no. You're just some dumbfuck who wasted his time posting drivel to an otherwise respectable (lol) website.

At least you made some effort to pass off your crap, if only with 3 words (4 if you count the contraction differently) of "trying" in the subject: It's about psychology.

You're full of shit. Forgive me on the very-off chance that you're a PhD (tell me where so I can call them and tell them they fucked up), but I'm pursuing a degree in psychology and you /Officially/ need to shut the fuck up.

But yeah, at least you tried to qualify your baseless assertions in the subject.

You could have done worse.

Re:It's about psychology (1)

Tarcastil (832141) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583123)

Wow, harsh. I should clarify that I didn't mean people will view kiddy porn as normal.

But consider that the military uses simulations of killing to train soldiers to kill. I believe the statistics are 13% of American soldiers would shoot at the enemy in WWI, and by the end of WWII it was over 90% -- in large part due to training simulations.

Simulations, even if they are not they are real, affect people's decisions. Watching TV violence desensitizes people toward violence, I'm sure even you will agree. These photos could easily have similar effects on desensitizing people.

That's what I was getting at.

p.s. You should consider anger management.

Re:It's about psychology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583091)

Good, then they'll bring it up in the middle of Starbucks. And knowing is half the battle. GI Joe....

If they closed the loophole earlier ... (4, Insightful)

Deltic55 (1198839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582727)

... would a recent Simpson's movie have been unviewable in the UK due to Bart Simpson's brief nudity?

Re:If they closed the loophole earlier ... (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582785)

That would depend on the exact phrasing of the law but most likely it might have needed censoring.

Editing? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582811)

Bart's universe has an Edit button... [wikipedia.org]

Not that I particularly like only being able to watch edited versions of creative works, mind you.

Age (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582733)

Without birth records or a child / parents to ask, how do you determine the age of a person in a drawing?

Re:Age (4, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582803)

Oh, haven't you heard? The burden of proof is on the photographer these days. You're assumed guilty, and even if you can prove yourself innocent, it doesn't matter, you have to prove yourself innocent *first* and register your proof with a document retention company. I'm not shitting you.

      18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance

I'm sure the UK has similar laws.

I guess Ghastly's Ghastly Comic is ok, then (5, Informative)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583179)

Well, I guess Ghastly's Ghastly Comic [ghastlycomic.com] is ok then, 'cause he says Chibi Sue is 36 and only looks like a little girl.

But seriously, how would one provide records to prove the the age of a drawn character?

And I'd worry more about judgments based on what it _looks_ like, in the context of a law where 17 years old is still considered paedophilia. Now I'm not saying one should look for naked 17 year old girls, just saying how it applies to a drawing. How do you prove that you had in mind a 18 year old girl, and not a 17 year old one, when you drew t.

I actually personally knew someone who looked like she was maybe 13 or 14 by the time she finished college and got married. No bloody kidding. Not only her face was that of a child, but she was really short too, so basically she was as close to a "chibi" drawing as it gets. She looked like she's probably not even in high school yet.

So what I'm saying is, basically this:

1. noone objected to her marrying and presumably having sex, unless a bright star appeared in the East again when she got pregnant ;) Because she was well over 20, looks be damned.

2. she could probably even star in a porn movie, if she wanted to, because proof can be provided that she's well over 18

3. but if you drew some character based on her, you're essentially fucked because it looks like you drew a child. And you can't provide any proof that the character you had in mind isn't really a kid in disguise.

And actually, depending on the country (e.g., I _think_ in UK that's the case already) probably even #2 might be illegal, because it _looks_ like fucking someone underage.

Again, I'm not arguing for allowing actual paedophilia or child porn. But when the law gets into the murky domain of what it _looks_ like, it gets very funny indeed. Especially with an age like 18 as a cutoff point. Girls get their puberty and get breasts quite a few years earlier than that, and from there it's just a very slow and gradual transition to young adult, and there's considerable variation in how fast it happens. There are people well underage which look like they're 20 already (e.g., Traci Lords didn't raise any alarm bells when she claimed to be 18 and was actually 15), and there are people who look a lot younger than they are.

