Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

kiddy porn koan

Disco is My Class War

05:04 / 02.10.01

Child-porn 'enthusiasts' have gotten smart and started photoshopping their own 'kiddy porn', using pictures of people of legal age and doctoring them so they look young.

What do people think of this? Would it still be wrong, if one never involved any actual children in the production of the representations? Or does the representation itself incite people to engage in illegal sexual activity with kids?

(Huh. Whoops... Maybe I should just admit that I'm a Laila-identified 'paedophile' right now, to save embarrassment later. *grin*)

13:17 / 02.10.01

Wasn't there something either proposed or passed in the U.S. (around 1996-97) that covered fictional child sex stating it as illegal.

I seem to remember a bunch of concern over how far it could be taken. For example the sex scene in Titanic could be taken as 'illegal' because Kate Winslet's character was 17.

I don't remember the details though so I need either support or debunking.

Maybe Grant (the Answer man!!) has some info?

The Return Of Rothkoid

13:45 / 02.10.01

U.S. Supreme Court To Examine Virtual Child Porn Law, from January 24, 2001. Click the link, as it's got a fuck-off copyright warning on it. A sample, though, is this: quote:The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider a 1996 law that bans computer-generated images of child pornography, putting the issues of virtual imagery and Internet child pornography squarely in the spotlight.

The law, which was declared unconstitutional by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco, California following a fight by adult photographers and filmmakers, expands the prohibition on child pornography to include computer-generated depictions of children having sex. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the circuit court's ruling, and will argue that the law is indeed constitutional.The article ends by stating that the case will be considered in the fall of this year - here's betting it's been pushed back?

So, it's illegal to have CGI kiddie porn. But it could be legal sometime soon.

TechTV.article on same that links the law.

[ 02-10-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ]

The Sinister Haiku Bureau

14:35 / 02.10.01

Interesting. It's illegal to have sex with fictional children... It's interesting that paedophilia is the only crime to be illegal to perpetrate against fictional entities. Do the same arguments apply against, say, distributing pictures of fictional murders or fictional traffic violations, and if not, why not? Although the reasoning behind this is at least semi-valid, it does raise interesting questions. How well rendered does the kiddy-porn have to be? If I were to draw, say, a stick figure, on computer, having sex with an underage stick figure, would that be illegal? Would Lara-Croft style rendering (of KP) be illegal? Final Fantasy style? Where are the legally defined boundaries between the legal and the just-plain-silly?

15:46 / 02.10.01

Do the same arguments apply against, say, distributing pictures of fictional murders or fictional traffic violations, and if not, why not?

They probably don't - because distributing pictures of *actual* murders or traffic violations isn't illegal.

It's an offence in Britain to have 'pseudo-pictures' (I think that's the term) of children - I would link to a story about this if I could, but I'm not putting 'pseudo-sexual pictures of children' into Google to see what comes up...

17:16 / 02.10.01

http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/governan.htm has some info about this issue in the UK

quote:The 1978 Act was passed in response to the growing problem of
child pornography. Its main purpose was to close some potential gaps in the measures available to police and prosecutors.(18)
The definition of "photograph" given in section 7(4) of
the 1978 Act was extended to include photographs in electronic
data format following the amendments made by section 84 (4) of
the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA 1994).
The CJPOA 1994 introduced the concept of
‘pseudo-photographs’ of children. Pseudo-photographs
are technically photographs, but they are created by computer
software manipulating one or more pre-existing pictures. For
example, a child’s face can be superimposed on an adult
body, or to another child’s body, with the characteristics
of the body altered to create pornographic computer generated
images without the involvement of a real child. It is now an
offence "for a person to take, or permit to be taken or to
make, any indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child;
(or) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs" under section 1 of the 1978 Act.
The UK police believe that the creators or possessors of
pseudo-photographs will end up abusing children, so the purpose
of the new legislation may be seen as to criminalise acts
preparatory to abuse,(19)
and also to close possible future loopholes in the prosecution of
such cases, as it may be very difficult to separate a
pseudo-photograph from a real photograph.(20)

17:27 / 02.10.01

Oh Laila, where art thou?

17:34 / 02.10.01

You have to turn off all the lights and say her name in the mirror five times for her to appear.

18:07 / 02.10.01

Isn't that Bloody Mary?

Wasn't Bloody Mary a pedophile? She always appeared in the mirrors of little children. What was she doing in their mirrors, that pedophilian fuck?

Or maybe that was The Candy Man. (yet another pedophilian fuck)

The Return Of Rothkoid

19:20 / 02.10.01

Yeah. You can't trust anyone who "mixes it with love" in order to facilitate his plan of making "the world taste good".

06:12 / 03.10.01

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but what about the movie Pretty Baby with Brooke Shields? How did they get away with it? Brooke Shields age 12 (I think) full frontal nudity, it was made some time ago maybe the law was different back in the old days ...?

The Return Of Rothkoid

08:07 / 03.10.01

Must've been a law change: I think I recall some trouble a couple of years back with the film Apt Pupil whereby one boy's mother brought charges against the production because of treatment in a nude shower scene? Apparently, nude filming is permissible with parental permission, if the actor's underage; presumably the context is what determines the legality of it, too.

Dallas Observer article..

Was the Shields nudity sexual or not, in Pretty Baby? I guess that'd determine if it was illegal or not, yes? Then again, Hollywood got away with a twelve-year-old masturbating with a crucifix in The Exorcist in the '70s, so I guess the law used to be a lot more flexible than it is now.

08:15 / 03.10.01

Sexual, well not on screen but she's a prositute in the movie so there's obvliously the impression, i think i heard someone where that nudity is not illegal if the minor doesn't touch anything sexual, something like that.. there was a big fuss in the tabloids a few months back here in the uk about a new art exibition with naked photos of children taken by there mother.. the whole thing seems very complicated..