Experts in Sexology (academic sex research) have always opposed the child porn witch hunt. Especially the part that criminalizes normal adolescent sexuality by hiding it behind manipulative language calling adolescents "children". Now the leading academic sex experts in Germany put their weight against senseless police state anti child porn legislation. It is late to stem the tide.
Adolescents and young adults are no children
Declaration by German speaking sexological associations on the pending EU-Childpornography-Directive
Adolescents & Young Adults are no Children
Declaration by German speaking sexological associations on the
pending EU-Childpornography-Directive
Proposed 2001 by the EU Commission, the European Council in 2004 passed the „Framework Decision on Combating Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of children (2004/68/JI). Based on the Lisbon EU Treaty, in force since 1st January 2010, the EU Commission proposed to replace it by a directive with the same title, but toughened in several aspects (COM 2010-94). The 27 justice ministers have already approved. Only the EU parliament can – and should! – object.
The new EU-directive not only provides for the blocking of internet-sites but also obliges all 27 member-states to criminalise erotic depictions of adults. Not only pornography is banned but any kind of sexually connotated pictures, making no exception for arts or science. Movies like “The Tin Drum” or common coming-of-age movies, even the new Harry-Potter movie, could be criminalised. Even mere private possession of such films will be sanctioned and everybody will be obliged to report such “crimes”.Adolescents and young adults are no children (Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene sind keine Kinder)
Constitutional rights are violated
We are arriving at the point of overcriminalization where everyone can be jailed, if authorities start searching his computer and his video collection for "child pornography".
the Directive will violate fundamental legislative and criminal law principles including the supreme
constitutional principles of commensurateness and proportionality.
Law makers ignore science
Human-Stupidity has repeatedly assailed the disproportrional penalties penalties for sex related crimes. See judge Weinstein and
2. False Assumptions
It appears symptomatic that in drafting the Directive the EU-Commission explicitly waived
expert knowledge. Their empirical assumptions are accordingly vague and partially wrong.
The sex obsessed legal persecution is fueled by zealots like religious fundamentalists and dogmatic feminists and is not shared by academic scientist in the field. Even experts are attacked when their findings contradict the pervailing anti-sexual opinion (see Rind Study)
These assumptions form no apt and legitimate basis for such drastic reductions of civil
liberties and for the elimination of specific national/cultural scopes of discretion and leeways.
In fact the Directive represents a latent totalitarian strategy of criminalisation in dubio contra
libertate: „When in doubt decide against freedom“! It is empirically wrong to allege that child
abuse will statistically increase. This assumption ignores criminological knowledge that such
increase results entirely from increased social attention and increased readiness to report.
Certainly vain is the assumption that in this area an increase in punishment threats – as
suggested in recital no. 6 – would lead to deterrence of perpetrators.
Interestingly, these laws are imposed "top-down" from the super-national bodies United Nations and the European Union.
One main problem lies in the definition of “child“ as imported from the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child – which in turn was largely influenced by the USA. Eighteen
as the age of “protection“ had been severely criticised by experts already back in 2004:
Adolescents of seventeen are treated on the same footing as five year old children.
We have been assailing exactly this point. 17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition.
Due to such criticism, especially from sexology, the Framework Decision of 2004 finally provided for
three exemptions, three ways for member states to opt out from absolute criminalisation: adult
actors, production and possession of fictitious (not real) depictions, if there is no danger of
dissemination, and production and possession of depictions of youths above the national age
of sexual consent (e.g. age 14 in Germany and Austria) with the consent of the juvenile and for
his/her own personal use (for instance within a partnership).
The sex-persecution zealot’s have also manipulatively re-defined "consent".
In future a fourteen year old youth who, in his privacy, sketches a seventeen year old
beauty must be subjected to criminal punishment in all 27 member-states, just as much as a
sixteen year old generating a virtual image of a naked peer on her PC
Depictions of legal consensual acts victimize whom and possession is a crime why
The European Union and the USA seem to be in a competition as to which Union can surpass the other with more repressive and needless sexual persecution.
