Doesn't US have criminal penalties for "virtual kiddie porn"?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

if we do, what's the difference from this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1969920,00.html

Players and creators of video games could face imprisonment for acts of virtual violence under draft legislation being drawn up by two of Germany's state governments.
Politicians in Bavaria and Lower Saxony have proposed a new offence that will punish "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters" inside games. Early drafts suggest that infringers should face fines or up to 12 months' jail for promoting or enacting in-game violence.

[DRoseDARs]

1. Well, I guess virtual training simulations for the military are out of the question...

...guess they'll just have to fall back on "live-fire exercises" with real enemies. At least the poor little children will be safe... well, at least the ones that DON'T live in "live-fire exercise zones." :shrug:



Edit: Damn there were a lot of spelling/grammar errors in there. What's MY problem today? Sheesh...

[Atman]

2. There is no difference, and both laws are themselves "OBSCENE"

This is absolute loonie-toons legislation, here or anywhere else in the universe. It amounts to prosecution for thought crimes.

But that is the "free speech absolutist" in me talking. I've also spent my entire professional career in advertising and marketing in one form or another. This issue has always bothered me, especially upon becoming a parent of two boys who loved video games. Paradoxes flow like vodka shots in the broom closet at a Bush Christmas party.

For instance, the entire premise of advertising is that glamorizing and repeating any message will burn it into people's conscience and affect their behavior. Make them buy something they might not otherwise pay any attention to. It is totally ridiculous to assert that watching repeated viewings of ads will affect behavior, but that repeated viewings of violence wont have a similar affect.

Except...we put a lot of restrictions on our boys. They were never allowed to watch movies which were not age-appropriate, even while their ten-year-old friends were seeing R-rated violence-porn. They'd even call us from friends' houses to tell us when their hosts were going to play a PG-13 when they were only ten.

But they liked video games, almost all of which are violent. And as teens and young adults, they liked the nasty violent schlock that Hollywood bombards their age group with. But neither of my boys turned out violent or misogynistic. They're level headed kids who don't have a violent bone in their bods.

So it forces me to rethink this issue every time it arises. Either the entire concept of advertising is full of shit, or the entire premise of video game influence on behavior is full of shit...or maybe a little of both.

My guess is that it has far more to do with an individual's personal "wiring." People just aren't all the same, and certain people react differently to certain stimuli. This is just another case of having to dumb down the entire world so the lowest denominator is the benchmark. Face it, people...everybody is different. Just because "most people" react a certain way to something it doesn't make it the right way. We have to take care to not blatantly, intentionally try to screw people up. But we can't just strive to make everything safe for everyone. The world is too big a place with too many people.

[jadedconformist]

8. I totally agree with you...n/t

[Poll_Blind]

3. Searched, apparently 1996 law was struck down by Supreme Court.

Supreme Court strikes down ban on 'virtual child porn'.

PB

[Warpy]

4. Virtual and animated kiddie porn was exempted from the statutes

which are more about protecting children from exploitation than curtailing the appetites of kiddie porn consumers.

I have no problem with the animated stuff. I don't get it, but there are a lot of things I don't get, like Britney Spears and liver pate. As long as it doesn't hurt women and children, it's OK with me.

[aikoaiko]

5. I thinl those laws were struck down as unconstituional (1st A)

I can cite the reference, but I remember the ruling because it was one where I had I bite my tongue.


edited to add: I sure as hell don't want to go the way of germany with regard to censorship.

[endarkenment]

6. I'd suggest virtual punishment for virtual crimes.

Otherwise I call bullshit on all such idiocy, left right and center.

[blogslut]

7. I think not technically

The original law, the "Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996", was ruled unconstitutional. CPPA banned virtual depictions of that kind of porn.

Then a new law, entitled the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002" was introduced. COPPA outlaws obscene depictions of minors - virtual or real. As far as I know, COPPA is still in committee.

[Deja Q]

9. All I know is, Europe doesn't have the crime we do.

:shrug: