British Justice Minister Not Gay For Bridget

There's a lot of fuss today about proposals in Britain to abolish "drawings" of child abuse. Naturally, this kicks the Internet's predilection for age-ambiguous Japanese cartoon smut, right in the balls. Or does it? Reading the original BBC article provides something of an RTFA moment:
Ms Eagle said the plans were "not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society".
There's always that slippery slope argument about free expression–especially in increasingly creepy Britain–and about the "thought police" nature of punishing crimes without victims. But the ambiguities and gotchas recounted by critics today, such as "how would one provide records to prove the the age of a drawn character?" fall immediately foul of Eagle's explicit claim to not be targeting erotic artwork in general. In fact, by "drawings" it may refer to a section in Britain's new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which details images "derived" from real photographs. The idea of photoshop-filtering photos to appear superficially like genuine artwork isn't exactly novel. Conclusion: 4chan not banned quite yet. UK Proposes Banning Computer Generated Abuse [/.] Computer generated abuse 'banned' [BBC]

About Rob Beschizza

Rob Beschizza is the Managing Editor of Boing Boing. He's @beschizza on Twitter and can be found on Facebook too. Try your luck at  
This entry was posted in Art and Instruments, Consumption. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to British Justice Minister Not Gay For Bridget

  1. acb says:

    What about furry porn? If a pornographic cartoon contains two anthropomorphic badgers, do you use human or badger ages in gauging whether or not they’re underage?

  2. Enochrewt says:

    I really want to know more aabout that weird yo-yo (is it really a yo-yo gadgeteers?) that’s in the picture with this story.

    On topic: They say it’s ony for “targeting about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse”, but we all know this is a slippery slope.

    Where’s your Magna Carta now, United Kingdom?

    Andy what is this on gadgets for anyway? Just sayin’.

  3. Rob Beschizza says:

    Intersection of porn and techology! Also: excuse to wheel out my classic “John McCain not Gay for Bridget” headline from Wired again.

  4. Anonymous says:

    To be fair, the comment by Maria Eagle could also be construed to say that they don’t want to ban all pornographic cartoons, only the ones with child-like characters in them. I hope that’s not the case, but one never knows when you’re talking about the biggest bugbear of the past 20 years.

    I’d also be very very interested to see any study or court evidence that shows that “paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons”. It’s weasel words like “may be using” that makes it hard for me to give them much credibility, especially knowing many artists that create these sorts of things. As 4chan would say, proof or gtfo.

  5. dculberson says:

    The entire idea of this law, anywhere, is horrifying. People get so narrowly focused on their pet issue that they can’t see harm they’re causing elsewhere.

  6. A New Challenger says:

    But…. but…. everyone is gay for Bridget. The headline just divided by zero.

  7. noen says:

    This is beyond stupid. Wouldn’t one’s efforts be better spent on the other end of the problem? You know, preventing child abuse in the first place. Oh wait, we can’t do that because international child sex rings like The Family or other pedophile rings often will often include politicians and other officials in order to hide their activity. The trafficking of children for sex is a global problem that is being ignored in some places but no, we have to go after drawings.

  8. Antinous says:

    Hmm. The next logical step is to marry this with zero tolerance policies and start criminalizing children for drawings of other children.

  9. noen says:

    This likely misses the mark anyway. I bet that pedos are not that interested in drawings, I bet they use programs like Poser. Renderosity is CGI soft core porn central as it is. I bet the hard core stuff is created and traded privately. I wonder if they can prosecute people for having a morph map and some perl scripts?

    Looking forward to the next Egon Schiele retrospective in the UK.

  10. Anonymous says:

    What about cartoon characters that have been in publication for 10-20 years? They must legal age by now.

  11. toastyghost says:

    Having only recently gotten two computers back (minus hard drives) following two years of not knowing whether or not I was going to be charged for distribution of child pornography for precisely the situation mentioned in the article, I’d very much expect this to be applied to those ambiguous cartoons.

    I was an admin of a small forum for a counter-culture, e/n style site and someone reported that some images hosted in one of the ‘OMG JAPAN LULZ’ style galleries, and user posted images on the forum appeared to feature children.
    Whilst some were undoubtedly offensive to a majority of people, not a single one was even remotely near ‘professionally done’ let alone realistic.

  12. controlbroke says:

    Ceci n’est pas une pipe, c’est une image d’un pénis!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


More BB

Boing Boing Video

Flickr Pool




Displays ads via FM Tech

RSS and Email

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution. Boing Boing is a trademark of Happy Mutants LLC in the United States and other countries.

FM Tech