UK Proposes to Ban Loli Hentai

[BerenTebogo]

Shit should be banned everywhere, what's the debate? Real or drawn, you're still a sick fuck and unfit for society if you watch it.

Your opinion, not everyone elses.

Yes, attempt to normalize pseudo-pedophilia. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood

You don't need to like it, or rationalize it, it's the fact that once we move into the 'it's not real and it's illegal' there's no way you can argue that it doesn't set precedent to continue the line of censorship.

And censorship is the enemy, no matter who you are.

[Shuemue]

Good law.

[Kaliden]

Ms Eagle said the plans were "not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society".

I think the thread title was misleading for some people, then again, they probably just skipped over the article.

To sum it up; it's expanding on what Senoska was talking about.

[sunb1ind]

Shit should be banned everywhere, what's the debate? Real or drawn, you're still a sick fuck and unfit for society if you watch it.

Your opinion, not everyone elses.

Yes, attempt to normalize pseudo-pedophilia. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood

You don't need to like it, or rationalize it, it's the fact that once we move into the 'it's not real and it's illegal' there's no way you can argue that it doesn't set precedent to continue the line of censorship.

And censorship is the enemy, no matter who you are.

Don't worry, you can still rely on your sexually oppressed country to accept silly cartoon pedo-porn, tee-hee. Worst comes to worse, you'll have to move there once the rest of the world bans that shit

But seriously, this is nowhere near the types of nanny-state/anti-terrer rulings that go on in the US. This is blatent child pornography wrapped in a different colored bow.

[Beckwin]

Ms Eagle said the plans were "not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society".

I think the thread title was misleading for some people, then again, they probably just skipped over the article.

To sum it up; it's expanding on what Senoska was talking about.

That quote is less specific than the "using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons." quote. I'm fine with a law against filter'd real CP, which has real victims, but caution should be taken to make sure it doesn't cross into the realm of completely fictional, fabricated, and victimless "child" pornography.

[pohibaba]

Ms Eagle said the plans were "not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society".

I think the thread title was misleading for some people, then again, they probably just skipped over the article.

To sum it up; it's expanding on what Senoska was talking about.

That quote is less specific than the "using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons." quote. I'm fine with a law against filter'd real CP, which has real victims, but caution should be taken to make sure it doesn't cross into the realm of completely fictional, fabricated, and victimless "child" pornography.

Wow, Beckwin and I agreeing on an issue? Hell must have frozen over.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm fine with a law against filter'd real CP, which has real victims, but caution should be taken to make sure it doesn't cross into the realm of completely fictional, fabricated, and victimless "child" pornography.

I'll hop on that train.

[Kaliden]

I feel the same way, there was just some minor confusion.

[Feedmenow]

They might actually going after loli, and other stuff.

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.

Don't think he's talking about the filter-set images there; That would go under computer-generated.

It's probably not going to be too huge an issue as far as precedence goes. Not too many other situations would fit the mask layers part, and if they ban cartoon depictions of any illegal activity there'll be a shitstorm in the media and about the media.

[Maguspk]

Couldn't one argue that even fictional images perpetuate negative stereotypes and victimize real people and children? It doesn't necessarily have to be real to be offensive/dangerous to real people. I'm sure if you made cartoons about racial profiling being the cool thing to do it wouldn't fly just as much as a racial profiling seminar wouldn't fly. (Pardon the example but you get the point, devil's advocate go.)

[Senoska]

Couldn't one argue that even fictional images perpetuate negative stereotypes and victimize real people and children? It doesn't necessarily have to be real to be offensive/dangerous to real people. I'm sure if you made cartoons about racial profiling being the cool thing to do it wouldn't fly just as much as a racial profiling seminar wouldn't fly. (Pardon the example but you get the point, devil's advocate go.)

Well, lets just get it over with and ban GTA, CSI:Insert city here, fuck it, lets just get rid of TV, video games, the internet, and anywhere else you can get pictures simulating violence, racial motivated crimes, etc. If you ban one, you must ban them all.

[Maguspk]

Couldn't one argue that even fictional images perpetuate negative stereotypes and victimize real people and children? It doesn't necessarily have to be real to be offensive/dangerous to real people. I'm sure if you made cartoons about racial profiling being the cool thing to do it wouldn't fly just as much as a racial profiling seminar wouldn't fly. (Pardon the example but you get the point, devil's advocate go.)

