Put down your pens: Cartoons next on censor block

Dear Nanny State.

FUCK OFF.

2012 Logo

At least it would mean the 2012 Olympics logo will become illegal, the designers will be prosecuted and put on the sex offenders register... Who said there was no justice in the UK?

Mr Gaiman...

"That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said."

That's exactly what freedom of speech is all about, sir- the right of others to say stuff you will not agree with.

There's a whole bunch of people on the internet who think much more deeply about this than I, so I'm certain that folks will feel I'm stating the obvious (but I'll say it anyway): there's a hell of a lot of emphasis on people's rights nowadays, but the bit that's always interested me more are the responsibilities that come with those rights. I get the feeling that if we (as a society) were to pay as much attention to the responsibilities that attach to rights, the world would be a much better place- e.g. we've all a right to reproduce, but wouldn't it be nice if people thought about their responsibility towards the offspring?

The analogue here is that whilst you should be able to say/write/paint whatever you like, you have to cope with the aftermath of your exercising that right (opreferably without bitching about it). If that results in Officer Dibbles coming knocking at your door because your slash fic scared the dickens out of Cheryl Cole, then fine. If that is tyhat your poetry falls under the Obscene Publications act, then good too.

However, when ministers start presuming you are a danger to society because you've got a picture of Lisa and Bart doing things unpleasant to each other, surely we've gone a tad too far? I can't believe that after 12 years of the current government, there isn't a panoply of laws already in place to deal with an actual danger to society, as opposed to someone who is otherwise innocent.

Or if that's a bit too philosophical for you- show me the injury that has taken place because of this assortment of 1's and 0's in a JPG file, and then maybe I'll allow that there's a need to legislate.

Until then it's all Daily Fail-ism of the highest order.

Icon: Me checking to see if the passport is in my coat, prior to hitting T4 and heading overseas forever.

Scary? Terrifying!

Is there nothing more important for the government to waste my money on?

Global warming, nuclear weapons, obesity, the extinction of the plants and fish we depend on for food, the richer rich and poorer poor that are the ills of which a nation dies...

Forget the future, rude drawings must be exterminated!

Cartoons and reality...

"The bill, as it stands, would make it a criminal offence to possess (cartoon) pictures of children participating in sexual activities, or present whilst sexual activity took place. We did ask the Ministry for Justice whether this meant same frame, same page or even same story, but to date we have received no answer"

That's a pretty complicated question to answer - what is the limit of observation of a cartoon child's vision?? Just the frame they are in? Or can they see the whole page? Do mirrors work in comics? What about off-screen mirrors - if there is no visible mirror in the offending frame, but a mirror was visible in an earlier frame (from a different viewpoint) of the same room?

What about X-Rays? If the picture is of (for example) Superman as a kid, does his X-Ray vision really work (i.e. can he see across frame lines, or even other pages in the book)??

And what if the age of the participants was stated in a speech or thought bubble, can a cartoon character's age be determined by their own statement, and how can one tell if they are lying? Does the statement of age have to be in the same issue of a magazine?? How would the cartoon character be called to testify as to their real age in court, and what proof could they give? What if their age was stated as 17 in a magazine issued two years before a sexual scene, do they age and if so at what rate? Little Orphan Annie doesn't appear to age much, for example...

Rather than criminalize these cartoons, it would be better use them as a possible indicator of other, more serious problems. If the person is indeed a pedophile, they are likely to also have indecent photographs or material which IS illegal, whereas if they just happen to like dirty cartoons they would not be prosecutable.

Or the usual laws regarding obscene and indecent material could cover blue cartoons.

Coming soon to HM Prison UK.gov

IT will become illegal to think of anyone under the age of 18 in a sexual manner or whilst performing self-gratification, as obviously this would be the start of something that would lead on to something else.

I for one would be glad if they banned 2000AD, Beano, Dandy - Sick

Every bloody month bang it arrives on my doorstep. Thank God it arrives in a plain white envelope! If the neighbours knew. phew!!!

What happened to the days of Mayfair and Fiesta. Good honest to god porn. Have you ever tried to knock one out to a comic. Bloody difficult that's all I can say.

Nothing like how it was in my days.

Remember 'Minnie the Minx' we all know she was a little minx.

Betty Boo. She was another little harlot flashing her pants everywhere she goes. I hope they throw the book at her

Charlie Brown. Well I ask you if there was a kid inviting unwanted attention then it was him. Hanging round with no friends looking sad. Would you like to see my puppy?

So now I have spoiled all your favourite comic characters by associating them with deviant sexual practices maybe we can see how ridiculous this law is. Its as if we the British Public have to be protected from our own desires. Before we know all women/children/animals will be required to cover up in public encase we are so overcome by passion that we decide to think some impure thoughts upon which time Wacqui Jacqui will be down to lobotomise us for our own protection.

Paris? Well thank goodness she isn't a cartoon

Howarth spells it out

All my doubts about the curtailment of civil liberties and the crushing of freedom of expression have been swept away by the forensic brilliance of George Howarth, MP. Of course something must be stopped, if it is part of something, and if (as in a lot of cases) it is part of something that will lead on to something else. Can't understand how anyone can argue with that.

@AC - Mr Gaiman

Neil is making the same point you are, but in less words.... Read the rest of the quote...

I am a long-time collector of his work, and Alan Moore's. They are aimed at *adults* with *brains*, which explains why Ms Eagle doesn't like them.

