Secondary Navigation

Talking Politics

The law which made drawings illegal

Thu Mar 26 10:06AM

The government just passed a law against drawings. Very particular drawings, but drawings nonetheless.

Smuggled away in the recent coroners and justice bill was a clause outlawing the possession of non-photographic images of children. Child protection agencies are ecstatic. Comic artists and libertarians are concerned. But what's at stake, and is this as insane as it sounds?

Is it moral to pass a law against something with no actual victim? After all, we ban photographs of child abuse because a child actually has to be abused for it to exist. Libertarians will tell you that the law is unacceptable on this basis alone. But it's a little more complex than that.

For some time now, but especially since the clampdown on photographs, the market in animated paedophile pornography, predominantly from Japan, has been expanding.
Children's rights groups claim the presence of these photographs acts to help child abusers rationalise their actions - contributing to a common sentiment in abusers that what they are doing is somehow OK.

This goes right to the heart of the individual's relationship with media. The argument originates in the belief that these images - in much the same way as violent video games or rape-based pornography - prompt people to commit the crime in real life. Some psychologists take the opposing view - that this material can actually reduce crime, by satisfying urges safely and without harm. They point to Japan itself, where pornography is highly misogynistic and often rape-based, but which has some of the lowest levels of sexual assaults in the world.

On the other hand, child abuse is qualitatively different to sexual violence against adults, in that it common for the abuser to construct a moral argument that his or her behaviour is perfectly natural.

Aside from the moral argument about freedom of choice, many artists are especially concerned that they could become criminalised by the law. Similarly, many comic fans could become criminalised too. Many adult comics - some erotica, some just with adult themes - could be found guilty if the law is followed to the letter. Ministry of Justice officials, of course, insist it will only be targeted at genuine paedophile cartoons. But if so - why was it drafted to broadly? Despite government claims to the contrary, many legitimate comics could fall into the law's remit by mistake.

Similar excuses were made for the law which recently banned extreme porn. Fetishists complained that its ban on the depiction of spanking genitals or breasts effectively outlawed their culture. The government insisted they could relax - it wasn't going to target them.

For many people - especially legal experts, former lawyers, and British constitutionalists - this is simply not good enough. Governments shouldn't have to be trusted. But when it comes to child abuse, many people believe anything is fair game.

Ian Dunt

Comments21 - 30 of 169

How screwed up can this world get and in particular our "Government", the Watchmen, Our so-called Protectors pass a law one minute regarding drawings for pities sake which they "suppose" may help protect our children and is purely a product of imagination only......and then the next minute propose it legal to advertise killing unborn children by allowing abortion clinics to advertise there wares on TV, a product of reality. I for one condone all forms and measures which are practical to protect our children from all sorts of evils.....but this is a bridge too far. What next "Precrime......"

From mikfox2008 on Thu Mar 26 11:30AM
Report abuse
"Some psychologists take the opposing view - that this material can actually reduce crime, by satisfying urges safely and without harm. They point to Japan itself, where @#$%graphy is highly misogynistic and often rape-based, but which has some of the lowest levels of sexual assaults in the world." ~ I could be wrong...but maybe this is because Japan has far tougher laws on dealing with (this type of) crime than the UK. The thought of harsher punishment / sentence being the real deterrent.

From blond_logic on Thu Mar 26 11:30AM
Report abuse
to pennycjones your use of the word "Some" just about sums everything up some is a wide ranging word which can mean anything and everything and this is what the debate is all about.
if you want to make a law then make it precise and specific and not with words like "some" "could be" "may be" make it about child @#$%graphy and not about anything in general.

From alexhephaestion on Thu Mar 26 11:30AM
Report abuse
sianrogers The harm is in the effect these things have on peoples minds , especially young people and children who may get hold of them. This is very definitely not a non issue. Children will not thank you for protecting their bodies but allowing their minds being assaulted by this hateful stuff. If you read the article carefully you will see that the law is for very particular drawings. It is worded in a misleading way and bound to be misinterpreted.

From pennyjcjones on Thu Mar 26 11:30AM
Report abuse
Don't be stupid! If you see a picture of a battle does it make you think murder is legal? Does it make you want to go out and have a medieval war in the middle of the street!? Even movies don't do that! I watched "Gone in 60 seconds" the other night and after i watched it I DIDN'T go out and steal 50 cars! Isn't that amasing!? I didn't even try and cut up members of the public with a chainsaw after playing GTA4! ...Simply incredible, i know... What studies or research has been done with respect to this arguement exactly? As far as i can tell the only people who actually push for banning things get bitten in the ass eg. When cannabis was raised to a class B from C, usage and demand went up and when it went from B to C demand and usage went DOWN... Does that not tell you something??? The trend has been like that for decades, regardless of the topic (in most cases) The "more illegal" you make something the more people want to do it, its instinct for any free person to challenge authority, so don't do a damn thing! (I'm NOT saying paedophilia should be legal, it's sick and foul)
Also, how does the government plan to police such a policy? How much will THAT cost the taxpayer? How many civil liberties will have to be surrendered in order to put such a scheme in place? (after all I doubt they expect offenders to walk up and hand them their "@#$% pictures"
Britain needs a kick up the arse. I for one don't plan to stay here too long, I'd probably already be gone if we weren't so highly taxed!! We really need 1 term of right-wing leadership to put this country back on course and give us back some national pride.

From brycey69@ymail.com on Thu Mar 26 11:33AM
Report abuse
Aside from the legal view, how about an ethical one? Those child~porn artists and readers...shouldn't they feel shameful? Shouldn't they be thinking I shouldn't be doing this because it's wrong? Just because something is mainstream (Japan's child~sex comic trade) doesn't mean it is "right" or truly acceptable.

From blond_logic on Thu Mar 26 11:35AM
Report abuse
to add a comment about those who think children can be damaged getting hold of this material, they are probably right however, they miss the point, surely it should be the parents who should be taken to court for allowing their children to access this material?
of course that wont happen because it would mean that parents would have to admit they have no control over their own children and what they do.

From alexhephaestion on Thu Mar 26 11:36AM
Report abuse
Liammateer, I'm sorry but did you just read the bits of that article that agree with your point and ignore the rest? Because I'm sure you didn't take any notice at all of the part that tells you that Japan has the lowest rate of sexual assaults of anywhere in the world, even though (or possibly because) it has a very high rate of rape (anime) @#$%graphy. If images of rape incited people to commit rape, one would expect Japan to be filled with rapists, but it's not...I wonder why? Maybe because these images dont cause people to act them out. As I said before, this law is so broad it doesnt just include drawings of children in @#$%graphic and/or abusive situations, but all drawings of children. I cant be the only one who thinks this is over the top, surely? Oh and Liammateer, if you don't like that 'filth from Japan' as you put it, don't buy it, easy isn't it?

From sianrogers1710 on Thu Mar 26 11:36AM
Report abuse
Geoffthebull
You made a valid point re: the advert on TV. Had a picture of this (or indeed a cartoon) been found on a mans computer while going for repair, arrests would follow!

From garenacreman on Thu Mar 26 11:39AM
Report abuse
alexhephaestion That is a very petty argument in a matter as serious as this.

From pennyjcjones on Thu Mar 26 11:40AM
Report abuse