When looking at a photo or movie of Traci Lords, or even interacting with her in person, pretty much noone could tell that she's 15 not 18. How do you tell if a drawing looks like 15 or 18 then? How about whether she's 17 or 18?

There are no major morphological changes that happen abruptly at 18. It's not like they sprout a tail or horns at 18, so you can look at the drawing and see if the character has them or not.

Re:Age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582825)

If it doesn't have a delicious flatchest, it's not loli.

Now, the hard part is deciding if something is shota or loli dickgirl ;)

Re:Age (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583019)

That's an interesting question. What about people who appear younger than they are, like Gary Coleman or Emmanuel Lewis?

On the other hand, a computer-generated image could be virtually indistinguishable from an actual photograph.

Either way, somebody with child porn will lose in court. Juries aren't famous for abstract philosophy.

Re:Age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583085)

Good point on the age. Plus, what if it is a sci-fi story?

What if it is a world of the future where people live to be a 1000 years old but don't reach physical maturity until they are 100 years old but their mental maturity is unhampered.

So that at 25 years of age, they look like they are just a few years old physically?

Computer generate abuse? (5, Funny)

Martian_Kyo (1161137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582753)

While (true)
{
      me.bitchSlap(wife)
}

before anyone one says anything,
I know this wont compile.
Cause wife is null.

Re:Computer generate abuse? (1)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582837)

A slightly better OO design would go:

While (true) {
    wife.bitchSlap();
}

Where the "me" is an inherent part of the context.
(i.e. wife implies you)

Re:Computer generate abuse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583165)

That's definitely not a better design.

Re:Computer generate abuse? (1)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582855)

Or maybe it will compile without warnings and tell you everything is OK, and when you are already running it.. core dump!

Re:Computer generate abuse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582869)

Nah, because you're using the wrong namespace.

Wife left you for someone with a bigger malloc a long time ago.

Re:Computer generate abuse? (1)

Derosian (943622) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583171)

You know the sad thing, this is the first funny moderated thread that I actually laughed out loud to, there is no hope for me now.

Think of the pixels! (5, Funny)

admiralfurburger (76098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582777)

Won't someone think of the pixels?

logical progression (5, Insightful)

papabob (1211684) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582791)

Its banned to have images with real children, as it should be. Now they want to ban just a drawing. Then, they will want to ban writings talking about child abuse; think of it, not only adult/porn books but every novel in which any of the characters had been abused. After that it will be illegal to talk about sex with children. Results? child abuse will be an undeground thing again, flying below the radar of the society (as it was 30-40 years ago) and the govt/media will have to find the next ScaryThing(tm). Somebody should tell them that a mental illness cannot be fixed with a ban...

Re:logical progression (1)

moorhens (564268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582885)

I suspect part of the reasoning behind the bill is about the general desensitising effect that any child porn images can have and a desire to keep such images away from mainstream thought. Barring the huge amount of assumptions in that last sentence, the sentiment is probably ok. But also it is potential protection for any children who are forced (either in person, or by proxy through illegal photographic images) to model for these dodgy artworks. And no, there will be no progression from this proposal to banning The Simpsons. That's not the way the British legislature works.

Re:logical progression (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582895)

The logical progression is of course to ban children. If we don't have any children, then they can't possibly be abused and will therefore be safe.

Is this good logic? Can I have a job as a politician yet?

Re:logical progression (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582917)

Naw, just wait. The Pedophiles will get their rights just like the Homosexuals did.

(Have i offended someone? Good!)

The topic is not easy, not at all. While i can perfectly agree that raping children is wrong, pedophilia in- and itself does not hurt anyone.

It's basically the same as homosexuality - something that's wired the wrong way (from a pure biological standpoint). That doesn't make these people bad, wrong, pervert, sick, or anything else like that.

The only difference is that homosexuality can be lived out between consenting adults, while pedophilia cannot.

However, current society treats pedophiles (and i'm talking about pedophiles, not rapists) like they already committed a crime.

Add to that the issue that from a biological standpoint sex is a.ok. from the time a girl can get pregnant, but depending on where you live you'll have to wait much longer than that.

Re:logical progression (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583191)

times like this make me wish i could sage!

Dude, show me the "wiring" that makes one attracted to a group. It's like some code, rite, and instead of woman oops, child got compiled instead. Yeah.

