-
Good. Although I'm not quite sure what the point of your post is? is it a warning, if so to who?
Presumably the criminal penalty for possession of cartoon imagery only applies to imagery that is " "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and focus on a child’s genitals or anal region, or portray a range of sexual acts "with or in the presence of a child".
If anyone has such imagery then I don't have any objections to them being subjected to the full penalty of the law.
I don't understand this "...the unintended consequence of lessening barriers to the possession of real imagery."
If there is some concern as to whether a cartoon depicts under 18's, then don't save them. Pretty simple really I'd have thought. Why would any healthy person be interested in keeping cartoons of mid to late teens? Sleazy distasteful and questionable at least.
"In the presence of a child" in the sense of a cartoon would simply mean depicting a child character observing sexual scenes. To suggest otherwise is silly, IMHO.
Having said all this, I have a vague memory of the rather dreadful Kill Bill movie which had some pretty appalling scenes in concerning a child cartoon character, something which had I known was in the movie would have been the perfect excuse I needed not to see the wretched film (I caved in to peer pressure, not being a Tarantino fan). So maybe anyone that owns or rents or hires a copy of this movie is now falling foul of the law?
-
• #4
I don't understand this '...the unintended consequence of lessening barriers to the possession of real imagery'
I think that the argument is that people who up until now had a (relatively) easily-accessed legal source of cartoon child porn may now find themselves compelled to search out illegal sources, and as such are more likely to access real-life imagery.
-
I wonder if this will lead to the destruction of several works of art. For instance, if Bougeureau's depiction of The Birth of Venus were to be displayed in this country it could be in breach of this law as it arguably depicts children in the presence of a sexual act. Whether or not it was in breach of the law would hinge on this point of the legislation "*grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character".
*It's a very dangerous area to allow for artistic judgements to be required by legislation. It automatically leads to an inequity where one jury may convict and another may not. The thing is, if you really wanted to, you could find twelve people, eligible for jury duty, so puritanical of mind as to consider many of the classicists to be *grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character. *Now consider whether those glossy tomes at home reproducing art of some of the masters is going to get you written up as a sex offender just because of bad luck? It's an extreme example but that is what shows it to be bad luck.
On the otherhand, comic geeks now have a good excuse to spend the next couple of days reading their entire back catalogue, just to make sure that there is nothing illegal in it.
-
I have my electromagnets hooked up in case they decide to make Beastiality illegal, ha!
..oh wait %Gbjsid8*k,eed545Mkdkk$2kgo(8nxc=+'634abjkiosdyfvl^$£FGVKJ.kjhHIoiH&%^ggguj%^()00 20837=df-0-=9n jhh ghF£%^$YTG j jklhh yedfwyiui32362-UYY3445hhhuksjhcv789';273+//--+62vcetdgb626s27erb875*(&umiugb6%$4vblkopp'pio,m+sweaxcvbuyTBYVR%4£FVb56mvVCV54%^"Z£$zxsjhmnklmilOUIMP*0-m,,poupUI):"%$Ib67vb^%v^&35x$%3sduy6569ojh978n7)()(8n£"CV$bn7JJ&h54VBBNkkmnhkjyn&$"xC45^bbn98,m9,>0>M890mn&^nbbc$r53543cx^&vvb8&5n6M<)
-
I have my electromagnets hooked up in case they decide to make Beastiality illegal, ha!
..oh wait %Gbjsid8*k,eed545Mkdkk$2kgo(8nxc=+'634abjkiosdyfvl^$£FGVKJ.kjhHIoiH&%^ggguj%^()00 20837=df-0-=9n jhh ghF£%^$YTG j jklhh yedfwyiui32362-UYY3445hhhuksjhcv789';273+//--+62vcetdgb626s27erb875*(&umiugb6%$4vblkopp'pio,m+sweaxcvbuyTBYVR%4£FVb56mvVCV54%^"Z£$zxsjhmnklmilOUIMP*0-m,,poupUI):"%$Ib67vb^%v^&35x$%3sduy6569ojh978n7)()(8n£"CV$bn7JJ&h54VBBNkkmnhkjyn&$"xC45^bbn98,m9,>0>M890mn&^nbbc$r53543cx^&vvb8&5n6M<)
Hah!
-
It's now illegal to own cartoon child porn.
Owning cartoon adult porn remains legal, though extremely sad.oh....
recovers futurama porn files from recycle bin -
So does that make listening to Bjork's venus as a boy make me a nonce?
-
the Queen singing "La Cucuracha" and bumming a donkey with a strap-on. Which is, coincidentally, completely arousing.
reported
-
How old is Leela?
