The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) has joined such luminaries as UNICEF in coming out firmly in favour of the rights of imaginary children, lending its full support to the UK’s new draft legislation, set to ensure any illustrations of humans under the age of 18 a court deems erotic are rendered highly illegal, with anime and manga and their ambiguously aged characters likely to fair badly under the law.
The NSPCC’s Zoe Hilton has this to say on the subject:
“The NSPCC supports making non-photographic pictures of child sexual abuse illegal. We know from working with police forces across the UK that these types of pictures are more frequently appearing in the possession of people who are arrested for, or charged with, offences relating to child abuse images.
Our contacts with the police lead us to believe that non-photographic pictures of child sexual abuse, such as drawings, cartoons, or computer generated images, are an established part of the wider pool of child abuse images in circulation.
The fact that many of these images are currently legal implies a degree of acceptance or tolerance of depictions of child sexual abuse, and we want the law to send out a clear message that such depictions are unacceptable.
In practical terms we have found that the current legal status of these images means that they cannot be physically removed from offenders or confiscated by the police. It also reduces the effectiveness of therapeutic work which challenges perpetrators’ beliefs that child sexual abuse is acceptable.
Practitioners tell us that offenders use non-photographic images of abuse to rationalise and legitimise their own abusive thoughts and feelings toward children.
It is also important to point out that The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which amends the Protection of Children Act 1978 (Part 7, section 84), already covers pseudo-photographs.
In the UK it has never been necessary to prove that an actual child has been abused for an image to be considered illegal. The reasoning for this was based in part on the wider, damaging impact that such images could have on society. This is the approach that we continue to support.
Some of the recent media debate surrounding the new reforms has suggested that the materials to be made illegal will cover artistic works, or be mainstream in nature. NSPCC does not believe this to be the case.
As we understand it, the proposed thresholds mean that these materials are not something that anyone is ever likely to make or view unintentionally, unless they stumble across them by accident on the internet.
Let’s be clear that what we are talking about here are non-photographic images depicting serious sexual abuse and violence against children. And with that in mind we would urge the UK government to make such images illegal.”
The NSPCC was initially founded in 1884 to lobby for “pro-child” legislation; in more recent years the organisation has faced extensive criticism for spending huge sums on advertising campaigns of questionable merit, and for cultivating wherever possible an atmosphere of moral panic.
With regards to their failure to actually help any children in recent decades, they admit that “lobbying is more effective than direct action [to help children].”
The NSPCC has some particularly relevant experience in imaginary child abuse; it was heavily implicated in the “Satanic ritual abuse” scandals of the 1980s and 1990s, where social workers and psychologists fabricated thousands of cases of “Satanic” abuse cases using hypnosis and leading questioning, with the UK perpetrators of this mass-deception often being NSPCC staff, or informed by their publications.
Thanks to Infernal for the tip.
Top 10 Best Anime Girls of 2015
Hai to Gensou no Grimgar “Has Oppai!”
Picking Up Japan Express Vol. 36 Worth a Pickup
Dimension W Out Of This World
Odin Sphere: Leifthrasir PV Certainly Nostalgic
One-Punch Man Soundtrack PV Packs A Wallop
XmasTrickStar “A White Christmas Indeed…”
Wo-Class Carrier Ero-MMD In Dire Straights
Voice Translation Tool Promotional Video “Inexcusable!”
Luck & Logic Far From Lucky
Yandere Simulator Possibly Headed to Kickstarter
Top 20 Recent Anime Most In Need Of A Sequel
Hyrule Warriors Legends PV Clashes Interminably
Akagami no Shirayukihime English Dub Surfaces
Koukaku no Pandora Really Opens That Box
Gate Season 2 Darker Than Ever
Super Sweet Sonico Bikini Figure
Top 10 Naughtiest Late Night Anime
Shoujo-tachi Mezasu Seemingly Innocent
Final Fantasy XIV Lord of Verminion Trailer Highly Adorable
Delectable Dizzy Cosplay by Lechat
Dark Elf Cosplay by Non Very Dark Indeed
Titillating Tamako Cosplay Perfectly Pink
Goddess of 2ch: “Full of Lust & Urges (& Also Videos)!”
