4 ms·

Never mind adults pretending to be children. In some jurisdictions, child pornography includes cartoons. In one case, Simpsons fanfic.

astura 9y ago
But TFA says otherwise >In Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court struck down a law that banned sexually explicit depictions of minors, as well as depictions that appeared to be minors. These included computer generated images and depictions of legal adults pretending to be minors. The Court recognized that the First Amendment “does not embrace certain categories of speech, including … pornography produced with real children.” However, the Court found the prohibition of images that appear to be, but are not actually, minors improper; any harm stemming from those false images “does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts." Unless I'm reading it wrong.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  There are stories from other countries but not in the US since that referenced Supreme Court case afaik.
- etplayer 9y ago
  It was stricken down at the federal level. I believe that laws still exist against it at the state level. Their validity, to my knowledge, has not been questioned as of yet. However there are such laws which remain, and in fact have been recently introduced, in Canada, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and various European countries. What's perhaps even more concerning is that even stories are illegal in Canada. The mere possession of the material, i.e a drawing that you made yourself is illegal in England. Publishing a story or even sexual roleplaying with another adult over the Internet might find you sentenced under the Obscene Publications Act. It's hideous in my view and such laws deserve to be stricken down with ferocity.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    It would be more persuasive if you linked to the laws. Some of what you're saying about England doesn't sound right.
    - etplayer 9y ago
      As for drawings, the CAJA 2009 section 62 onwards deals with it.[0] As for publishing text online, there was a case of a man who wrote stories and was convicted I believe under the Obscene Publications Act, though the BBC article just says "six counts of indecent publications"[1] I'm sure I've replied to you about this before, actually, not long ago. (Edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904716) I'm not sure why my comment here is downvoted, though. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/62 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/62 [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-38146988 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-38146988
      - DanBC 9y ago
        I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that. Your bbc example is telling: he's an admitted paedophile, who was offending against children. The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law. > He admitted at Preston Crown Court to storing hundreds of child abuse images and posting on a paedophile website.
        etplayer 9y ago
        >I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that. Wrong about what, exactly? Images of children in sexual situations, or rather, as is described in the act, is illegal even to possess. Unless you know something about the act that I don't, or I've completely misread it - in which case I'm very open to corrections - I'm an optimist that the law isn't as hideous as I am reading it out to be. >The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law. I was talking about that section of CAJA, I know that OPA is old, but the "lolicon law" is only from 2009. >he's an admitted paedophile So what? That's completely irrelevant to any point that's being made. The fact is that he was imprisoned for spreading stories, fiction, and it was through UK law enacted by parliament that this happened.
retrogradeorbit 9y ago
Yes. Australia is one such jurisdiction. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-08/fake-simpsons-cartoon-is-child-porn-judge-rules/233562 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-08/fake-simpsons-cartoon-...
- etplayer 9y ago
  From the article: >Justice Adams said the legislation's main purpose was to combat the direct sexual exploitation and abuse of children that occurs where offensive images of real children are made. If he believes this, then why is he legislating that virtual pornography, in fact even hand drawn, of the Simpsons which bear such little resemblance to real people, never mind actually existing people, is against the law? >But, he said, it was also calculated to deter production of other material, including cartoons, which "can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children". Was it really? And if so, does he, or the authors of the legislation, have evidence to back up this claim? This seems to be totally unsubstantiated nonsense this judge is saying. And what of fueled demand? The fact that a drawing or story might make someone else do an action is, in my view (and I hope others can agree) not reasonable grounds for illegalising possession or production of that drawing. Unfortunately bone-headed cases and legislation like this have graced the rest of the Commonwealth and various European countries.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    Would someone mind explaining why my comment was downvoted, and how I can improve my comments in future please?
quuquuquu 9y ago
Hey, thanks for writing! Love tarsnap and scrypt :) Just utterly amazing. Hentai is now child porn. How many hentai pictures are stored on Tarsnap??! Those images might be stored on US servers. Time for you to grant a "backdoor" to the government. If I was in your position, I would be genuinely confused when trying to juggle all of these regulatory threat matrices :( :(
- cperciva 9y ago
  Fortunately I don't have to juggle anything here: Tarsnap's encryption makes it impossible for me to detect, never mind prevent people from storing "illegal bits".
  - quuquuquu 9y ago
    Do you fear a world where multiple political entities (Obama, FBI, Singapore, Pentagon) have publicly requested laws that magically require you to somehow decrypt your users' data, else you go to prison for contempt? It reminds me of the situation right now with the guy in Philadelphia who is in prison for contempt for not offering decryption password to the judge.
    - cperciva 9y ago
      Not particularly. Judges are good at seeing through calls for magic; the situation in Philadelphia is a bit different because the judge doesn't believe that the password had in fact been forgotten.

