http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-laws-on-drawn-pornography/idea-view
Posting this for anyone interested. Registration might be deactivated due to high usage.

Haha UK fails.

Fox2K9 said:
Haha UK fails.

Your country is next.

donkeytissue said:
Your country is next.

and nothing of value would be lost

They aren't going to know unless you're sitting on the steps of the police station, looking at lolicon on your laptop. Man, I knew that Australia was a backwards country, but I didn't know the UK would start retardifying as well. Next thing you know, they'll start WW3, we'll bomb the Westminster clock tower, and they'll lose.

donkeytissue said:
Your country is next.

Nope.

over underage pornography? not only would that be backwards and stupid, it would also be desperate

jebus said:
backwards and stupid

Exactly.

THEY CAME FIRST after the small-breasted porn,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an Australian.

THEN THEY CAME after the lolicon,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pedo.

THEN THEY CAME after the bestiality,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a zoophile.

THEN THEY CAME after the furries,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

donkeytissue said:
THEY CAME FIRST after the small-breasted porn,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an Australian.

THEN THEY CAME after the lolicon,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pedo.

THEN THEY CAME after the bestiality,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a zoophile.

THEN THEY CAME after the furries,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Nobody CAAAAARRRREEESSS!

donkeytissue said:
THEY CAME FIRST after the small-breasted porn,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an Australian.

THEN THEY CAME after the lolicon,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pedo.

THEN THEY CAME after the bestiality,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a zoophile.

THEN THEY CAME after the furries,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

there's an error in those trends though, 3 out of the 4 are disgusting and since when are small breasts illegal?

jebus said:
since when are small breasts illegal?

In Queensland (one of the eight provinces) Austailia possession of pornography of people with attributes that could be seen as those resembling a minor can be prosecuted. This law has never actually being used to convict anyone though. It's main purpose was to stop business of websites aimed at pedophiles and providing legal source of child <like> porn. It has being adopted by the ACMA therefore making enforceable Australia wide.

This being redundant because hardcore pornography cannot be legally sold [commercially] over here due to the Office of Film and Literature Classification not having a X rating. This means porn films do not get rated and therefore cannot be sold... yet there are laws that clearly put out pornography guidelines.

In regards to furry porn... it isn't illegal [excluding cub] unless you are asked by the certain government agencies to destroy it (based entirely on their interpretation of offensive). You cannot be prosecuted if you comply... immediately.

Damn. And we were laughing at China...

erica_wolf said:
In Queensland (one of the eight provinces) Austailia possession of pornography of people with attributes that could be seen as those resembling a minor can be prosecuted. This law has never actually being used to convict anyone though. It's main purpose was to stop business of websites aimed at pedophiles and providing legal source of child <like> porn. It has being adopted by the ACMA therefore making enforceable Australia wide.

This being redundant because hardcore pornography cannot be legally sold [commercially] over here due to the Office of Film and Literature Classification not having a X rating. This means porn films do not get rated and therefore cannot be sold... yet there are laws that clearly put out pornography guidelines.

In regards to furry porn... it isn't illegal [excluding cub] unless you are asked by the certain government agencies to destroy it (based entirely on their interpretation of offensive). You cannot be prosecuted if you comply... immediately.

lol, and here i thought the worst things of australia were those spiders that ate birds and terrible ping. i would say nothing of value is lost because it's only kid porn, but no porn at all? how are you supposed to fap?

jebus said:
lol, and here i thought the worst things of australia were those spiders that ate birds and terrible ping. i would say nothing of value is lost because it's only kid porn, but no porn at all? how are you supposed to fap?

Being a fag to other members is a bad thing to do jackus.

Whats next? Drawing a picture of a weapon is illegal? "OHNOES! you haz a weapon!"

RaiKitsune said:
Whats next? Drawing a picture of a weapon is illegal? "OHNOES! you haz a weapon!"

Y'know, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that did happen, considering the level of douchbaggery that national governments are stepping up to lately.

