Even completely imaginary Children have rights too, you know.

Quote:

In March, the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council, citing a US State Department report which calls Japan "a major producer of sexually exploitative representations of virtual children". Whether or not the depiction of "virtual children" in manga is violating an actual human right is the crux of the issue. A lot of the material that draws criticism does not aspire to the literary heights of Ms Takemiya's work and critics say it exists purely for titillation. Many believe that even if it is fiction, it should be regulated. Ms Boer-Buquicchio says she is aware of the importance of striking the right balance for freedom of expression but that the rights of the child should not be "sacrificed at the expense of powerful and lucrative businesses". She points out that "any pornographic representation of a child," real or not, "constitutes child pornography". This is a view Yukari Fujimoto, manga expert and professor at Meiji University, does not share. She feels the UN is targeting manga on false assumptions. She asserts that while the intention may be to protect women and children, the effects will be counterproductive as manga has given women an outlet for their own sexual expression. "A ban on sexual violence in manga would effectively be a ban on the hard-won achievements and expression of female artists. Banning artistic expression will neither change or improve reality."

http://ift.tt/1nN5aPy

Sweden's child pornography law was written with this kind of "think-of-the-children" mindset run amok: there's no formal distinction between drawn or otherwise artificially made depictions of completely virtual children and photographs (and i guess drawings too) of children.

The Swedish supreme court explains:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJA 2012 s. 400 The reasons that the legislature relied on criminalization of child pornography was, as previously stated, that the children would be protected from possible underlying abuse and child sexual abuse images can be used to entice children to engage in sexual acts. It was also stated that the purpose of protecting against the abuse of children in general that child pornography entails. The latter were also cited as reasons for allowing the criminalization cover artwork. It was also stated that the drawings may depict a real child.

Their rationale for excluding "unrealistic" child pornography from being illegal:

Quote:

That pornographic drawings with subjects that may evoke children in the first place exists is hardly such an violation of children in general as to justify the relatively far-reaching restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of information, like would happen if such unrealistic drawings were outlawed.

I still cannot understand why or how merely depicting a child having sex (or being murdered, raped, tortured and etc) would entail some "violation of children's rights". Why stop there?

Shouldn't all depictions (including drawings and paintings) of adults (or other animals, aliens...) being raped, abused, murdered or tortured be considered to inherently violate everyone's human rights?

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1UAd7Vc