Gamer Girl selling her bathwater?????

[FoxEye]

Oh well, if only people didnt vote for it

There's a difference between a national referendum and lobby groups influencing policy/donating to the governing party in return for nothing at all, and definitely not a change in the law.

Those things are entirely different.

I don't think anyone got to vote on the legislation criminalising real and imagined people based on whether they look under 18 (even if they are above 18 or simply don't exist).

 

[StriderX]

There's a difference between a national referendum and lobby groups influencing policy/donating to the governing party in return for nothing at all, and definitely not a change in the law.

Those things are entirely different.

I don't think anyone got to vote on the legislation criminalising real and imagined people based on whether they look under 18 (even if they are above 18 or simply don't exist).

But you did vote the MP's who legislated it however, the same MP's that made this country a surveillance state, so surely... with past evidence you would have voted someone else?

And if you find you always get authoritarian MP's, then that's unfortunate, some might find that's enough to revolt over, but most wont because "children". Now theres an effort to ban young people driving at night, strange slope were on huh.

 

[Aedus]

There already was provision to criminalise drawings taken from real abuse images.

The new law(s) makes any 100% from-your-imagination drawing illegal, where a "reasonable person" might have the impression that the subject was underage.

In addition to this, I believe there are now also law(s) such that persons of legal age in porn that look underage can be considered to be child porn.

The law is now based around the appearance of real or imagined persons whom a "reasonable person" might think is below 18.

So legal porn is now also child porn. As well as cartoons from your imagination being child porn.

UK law is no longer bounded by reality but instead by perception. That is the sad truth.

I heard about the porn actresses looking young can be considered illegal, but as far as I know that’s only in Australia. I don’t think we have anything like that here, the only ones I know of are actually underage and rape (even role play, which I disagree with). I think the danger is that a character (especially drawn) could actually be 18, look like 16 to someone and due to them looking younger, land an actual person in a lot of trouble over another’s perception.

I guess it’s because any new images aren’t still known if it was based on abuse imagery or not. So it’s just literally a blanket “even if it’s a drawing, it’s still illegal”, but where do you draw the line? Would it not be impossible to keep a library up to date as to whether an image is based on a real abuse image or not?

Hypothetically if all drawn images that exist now were loosely based off of real abuse images, do you think they should all be illegal?
I’m not trying to get you to agree to my point, I think it’s an interesting debate, so I’m curious what you would do in that situation.

 

[FoxEye]

I don't think anyone voted for the Age ID system either. Another wonderful govt innovation to make us "think of the children".

 

[FoxEye]

I heard about the porn actresses looking young can be considered illegal, but as far as I know that’s only in Australia. I don’t think we have anything like that here, the only ones I know of are actually underage and rape (even role play, which I disagree with). I think the danger is that a character (especially drawn) could actually be 18, look like 16 to someone and due to them looking younger, land an actual person in a lot of trouble over another’s perception.

I guess it’s because any new images aren’t still known if it was based on abuse imagery or not. So it’s just literally a blanket “even if it’s a drawing, it’s still illegal”, but where do you draw the line? Would it not be impossible to keep a library up to date as to whether an image is based on a real abuse image or not?

Hypothetically if all drawn images that exist now were loosely based off of real abuse images, do you think they should all be illegal?
I’m not trying to get you to agree to my point, I think it’s an interesting debate, so I’m curious what you would do in that situation.

I think you have to assume that the vast majority of people are not looking at real child porn.

I don't believe even amongst people who view hentai that anything other than a small minority would view abuse images.

The default position should not be that the drawing/cartoon is possibly based on real abuse images therefore all cartoons = illegal. Besides, you hardly need abuse images as a reference to draw hentai. You can quite easily use legal images to become a skilled anatomist.

The law also covers non-human, non-existent species btw. So you could draw hentai of a space alien which a "reasonable person" could then decide is child porn. Isn't that great?

e: You mentioned something interesting there without knowing it. You said you "disagreed with roleplay" - I presume you mean two consenting adults where one is roleplaying e.g. a schoolgirl.

That might not be to your tastes. But really, why should that be illegal? In reality neither is a minor. Both are consenting. The act is fantasy, not reality.

By criminalising fantasy you are criminalising thooughts.

Should some thoughts and some fantasies be illegal?

 

[Aedus]

I think you have to assume that the vast majority of people are not looking at real child porn.

I don't believe even amongst people who view hentai that anything other than a small minority would view abuse images.

The default position should not be that the drawing/cartoon is possibly based on real abuse images therefore all cartoons = illegal. Besides, you hardly need abuse images as a reference to draw hentai. You can quite easily use legal images to become a skilled anatomist.

The law also covers non-human, non-existent species btw. So you could draw hentai of a space alien which a "reasonable person" could then decide is child porn. Isn't that great?

e: You mentioned something interesting there without knowing it. You said you "disagreed with roleplay" - I presume you mean two consenting adults where one is roleplaying e.g. a schoolgirl.

