UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 12° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Graphic artists condemn plans to ban erotic comics

By Jerome Taylor

One of the books likely to fall foul of the new law is The Lost Girls by the graphic artist Alan Moore

One of the books likely to fall foul of the new law is The Lost Girls by the graphic artist Alan Moore

A coalition of graphic artists, publishers and MPs have condemned Government plans to introduce a new set of laws policing cartoons of children, arguing that the current broad wording of the legislation could lead to the banning of hundreds of mainstream comic books.

This week Parliament will discuss a new Bill which will make it a criminal offence to possess cartoons depicting certain forms of child abuse. If the Coroners and Justice Bill remains unaltered it will make it illegal to own any picture of children participating in sexual activities, or present whilst sexual activity took place.

The Ministry of Justice claims that the Bill is needed to clamp down on the growing quantity of hardcore paedophilic cartoon porn available on the internet, particularly from Japan. But critics of the legislation say the current definitions are so sweeping that it risks stifling mainstream artistic expression as well as turning thousands of law abiding comic book fans into potential sex offenders.

One of the books likely to fall foul of the new law is The Lost Girls by the graphic artist Alan Moore. The world renowned British writer is the creator of critically acclaimed comics such as Watchmen and V for Vendetta, and is regarded as one of the finest writers of his generation.

The Lost Girls was published in the UK in January to largely favourable reviews and is an erotic graphic novel that imagines the teenage sexual awakenings of three famous fictional characters. In the book Alice from “Alice in Wonderland”, Dorothy Gale from the “Wizard of Oz” and Wendy Darling from Peter Pan meet as women in their 30s and discover that they all share equally high sex drives. Certain pages in the novels could fall foul of the new law because it currently defines a child as under 18-years of age. This is problematic because many of the women's sexual experiences in The Lost Girls occur in their late teens when they are above the age of consent but still under 18-years-old.

There are even fears that Watchmen, one of the industry's most critically acclaimed graphic novels, could risk being banned because one of the main superheroes sees his mother having sex when he is a young child.

Comic book writers and publishers, including Moore's daughter Leah who is herself an acclaimed graphic artist, have now set up the Comic Book Alliance to ensure that the legislation only targets overtly paedophilic and pornographic cartoons and not artistic erotica.

“We do not oppose any legislation that protects children from abuse, we understand the need for it, but some parts of the Coroners Bill do need rewording and clarifying,” said a spokesperson. “This new legislation could be used for the wrong reason and if used incorrectly thousands of people could become criminals overnight. The Government refused to impose minimum tariffs on cheap alcohol because it was unfair to punish the majority for the crimes of a minority; yet this legislation does exactly the same.”

Their campaign has won the support of a number of prominent comic book writers including Bryan Talbot, John Reppion and Neil Gaiman, the British-born writer of Stardust and The Sandman comic series. Gaimen wrote on his blog recently that cracking down on cartoon pornography invariably meant governments passed overly broad laws that stifle artistic expression and criminalise innocent people.

“If you accept - and I do - that freedom of speech is important then you are going to have to defend the indefensible,” he wrote. “That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said. The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made.”

The Bill currently going through Parliament is closely modelled on a similar piece of Australian legislation which has caused numerous controversies since it became law. Earlier this month an Australian man was convicted of possessing child pornography because he downloaded six images of characters from The Simpsons performing sex acts on each other as a joke.

Chris Staros, the publisher of Alan Moore's The Lost Girls, said he hoped any new legislation in Britain would not target mainstream comic book writers. “It would be a tragedy if any law was enacted that would prevent an author from telling the story that they wanted to tell,” he said. “Lost Girls is a universally praised, literary and artistic work of art, and it deserves to be read by any adult who wishes to read it. Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of any free society, and it is always frightening to me when legislation is proposed that would chip away at those rights.”

Jenny Willott, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cardiff, is one of the few MPs who has spoken out against the Bill. “The problem I have is that the definition of what constitutes and image and a child is incredibly broad,” she said. “The Government considers almost anything to be an image, from a painting to a private scribble on a piece of paper. At the same time they have defined a child as something that looks like a child even if it isn't.”