Raunchy Reisen Inaba Cosplay by Tsuyato
Haruhi Bunny Girl Cosplay Rocks Out
Youmu Ero-Cosplay by Madoka Adachi Deadly Sexy
Comiket 89 Cosplay Sickeningly Sweet
Comiket 89 Cosplay A Guilty Pleasure
Comiket 89 Cosplay Ceaselessly Sexy
i deemed television and movies that should be banned too if this law is passed
Personally I am a fan of loli's all the time. I do know underage sex is wrong and i am total againts it although i am a lolicon.I wouldnt most likely agree if they say more punishment will be deal to underage sex but not banning 2D loli pictures.This is just fucking wrong because it takes away the only entertainment that will be providing to lolicons
No need to get overly defensive. What's wrong with, say, a 16 year old and an 18 year old having consensual sex? Age of consent laws in most countries do need major reforms. If you feel the need to defend your loli preferences by stating that you think real underage sex is wrong you obviously feel guilty for having these preferences.
There's only one defense for lolicon, and it's the only defense that should ever be needed: freedom of expression. If any legislator wants to curtail the right to freedom of expression, that person better provides scientific proof that the thing he/she wants to see banned harms basic human and civil rights of other people in a significant way, or otherwise he/she better STFU and GTFO.
Would you say a 16yo having sex with a 48yo is wrong, then? Anyway, I don't think you'll find a better way of how things ought to go than by looking at the traditional Japanese way. No age of consent as such, but for a minor (i.e. under 20) then I believe it depended on the parents'/guardians' consent. Just like Ryuuji and Taiga at his grandparents' house :)
No, but I chose that example because it happens a lot more often (or at least that's the impression I get). Just take a look at the many cases of arrested teenagers...
I don't think the traditional Japanese way is the optimal solution either, since it also involves arranged/forced marriage and the likes.
Uk is fucked up.
Anyway lets think of a situation.
Officer i was just trying to learn some japanese,i didn't know moetan learning book was erotic loli XD.
Regardless of the morality of "lolicon", this is another example of the way UK law always goes for "soft" targets because prosecuting them is easier. And we know all about paedo-paranoia in this country.
Yet they have enough problems which they are ignoring, such as education scandals and weapon crimes.
Banning 2D lolis = banning guns = nothing happens
The next step is that they outlaw fictional character murder. Geez, I can't kill off children in my books.
You already can't, at least if the character being killed off is a central plot element and you're hoping for a movie version. Haven't you notice that child characters are nigh-immortal in the vast majority of Western cinema?
Was that a poke at Harry Pooter?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InfantImmortality
next lets ban video games, then children will stop bringing weapons to school!
honeslty a paedophile is a paedophile because they're a paedophile, not because they found hentai on the interwebs
Well OF COURSE they find loli images in the hands of child molesters, that's common sense. It's NOT common sense however to reverse engineer that logic and declare that all possesors of loli content are abusers. All inuits are eskimos but not all eskimos are inuits. Furthermore, laws are in place because of psychological and physical damage incurred to children involved, but remove the child from the situation and there's nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to that imagery.
Didn't AkabeSoft release a new game called W.L.O.? What was it again?
World Loli Organization?
at least some folks in UK are against this petition.
if your British, then sign up.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Protect-Comics/
Screw being British, all that's needed to sign a petition on number10.gov.uk is a legitimate address inside the UK. I've signed several, and I will sign this one too.
Now if only online petitions had any sort of real impact ... oh right, if that were so everyone would go to jail for offending someone else's sensibilities/not being Christian/not being Muslim/having the wrong skin colour/liking the wrong music etc. Never mind.
By signing that petition, you might as well be saying:
Dear Police,
When this law comes into effect, please come and smash down my front door at 4 in the morning, traumatize my family, and humiliate me in the community.
