Japanese government blocks a ban on child pornography

Japanese government blocks a ban on child pornography
The Japanese government has blocked legal efforts to clamp down on child pornography, with the country becoming the world's "kiddie porn superpower," according to a pressure group.



The ruling Democratic Party of Japan has refused to support legislation that would outlaw the possession of child pornography on the grounds that it would infringe individuals' freedom of expression – although there has been a stepped-up police campaign against people that sell sexual images of children.

Twenty people were arrested this week for posting child pornography on a mobile phone web site that was set up by a 17-year-old high school student, while Japan was shocked earlier this year at the arrest of a mother who took indecent images of her infant son and sold them via the internet.


The National Police Agency said it received 4,486 complaints from the public of child pornography on the internet in 2009 and a record 650 people were charged with offences related to child pornography. Campaigners believe that represents the tip of the iceberg.

"We are urging all the political parties here to ban the possession of child pornography in the present session of parliament, but I am not at all optimistic that it will happen," said Keiji Goto, a lawyer and chairman of the Forum for Creating a Society That Does Not Tolerate Child Pornography.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/7723418/Japanese-government-blocks-a-ban-on-child-pornography.html

Is this just a drama llama attack piece to get everyone clutching their chests and screaming for the children; or is this just another piece of badly written legislation? We have this same nonsense here in America where someone wants to garner votes and proposes TOTC (Think of the Children)legislation that is way to broad in scope and definition; but if you point that out, you're in bed with NAMBLA.

Its mere possession is a prosecutable offense.

Why?

Because it can be used to groom children-- i.e. acclimate them to offending sexual misconduct by adults.

and

Because it is a natural resource of shame for those whose images have been captured in delicto and could be used to extort further victimization.

Its prohibition is an informed and justifiable restraint on the first amendment.

Your question makes as much sense as the following:
The US hasn't banned hardcore pornography. Anybody wonder why American movies are so popular?

One is a specific type of content that can appear in different media types. The other is a specific media type that can contain different types of content.

There are a bunch of bumper-sticker type quotes from professional advocates that don't tell the reader anything one way or another. Then we belatedly get:

"The DPJ opposed the bill and instead called for the definition of child pornography to be narrowed down, while acquisition for money and multiple acquisitions would be made illegal."

The article does not, of course, offer the law's definition which is what the entire matter turns on.

Is it a ridiculously over-broad definition that would end up implicating all sorts of things that oughtn't be defined as such or is it a sensible narrowly tailored law?

If the former, the DPJ is absolutely right. If the later the DPJ is in the pocket of child pornographers for some reason.

Given those options and without any information about the definition in question a rational reader limited only to this article as background and compelled to have an opinion would have to side with the DPJ. (The odds of someone proposing a grossly over-broad law are higher than the odds of a political party actively supporting child pornography.)

Rule of thumb: If an article refuses to tell you anything useful to forming an opinion then do not use the article to form an opinion.

"Rule of thumb: If an article refuses to tell you anything useful to forming an opinion then do not use the article to form an opinion."

:rofl:

How dare you squelch the outrage before it even starts!

I can't wrap my mind around that one. It's an infant. What the heck is an indecent image of an infant? And sold via the Internet? That is totally fucked up.

That is is the age of consent in many US states. I do find it pretty stupid that you can legally fuck girls of those ages but if you have pictures of them you are a felon and become a registered sex offender.

Also stupid is how sex offender registries also include people who happen to do things such as public urination, yeah it should be a crime but I think branding someone for life as a sex offender for it is cruel and unusual punishment.