Posted by nsmith July 01, 2010 at 12:32PM
This was brought in because paedophiles were converting photographs of real life child sexual abuse into painting and drawing styles which rendered the images outside all current laws.
There is no reason why anyone needs to be allowed to hold drawings of horrific child abuse.

i disagree with this post. the purpose of art is to provoke emotion. what if an artist was making a statement against priests molesting little boys? he might drawn such a scene, to show how horrible it is. this provokes anger, and disgust.

just something to think about.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/06/tiger_police/
Related.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the connection between paedos and furries.

RiddlessSphinx said:
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the connection between paedos and furries.

Where have you meet a person that only likes one thing?

Fox2K9 said:
Where have you meet a person that only likes one thing?

Uh... what? There's an implication there that seems insulting. It might be related if we're just talking about what we think are silly attempts to apply badly-worded porn laws, badly worded because porn and its fetishes are taboo in most societies and politicians don't want to be seen as supporting amoral behavior. It's not related just because you think furries are all pedophiles.

i think he means, some furry art depicts "underage" characters in sexual situations. not to say all furries are pedophiles.

nme22 said:
i think he means, some furry art depicts "underage" characters in sexual situations. not to say all furries are pedophiles.

that doesnt mean they don't exist

on a side note, the reason i beleive this is going to effect, yea, it may be gross, but that's not why it's being outlawed. it feeds pedophile mindsets, and while some may argue that it keeps them down, others can argue that it only makes the person want to rape a kid more

ikdind said:
Uh... what? There's an implication there that seems insulting. It might be related if we're just talking about what we think are silly attempts to apply badly-worded porn laws, badly worded because porn and its fetishes are taboo in most societies and politicians don't want to be seen as supporting amoral behavior. It's not related just because you think furries are all pedophiles.

What O_o
Ok... What I actually meant, is that there are people that like furry porn and hentai...

Fox2K9 said:
What O_o
Ok... What I actually meant, is that there are people that like furry porn and hentai...

Dangit, now I see. >.< Sorry.

I need to stop catching up on the forums first thing in the morning. I read a post, and forget what it says two posts later.

jebus said:
that doesnt mean they don't exist

on a side note, the reason i beleive this is going to effect, yea, it may be gross, but that's not why it's being outlawed. it feeds pedophile mindsets, and while some may argue that it keeps them down, others can argue that it only makes the person want to rape a kid more

Replace this with violent movies and games making people want to murder others more and I wonder if you'll still think the same way.

Hat said:
Replace this with violent movies and games making people want to murder others more and I wonder if you'll still think the same way.

funny you should mention that, i have actually done some research on reports and studies for several of my college presentations, my end verdict is still the same, violence in video games still has no positive nor negative correlation, because in all the incidents where they can be brought under scrutiny the home environment, which is a stronger influence, is a terrible one.

jebus said:
funny you should mention that, i have actually done some research on reports and studies for several of my college presentations, my end verdict is still the same, violence in video games still has no positive nor negative correlation, because in all the incidents where they can be brought under scrutiny the home environment, which is a stronger influence, is a terrible one.

... So if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, you think that that's not an accurate comparison because there were other, stronger influences involved in the childhoods of people who go on to commit murder?

... Does it somehow not occur to you that the same would be so for those who go on to commit rape?

acct0283476 said:
... So if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, you think that that's not an accurate comparison because there were other, stronger influences involved in the childhoods of people who go on to commit murder?

... Does it somehow not occur to you that the same would be so for those who go on to commit rape?

i see your point, and it's loosely related, but here we have one that sates its sexual urge, while the other is for sheer entertainment. One can be released in several different ways, while one can become an obsession, i'll let you figure it out.

jebus said:
... but here we have one that sates its sexual urge, while the other is for sheer entertainment. One can be released in several different ways, while one can become an obsession...

Are you suggesting rape is committed for sexual gratification? You might want to, y'know, do some research into psychological studies and the like. Last I was aware it was consensus among psychologists that (with a rare few exceptions) rape was done as an exercise of power, and not for sexual gratification.

Also, you're either typing things in a horribly ambiguous way, or you're suggesting that pornography and sex are not entertainment, and that one cannot become obsessed with violent movies or games.

Lastly, what you are saying suggests that you believe either that
<b>A)</b> pornography should be outlawed, because pornography leads to sexual obsession, which leads to rape, or
<b>B)</b> pedophiles are inherently prone to rape, and should be made as close to asexual as possible to protect others.

