PeteBrant

BBC NEWS | UK | Computer generated abuse 'banned'

Tricky one this.

Obviously no right minded person would want to own or draw such an image. But, is this dangerous precedent if it goes through?

Is this a legislation too far if it goes through, or is it justified given the subject matter?

Thoughts?

GC8

Libertarian views dont go down too well on ScoobyNet Pete.....

PeteBrant

I sort of noticed that


I wasn't making a comment one way or the other - I was just posing the question.

boxst

That covers most of the Japanese Animation industry as their choice of 'girl' is always a little suspect.

Steve

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Wow. Interesting find Pete. Given the fact that the Govt introduced a law for counter-acting terrorist threats that directly impacted our personal liberty; and that Local Councils have used that self-same law to spy on people sending their children to school you have to wonder what use a law such as this could be put to.

It's another example of a new law being introduced when correct interpretation of existing laws may work more readily.

GC8

The topic is absolutely disgusting, that goes without saying, but it isnt acceptable to further restrict free peoples rights for one small gain.

GC8

Kieran makes a very good point too. No matter how high the purpose: the actual law only opens further opportunities for abuse by the Police and others.

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

As party of my IT Security role I became aware of Hentai... which I can't help but think would be immediately deemed illegal under this law.

The problem is: a photograph shows reality, a drawing, even if based upon a real situation, is fantasy. In some respects (and at an extreme I admit) this is a start of a form of thought-control.

Paul3446

So what would happen if you had a real photo of some kid being abused and edited it slightly using a graphics package, would that currently be considered legal?

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Another stupid law, another nail in the coffin for civil liberties. What's next, I wonder?

I despair at this lot, the problem is they have at least two years left in office, so God knows how many more crap laws they'll pass in the mean time.

PeteBrant

I doubt it.





The thing is, does the picture have to be of a certain quality before it is considered breakign the law? I mean willa cartoon have this law applied?

Also, how does one differentiate between art and abuse?

To make an analogy, what is the difference between a Rubens nude and a playboy centrefold? One is considered pornography and the other is considered high art. But the subject matter is essentially the same.

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

you answered your own question: It is a REAL photograph, therefore you are breaking an existing law


the thing is, and I know this is going to be a contentious comment:

If the paedophiles are restricting their interest to cartoons and no kids are being abused - isn't this actually an improvement?

I know the immediate response will be that it is the tip of the iceberg and the abusers will THEN turn their attention onto real children. However, as I've initimated before you can't prosecute someone until they commit an offense and making fantasy an offense WILL affect the innocent.

It's another case of good intentions (and stopping abuse is ALWAYS good!) being implemented in completely the wrong way

Leslie

I can't see why there should be a problem here. If Paedophiles are using images for nefarious reasons whether photo's or something which has been created, then they should be done for it without hesitation. Its the looney libertarians which have done so much to drag this country so far down the path of moral depravity as it is.

Les

Jerome

I suspect this may go the same way as the law making it just as serious to use an imitation gun in a robbery as a real one.

Result: All armed robbers use reals ones now.

As said, better they use cartoons than the real thing.

mrtheedge2u2

Strange one..... you go on a lot of sites and you see alot of images of The Simpsons etc were it depicts Bart banging Marge etc........ the fact is Bart is a 10 year old lad (in the cartoon) and the images are of the same type that are drawn for The Simpsons.... would this be illegal..????

Would seem to be crazy to end up in prison for three years for this.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

What "nefarious reason" could you possibly use a computer drawn picture for?

I don't think it's "looney" at all to want to protect liberties. Weren't we all up in arms about the Mohammed pictures and everyone was saying it was so terrible that some country (was it the UK?) were planning on banning them? What's the difference here, apart from the subject. Either you have artistic liberties or you don't - there's no middle ground here in my opinion.

and of course this new law would not be mis-used, just like the anti terrorism law hasn't been mis-used multiple times to check that people don't overfill bins, make sure that they live in a school catchment area, to throw out an 80 year old heckler from a party conference, to stop demonstrations etc etc. It's a slippery slope, and the fact that this is trying to ban something that *ISNT EVEN REAL* is just absolutely ridiculous!

Tam the bam

So these kids books may become illegal!

OllyK

The question is:

Does viewing child **** turn you in to a paedophile or does being a paedophile lead you to seek out child ****?

If it's the former, it's time to ensure all kids are kitted out with burkhas until the age of 21, if, as is more likely the case, it's the latter, then better they fulfil thier fantasy from a source that harmed nobody rather than them having to go off and abuse a child to get a real picture.

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

QFT

SJ_Skyline

Just like gun laws have stopped gun crime and knife laws have stopped knife crime, so this law will stop this sort of crime.

When will this bunch of numbskulls get the message that we, the people, are sick to the back teeth of them. The country is on its knees with rocketing costs of living and tax burdens. The politicians award themselves obscene salary increases and waste time passing needless legislation while real people suffer. Labour, Tory & Liberal MPs, you should ALL hang your heads in shame.

boomer

How do you define a "child", when the age of consent is, for example, only 13 years old in Spain (a member of the EU)!

This proposal, along with the Extreme **** Bill could mean that you don't know whether you are actually breaking any law until you have been convicted in court

And, of course, YES, the government, authorities and police will eventually abuse the application of this law to further restrict what the general public is allowed to do.

We need to apply existing laws properly, not implement vague new ones in the hope that evrything will magically become "fluffy bunnies" (obviously over the age of bunny consent)

mb

j4ckos mate

why would you want one of those drawings anyway?

i assume they mean thorough "technical" drawings of private areas, not pictures of body or homer simpson,
i would have already hoped they are

amahrap

I suppose i had better go outside and remove the statue of the little boy peeing into my fishpond then.

Not sure where to draw the line

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Look at some old paintings, I know of one by an artist called William Stott which depicts three naked young boys on the beach, ok its not something you would really want on your walls in this climate but the human body has long been a subject for art and I dont think that should change, not every picture of children is destined for those kind of purposes and nowadays no artist would risk the outrage of making such a picture.

It irks me that I cant take picture of my kids school play because of the risk of the image being for other purposes than us having a record of the event.

To be honest, let the Paedos draw whatever they want, however realistic, if that satisfies them and does away with the need for real images and abuse then then thats a good thing, though with such matters I suppose it would only keep them interested so long.

Paedo's are a small minority causing untold grief and sanctions on the rest of us, it would be interesting to know what percentage of the population this is ?

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

If they ever introduce a law regardign images of middle aged american women, were fooked !

StickyMicky

they will try and do ANYTHING possible to stop people drawing ****** on school desks wont they

the amount of times i drew stinky leanne on a desk with her muff hanging out

bloody killjoys

mrtheedge2u2

I presume the images would have to be of actual sexual activity......

PeteBrant

Things is, how on earth do you argue that it is the depiction of a minor?


Imagine this. Man get arrested for drawgin an image of a "child" having sex with an adult.

Mans defence : "The girl in the picture is 18."

How do you argue that?

it's not real - How do you possibly prove him wrong?

OllyK

Just heard on the news, it seems that it's the conversion of a real image to a drawing / cartoon, using photoshop filters and effects etc to make a real photo look like a pencil drawing, that are the issue. In which case fine. If the image is an original work I don't have an issue with it. They'll be banning Lady Chatterly's Lover again soon