In the mind of the reader

May I suggest to our fabulously suggestible government that they have not gone far enough!

It is not simply the fact that children may be 'sexually involved' in a cartoon that is a serious risk to the moral fibre of our great nation. ANY representation of a child that could be accessed by an adult should be outlawed.

I mean, what justification is there for an adult to be reading a child's comic (or any other child-oriented media for that matter). Clearly they are looking at the cartoon kids for their own gratification ... and that can only mean one thing ... potential kiddie-fiddler!

Let's think of the children, keep them safe and out of view ... totally!

Genius.

Absolutely genius.

So how exactly would this work?

"In law, a child is anyone under 18: under the proposed law, if an image is ambiguous, it would be up to a jury to decide its "age"."

My sister look like she was 16 until she was about 35 and had children. So if someone were to draw her perfectly aged 34, and the jury decided she looked 16, would that make her husband a cradle snatcher?

No end in sight

This process is infinitely extensible, because already "indecent image" is such a broad category in English, Scottish and Northern Irish Law.

One individual a couple of years ago was jailed for torture as a "nonce" because he kept collections of pictures of girls in swimming costumes that had been published in local papers. It is not the content that matters at all; it is creating a presumption in the mind of the jury that the possesssion is, or could be, for sexual pleasure. Thoughtcrime.

The important ruralist artist Graham Ovendon was effectively exiled to France in the 80s. Everyone should know that the French population is 90% paedo, because their law allows sex at 15, when of course the good decent British tabloids have made it perfectly clear to everyone hear that anyone who desires anyone else a minute before their 16th birthday, or who suggests such a depraved thing might be possible, is a child-abusing beast.

Re: In the mind of the reader

Take it to its extreme end. Since children's books and the depiction of children induce child abuse, then clearly the presence of real-life children must exert a greater influence. Therefore, adults must not be allowed anywhere within the presence of children, for fear of their minds. Suddenly, mothers cannot nurse their own kids, fathers cannot coach sports, teachers cannot teach, and pediatricians will essentially be outlawed.

and heaven help you

If they are under-age stick figures....

Every 'indecent' cartoon is a 'scene of crime'...

Good of you to pick this story up again, John - to me, this particular extension of 'obscenity' and 'indecency' laws is perhaps the most worrying yet to slither out of Parliament. But as I've mentioned on these boards previously, it's not so much the Government and it's ill-informed errand boys we have to worry about as those 'advising' and 'consulting' with the Government. In this instance, public enemy No1 is none other than CEOP (although they are alone - the usual suspects from UK Child Protection can be found listed on the report).

Parliamentary records of consultation on this proposed legislation dating back as far as 2007 reveal it was CEOP who were the amongst most aggressive of 'consulting agencies' in pushing for this concept of 'indecent images' to not only become law, but to become draconian law, with CEOP noted for wishing to see severe penalties (commensurate with those currently in place for viewing/downloading photographic CP) put into place.

All of which begs the question: why? They would doubtless argue the 'child protection' angle, but I struggle to see how outlawing wholly fictitious cartoons, drawings and CG renders 'protects' any actual real, living breathing child. Moreover, it is CEOP's modus operandi to declare every 'indecent' image of a child (real or otherwise, presumably) 'a scene of crime'. While we know already this is a nonsense, given that an 'indecent' image by CEOP's standards can now include a partially clothed, provocatively posed 17 year old (age of consent: 16), it will be very interesting to see how CEOP manage to convince a court that a black and white Japanese fantasy cartoon of clearly heavily stylized 'children' engaging in sexual acts constitutes a 'scene of crime'. In which case I'd expect CEOP to produce the victim/s. Isn't that how the law is supposed to work?

Clearly, we are no longer in Kansas, Toto.

@kosmos

...an excellent quote indeed!

Unfortunately there's not much hope for this country because whichever bl**dy party wins the next general election, they'll still put through the same populist daily hate mail legislation to keep the majority happy in the short-term.

When you combine this with an inevitable increase in taxes to pay for the bail-outs and ever increasing age of population (public pension burden) I personally think we'd all be best off buggering off and leaving this country to rot. How sad.

Psychiatrist req'd (or Vet?)

If the Gov't and its lizards can't distinguish between what is imaginary and what is real then I think we have found an explanation for their policies and laws.

It also explains how they could present documentation on imaginary WMDs to the HoC, and then ask for a real war.

Would someone please diagnose and treat appropriately. ASAP!

(I say put them to sleep. It's only the humane thing to do.)

Singing Detective

In Dennis Potter's Singing Detective, the young, er, detective, sees his mother having sex in the woods whilst he is sitting up a tree (IIRC).

Presumably, the TV series of this would remain legal, whilst a graphic novel adaptation would now be illegal?

Can we just hang the fuckwit politicians who are destroying this country with their ill-thought-out, incompetently drafted laws, from the lamp posts sooner rather than later?

@Herby

Anyone daring enough to sneak an envelope into the House of Commons with no return address, addressed to perhaps whoever's pushing the most for this? Put in a picture from say a loli manga along with a note on the likes of, "I hereby bestow this piece of Japanese art to you. Oh, by the way, since this piece of art is now considered obscene, illegal, and unprotected by law, this hereby makes you a possessor of child pornography and therefore subject to punishment under the law. Have a nice day."