Now, it's all fine and good for me to ask this of you, and you'll say blah blah i don't know bout them brains but let me tell you about wiring! and let me tell you about the ways things are! the things - theyre... theyre these ways, you see!

If I asked a neuroscientist to show me where the "sexual wiring" was, they'd calmly explain that things don't work like that.

God I can't believe that I wasted my time typing this out, you disgusting piece of shit

I cant believe your parents wasted all that time, either

(on the off chance) I can't believe that the orphanage wasted their time on you. And it WAS a waste.

Re:logical progression (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582927)

I think the only metal illness associated with this new law is on its authors - they most likely are so aroused by such pictures that in order to protect themselves they delegalize the whole lot. Maybe they should start be bothered for instance with people abusing us all like spam and malware authors instead but that would be too difficult I suppose.

Re:logical progression (1)

mr_jrt (676485) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583029)

I was under the impression that they want to ban this imagery because paedophiles are just converting photographic media into drawn forms to evade the current bans. I'd imagine you could probably just run a set of cell shading-esque toon filters over them if you so wanted, though I can't imagine it'd work too well.

Not that I agree with the banning though, I think there are more targeted solutions that could protect children without impacting free expression....I just don't know what they are right now, which is why I don't aspire to be a politician :)

Something wrong (1)

tingeber (1129619) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582813)

from TFA:

"This is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse are as unacceptable as a photograph. "It adds to the range of measures to help ensure the safeguarding of children and young people."


I hate paedophiles as much as anyone, but there is something seriously wrong with phrases like these; is the UK government starting to condemn intentions and comparing drawings to real child abuse?

Oh well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582817)

....there goes 90% of encyclopediadramatica.org

Posturig politicians (5, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582829)

Psychiatrists have known for a long time that paedophiles are "born that way", that their perversion isn't really a product of their upbringing or past life experiences, just like homosexuality. It's not something they can control or repress, or avoid becoming by not looking at certain images.

So, while outlawing real kiddie porn is understandable to avoid children being used to produce the material, outlawing computer-generated images makes no sense at all: it won't lessen paedophiles' drives and it won't prevent "would be" paedophiles from becoming real ones. What this is is some politicians passing a think-of-the-children law to look good, probably before elections or something.

Re:Posturig politicians (-1, Troll)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582921)

Psychiatrists have known for a long time that paedophiles are "born that way", that their perversion isn't really a product of their upbringing or past life experiences, just like homosexuality. It's not something they can control or repress, or avoid becoming by not looking at certain images.

Do you have any data to back that up? Or did some sarcasm just fly over my head.

Re:Posturig politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582947)

Psychiatrists have known for a long time that paedophiles are "born that way", that their perversion isn't really a product of their upbringing or past life experiences, just like homosexuality. It's not something they can control or repress, or avoid becoming by not looking at certain images.

So, while outlawing real kiddie porn is understandable to avoid children being used to produce the material, outlawing computer-generated images makes no sense at all: it won't lessen paedophiles' drives and it won't prevent "would be" paedophiles from becoming real ones. What this is is some politicians passing a think-of-the-children law to look good, probably before elections or something.
Not true. A percentage may be born that way but I've never heard proof of that. The vast majority were abused as a child so it acts as an infectus disease and tends to spread. Not everyone molested will become a molester but a single molester can potentially molest hundreds so even if a few percent become molesters the numbers grow over time. It's hard to say if the artificial ones will help or hurt the situation but it's hard to justify without proof so it's a catch-22.

The TRUTH about pedophiles (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583119)

This post is primarily a pile of steaming horse shit.

There is a slightly higher rate of sexual abuse amongst incarcerated pedophiles.

The MODERN psychosocial assumption is that the abuse causes them to have reduced inhibitions, rather than "caused them to be a pedophile". There are VERY FEW accurate studies of population samples that include pedophiles who HAVE NOT been arrested for crimes.

There is substantial proof that pedophile tendencies are formed in early childhood, but the mechanism and cause is unknown. This is very similar to homosexuality, though how similar is unknown because research on non incarcerated pedophiles is pretty much career suicide for even the most tenured and respected professors (reference Dr Bruce Rind or Dr Harris Mirkin).