The Ministry of Justice has denied suggestions that Britain's comic industry would suffer from the law. A spokesperson said: "The clauses in the Bill are to tackle pornographic and obscene images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society. It is not our intention to criminalise the possession of material that does not fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act or to criminalise the legal entertainment industry, the art industry or pornographic cartoons.”

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Why not
[info]tallbendyman wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 01:51 pm (UTC)
ban everything? Wouldn't that be easier? It seems to be at the core of New Labour's "philosophy" - especially if people enjoy whatever it is they want to ban.

Me. I'd ban New Labour.
Re: Why not
[info]steve_wilds wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:47 pm (UTC)
I know you're joking, but even if they did ban everything paedophiles would still exist.

Someone should let the government know that they can't ban their way to utopia.

Re: paedophiles would still exist. - [info]sableagle - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 07:05 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]fluxstuff wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 02:18 pm (UTC)
Alan Moore is not, as your caption incorrectly attests, a graphic artist. He's a writer.
[info]shegelu wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 05:35 pm (UTC)
Comix writer is clearly a hard concept for some people to grasp, cos the caption hasn't been corrected.
Child Porn
[info]loftwork wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 03:37 pm (UTC)
Government is now seeking to protect us from ourselves to the extent of prohibiting anything vaguely prurient even if it depicts fairies watching a bit of heavy petting between trolls. It is, they grandly assure us, necessary to stamp out chlld pornography. Once upon a time, that meant preventing harm to children. Now it appears to have developed into a full-blown industry inflicting Victorian prudishness enforced not by Anglican morality but by Criminal Law. I wonder if ministers only criminalize Manga because they are too thick to read Shakespeare, much less Petronius? And is it not intriguing that while I can read Petronius Satyricon, I will not be able to possess graphics from it? As for Aubrey Beardsley, well...

This is a government addicted to controlling every aspect of life. They clearly have far too much time on their hands and should be fired as soon as possible to join the soup lines they helped to create. Presumably mass unemployment is much less concerning for children than someone's racy comic books. Perhaps if ministers had to spend a few weeks sleeping rough they might discover a new priority for legislation.
Re: Child Porn
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:53 pm (UTC)
This is the same government that had no qualms whatever about taking part in the bombing of Baghdad, tearing off the legs of one little girl who was shown on television. She had been playing football in the street with her brothers. She was terrified because she could still feel her legs but there were no more legs when she looked down.

I think I know what obscenity is. It is the foreign military adventures of those revolting people who currently run this country.
[info]snavej wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 03:58 pm (UTC)
Look out, Robert Crumb!
How old are cartoon children?
[info]kerrygold wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 04:44 pm (UTC)
Will we now have an army of censors deciding whether the children depicted in the cartoons are 14, 16, or 18? Will the cartoonists be able to claim that the children look younger than they are? Yet again the government assume regulation is the answer. It is similar to the time they spent all their time arguing over mega casinos, when the real gambling was taking place on television phone ins. Would that they were as zealous about their own expenses.
Re: How old are cartoon children?
[info]emarkienna wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 10:02 pm (UTC)
Indeed, it's pretty mad. But it's worse than that - it won't be an "army of censors" (deciding whether it can be published), it will be a policeman deciding whether to arrest you or not, and then a jury deciding whether you go to prison or not. This is a law on mere possession...
What a quotation
[info]pipestar57 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 04:59 pm (UTC)
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

Which is exactly what the current Government is hoping, no? The quote even seems almost justifiable.

Until you realise it's a direct quote from Mein Kampf.
Re: What a quotation
[info]sableagle wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 07:09 pm (UTC)
Oh good. I get to quote something!

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Does that sound at all familiar? Does it sound recent? It seems to fit "the post-9/11 world" pretty well, doesn't it?