Love,
P. D'oBear.
not a chance, japan makes too big of a money for that
I guess they better start destroying some of the paintings and artworks of those naked child-like angels from the churches. Or else the whole church will get arrested for having 'illegal images'
OH NOS. more illegal paintings!
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG6596
I guess those British museums won't be too happy with this either eh? XD
seriously, I haven't such levels of retardation for a long time. Inducing moral fear to try to pass a law without any concrete basis or facts, AND taking away people's freedom of expression. Great. What next, passing a law that ban girls from going out of their homes until they are 18? lol
That sort of scaremongering doesn't do our campaign any good. First, to be illegal, the work as a whole must be reasonably assumed to have been produced for the purpose of sexual gratification, which that painting clearly wasn't. Second, the Human Rights Act protection of freedom of expression still overrides the proposed law, and that includes protection for bona-fide works of art. All of that said, though, I'd like to see how some of the more erotic loli paintings by Balthus get on.
They should better take care about real child problems.
I don't think that imagination affects children life.
They just trying to do something easy, so people won't think that they do nothing.
Child rape drawings are wrong, but adult rape drawings are fine? So rape on adults isn't that bad? Is it?
Harming children (harming anybody) is very wrong, but imagination doesn't harm them.
I have repost to anything that they says. -.-
aha good saying on the adult one.
Not really... remember the anti violent porn act?
Do you think this will really stop at children?
All sex, everywhere, unless plastic and vanilla, shall be deemed illegal.
The big difference between the "extreme pictures" law and the "anti-loli" law is that the police don't actively pursue the first one as they don't have the resources. They will pursue the second with a vengeance though because they'll easily get the funding to do it.
Those preachy fucks, destroying art, I hate them.
I don't like Lolli, but what the fuck under 18. How do you deem a cartoon under 18, especially in Hentai. Some of these girls faces look about 16, while there breasts say about 20.
I can't believe this shit, I could be arrested simply for having Giri Giri sisters on my PC. If they deem them under 18. Infact any school girl hentai could get you arrested.
This means simply surfing 4chan could get me arrested, get this Labour government out.
sigh whats wrong with people,
cant tell that fiction dose not = real
thay might as well say harry potter is promoting witchcraft.
i cant belive these people ><
banning a drawing and giving police power to arrest and call loli fans pedos and lock them up with real thugs, child molesters/murders, rapists and all around bad people..
i think thay should be thrown in jail for wanting to waste time and money on banning and weeding out cartoons when thay have real kids to look after..
If these images cause moral decay and abuse on children...why is Japan one of the safest places for little children across the world?They have less rape than the US as well.Their accusations are just as imaginary as anime.
Hell, I think loli makes the Japanese men comfortable with their love for lolis and want to protect them from abuse.
these shitty organizations are full of fucking soccer moms and retard bitches who don't know what they're talking about. if they can't find anything to do, they'll just go around blaming shit about something else totally irrelevant to anyone else.
goddamnit, these people need to learn how to fucking stop meddling in things that don't actually rape children.
when you deem sexual offenders fit to be released back into society after a year or two, you don't really get to complain when they go groping someone's poor child again.
if you dont want sex offenders to be around, start killing one or two or ten to set examples for the rest. i guarantee the death of ten pedos will make some of the thousand potentials to think twice.
these soccer mom bitches are stupid bitches.
ok i had it some1 introduce the leader of that NSPCC so i can punch him in tha face. not only they judge ppl that has those stuff but they r judgeing it.child pornography is 1 thing but hentai loli!? and dont give me the crap that ppl tend to do what shows on those loli manga/hentai. its just a stupid excuse of some1 trying to integrate his own morals on every1's mind. this goes directly to those NSPCC folks: U DON'T LIKE IT MEGABITE ME, KEEP UR MORALS TO URSELVES, and instead of persecuting loli porno persecute child pornography ones.
Cops like easy targets.