-
I wonder what this will mean for Alan Moore's Lost Girls. Gotta be the filthiest comic out there. maybe they'll all be destroyed and become collectors items.
-
As usual Lynx's interpretation of something fairly simple and obvious, has been wrong.
It must be that he does this on purpose. There's no way that he can be so clearly off track so much of the time.
Lynx, since you have referred to a legal matter, please check the differences in sexual crimes perpetrated against adults, ie. rape, and also perpetrated against children...as regards punishments meted out by the courts. That is where you would find the link (lynk?) that should have made you differentiate cartoon porn, from cartoon porn involving children.
I try hard to believe that you simply plan to wind people up, by pretending to be incredibly stupid. I'm beginning to think that you may instead have an extremely high I.Q., to pull off such an impressive subterfuge.
-
Who the fuck cares that it's distasteful, or unhealthy, or weird, or sick. Who is the arbiter of what constitutes those, and who thinks that the state has any business legislating on matters of personal choice?
spot on. Noone is being harmed by these pictures, there is an argument that it may make people go on to harm people, but there is also an argument that it will make people seek out pictures of real abuse. Who are you to censore art/free expression because it doens't adhere to your rigid set of morals
NeilFairbrother
bq
Bearlegged
mikec
The_Seldom_Killer
kboy
hael
deleted
nicpas
mmccarthy
Smallfurry
|³|MA3K
Multi_Grooves
TW85
fandangoenty
GA2G
wooodrow
ocdc
-
Post a reply
About
Heads up its now illegal to own cartoon porn
Posted by
@lynx
Cartoon Law goes live
Time to burn your Japanese comics
By John Ozimek • Get more from this author
Posted in Law, 6th April 2010 08:52 GMT
Free whitepaper – Taking control of your data demons: Dealing with unstructured content
If you happen to possess any cartoon images on your hard drive – or on your bookshelf – that just might depict children involved in or present at a sexual act, then you should probably have deleted them already.
Today – April 6 2010 – is the day on which various sections of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 come into effect, including those (sections 62 to 68) that specifically criminalise possession of "a prohibited image of a child". The purpose of this offence is to "close a loophole" and to target certain non-photographic images of children, possession of which is not covered by existing legislation.
Henceforth, you will be committing an offence if you possess non-real, non-photographic images that are pornographic, "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and focus on a child’s genitals or anal region, or portray a range of sexual acts "with or in the presence of a child".
Hitherto, the state of play in the UK - courtesy of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (pdf) - was that possession, creation or distribution of an indecent image of a child was a criminal offence. Legislation and precedent extended the law to cover "pseudo-photographs of children": that is, images that were created by means of the manipulation of real, non-indecent images of children and adults, to create an end result that a jury deemed indecent.
Finally, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the age limit for such imagery to 18 – thereby creating the novel legal concept that an act that might legally be viewed in real life became criminal as soon as it was committed to film (or pixels).
The rationale behind the original law was that every indecent image of a child was also an image documenting the abuse of a child. The extension of such a law to "pseudo-photographs" strained at that principle, although in cases where a real identifiable individual was featured, the logic – of protecting that individual from the traumatic effects of discovering or being aware of the existence of such imagery – remained intact.
Debate on the new law made clear that two additional principles were being called into being. The first – for which evidence is contradictory – is that there is a natural progression in the expression of paedophilia, with individuals moving from fantasy to acting out of the fantasy. In such cases, images are considered to encourage such a progression.
The second motivation is more controversial and appears to stem from a knee-jerk "if paedophiles enjoy it, it must be bad". Thus, in the original consultation, one police force declared its upset at being unable to do anything in respect of an individual who possessed nothing other than indecent cartoon imagery, and being required by law to return the material it had confiscated.
Otherwise, the thinking behind this legislation appears typified by Labour MP George Howarth who, during the committee stage of the Bill, famously observed, of a drawing scrawled on a piece of paper: "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."
Critics have objected to this legislation on two grounds. The first, that if there is now a criminal penalty in respect of possessing cartoon imagery, this may have the unintended consequence of lessening barriers to the possession of real imagery. There is also some concern that whether a cartoon falls into this category or not will depend on whether a jury decides the age of a cartoon image was over or under 18.
Also, within the small print of the law, is the issue of when a sexual act may be deemed to take place "in the presence of a child". Same frame? Same room? Same cartoon, but different page?
The Ministry of Justice has declined to answer - although a court’s interpretation of that wording may at some future time determine whether an individual goes to prison, or walks free. ®
From this link - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/06/cartoon_law_live/
We've all seen pictures of Lisa simpson and other simpsons.