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering.
Re: What a quotation - [info]artsit_e - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 08:06 pm (UTC) Expand
I can see at what it is aimed
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 05:17 pm (UTC)
there is a legal difference between a drawing and a photograph the aim is to outlaw paedophile drawings and why not? many would say that all indecent representations of children should be banned and i with them

it doesn't bother me as I am not turned on by representations of children in any form, nor are most decent people


only fans of such stuff would scream censorship, but such a law would have to be tightly drawn for fear of catching Winnie the Poo
Re: I can see at what it is aimed
[info]lebeak wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:37 pm (UTC)
You have not understood that there is a clear distinction between finding an image to have artistic merit and hence objecting to its being censored, and being sexually aroused by it.

Great art can be, and often needs to be, shocking and repulsive. Censoring pictorial representations of wickedness will not prevent wickedness from occurring, and I would argue that art which deals with child abuse and other human ugliness and forces us to confront it is vital to our ability as a society to combat it.

Would you censor the autobiography of a victim of child abuse if it contained passages detailing the abuse?
Re: I can see at what it is aimed - [info]tominlondon - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: I can see at what it is aimed - [info]sableagle - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 07:10 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: I can see at what it is aimed - [info]vhawk1951 - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 07:35 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: I can see at what it is aimed - [info]emarkienna - Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 10:13 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: I can see at what it is aimed - [info]vhawk1951 - Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 10:28 pm (UTC) Expand
*sigh*
[info]sableagle wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 07:27 pm (UTC)
"The world renowned British writer is the creator of critically acclaimed comics such as Watchmen and V for Vendetta"

By "critically acclaimed comics", you mean "comics recently turned into successful movies", right?

Is my DVD of The Crow about to become illegal?

How about my Strangers in Paradise?

What about American Beauty? I don't own it, but I wonder now whether it would.

If the MP quoted is correct ("The Government considers almost anything to be an image, from a painting to a private scribble on a piece of paper. At the same time they have defined a child as something that looks like a child even if it isn't.") then you'll be a child sex offender just by doing a google image search for fine art.

Yes, really. Bacchus als Kind and several Cherubs would land you right in it.

Then, of course, they'll have to go round and get rid of all those Gideon Bibles. There's got to be something in there that'd fall foul of the law.
Re: *sigh*
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 09:47 pm (UTC)
even a picture of one's ownchild in the bath could fall foul of various absurd Acts. some people have the bizarre idea that nakedness is ipso facto sexual and that the naked human body is obscene. fortunately most juries and judges have some common sense. cherubs escape as art BTW. real obscenity is like an elephant, hard to define but you surely know it when you see it- the definition is likely to deprave or corrupt, not upset. i've had to watch tons of porn as part of my job and I was no more depraved or corrupted than the police who watched it to prosecute it. i found much of it funny but some was really sick, not of it was remotely art. the German stuff mostly involved vaguely embarrassed and mostly reluctant animals- no art there methinks- so do let's have as sense of perspective- there is some really nasty stuff about and none of it AT ALL is art, however defined
Re: *sigh* - [info]sableagle - Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 05:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: *sigh* - [info]vhawk1951 - Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 05:48 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]nullius123 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 08:31 pm (UTC)
Superb plan. Ban the filthy comics. Then ban novels - they contains some pretty nasty stuff too you know. Then we'll put a man from the ministry into every BBC editing room, and then, finally, a compulsory drug to stop us imagining anything to do with sex or terror or drugs. *Then* we will be civilized.
The wisdom of Mortimer
[info]gothic_quarter wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 08:37 pm (UTC)
As author and lawyer John Mortimer (who defended Oz magazine and the publishers who published Lady Chatterly's Lover and many other such cases) said: "Liberty is allowing people to do things you disapprove of".
Graphic artists condemn plans to ban erotic comics
[info]byronmunchausen wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 09:28 pm (UTC)
Ban XBOX not these artworks !
XBOX should be over 18 ONLY !
[info]sl1ther wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 11:49 pm (UTC)
i remember the government saying they'd only use anti-terror laws to fight extremists - yeh right! they are destroying our communities, our civil rights, and artistic expression.
Ban the lot!!
[info]rayleddy wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 11:53 pm (UTC)
Why don't they ban themselves since they cause so much annoyance to everyone?
Same government
[info]pinhut wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 12:19 am (UTC)
... that is banning these images of children is collating every child's information on to a database for government snoops.
aging cartoons
[info]clairlewis wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 06:05 pm (UTC)
my girlfriend is 31 she is 4 foot 10 and often mistaken for a child, despite being well endowed. I better not draw any of what she gets up to in private then!!
Re: aging cartoons - [info]mornmeril - Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 11:34 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Same government - [info]kmsyoucan - Tuesday, 31 March 2009 at 07:30 am (UTC) Expand
Digging up (and throwing away) the past.
[info]gateway999 wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 09:22 am (UTC)
Labour deliberately makes legislation vague so that a single new law gives them the widest possible powers to stitch up any one who opposes them. A computer a year or two old, that has been used by a vicar will hold something, somewhere. The anti-terrorist legislation is used against people who put their bins out on the wrong day. How old where Romeo and Juliet, thirteen? Well that will change theatre posters for a start!
[info]boychildbooks wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 05:30 pm (UTC)
As a member of the Comic book alliance that has been involved in this effort, Im pleased to see this getting into the press. Please check out the website and, indeed, buy some good comic books! Nowadays they exist for mature readers too, with sophisticated storylines (and I dont mean pornography!).
http://www.comicbookalliance.org.uk/
Comic book alliance
[info]boychildbooks wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 05:35 pm (UTC)
As a member of the Comic book alliance that has been involved in this effort, Im pleased to see this getting into the press. Please check out the website and, indeed, buy some good comic books! Nowadays they exist for mature readers too, with sophisticated storylines (and I dont mean pornography!).
http://www.comicbookalliance.org.uk/
Child Pornography
[info]juliandbsmith wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 09:13 am (UTC)
There is a clear difference between the actual abuse of a child and the photographing or filming of that abuse and the making of pictures of abuse. In the former a child had to be abused for the image to be made, in the latter a person had to imagine abuse to make the image. A clear difference and one that should be defended - what matters is that Children are being abused, this must be controlled. If we attempt to control thinking about or imagining abuse we will fail and worse, we will lose the focus on the protection of children.