If A, then you're a massive hypocrite. If B, then it isn't an unreasonable conclusion that pedophiles should be cataloged and either incarcerated, institutionalized, or given forced treatment (psychological or chemical) to prevent them from raping people.

Go ahead and tell me why it's really C and I'm trying to twist your words.

Unless you're a pedo or a rapist, you've not nothing to worry about.
But you're going to keep being a logicfag, you're going to continue crying, you’re sitting in the back, and you’re not having a migraine, and you’re gonna shut your face.

RiddlessSphinx said:
Unless you're a pedo or a rapist, you've not nothing to worry about.
But you're going to keep being a logicfag, you're going to continue crying, you’re sitting in the back, and you’re not having a migraine, and you’re gonna shut your face.

thank you mister 2 day old account, why don't you go sit in that corner over there

acct0283476 said:
Are you suggesting rape is committed for sexual gratification? You might want to, y'know, do some research into psychological studies and the like. Last I was aware it was consensus among psychologists that (with a rare few exceptions) rape was done as an exercise of power, and not for sexual gratification.

Also, you're either typing things in a horribly ambiguous way, or you're suggesting that pornography and sex are not entertainment, and that one cannot become obsessed with violent movies or games.

Lastly, what you are saying suggests that you believe either that
<b>A)</b> pornography should be outlawed, because pornography leads to sexual obsession, which leads to rape, or
<b>B)</b> pedophiles are inherently prone to rape, and should be made as close to asexual as possible to protect others.

If A, then you're a massive hypocrite. If B, then it isn't an unreasonable conclusion that pedophiles should be cataloged and either incarcerated, institutionalized, or given forced treatment (psychological or chemical) to prevent them from raping people.

Go ahead and tell me why it's really C and I'm trying to twist your words.

actually, i never claimed i had done any research on sexual predators, nor do i pretend to. that's why i said it was MY BELIEF, not what i had seen through research. what little research i HAVE seen on the subject of pedophilia and rape is that said criminals have a pre-disposition to it, and lolicon and such don't help counter nurture it.

jebus said:
what little research i HAVE seen on the subject of pedophilia and rape is that said criminals have a pre-disposition to it, and lolicon and such don't help counter nurture it.

So, B. Considering that (in most cases excepting treason) the government doesn't normally intervene <i>until</i> actual harm or injustice to others occurs, I have to ask why exactly they should <i>beforehand</i> on this? Especially in comparison to other cases like murderers, and considering that it's in a manner that affects a larger group than the individuals who would commit said crime?

jebus said:
thank you mister 2 day old account, why don't you go sit in that corner over there

I've been here much longer than that. I'm everywhere. ;) Also, nice ban for trolling you've got there. "Stop being an asshole to everyone; first warning" by tony311. Where I'm going with this; failed troll has failed.

acct0283476 said:
Considering that (in most cases excepting treason) the government doesn't normally intervene until actual harm or injustice to others occurs, I have to ask why exactly they should beforehand on this? Especially in comparison to other cases like murderers, and considering that it's in a manner that affects a larger group than the individuals who would commit said crime?

Except that if the post that nme22 pasted is correct and the law was brought about in response to pedophiles converting real images into drawn art, then the government isn't intervening before the fact. A real crime has been committed involving the sexual abuse of a child.

That said, I don't know whether it's a bad law or not. It's very possibly a bad law because nobody in politics wants to think too hard about it, especially in view of the public, but everyone wants to protect the children who become victims of this abuse.

Personally, I don't want to think too hard about it, either, because I'm not sympathetic to the cause of loli porn fans.

RiddlessSphinx said:
I've been here much longer than that. I'm everywhere. ;)

Why do you keep coming back after having been banned a dozen times Nemaste?

Marbles said:
Why do you keep coming back after having been banned a dozen times Nemaste?

Actually I'm not 'Nemaste'.

RiddlessSphinx said:
I've been here much longer than that. I'm everywhere. ;) Also, nice ban for trolling you've got there. "Stop being an asshole to everyone; first warning" by tony311. Where I'm going with this; failed troll has failed.

fine niko_bellic. also, a warning is not a ban, i think the only fail troll here is you.

ikdind said:
Except that if the post that nme22 pasted is correct and the law was brought about in response to pedophiles converting real images into drawn art, then the government isn't intervening before the fact. A real crime has been committed involving the sexual abuse of a child.