The few population studies that are out there suggest that somewhere between 0.5% and 1% of the male population in the US has strong pedophile tendencies, maybe half of these being exclusive pedophiles.

This means that there is likely somewhere around 1 million exclusive pedophiles in the US.

FBI statistics point out that only about 20-30% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by exclusive pedophiles like we so like to call them. The other 70-80% is perpetrated by "situational" abusers, who are not necessarily pedophiles but choose children for reasons of power, domination, low self esteem, etc.

But even given these numbers, the concept of the average pedophile molesting 300 kids is absurd. This is a rare boundary case and is almost never played out by the statistics.

Real studies show the median number of kids a pedophile molests is 2-3. There are rare instances of hundreds, but they are extremely rare.

Real studies about child porn simply don't exist. It was 100% legal until the mid -70s in most of the Western world. Child abuse didn't drop after it was made illegal.

Since this is the only metric of its consumption that anyone has available, this seems like a logical point on which to conclude that it has little to no effect on "stimulating" child abusers to commit a crime.

But I may be entirely wrong. It would be awfully nice if this sort of ESSENTIAL research wasn't so politically charged as to be nearly suicidal to publish. The last few people who published research skirting this topic were getting weekly death threats.

sick fucks. (and i'm not talking about the pedophiles here)

And that, my friend, is the REAL truth.

Re:Posturig politicians (2, Interesting)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582993)

I'm not sure if your from the uk or not, but I think you've really hit the nail on the head with your comment concerning a desperate need of some politicians to raise their popularity. Brown is incredibly unpopular, his government has lost every vote they have every been subjected to and have shown the worst results labour have seen at least since 1983 where they were arguing for real socialism in the country. This means that he really needs popularist policies and the easiest way to do this is introduce laws like this that appear to only hurt those who everyone already hates. It is a similar rationale which is behind their new push for "British jobs for British workers", as well as other anti-immigrat rhetoric.

What really worries me about this is that I'm hoping to have children within the next two years by which time this law could easily have come in. Now peadophiles will be looking to abuse real children rather than just looking at simulated images... But I guess the government needs a good headline - so I can't really expect them to care about real children

Re:Posturig politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583021)

Which is why most abusers where abused themselves as children. Nothing to do with upbringing, right?

Re:Posturig politicians (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583081)

That's irrelevant. Serial killers, for example, are "born that way" too, yet they are locked up when caught and sometimes executed. Not everybody has the same mental faculties as the majority of the population, and that can lead to behaviour classified as psychopatic and abnormal. It's the luck of the draw.

Re:Posturig politicians (1)

lightspeedius (263290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583131)

I think you are mistaken. We are far from having a full understanding the development of sexuality, be it homosexuality, heterosexuality or other sexual inclinations. There is certainly no evidence that suggests a sole factor that defines a person's sexuality.

Closing loophole (5, Informative)

IAmAI (961807) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582839)

If there is no actual child involved is the law merely protecting against the possibility of offenders committing future crimes against real children?"

According the news article, the motivation for the law is close a loophole in the law whereby a paedophile manipulates a illegal photography in order to make it legal:

"The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons."

Re:Closing loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582929)

Except you can't "manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons". That part is so utterly idiotically phrased that it's not really possible to understand what the fuck they were trying to say. And there's also this little part

"This is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse are as unacceptable as a photograph."

which blatantly states the opposite.

Re:Closing loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583015)

Think photoshop filter I guess...

Re:Closing loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583037)

Except there's no filter to magically make it into a drawing or cartoon. And most cartoons are stylized, often to a significant extent, and that's the sort of thing a simple filter will never be able to replicate. You have to actually *draw* it if you want a drawing.

Re:Closing loophole (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583101)

You'd think the old law would still apply even after someone applies a photoshop filter to their photograph.

Re:Closing loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583121)

"The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons."

So, a child porn producer takes a picture worth $loads of money, of an action worth rotting in prison, and makes it look like a picture worth $0.01?

Did someone fail economics 101? Lowering the value of an object to be much lower than the price (expected prison time * probability of getting caught)... What's next, outlawing rocks, because diamond shops might paing their precious stones gray to be able to sell them for far less than they paid for them?

