Paul3446

Quote: Keiran Burns
"you answered your own question: It is a REAL photograph, therefore you are breaking an existing law"

But if you read the article, it says:

"The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons. "


This to me suggests that once you manipulate a real image, it falls outside the law, if so this loophole should be closed surely?

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

The problem lies where the drawings are reconstructions of the real picture. So the abuse is still happening, but the real pictures are turned to drawings to be shared on the internet. As it stands these drawings are not illegal. Surely this practice must be stopped.

Edit Olly hadn't posted as I started typing this, see above.

OllyK

The problem is going to be telling the difference between a heavily manipulated photo and something created from scatch I suspect.

PeteBrant

I think this in regard to modfying existing photographs to make it look like something is happening.
I.e. putting different heads/bodies on and rearranging them.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

*deletes his drawing of a teddy bear called Mohammed and steps slowly away from the PC*

coolangatta

What existing laws do you relate to?

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Obscene publications... if you manipulate an existing image you must have the original image - and THAT is breaking the law.

The counter argument is that you would destroy the original, but it is the requirement of the law to prove guilt and evidence is required. The law that is proposed is open to abuse and it will be abused.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

It's the politicians causing grief for us. This won't stop real paedophiles any more than gunlaws stopped guncrime.

WRX_Dazza

as said above, i think the politicians have slightly more pressing matters to deal with at the moment!!! - like petrol prices for a selfish example!!! lol

WRX_Dazza

these type of drawings however should be mandatory :-

WRX_Dazza

heres the type of problems you might have:--

below is a sketch of some kid or other.....



find this on an art students pc and you'd think nothing of it...

find it on some 50 year old mac wearing, train spotter's pc and then what would you think.??

its all about perception.

ps: this is a good thread though and highlights a lot of views...

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

but if you were to straighten the hips slightly showing a less 'developed' figure, could the image be interpreted as an under-age girl?

Makes me wonder how you could draw (no pun intended) the line

Here's another thought... this was stated earlier: "the conversion of a real image to a drawing / cartoon, using photoshop filters and effects etc"

So what of you were to trace the images using a pencil? Again, as I've said earlier, this simply falls under the obscene publications law.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

But what if you didn't trace the drawing, but downloaded it from a site? At the moment people could have hundreds of tracings / drawings on their PC with no involvement to their creation - according to the loophole in the law its completely legal.

OllyK

On the news last night they seemed to be suggesting it included cartoons as well which to me suggests that material created purely from the imagination such as Hentai is now outlawed as well. They'll be banning people from writing fantasy stories next.

PeteBrant

I knew this would be the case.

I cannot see how on earth you secure a prosectution

"Thats a child there"

"no it isn't, shes 21, she just looks young"


I mean you can't prove otherwise, its ****ing made up.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

surely, this can not pass parliament and the house of Lords?

Then again, the extreme **** bill did

Leslie

I think you have jumped in without thinking. As I understand the report I read, these evil fellows are reconstructing pornographic images, child **** I mean, and using that to attempt to futher their attempts to grrom young children on the Net. Now I personally find that to be "nefarious". What do you think?

I am certainly against the repression of freedom of expression but what also is necessary when publishing pictures of one sort or another, is a sense of responsibily. If people cannot control themselves in that respect and cause serious offence to others then it is hardly surprising that steps are likely to be taken to control them. That is a restriction which would be generated for proper purposes. You may well like to look at graphically revealing pictures etc for your own gratification, but there are many who would find that either unpleasant or even a corrupting influence on young children. It all depends on the context of course.

It comes down to having a bit of thought for other people which is something that used to be taught to children in the "old days". Seems to be going by the board these days which believe me is no improvement!

I agree totally with what you say about the anti terrorism laws and how they have been used as a convenient excuse in the past. In particular that elderly gentleman you mentioned who was detained for something like 4 hours I believe simply for disagreeing with that creep at the conference as you say. This is an example of a law of convenience for the authorities and is a foretaste of what they are planning for our future if they manage to achieve it. Now we are really talking about protection of our liberties, like the Habeas Corpus law which they would love to banish completely.

Les