Cartoon Law goes live

"in the presence of a child"

What if the cartoon shows a legal sexual act, but it's drawn in the presence of a child?

Films that are now illegal?

Does this mean that my DVD of Kill Bill, with it's cartoon explanation of how a child Oren-Ishi kills the Yakuza boss, is now illegal?

Law is the starting point

I work in this area as an expert witness in criminal cases, mostly involving child pornography.

I technically work for the courts, but my role is to ensure that all the facts in a prosecution are raised with a jury - as distinct to what is presented by the Police.

With very few exceptions (*) it is up to the jury to determine if particular material is pornographic or not. It is not a matter of law, it is matter for the jury. The law is an aid but the final decision is made by the jury - they are the finders of fact.

This new law may make constraints on juries, but in the end they represent community values. It is quite possible they will determine the law is not appropriate and acquit.

It is moot whether the legal decision to criminalise cartoon material is significant. What matters is whether the juries convict or not.

I expect there will be some convictions, but the pattern of conviction will show where community values lie and will certainly restrict the type and severity of cases prosecuted.

I'm betting there will be a new standard developed which rates child manga in a range of super-mild to hard-core and the result will be a de-facto classification scheme.

(*) - I have been involved in one case where the prosecution failed because the film ratings authority deemed the material G rated entertainment rather than criminal child abuse.

IWF Not Blocking!

It appears that the IWF are not adding non-photographic "prohibited images" to their block list. Instead, they're only taking reports of such images hosted in the UK, and treating them in a similar way to extreme porn.

See item 7 (b) of their board meeting minutes from 29th September 2009: http://www.iwf.org.uk/corporate/page.215.617.htm:-

"(b) Non-photographic images (“NPI”)

The Funding Council has agreed to the inclusion of prohibited non-photographic images of children within the IWF’s remit, with its inclusion being subject to the same conditions which applied to extreme pornography. The Funding Council requested that the response to the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”)should make it clear that the material would not be suitable for inclusion on the ‘block list’. The Board agreed that the response should include an option for the IWF to withdraw from including NPI within its remit if the conditions for its inclusion were not met and that MOJ attention should be given to the PR implications of the legislation.

Action 10: A letter to be sent to the MOJ from the Chair reporting the industry and the IWF’s willingness, subject to certain conditions being met, to include prohibited non-photographic images of children hosted in the UK within its remit."

See also the IWF report page, which now includes an item for "Non-photographic child sexual abuse images hosted in the UK": http://www.iwf.org.uk/reporting.htm.

This means we can't rely on the IWF to shield us from "prohibited images" (or extreme porn) hosted outside the UK (that's most of the world).

what next?

you'll be asked to close your eyes in Toys 'R' Us when passing the pole-dancing kits

tin foil hats at the ready for when the though crime detector vans appear

Robert Crumb is doomed

So, possession of the famous (OK and grossly tastless but funny) "Family that lays together stays together" cartoon will be very illegal indeed. Burn your comics now folks...

Time to store gunsmith cats in the attic

Well, this means my copy of Gunsmiths cats has to move to a hiding spot in the attic until my children turn 18, right?

Head - meet desk

That is all.

All points have been covered numerous times on this on this forum and many others so rather than preach to the wise I'm simply going to go stand in the corner and smack my head against a wall, it's probably more productive, unlike the government.

(oh and as for that argument, lessen the barrier to real stuff, IE, if it's just as illegal to posses a 100% fictional cartoon then people may as well get the real stuff, I imagine (haven't studied this at all), that most hentai nuts actually have little to no interest in real stuff, given the mass market for the stuff in Japan but very low child abuse/rape stats you'd assume that's the case.

Hold on, I can keep it if...

...the cartoonist supplies a certificate that shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that the characters they've drawn are intended to be seen as over the age of 18, right?

Daft point - but you get the idea: how can you tell a cartoon character is under 18? In some cases, it would be clear to all - Maggie in The Simpsons for example is clearly under 18 - but I'm sure lawyers will make a tidy game out of proving that the pr0n I choose to watch contains pencil sketches of 18 year-olds.

Abject fail for the obvious reasons. <sigh> at least we know when we get to vote the damn government out now.

Spend the money on offender detection

Not on political-masturbation!

you ain't seen nothing yet.

Just you wait

Next step.

It is illegal to take holidays snaps, when having a holiday with family and kids on the beach.

What-do-you-mean that's already the case ?

Next step

Prohibit the use of photographic equipment, except for spying on the public, by the government as it is possible some one gets turned on by pictures of clothed children, that just might be in the photo.

Next step.

All adults without children are required to wear a blindfold in public, because it is possible they *might* become sexually aroused by the sight of a child.

The step afterwards.

All parents are automatically thrown into jail, for pedofilia, as they have seen their children nude, and seen and touched their privates (how do you wipe a bottom without touching ?), therefore they all face lifetime sentences for child abuse. Quite a few parents are already scared of touching their kids.

The step afterwards,

Any child that comes of age is automatically thrown in jail, as they are bound to break a law at some stage in their lives, we might as well lock them up immediately.

geez, it's a ruddy sick world we live in.

if I draw 2 stick figures having sex, and I accidentally draw one smaller than the other - is that child porn ?

The ruddy problem is that it's entirely up to the viewers interpretation if it is a child or not, and also - it's a ruddy drawing!!!! There is no victim nor crime, except in some legislators sick mind.

Now they're talking about putting a minimum bust size on models, to avoid child pornography, lol my girlfriends sister, who is 32 had no bust, until she got her augmentation, lol that would by some legislation, that they're looking at in Australia, classify any pictures taken of her nude - as child porn.

My girlfriend, who is 35 this year, is often mistaken as a minor, she does have a very youthful face, and has often been mistaken as my daughter, I'm 39. Lol, I guess it won't be long before I'll go to jail, because my girlfriend looks young, and it's a crime to be intimate with someone who looks young.

Sigh, Yes we must protect children, but these laws are NOT protecting children, they're just criminalising people, and creating tought crimes - just like George Orwell warned in his famous novels!

Lost Girls

I guess Alan Moor's 'Lost Girls' will be being burned in the street then.

Do any commenters have anything good to say about this law, anyone? Anyone at all?

Stupid beyond belief

There is reasonable argument and evidence that people are born with attractions to children. Read the account of the ambulance man called to a child that wanted to kill himself. The child had the urge to rape and kill small boys but knew it was wrong, so wanted to commit suicide. It is all there in, "Blood, Swwat and Tea."

Those like that teenage boy who have gone in to adulthood are going to be too scared to seek help and are likely relying on cartoons will now have nothing to fall back on ... like a tiger backed in to a corner, actual offending might be the only outlet they have left. That or suicide.

There is a strong possibility that this law has put more children in very real danger ... but the Ministry of Justice head, Mrs Eagle, has refused to answer my letters for more than a year, even when sent va my MP. Now, I may be wrong but I believe that the MoJ have to, by law, reply to every letter received. That tells me they know exactly what can of worms they have opened and would rather break the law and not reply to letters, rather than admit that this law is a very, very bad screw up.