There is a separate issue; the ability to create more than life-like images by the use of 3d Animation technology. Computer technology can now duplicate the world and create worlds more real than reality. No matter how disgusting the results, this is not the same as actually abusing a child. We may have problems with the content - I don't watch much American output as I find it nasty, shallow and boring, but I never confused simulation with reality. What we do about made up content is completely seperate from real content and must be kept so.
Christian Tracts?
[info]bsandersen wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 09:12 pm (UTC)
Pretty gruesome stuff in that whole arena, too. Dads sending their daughters out into a crowd to be abused and killed. Another with a guy having serial incestuous relationships with his daughters immediately after the death of his wife, their mother. I've seen pictures on some of these tracts, too, but the main text they're selling is pretty awful. If you want some sort of censorship standards, let's hold everybody to it. Or, are there some groups whose feathers should not be ruffled, and others who are fair game?
NOT JUST EROTIC COMICS
[info]chebbo wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 02:55 am (UTC)
It's not just erotic Comics this law threatens, it's potentially much more dangerous than that.

For the full story I urge anyone who cares about this subject to visit the Comic Book Alliance website at: wwww.comicbookalliance.org.uk and to sign the petition asking for clarification in the law at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Protect-Comics

Thank You

Shane
The Comic Book Alliance
Child Cartoons Do Not Encourage Child Abuse
[info]brianribbonatc wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 10:05 pm (UTC)
At first, the government justified their proposals by claiming that real images of children were being manipulated into cartoons or other images which did not appear to be photographs, thus avoiding detection. This "loophole" was closed in 2008 by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.

More recently, the government claimed that "child sex" cartoons (the definition of which includes cartoons or drawings which simply focus on the genital or anal area) would "fuel the inappropriate fantasies of potential abusers". The government has jusitified its claims by citing two old sources which pre-date computer-generated pornography. They first cited the findings of the Longford Committee, which actually published its report on photographic adult pornography in 1972, before child pornography of any kind had been "discovered" by the scientific or legal community and before methodologically correct research had been undertaken. The second source which the government cites is Tim Tate's (1990) book on child pornography, in which Ray Wyre argues that a child molester will use anything (including child erotica) to justify their behaviour. If Wyre's appendix in Tate's book is correct, however, the implication is that child molesters will always find an excuse for their behaviour whether they view "child sex" cartoons or otherwise.