Well, lets just get it over with and ban GTA, CSI:Insert city here, fuck it, lets just get rid of TV, video games, the internet, and anywhere else you can get pictures simulating violence, racial motivated crimes, etc. If you ban one, you must ban them all.

There obviously has to be a line drawn somewhere. Some people are fine with exposing appropriate age parties to certain concepts. The argument here isn't whether you can ban them all, which of course is going to sound ridiculous, but rather what should be acceptable and what shouldn't.

[Feedmenow]

Couldn't one argue that even fictional images perpetuate negative stereotypes and victimize real people and children? It doesn't necessarily have to be real to be offensive/dangerous to real people. I'm sure if you made cartoons about racial profiling being the cool thing to do it wouldn't fly just as much as a racial profiling seminar wouldn't fly. (Pardon the example but you get the point, devil's advocate go.)

Well, lets just get it over with and ban GTA, CSI:Insert city here, fuck it, lets just get rid of TV, video games, the internet, and anywhere else you can get pictures simulating violence, racial motivated crimes, etc. If you ban one, you must ban them all.

There obviously has to be a line drawn somewhere. Some people are fine with exposing appropriate age parties to certain concepts. The argument here isn't whether you can ban them all, which of course is going to sound ridiculous, but rather what should be acceptable and what shouldn't.

This would probably apply more to media, where stuff isn't relatively as thorough in warning people of vulgarity as it is in video games and internet sites (which include a fairly sized label with the ESRB rating or the "If you're not 18 or older please GTFO" pages if the site is NSFW). I used to see the same kinds of labels at the start of shows, but even that small one-second label seems to have died out... Not sure if those have actually stopped being included in shows or I just stopped paying attention to them. However, the chance of this happening are fairly low; most likely only going to apply to CP/'toon CP than anything.

[Darus Grey]

I did a major research article for this a couple years ago when congress re-enacting the CPPA was being considered and it was a big debate item on campus.

After about 3 months of research the conclusion I reached from all data available was that the banning of digital child pornography contributed to more child abuse.

There is not a single piece of valid research out there that shows any correlation between the banning of it and a decrease in abuse. There is however an OVERWHELMING amount of data that shows access to pornography to sex offenders shows a huge decrease in sexual abuse and violence.

The head council of the "Center for Missing and Exploited children" is on record as saying they do not encourage these bans because they can find no reason for them, and they may in fact lead to more abuse.

So despite the initial knee-jerk reaction of most people, if you support these bans, you support more children being abused, the world is funny like that.

[Gulkeeva]

I wonder what all the taru fans would think of this...

ah yeah the CPPA in the usa, someone brought that up, but then posted some soorta court thing saying that digitial imagry was ok as long as its not "realistic" looking, as long as its fantasy its ok to have. Have the government case post somewhere on my site. Taru lovers were arguing with some guy over some pics posted soorta thing, nice long debate of madness!

[Kuya]

I did a major research article for this a couple years ago when congress re-enacting the CPPA was being considered and it was a big debate item on campus.

After about 3 months of research the conclusion I reached from all data available was that the banning of digital child pornography contributed to more child abuse.

There is not a single piece of valid research out there that shows any correlation between the banning of it and a decrease in abuse. There is however an OVERWHELMING amount of data that shows access to pornography to sex offenders shows a huge decrease in sexual abuse and violence.

The head council of the "Center for Missing and Exploited children" is on record as saying they do not encourage these bans because they can find no reason for them, and they may in fact lead to more abuse.

So despite the initial knee-jerk reaction of most people, if you support these bans, you support more children being abused, the world is funny like that.

I thought about that when i entertained the idea of banning all sorts of child pornography, but the banning of media that actually involves children is a no brainer, as others have said, it's just banning fictional media that's sort of pushing it.

[Blarg]

Does unborn fetus sonogram porn get included in this?

[Gulkeeva]

Does unborn fetus sonogram porn get included in this?

Probably because its under 18

Although I've only seen like 1-2 of those kinda things over the years I've... seen stuff

[Rammses]

I thought about that when i entertained the idea of banning all sorts of child pornography, but the banning of media that actually involves children is a no brainer, as others have said, it's just banning fictional media that's sort of pushing it.

That's an understatement. It's thought policing and it's worse than censorship. It would also further alienate and punish some of the weakest people in society (non-offending paedophiles) who have done nothing wrong. No one would gain anything from a ban as there aren't even any indirect or potential victims.

but i guess it should be banned anyway cause its different right. ban gays too. and niggers and jews. and women too