Battleangel

This is favorite subject of mine. And one that I return to as often as I can manage. The last time I ranted on about this was on the topic of “DC++ hub fascists”. My point was that it is very questionable that Hub OPs should monitor the contents of user shares. People obviously use DC to swap copyrighted material but some seemingly innocent stuff like fake snuff videos are banned on sight. This kind of policing does not belong in the P2P online world where “information wants to be free” as they say.

Now, on to a more sensitive subject that nevertheless needs some clearing up …

While going over the Flashback Forums I stumbled upon a surprising but not entirely new form of censorship. You see, in Sweden, as in many other countries, we have caught a very infectious social meme (call it what you like, but meme is a good term) that I will dub “pedophilia scare” for the time being. I.e. the belief that pedophiles are lurking everywhere. And that they could be anyone. Stereotypes however dictate that “he” is of course a male and between 45-65 years of age. And the darnedest thing is that there isn’t even a clinical term “pedophile”, the correct term is “pedophilia” and as such much of the media image of character traits and simplifications is like a house of cards.
This is however not the point here because it is a fantasy of sorts that is carried out in real life. We all have fantasies about everything from killing some guy on the street to becoming an astronaut but we don’t live those fantasies. THE POINT comes in a more abstract form and I can’t stress enough that it is very much not linked to the ACT of pedophilia …
How does a) the law, b) common people and c) common sense define so called “child pornography”?
That is the real issue of this rather unpleasant but important rant. And furthermore, why have people suddenly become so vigilant against the portrayal of adolescent nudity? And is pornography necessarily just depicted sexual acts by definition?
Because I don’t have all the facts and lack a global concept of the matter I must conclude that this rant only applies to Sweden and a handful of other tight-laced nations. And so I must also base it on Swedish law.

The Law - I need not point out that “child pornography” is illegal in Sweden. That is not the issue here. The problem is how the term is defined, with respect to age. In order to legally appear in “pornographic” material you must be an adult by definition of the law. I.e. 18 years of age in the case of Sweden. It is also interesting to note here that the age of consent is 15. Without further data I’ll assume that the same relative situation is true for most other countries.
The law covers photography and video sequences, not paintings, sketches etc. What the law also doesn’t cover is the definition of pornography but common practice seems to be “posing in a sexual context” (whatever that really is). Generally it is accepted that just plain nude or scantly clad images are not pornography. But that is once again a question of common practise. You could find yourself in a legal limbo.
The People - As usual people are way out there. They are falling over themselves to be politically correct little moralists. The present opinion doesn’t question. They reinforce and amplify mindlessly. They organize virtual witch-hunts and are always fast to condemn, partially because they want to have no part in this. They fear the subject, and that they themselves might be implicated somehow. Better to judge and push away than to ponder the issue.
The Common Sense - Without going over the subject too thoroughly it seems logical that if someone can legally take part in sexual relations they should also be able to decide if they want to take part in a pornographic document. It also seems that lawmakers have given in to the will of the masses and painted themselves into a corner. In conjunction with the age of consent this creates an impossible situation with the convergence of partially conflicting laws. I also think it is of the essence to properly define terms before putting them into use. “Common practise” is the way a weak judicial system makes up for its monumental gaps. How easy it would have been to specify that sexual relations are subject to the age of 18 while portrayal of nudity would coincide with the age of consent. The links between “adolescent pornography” (adolescence is by definition age 13 through 19) and pedophilia simply do not exist. It’s a lie being perpetrated by the same people who once stood on the barricades crying out against violent horror movies. Age is not a factor that can exist in this equation. If “adolescent porn” makes pedophiles, so does “adult pornography”.

But still, I think the law is semi-clear. The real problem isn’t with the law. It’s simply with common people who take it upon themselves to enforce something that they do not understand. And for no reason apart from justifying themselves and covering up the dark desires that often conflict within such people. I’m sure Adolf would have been the first to jump on this if he would have been a forum admin. You get my drift I am sure. It’s a more common trait than you could ever imagine.
The really absurd thing here is that moralists have managed to propagate an opinion that has merged with clearly needed laws. I bet some people are really smug knowing that they got a large quantity of uncomfortable porn to fall under a this pariah law that makes it virtually untouchable. Nothing is ever as simple as you would like it to be …

Hopefully I’ll find time to return to this topic some time in the future. There is so much more to be said.