That said, I don't know whether it's a bad law or not. It's very possibly a bad law because nobody in politics wants to think too hard about it, especially in view of the public, but everyone wants to protect the children who become victims of this abuse.

Personally, I don't want to think too hard about it, either, because I'm not sympathetic to the cause of loli porn fans.

i have yo agre with you there, i'm not very sympathetic to the cause of underage pornography, whether it be real or drawn. I guess it's my no bullshit personality. it's just porn, get over it.of course, before someone says FURRY IS NEXT just let me say take off your tinfoil hat, loli has some link to illegality, while furry does not.

jebus said:
fine niko_bellic.

Wrong once more!

RiddlessSphinx said:
Wrong once more!

not to worry, pretty soon you'll be " the guy who used t obe riddlessphinx"

ikdind said:
Except that if the post that nme22 pasted is correct and the law was brought about in response to pedophiles converting real images into drawn art, then the government isn't intervening before the fact. A real crime has been committed involving the sexual abuse of a child.

Thing is, there was ALREADY a law about images converted from real photographs. This law merely criminalizes drawings pulled straight from imagination, as anything from reality was already illegal. Further, even if there weren't a law about photo-conversion type 'drawings', the creations of the original photographs and such was, again, ALREADY ILLEGAL -- as you said yourself idkind, "A real crime has been committed involving the sexual abuse of a child", and it doesn't suddenly become legal because someone drew a picture of it. It's like saying snuff porn should be made illegal. Guess what? MURDER is already illegal, thus snuff porn is by default.

ikdind said:
That said, I don't know whether it's a bad law or not. It's very possibly a bad law because nobody in politics wants to think too hard about it, especially in view of the public, but everyone wants to protect the children who become victims of this abuse.

Personally, I don't want to think too hard about it, either, because I'm not sympathetic to the cause of loli porn fans.

jebus said:
i have yo agre with you there, i'm not very sympathetic to the cause of underage pornography, whether it be real or drawn. I guess it's my no bullshit personality. it's just porn, get over it.of course, before someone says FURRY IS NEXT just let me say take off your tinfoil hat, loli has some link to illegality, while furry does not.

This is basically the problem. You're predisposed to be against something, so you're willing to agree with things that would make other people predisposed to be against said thing or reinforce the opinion of those who already felt that way. It's a self-feeding cycle of 'well, I didn't like it anyways, and it's nothing to do with me' that prevents people from considering things logically because they just don't care. A quote, possibly mangled from an original by Gandhi or Jesus or someone, as I can't seem to locate it in the form I remember... "Judge a man not by how he treats his friends, but how he treats his enemies."

Also, 'furry has no link to illegality' is hardly something that everyone agrees on. Face it, there are quite a few people who are under the impression that your average furry is a zoophiliac, and don't care enough to find out if they're wrong. As much as it might sound like a slippery slope argument, that same negative-indifference that leads to most people not knowing the difference between a pedophile and a child rapist could theoretically lead to most people not knowing the difference between a furry and a zoophiliac (and a zoophiliac and one who actually has sex with non-human animals), with similar legislative results. It'd be rather silly if it ended up being that anyone found to possess furry porn was forced to register as a sex offender, wouldn't you say?

acct0283476 said:
A quote, possibly mangled from an original by Gandhi or Jesus or someone, as I can't seem to locate it in the form I remember... "Judge a man not by how he treats his friends, but how he treats his enemies."

“You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies.”
-Doctor Who, Remembrance of the Daleks

Is that it? It's bothering me who said that now.

ThisCatIsALandmine said:
“You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies.”
-Doctor Who, Remembrance of the Daleks

Is that it? It's bothering me who said that now.

Mm, I don't think so. The one I'm trying to find had more to do with how someone <i>treats</i> their enemies than who they are, and might've even used the word kindness in it. Plus I'm pretty sure it was from a prominent religious figure, but I could be wrong.