Re:Closing loophole (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583159)

The loophole seems to be that we require proof that people are causing harm to convict someone. Images that may have been manipulated mean a possibility that the person did harm. Drawings mean that the person could be capable of doing harm.

Re:Closing loophole (1)

Builder (103701) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583193)

The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing (Emphasis mine)

So we're passing a law because of something that _may_ be happening. Not is. Not has proven to be. May.

Niiiicccceeeee!

I know it sounds bad, but there are reasons (1)

Zorque (894011) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582861)

But an article I read on the subject quoted one of the main proponents saying that there's an increasing trend of child pornographers digitally editing or tracing real photos in order to get around the laws already in place. That being the case, I'm all for the legislation (though I don't even live in the UK).

Coward (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582901)

Right, as I'm posting this as an anon. coward, I know there won't be as heavy leverage behind my opinion. Nevertheless... this is drawing a -very- fine line. Child porn is a horrible, horrible thing. But to ban computer generated images is the first step down a slippery road.

It's illegal to rape anyone, or to kill anyone. Does that mean images, or say 90% of films in the case of the latter, should one day be outlawed? What of films like lolita? OK, so you can argue that these are movies made not for the purpose of people getting a sick pleasure out of it. Surely there will always be people who get pleasure out of graphic images in the way they were not intended.

I'm just afraid that once you start banning one form of fantasy produced content, not based on an act that has actually helping, what will stop law makers from using this as an example in the future for banning other forms of media? Kind of reminds me of the point the fellas over at South Park tried to make in the Cartoon Wars... either its all alright, or nothing is.

Re:Coward (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582985)

I am not posting as anonymous, and I agree with everything you just said and stand behind it.

Re:Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583045)

I only posted as a coward due to laziness more than anything else. Long time reader, have just never registered an account :-)

(yes, yes.. off topic. Mod away)

Here in the US, we should just stick to Obscene... (3, Interesting)

trims (10010) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582907)

I'm not sure about UK law, but here in the US, we have a nice standard for what is Obscene:

(a) It (whatever it is, photo, "artwork", film, etc.) must appeal primarily to purient interest

(b) It depicts sexual activity in a patently offensive manner (according to community standards)

(c) Taken as a whole, the work has no artistic, political, or social value.

Frankly, the article does hit on one major problem with "synthetic" child porn - it's often not really synthetic. Remember the movie "A Scanner Darkly" ? That's the kind of thing were starting to see, not the full-on synthetic of a Final Fantasy. It's damned hard to figure out which is which, and in the mean time, people get exploited.

I don't see the need for additional legislation, as this kind of "artwork" has a far easier time being considered Obscene than most other types. When considered as a whole, most of this stuff would automatically pass (a) and (b) without much of an argument, and the bar for (c) would likely be lower than if the material solely used adults.

And, you certainly don't want to outlaw all cartoon "child porn" (i.e. things depicting sexual activity in children) - we need educational materials which depict certain acts in order to help victims of such crimes, not to mention basic (preventative) education itself. Additionally, I don't want to see documentaries become illegal (synthetic actors or real people), just because some people don't like the subject matter.

I like the obscenity standard. It's tough, for a reason. The only problem with it here in the US is jurisdictional - people should be prosecuted in the place where they possess it, not in some other place. That is, if Person A makes it available in California, but person B in Kentucky downloads it, then B should be liable for the Kentucky standards, but A should only be liable for California standards.

-Erik

Re:Here in the US, we should just stick to Obscene (2, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583109)

Frankly, the article does hit on one major problem with "synthetic" child porn - it's often not really synthetic. Remember the movie "A Scanner Darkly" ? That's the kind of thing were starting to see, not the full-on synthetic of a Final Fantasy. It's damned hard to figure out which is which, and in the mean time, people get exploited. [...] I like the obscenity standard. It's tough, for a reason.
No. In a proper lawful society we do not prosecute victimless thoughtcrime, and we do not prosecute without proof. Synthetic child porn harms no one, unless you want to believe that it works like a drug pushing the user to the real stuff... well, so far there's not much proof of that happening. If the material is not really synthetic, then prove it if you can, and then prosecute to the fullest extend of the law. Is that hard to prove? It may well be, but I think we should hesitate to reject good legal principles just because it is convenient in an issue that happens to touch our hearts. This is "Think of the children!" taken to its extreme.

