At Vote: Prohibit child pornography

Resolution:

Prohibit child pornography

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Reefi

Description: REALISING that in an interconnected World, pornography will circulate.

UNFORTUNATELY some of this pornography will contain children who are being forced to partake.

ARGUING that a child does not have the capability to determine whether or not to partake.

PROPOSING to outlaw child pornography, under international law (which would not breach Section 1, Resolution 2)

A CHILD, for purposes of this Resolution, is DEFINED as a person under the age of 18.

Article 1: It will be in defiance of international law to possess, or have voluntarily viewed, child pornography. This offense shall be known as POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Article 2: It will be in defiance of international law to knowingly permit the circulation of child pornography, unless for law enforcement purposes in which case the circulation should stop as soon as possible. This offense will be known as CONSPIRACY TO SUPPLY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Article 3: Selling or providing child pornography shall be an additional offense under international law, in addition to possession as defined in Article 1. This offense will be known as SUPPLYING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Article 4: Child pornography is defined as any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, computer generated images, or videos) of children whom are naked or involved in sexual acts or in sexual positions. This includes computer generated images or cartoons.

Article 5: Exceptions may be made, at the discretion of an international court. Possible exceptions include when photographs have been taken exclusively for medical or scientific purposes.

Article 6: If any parties are outside the World Assembly's jurisdiction, an extradition may be requested by an international court or by a member state's law enforcement.

Article 7: National law enforcement agencies will have the responsibility to find any offenders and to transfer them into international custody, if it is decided they will be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

Darkesia:

***********************************
Hello Zemnaya Svoboda,

Please grant me a few moments of your time to review my post below and the reasons I believe this well intentioned but poorly executed proposal should be rejected by WA members.

Thank you for your time,

Darkesia



I believe most of the WA delegates who are involved in actively debating the WA proposals are speaking out against this current proposal.

I urge every member of the WA to vote against the current proposal.

Here's why:

1) The proposal defines "children" as unable to give consent and places their age at 18. This means that internal national laws concerning the age of consent and the age of majority are being interfered with by the WA directly.

2) The proposal defines "child pornography" any pictures (regardless of whether they are paintings, photographs, computer generated images, or videos) of children whom are naked *or* involved in sexual acts *or* in sexual positions. This includes computer generated images or cartoons.

This would outlaw family photos of your infant's first bath and the snap shots of "you" and your high school friends "mugging" for the camera while fully clothed.

3) The proposal clearly puts the enforcement and trial of such offenses into the hands of an international court that has extraditions rights across the board.

This is not only unenforceable, but takes internal law enforcement out of the hands of nations and puts it into the hands of some un-named and unfunded international WA court.

I personally applaud efforts to remove child pornography from the world. However, this proposal does more to remove and rewrite national laws making them ineffective.

Again, I urge everyone to vote no in the WA.

Click to expand...

Great Bights Mum:

Against, for the reasons Dark gave. This must have been drafted by someone who has never had a toddler in the house. Otherwise they would know that after bathtime comes "running around naked time."

Click to expand...

Eluvataran Isles:

I would like to congratulate Darkesia on defeating this current Resolution.

I think it appropriate to credit Darkesia with this, personally, given the following statistics:

I. The measure is being defeated by, as of the time I made these calculations, 4798 to 3832.
II. 76.2% of the votes against this resolution were put there by Delegates, 3658 out of the 4798.
III. That is caused by Darkesia having asked many Delegates to vote against it; I know that the well-crafted message she sent me (Zemnaya Svoboda) had an influence on our forum vote even though you guys declared war on us just a few days ago.

To make it clear just how spectacularly I believe that paid off, only 25.4% of the Delegate votes (1248 vs 3658) were cast in favor of the resolution.

Perhaps more interesting is that this is with 51.9% of Delegates voting FOR it. The average weight of Delegates' votes for was 16.63- - against was 5.27- - The high endorsement Delegates voted AGAINST.

With Darkesia's argumentation, all five pacific delegates (including myself as Zemnaya Svoboda) as well as many other high-endorsement Delegates such as Mikeswill and Dalimbar voted against- - the overwhelming power of the high-endorsement Delegate votes stopping this resolution is the result.

Darkesia, you killed this resolution. Congratulations.

---

Correction:

I should have said that the average weight of Delegates' votes for was 5.27- - against was 16.63- - the high endorsement Delegates voted AGAINST.

Click to expand...

Darkesia:

I am glad that most of NS could come together in this one thing.


However, all this togetherness chafes. Let's get back to burning crops and one another in effigy. mmmkay?

Click to expand...