If you are on the street near the donut shop, the cops will bust you for jaywalking, particularly if you look like you're easy to intimidate.
If you are hiding in a jungle of poisonous snakes, the cops will have better things to do than go look for you.
Comic-book fans are already of low social status. Cops like harassing people with low social status - it's safer than hassling people who might have allies.
Comic-book fans are likely to be introverted and polite - and that makes them good targets.
You make a good point. They don't want to risk people who might fight back. This is something they use to meet quotas.
What about bread?Chairs?Door handles?Aren't they usually found in offenders homes?They must cause pedophilia!
I think all of this "virtuak child rights" is all bull...instead of being worried about some fictional character they should put a real effort in actually helping REAL flesh and blood children; there are hundreds of them being abused every day at home or being sold as slaves in so many countries all over the world!!!! So, for once, they should stop making stupid laws to make excuses for not doing their fu**ing job in aiding those children who really really need protection!!!
Fictional characters are just that FICTION, they are not really hurt, not in a real life way, they might be hurt, yes, they might be even raeped, yes...but they are NOT REAL!
Stop making lame lwas and lame excuses to help "fictional children" and start helping those REAL children who actually need your help...or is it that it is easier to help the ones made of ink and paper? I'm starting to believe that.
With this I think big companies like disne y and such are in trouble cause tinkerbell shows way to much leg and since she is so short she must be a loli herself therefore bad.
Sorry but that's just sad.
Have no doubt, characters like Tinkerbell will certainly come eventually. They'll start with human characters first though. They'll be conservative at first, like Lisa Simpson in Australia, but eventually even Meg Griffin porn is something you can get arrested for.
you guys shouldent BAN lolicon. I like it, however i can completely understand where your coming from. Mabey you guys should first start with Toddlercon (fiction sex images/manga/anime of girls under 8 and above 2) or even live porn, compared to these things lolicon is not as bad as it seem as the youngest girls you will find in lolicon are at least above 8years.
There is no clear definition for what lolicon is Anon. Furthermore, toddler/baby etc. cartoons should not be banned for the same reason: there's no actual wrong being done to harm another person.
I believe the live stuff is already banned. I don't really see the necessity though, it's already illegal to do the stuff that's being filmed. Outlawing the media transmission seems to me just an opportunity to make numerous easy arrrests and rack up years against the curious as opposed to catching the actual offenders breaking age of consent laws.
Sounds like fun.
"We know from working with police forces across the UK that these types of pictures are more frequently appearing in the possession of people who are arrested for, or charged with, offences relating to child abuse images."
That sounds a lot like a logical fallacy. Saying that offenders frequently posses loli material doesn't mean anything, they have to show that it leads to an increase incident rate in order to have a valid argument. Its the same thing as saying porn leads to sex crimes, violent video games leads to violent crimes. Keeping those things out of the hands of children makes sense, but banning those won't fly unless there's solid proof that they cause problems. Unfortunately the 'for the children' argument blinds these people, even when its not much different at all.
No doubt that the MPs etc will go on an all expences paid trip to find out the facts?
I do wonder if this covers fairy hentai also?
There's a bit about 'regardless of characteristics that are not normally seem on a human child, such as attenae'.
Does that answer your question?
Does that include tits or being 6ft tall?
You gotta ask.
I think loli pictures are fine as long you don't go and just ra** some children out there ^0^. And I am agree with the previous comment, if they think that loli pictures can encourage child abuse, then why don't they say anything about action movies? It certainly encourages for violence and shooting, if you want to see it that way.
I think it's all depend on the people's morale itself, good guys will always be good guys, bastards will always be bastards, no matter what kind of pictures you show them.. (^-^)
lol Stupid censoring fuckwads I mean they do know americans an alot of other countries married off 11 and 12 year old girls back in the 1800's and early 1900's and society considered it perfectly normal. I know some countrys still do it even today. The unicef and others must be a bunch of holy rolling faggots that are probably still virgins.
I guess suggestive loli image also sufferred. T.T
LOL