I <i>did</i> run across another one that was something like the Doctor Who one when I was trying to identify it, something along the lines of "Don't judge someone by their friends, but by their enemies." I can't remember who said that, either, though.

acct0283476 said:
Mm, I don't think so. The one I'm trying to find had more to do with how someone <i>treats</i> their enemies than who they are, and might've even used the word kindness in it. Plus I'm pretty sure it was from a prominent religious figure, but I could be wrong.

I <i>did</i> run across another one that was something like the Doctor Who one when I was trying to identify it, something along the lines of "Don't judge someone by their friends, but by their enemies." I can't remember who said that, either, though.

With my luck, I'll find who said it a few months from now. Thanks, though.

acct0283476 said:
Thing is, there was ALREADY a law about images converted from real photographs. This law merely criminalizes drawings pulled straight from imagination

Okay, well, the original link doesn't describe any specific new laws. If we're talking about a new law, it may be redundant. I don't know.

However, it may be difficult to prove that a particular piece was converted from a photo unless the original can be obtained. It doesn't take much planning to snap a photo, draw a copy (stylized or otherwise), and then destroy the original. Then the drawn porn very much has a victim, and it's hard to prove a crime. A blanket ban on loli porn, drawn or otherwise, may be the only remaining way to combat child sex offenders.

Which brings me back to my original point. If there is a better way to combat abusers while retaining the legality of drawn loli porn, it's not likely that politicians would have wanted to think of it since the entire subject is taboo and everyone wants to protect the children.

acct0283476 said:
It's like saying snuff porn should be made illegal. Guess what? MURDER is already illegal, thus snuff porn is by default.

Not quite. It's like saying snuff porn movies are already illegal, because they were a cottage industry driving up the rape-murder rate. Only now the murdering rapists are converting their films to animations to get around the law that could incriminate them even when the police can't find enough evidence to prosecute them for murder, so animated snuff porn should also be made illegal.

Ideally we'd nail the bastards for the murder and shoot them, hang them, zap them, poison them, or otherwise remove them from society forever. When that's hard to prove, we can at least get them for keeping the film, which is encouraging the base crime we object to, and gets them off the streets for a while. As a bonus, it may discourage others from dabbling and becoming addicted to it, and possibly become murderers, themselves.

acct0283476 said:
This is basically the problem. You're predisposed to be against something, so you're willing to agree with things

Can't really argue with that. It's how society's rules are created. Most of us object to the taking of our things without our express permission or due process of law. We call it stealing. Thus, it's a crime to steal.

As for furries, zoophiliacs, etc., all I can say is that it's not a crime everywhere in the world to go to the extreme and have sex with an animal. There are places where you can outright marry an animal as your spouse, and there are places where you'd be executed for having modestly furry porn. I count my blessings that I have the freedom to appreciate furry porn.

I can't really pass judgement on sex laws without becoming a hypocrite. I can only say that it seems that the criminals are requiring the law to be passed to combat a far more heinous crime. Child sex abuse is sufficiently heinous in my mind that I'd be willing to support a blanket law against loli porn, drawn or otherwise, especially if it's been observed that the abusers are using the drawing "hole" to support their habits of abuse.

ikdind said:
As for furries, zoophiliacs, etc., all I can say is that it's not a crime everywhere in the world to go to the extreme and have sex with an animal. There are places where you can outright marry an animal as your spouse, and there are places where you'd be executed for having modestly furry porn. I count my blessings that I have the freedom to appreciate furry porn.
\

There also many places around the world that it's not illegal to murder, rape, marry children, marry-rape-murder children, etc.

I think you're missing the point about snuff-murder. Snuff films were ruled illegal based on the murder taking place. There's a movie called "Cannibal Holocaust" that had the director in jail for "murder" just because he told the actors that were portrayed as killed in the film to stay in hiding for one year after the release of the film. He was days from a life in prison when the actors caught wind and came out to say that, no, they weren't murdered. In many countries, the movie was banned. Some, I think the UK being one of them, are heavily against a FICTIONAL MOVIE.

This is all in point to the fact that something, even if it wasn't real, is declared "wrong" and illegal, obscene, etc. by the UK. Lolicon is falling into the same category here, but in a broader aspect.