Current evidence suggests that, if child pornography (photographic or virtual) has any effect at all, it reduces the likelihood of someone acting on their sexual attraction to children. Justice Minister Maria Eagle, who has pushed this legislation, has blatantly ignored the literature on this matter despite having been presented with relevant information during the 2006 consultation.

Furthermore, the majority of people who commit contact offences against children are not paedophiles, rather they are situational offenders who take advantage of any easy opportunity to engage in sexual activity. Such offenders - the typical offenders - are therefore unlikely to show any interest in "child sex" cartoons, because adult pornography is easier to find than cartoon child erotica.

The main audiences for cartoon child erotica are responsible paedophiles or people who see humour in certain depictions of children. More people need to work against the current UK government's attempts to criminalise "child sex" cartoons, as this law is set to be implemented at the expense of childrens' welfare, responsible paedophiles, and comic book enthusiasts' right to enjoy their hobby. One may have some influence over this matter by lobbying their local MP to oppose this legislation for the welfare of Britain's children.
[info]jazazel wrote:
Friday, 27 March 2009 at 12:59 am (UTC)
Alan Moore probably wrote Lost Girls precisely to cause this kind of controversy. In fact, he probably wove a spell into it, as a way to shake comic book writers out of the blase, super-tights archetypal heroism/villainy that's pervaded the medium since he busted it open more than twenty years ago.

This law won't discourage morally questionable material. It'll do the opposite. Art, for better or worse, (usually better), will always find a way. The tighter the fist squeezes, the more slips through.

Let the bureaucrats do their worst, this doesn't worry me in the slightest.
My thoughts on the legislation
[info]skye_princess wrote:
Friday, 27 March 2009 at 07:45 am (UTC)
I disagree with this piece of legislation for so many reasons. One, it is a blatant violation of the rights of free speech/expression. There are certain things that people say, write, draw, or do that may not be agreeable to or liked by everybody on this earth, but no one has the right to prevent someone from expressing what they want and choose to express. Where will the line be drawn if this legislation becomes law?

Another problem with this piece of legislation is how they would define child erotica/pornography. Interpretation is a very fluid process. It changes from person to person. Yes, there is a basic definition of what it is. Yet people can not apply this basic definition to everything out there. Context must be taken into consideration.

Intent must also be considered when considering censoring an item as, in this case, child erotica. I have not read Alan Moore's "The Lost Girls", so I do not know exactly how he incorporates the three protagonists' high sex drives within the narrative. Yet one should not assume that this form of "erotica" is included to encourage potential molesters to go out into the world and rape/abuse a child. It may be a form of social commentary or just a particularly defined character trait which is not as irrelevant to the narrative as a whole. I do not know for sure, but these possibilities ought to be considered.

The government seems to be unaware that there are ways for graphic novels intended for mature audiences to be published, even if it's not necessarily mainstream. DC Comics created the Vertigo line for this very purpose. Writers and artists were thus given the chance to explore new realms in artistic expression, and DC as a company was able to expand its target audience and generate more revenue. If a young child happens to get his/her hands on a comic book and/or graphic novel that is intended for a mature audience, then it is an individual case of a child reading something that he/she shouldn't. It is the job of the parents to prevent this sort of thing from happening, not the government's.

Haven't they considered what will happen once they ban something and it becomes taboo? People will become curious, as is our nature to do so, to find out why something is taboo and they will risk imprisonment to satisfy their curiosity. Censorship in the long run doesn't completely prevent someone from reading or seeing something they shouldn't.
[info]sdlibrarian wrote:
Friday, 27 March 2009 at 03:37 pm (UTC)

If, as the Minsitry of Justice says, "It is not our intention to criminalise the possession of material that does not fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act," then they don't need to pass a new law because they already have the "Obscene Publications Act."
Current and proposed legislation
[info]progeek wrote:
Friday, 27 March 2009 at 04:03 pm (UTC)
"We will have the absurd situation that an act is legal, a photo of the act is legal, but a drawing is illegal. A 17 year old would be breaking the law if she sketched a picture of herself, but didn't show anyone!"

