Expand "Illegal sprays" rule for child porn

Luke

Luke

Legendary Skial King
Contributor
I'm suggesting that Skial expand the rule against child porn to be any image of a child (animated or otherwise) in a sexual situation, whether the child is clothed or not... I think it is incredibly strange how admins don't punish as harshly if a child is clothed in an image, no matter what they're otherwise doing.

Image Reference, for example: NSFW

In my mind, this should be seen as child porn - just because the child has clothing on doesn't change that it is a pornographic image which features a child, no matter how funny or humerous the image may be.

The law in the UK at least, defines the following for child pornography:
Section 62(1) makes it an offence to possess a prohibited image of a child. Section 62 (2) to (8) sets out the definition of possession of a prohibited image of a child.

In order for an image to be a "prohibited image", there are 3 elements that must be satisfied. An image must meet all 3 of the elements which are:

1. That the image is pornographic;
2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character; and
3. That the image focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or portrays any of the following acts:

  • the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child
  • an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child
  • an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
  • an act of penetration , in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
  • the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
  • the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.
Click to expand...

If we follow this logic for the above linked image:
  • The image is pornographic - I don't think anyone is going to deny this, the image is pornographic
  • The image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character - I believe that the image is disgusting and obscene
  • ...or portrays any of the following acts: the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child - the image shows a child performing oral sex on an almost-fully nude adult.
The fact that the child has clothes on does not prevent this image from being illegal.

Example Update:
First example, being a ban for "child porn spray" - link
Second example, being a ban for "illegal spray" (for the linked) - link
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
So then I'm assuming that you want all child porn to be an automatic permanent ban?

Also, here's the rule.

Certain Sprays
  • Illegal ones like lolicon porn, child porn
  • Gore
  • We reserve the right to remove any spray we want even if they are not listed above.
 
the Renegade said:
So then I'm assuming that you want all child porn to be an automatic permanent ban?

Also, here's the rule.

Certain Sprays

  • Illegal ones like lolicon porn, child porn
    Gore
    We reserve the right to remove any spray we want even if they are not listed above.
Click to expand...

Yes, "child porn" should be the same whether or not the child is clothed.
 
Well then. So, increase the ban length to permanent for all child porn sprays. +1 to that.
 
It is permanent. Lately it has been more of a "admin decision" thing. Don't ask me why. Admin Info thread still lists it as a serious offense.
 
There's no policy about making shorter bans because it's "sort-of" child porn/lolicon/shotacon. If admins are doing it then they're making a mistake.
 
DaivdBaekr said:
There's no policy about making shorter bans because it's "sort-of" child porn/lolicon/shotacon. If admins are doing it then they're making a mistake.
Click to expand...
Go look on the admin section. (I have linked Baek in steam to where it was wrongly discussed).
 
I told Luke I talked to several admins. Those include @Biggie and @Khed . Not going to put any blame on them because it was my call, but I decided to agree with their advice to not go with a permanent one for this spray.
And I already explained that to Luke hours ago.
 
T-Wayne said:
I told Luke I talked to several admins. Those include @Biggie and @Khed . Not going to put any blame on them because it was my call, but I decided to agree with their advice to not go with a permanent one for this spray.
And I already explained that to Luke hours ago.
Click to expand...
I'm not blaming anyone, I understood your explanation of why... but that's why I'm suggesting it should be permanent across the board if the image is pornographic and contains a child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back