Bad as child pornography is, what scares me a whole lot more is the way people get worked up about it. Looking at the insane hysteria the surrounds this subject, one would think that there's a child molester around every corner, and that our children are never safe. Anyone seen that South Park episode on the subject? Not far from the truth... And worse: it seems that once an accusation has been leveled, the full burden of proof falls upon the accused, both in the legal and the public domain. In this day and age, how hard is it really to plant "evidence" on someone's computer (or even unwitingly download it)?

By the way, synthetic child porn has been outlawed here in the Netherlands for some time, and recently our courts saw a first conviction and stiff sentence under this new law. Mind, this was for mere posession, not creating or traficking.

Jack Thompson's wet dream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582919)

Shaun Kelly, safeguarding manager for children's charity NCH, said the proposals were a step in the right direction. He said: "This is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse are as unacceptable as a photograph.
This is no longer about preventing child abuse, the intent behind child pornography laws. This is about outlawing things that could, possibly, influence abuse. What a dangerous idea. Outlawing things because of how they *could* influence people. Imagine:

"We want to make a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of violent death are as unacceptable as a snuff film."

That's... unenforceable (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582925)

(commenting anonymously because this debate is still taboo in western countries)
Hentai has been working around these limitation since ages. They draw child porn, tell the characters are 18 and voila. They look younger ? well, it is "artistic license".

While not my cup of tea, I have always considered these kind of drawings as a way for real pedophiles to drop the pressure. I have always thought that preventing the circulation of child porn was counter-productive : it creates a black-market where the prohibition makes the prices go high. With high prices, it becomes more profitable to produce photographs.

To me, pedophilia seems like the first pretext used to control Internet traffic. Production of child pornography is the real crime, this must be stopped. The porn industry must not employ children. Owning and distributing their works ? What is the problem with that ? That's called 'pirating' it is supposed to bring down their business model. Legalize the transmission and possession of child porn, and the production of child porn will die. It is not like they can file a complaint to the MPAA...

AOC (5, Interesting)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582941)

I often wonder how much of the statistics of sexual abuse and child porn are inflated because of our age of consent laws. Not sure what they are in the UK, and this is about a proposed law in the UK, but in the US the age is usually around 18. So a 17 year old taking pictures of herself has the same legal designation as a 10 year old being molested and photographed by her abusers. If we had a law like this then drawings too would be just as bad? They're making a category of crime even larger when it already lacks the subtleties needed to deal with the reality of the world we live in.

Re:AOC (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583127)

I'm glad the swedish law is still a bit more resonable. It's legal aslong as the person is over 18 or looks like he/she could be over 18.

In practise it means child porn laws are only applied to what it should be, prepubescent children.

Having sex with anyone below 15 still counts as rape though regardless of how they look.

Re:AOC (1)

Zelos (1050172) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583175)

The age of consent is 16 in the UK.

She might look 15 to you but in my head she was 18 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582977)

Given the horribly loose language used in the "extreme pornography" law [unspeak.net] recently passed in the UK and that the extreme pornography law covers staged acts as well as real ones I wouldn't be surprised if the language used in this law is also horribly loose. It's probably unlikely to distinguish between whether the drawing depicted a real act or not.

As usual we get a ministerial statement saying the plans are "not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally" in the same way that the extreme pornography act was not about targeting the BDSM community - the trouble is regardless of the intention of the plan they usually end up being overly broad in definition and thus leave a wider group open to prosecution.

Gary Dourdan won't go to jail (rich niggers win) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582995)

Gary Dourdan won't go to jail for drug charges

"The 41-year-old actor was arrested after police found him asleep in his car outside of Palm Springs on April 28. He was allegedly parked on the wrong side of the street with the car's interior light on. Dourdan was charged with felony possession of heroin, cocaine and ecstasy.

Dourdan has played crime scene investigator Warrick Brown on CBS' "CSI" since 2000. The character was recently shot and killed during the eighth season finale."