That might not be to your tastes. But really, why should that be illegal? In reality neither is a minor. Both are consenting. The act is fantasy, not reality.

By criminalising fantasy you are criminalising thooughts.

Should some thoughts and some fantasies be illegal?

You put across some interesting points. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, nor agree, I think this is particular issue which, while I don’t personally like it, it’s got interesting arguments from both sides.

When I spoke about role play I meant in relation to rape, but yeah I guess the schoolgirl role play would be under the same umbrella. But it’s more because rape videos are illegal in the UK, even if the rape is role play. I guess it goes into a bit of what I said and a bit of what you said. It’s banned because they can’t tell if it’s real or not, if it is real rape it obviously has a victim, but rape play is a thing, by making it illegal you’re criminalising a fantasy, which doesn’t mean someone will go and actually rape someone.

I find it interesting, and worrying with some of the points you’ve brought up too, especially with the “aliens”, who gets to dictate how old an alien should look to be legal to view, it makes no sense. Food for thought.

 

[Old Man]

Odd people everywhere, so does anybody remember when Leonard Nimoy's serviette was sold because his DNA was on it?

Takes all kinds of people.

 

[Hotwired]

Yeah it's a truly terrible law.

They dragged out the same guy twice to prove they could sentence people for dirty cartoons. The police appear to have permission to examine his porn at any time.

He was done for "realistic" western style pictures in 2006 then in 2014 they did him for japanese style pictures which you have to assume were nothing like realistic.

So with apparently a great deal of invasiveness they managed to do him twice for "underage" cartoons.

Out of all possible crimes you'd think the existence of a second party would be a basic requirement for a sexual offence. Not in the UK!

 

[StriderX]

They dragged out the same guy twice to prove they could sentence people for dirty cartoons. The police appear to have permission to examine his porn at any time.

He was done for "realistic" western style pictures in 2006 then in 2014 they did him for japanese style pictures which you have to assume were nothing like realistic.

So with apparently a great deal of invasiveness they managed to do him twice for "underage" cartoons.

Out of all possible crimes you'd think the existence of a second party would be a basic requirement for a sexual offence. Not in the UK!

So he had a history of this and you're confused why it might have swayed a jury?

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

Guys,you're all forgetting something.

29. On the internet, all girls are men, and all kids are undercover FBI agents or Justice Decoys.

Gamer Girl is a boy.

Sorry to ruin it for all of you.

 

[uncle_rufus]

Did two GD members just have a civil exchange after disagreeing above? Now that is fantasy

 

[Feek]

Odd people everywhere, so does anybody remember when Leonard Nimoy's serviette was sold because his DNA was on it?

This was a plot on The Big Bang Theory. That's not a documentary.

 

[dowie]

This was a plot on The Big Bang Theory. That's not a documentary.

Brilliant

 

[FoxEye]

So he had a history of this and you're confused why it might have swayed a jury?

A history of what? Looking at cartoons... a jury can only decide guilt or innocence within the law, not whether the law is an ass or not.

The way things are going we're going to see people convicted of sexual offences if someone draws a penis in the dirt on their car.

 

[StriderX]

Well whatever i've always thought it was disgusting, and think it's cool that the law is finally caught up.

 

[Hotwired]

So he had a history of this and you're confused why it might have swayed a jury?

I said the law is garbage and mentioned the test case victim. Getting a conviction doesn't mean its not garbage.

The jury is told what the law is and has to decide, based on what the law is, if the law is breached. It's as simple as you ending up in court accused of having the name StriderX and the jury is asked if you're guilty. Doesn't matter at that point how backward the law is, you're still guilty.

The law is garbage because it leeches weight from crimes of child pornography and applies it to not-child pornography with claims of a meaningful connection, without showing the working.

Without meaningful proof that someone is being harmed, it is simply powered by moral outrage. Which is not a quality basis for a law.

 

[Haze]

Another normal GD thread that has gone completely off topic....

 

[FoxEye]

Well whatever i've always thought it was disgusting, and think it's cool that the law is finally caught up.

Anything else you'd like to be illegal based on having a personal distaste for it? Bondage, perhaps? Roleplay? Non-missionary positions?

The point is distaste for it =/= harm being caused to anyone or anything. No harm because imaginary people can't be harmed by being drawn.

(barring copyright issues)

 

[hurfdurf]

This was a plot on The Big Bang Theory. That's not a documentary.

This is the level of intellectual prowess we have discussing whether or not it's ok to draw pictures of children to masterbate to.

 

[hurfdurf]

As you say, a law based on nothing more than moral outrage from a few puritans who don't like anime/hentai. Who are also probably outraged by a whole range of "deviant" behaviour. Like sex before marriage.

I'm one of the biggest deviants on here, and I don't think drawn pictures overtly of children is ok.