Actually, I'm afraid that the photo of this act would be illegal under current legislation.

As an expert in Internet and Computer Crime I am often called to testify in criminal trials involving indecent images of children. The current legislation is laid out in The Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
It is, of course, legal for a person aged 18 or over (legally an adult) to have sex with a person aged 16 or 17 (legally a child).

However, under the above legislation it is illegal for the "Adult" to take a photograph of the "Child" engaged in sexual activity or "erotic posing" (clothed or unclothed) and they could be charged with making and possession of indecent photographs of children. It is a defence for the "Adult" to prove that the couple were married or were living together as partners in "an enduring family relationship" (interpret that as you will) at the time the photograph was created.

However, even if they were married, it is still illegal for the "Adult" to show that photograph to anyone (Charge of Distribution of indecent photographs of children).

Further, while it is of course legal for this couple to have sex with one or more other persons (threesomes, group sex etc) it is illegal for the "Adult" to take a photograph depicting the "Child" with any other person appearing in the photograph.

The proposed legislation aims to extend the current legislation to cover animation - mainly due to the rise in 3D computer-modeled images of children, which can appear pretty lifelike.

The argument is one of supply and demand - It is argued that computer created "child porn" fuels an interest in the viewer for actual photographs of "child porn". This increase in demand for actual photographs of "child porn" leads to an increase in actual physical abuse of children in order to supply these images.

I do not propose to take part in the debate regarding the rights or wrongs of the proposed legislation - I just though you might like to understand the current legislation and the reasoning behind the proposal for the new legislation, as I understand it of course.
Re: Current and proposed legislation
[info]emarkienna wrote:
Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 01:03 pm (UTC)
Thanks for your response.

Actually, I'm afraid that the photo of this act would be illegal under current legislation.

You're right - in fact I was aware of this but I think I got a bit confused by writing it. There are two more specific areas where a photo would be legal, but a drawing illegal:

* As you note, the law on actual child porn has a defence for 16-17 year olds who are married. This new law has no such defence. Of course, talking about being married to a cartoon character gets a bit silly, but it would be relevant if someone possessed a drawing that depicted their husband or wife.

* The new law also covers depictions of an adults, if the "predominant impression conveyed" is of someone under 18. I'm not quite sure how the law on pseudo-photographs covers actual photos of people who are over 18, but might look underage (?), but with an actual photograph, there is more chance to tell someone's age. So a photo of adults role-playing at being schoolgirls would still be legal, but there is a risk of it being illegal under this law (it's hard to tell the age just from a drawing, and the presence of school uniforms etc might be deemed to convey the impression of being under 18).

Out of interest - do you know how current child porn applies to a child merely being present in an image whilst sexual acts take place between others (i.e., the child is fully clothed, and not posing, etc)? I could see that this could perhaps count as "indecent", but it doesn't seem that it is necessarily always criminalised. Do you know of any court cases? In this new law, such a scene is explicitly criminalised, even if a jury wouldn't consider it "indecent".

mainly due to the rise in 3D computer-modeled images of children, which can appear pretty lifelike.

Although realistic images are, rightly or wrongly, already illegal, so I'm not sure this works as the justification.

The argument is one of supply and demand - It is argued that computer created "child porn" fuels an interest in the viewer for actual photographs of "child porn". This increase in demand for actual photographs of "child porn" leads to an increase in actual physical abuse of children in order to supply these images.

I agree that this is one argument put forward, but I think there are others:

* MP George Howarth stated "If somebody is in the process of arousing themselves sexually by that process, it must be part of something. In a lot of cases, it will be part of something that will lead on to something else." - the argument is put forward that anyone who possess these images will go onto commit abuse, and therefore should be criminalised before they commit that crime.

* I would say there's a general intent to get rid of images deemed "abhorrent", or to send a "message" that such acts should not be tolerated. I.e., they depict something that shouldn't be allowed, so the depictions shouldn't be allowed (which seems inconsistent to me with covering acts that are legal to perform, but there you are...)
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date