How fortunate for Mr. Dourdan, any typical middle class black nigger, white cracker, mexican beaner or hook nosed jew would've faced much harsher penalties and would probably have a diseased gang member penis in their anus or mouth at this very moment. But in the land of the free, the rich slide. I guess Mr. Dourdan should feel lucky, big black hungry penises won't be spilling any diseased gangland semen into his hiney or lips any time soon.

After RFTA (4, Insightful)

Martian_Kyo (1161137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583001)

I dub this law as Anti-Hentai law.

Re:After RFTA (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583161)

What's to stop the Hentai Artists to just say that their characters are over 16? Indeed, what's to stop any of these artists just saying that their CGI models are over 16?

It's like guns (1)

utnapistim (931738) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583003)

If there is no actual child involved is the law merely protecting against the possibility of offenders committing future crimes against real children?"

It's like the proliferation of guns: the fact that you have them easily available all the time, will make violent people simply reach for them in an access of fury (instead of using something less lethal).

IANAS ( I am not a shrink :) ) but I think that going towards something like pedophilia is a gradual process, and having pictures (even if computer-generated) involving children readily available would make it easier for would-be pedophiles to go to the next step (whatever that might be).

Re:It's like guns (1)

Max Threshold (540114) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583065)

It's like the proliferation of guns: the fact that you have them easily available all the time, will make violent people simply reach for them in an access of fury . . .

Except it doesn't work like that. More guns results in less crime, and statistics from around the globe bear that out.

Loophole? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583039)

This no more constitutes a loophole in UK child porn laws than the ability to freely purchase a water pistol amounts to a loophole in its gun control laws.

The reasons they gave on the BBC site was that Pedos are using special software to turn photos into drawings. I would like to see this software, it sounds very cool.

Already illegal in Denmark (1)

infolib (618234) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583087)

Criminal code 235 (my danish-english legalese translation is shaky):

"...Who possesses or for money acquires adulterous photos or film, other adulterous visual reproductions or similar of persons under 18 is punished by fine or prison up to 1 year."
As far as I've understood the law is only thought to apply if the material is graphic enough to be confused with reality. I think there's a proposed EU directive on this. I'm ashamed of my country.

New tag: thinkofthepixels

Against the law? (5, Insightful)

mikeg22 (601691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583103)

I have a question for any legal scholars. First, I have a gut feeling that possession of child pornography is wrong, but what is the rationale for why it is illegal to possess? Is it that the possession implies that the possessor bought it and therefore is driving demand for it? If so, the creation for demand of it has to be considered wrong, which once again I understand at a gut level, but why is it illegal? Maybe the answer to this is that the demand for the material causes actual abuse of children to occur in order to produce the material. Ok, so the root of this is that the demand causes abuse, which is clearly a violation of the rights of a child, and therefore the demand causes the abuse which itself is indicated by possession of the offending material. If my logical train of thought here is correct, why isn't it also illegal to possess a picture (or movie or book etc) of any criminal act? For example, say I had a picture of someone being beaten up. Also say that this picture had no artistic or political value. Possession of this (using the above reasoning) implies that I have created demand for the picture. The demand for the picture (thanks to Adam Smith) causes the creation of the picture, which leads to the actual beating up of someone. Why isn't any media (that has no political or artistic value) depicting a crime considered illegal?

UK should declare War on Japan then! (1)

Schattenherz (1018560) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583105)

Really and at the same time UK has the reputation of being a SM stronghold.

Look! Peados! (5, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583117)

Now just keep focusing on them whilst we take away all your rights.

Peadophilia is, statistically speaking, less of a threat to your children than lightning. Seeing as how most child abuse comes from a family member, the best way for parents to protect their child from molestation is to not molest them.

Yet this insignificant threat is used to scare people into allowing the government to take control of the Internet piece by piece. Our government has an overt disrespect for its subjects (remember, we are not citizens) and seems to think we should only have such rights as allow the economy to function and no more. They need shooting, all of them.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23583181)

I was under the impression that computer generated images/drawings were already illegal, owing to the fact that it may be hard to determine if something is a real picture or not.

I mean, CG is getting good : http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=532817
It's not a massive stretch of the imagination to see where this could go.

Please think of the children! (5, Funny)

naich (781425) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583195)

On second thoughts - don't. It's illegal now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...