astura 9y ago

But TFA says otherwise >In Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court struck down a law that banned sexually explicit depictions of minors, as well as depictions that appeared to be minors. These included computer generated images and depictions of legal adults pretending to be minors. The Court recognized that the First Amendment “does not embrace certain categories of speech, including … pornography produced with real children.” However, the Court found the prohibition of images that appear to be, but are not actually, minors improper; any harm stemming from those false images “does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts." Unless I'm reading it wrong.

ikeboy 9y ago
There are stories from other countries but not in the US since that referenced Supreme Court case afaik.
etplayer 9y ago
It was stricken down at the federal level. I believe that laws still exist against it at the state level. Their validity, to my knowledge, has not been questioned as of yet. However there are such laws which remain, and in fact have been recently introduced, in Canada, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and various European countries. What's perhaps even more concerning is that even stories are illegal in Canada. The mere possession of the material, i.e a drawing that you made yourself is illegal in England. Publishing a story or even sexual roleplaying with another adult over the Internet might find you sentenced under the Obscene Publications Act. It's hideous in my view and such laws deserve to be stricken down with ferocity.
- DanBC 9y ago
  It would be more persuasive if you linked to the laws. Some of what you're saying about England doesn't sound right.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    As for drawings, the CAJA 2009 section 62 onwards deals with it.[0] As for publishing text online, there was a case of a man who wrote stories and was convicted I believe under the Obscene Publications Act, though the BBC article just says "six counts of indecent publications"[1] I'm sure I've replied to you about this before, actually, not long ago. (Edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904716) I'm not sure why my comment here is downvoted, though. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/62 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/62 [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-38146988 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-38146988
    - DanBC 9y ago
      I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that. Your bbc example is telling: he's an admitted paedophile, who was offending against children. The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law. > He admitted at Preston Crown Court to storing hundreds of child abuse images and posting on a paedophile website.
      - etplayer 9y ago
        >I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that. Wrong about what, exactly? Images of children in sexual situations, or rather, as is described in the act, is illegal even to possess. Unless you know something about the act that I don't, or I've completely misread it - in which case I'm very open to corrections - I'm an optimist that the law isn't as hideous as I am reading it out to be. >The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law. I was talking about that section of CAJA, I know that OPA is old, but the "lolicon law" is only from 2009. >he's an admitted paedophile So what? That's completely irrelevant to any point that's being made. The fact is that he was imprisoned for spreading stories, fiction, and it was through UK law enacted by parliament that this happened.

retrogradeorbit 9y ago

Yes. Australia is one such jurisdiction. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-08/fake-simpsons-cartoon-is-child-porn-judge-rules/233562 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-08/fake-simpsons-cartoon-...

etplayer 9y ago
From the article: >Justice Adams said the legislation's main purpose was to combat the direct sexual exploitation and abuse of children that occurs where offensive images of real children are made. If he believes this, then why is he legislating that virtual pornography, in fact even hand drawn, of the Simpsons which bear such little resemblance to real people, never mind actually existing people, is against the law? >But, he said, it was also calculated to deter production of other material, including cartoons, which "can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children". Was it really? And if so, does he, or the authors of the legislation, have evidence to back up this claim? This seems to be totally unsubstantiated nonsense this judge is saying. And what of fueled demand? The fact that a drawing or story might make someone else do an action is, in my view (and I hope others can agree) not reasonable grounds for illegalising possession or production of that drawing. Unfortunately bone-headed cases and legislation like this have graced the rest of the Commonwealth and various European countries.
- etplayer 9y ago
  Would someone mind explaining why my comment was downvoted, and how I can improve my comments in future please?

quuquuquu 9y ago

Hey, thanks for writing! Love tarsnap and scrypt :) Just utterly amazing. Hentai is now child porn. How many hentai pictures are stored on Tarsnap??! Those images might be stored on US servers. Time for you to grant a "backdoor" to the government. If I was in your position, I would be genuinely confused when trying to juggle all of these regulatory threat matrices :( :(

cperciva 9y ago
Fortunately I don't have to juggle anything here: Tarsnap's encryption makes it impossible for me to detect, never mind prevent people from storing "illegal bits".
- quuquuquu 9y ago
  Do you fear a world where multiple political entities (Obama, FBI, Singapore, Pentagon) have publicly requested laws that magically require you to somehow decrypt your users' data, else you go to prison for contempt? It reminds me of the situation right now with the guy in Philadelphia who is in prison for contempt for not offering decryption password to the judge.
  - cperciva 9y ago
    Not particularly. Judges are good at seeing through calls for magic; the situation in Philadelphia is a bit different because the judge doesn't believe that the password had in fact been forgotten.