A nineteen year old young woman practising
webcam sex with a seventeen year old youth or an eighteen year old man photographing
his 16 year old wife in a curt bikini on a beach could now be punished, if – despite clear
consent –
You will notice that some of the nightmare scenarios foreseen for the future in Europe already became reality in the land of the free (USA)
In fact the sexual life of young people will be subjected to constant suspicion of criminality.
Men already are in this situation. In terms of potentially possessing offensive photos, or in terms of exercising normal sexuality.
Get a lawyer before sex: 27 precautions before risking sex with a woman
Adolescents and children getting more and more restricted.
Consult a lawyer before playing doctor. Perverse sex laws traumatize children
depictions of sexual acts are even criminalised when adolescents sexually of age (over the
national age of consent) are involved and the depicted acts therefore are basically legal (Art.
2 lit.. a).
We always had trouble understanding the insane Voodoo logic of child pornography: how can mere possession of depiction of legal consensual acts between adolescents (not children) constitute "child abuse" worthy of 15 year jail terms? Sometimes, when we get viciously attacked even by male right’s proponents we almost doubt our own sanity.
Intrusion however into the privacy of consensual intimate relations and the criminalisation
of private possession of such depictions (even of adults) violates fundamental rights.
Any citizen can be put in jail for years
Absurdly even a fourteen year old youth could be prosecuted for “seducing” or depicting
an almost eighteen year old “child”. Movies with such “children” simulating sex scenes will
also have to be criminalised: the Directive does not allow for exceptions for science or art.
Many films, novels or paintings will become serious criminal offences. All 27 member-states
will have to criminalise popular coming-of-age movies like “Eskimo Limon” or “American
Pie” as well as works of art like the world famous movie “The Tin Drum” which was the first
German movie receiving the Oscar. Even the new Harry-Potter-movie will be made criminal
as it features a nude scene involving simulated sex.
"Show me a man and I will find his crime". Anyone can be put in jail for years. Most men who ever looked at porn can inadvertently have a photo where they cannot prove the model is over 18. Otherwise we can always find an academy winning or lesser "child porn" movie in his closet.
punishability is now extended to
„any person appearing to be a child“ or even „realistic images“. So even depictions of adults
and works of art or comics will have to be criminalised.
Here Europe surpassed the USA. In the USA, adults can not be discriminated against just for looking young and thus lose the right to work as nude or porn actors.
And the basic criminal law principles of intentionality and in dubio pro reo have been dropped.
We really would like to get comments from constitutional lawyers so we can understand why the Magna Carta and constitutional principles like due process are getting anulled and we return to middle age jurisprudence.
Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step
„The Tin drum“ in fact had once
been banned in Northern America (the role model for this new EU-legislation) for displaying
under-age sexuality. Even in the USA however the Supreme Court in 2002 turned down such
unlimited criminalisation and ruled that mere fictitious (virtual) depictions as well as depictions
of adults are not to be criminalized (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 16.04.2002). The EU in
2010 introduces such offences.
Human Stupidity reported the legal persecution of a Academy award winning film in the USA!
So whoever has the movie „The Tin drum“, „American Pie“, „Eskimo Limon“, the new Harry-
Potter or similar movies in his/her closet has to be reported by anyone (even the parents, the
spouse, children, therapist, lawyer, priest) who (reasonably) presumes this. The convict will
lose custody over and contact with his/her children and will be banned from regular contact
with any person under 18 be it in private or in public.
5. Promotion of Real Child Pornography
The need for combatting real child pornography is of great importance and the new directive
contains many valuable and important provisions. Instead of concentrating all forces on
eradicating real child-pornography this kind of exaggerated criminalization heavily interferes
with the sexual life of young people (even adults) and their right to sexual self-determination.
Law enforcement agencies are increasingly flooded with useless criminalisation of acts which
have nothing to do with child pornography, wasting resources instead of concentrating them
on real child pornography.
We totally agree that some child pornography really documents true child abuse. We certainly agree that valid measures to reduce child abuse are a good thing. Maybe if scientists advised such measures instead of religious and feminist zealots, better results at much cheaper cost could be achieved.
Even photos of real children and infants might not be that serious of a problem
We want to add a few points that the scientist certainly know but they probably left it out in order not to provoke more resistance to their message.
a) some true child porn with real children involves no child abuse
b) depictions of non-sexual but deadly or mutilating abuse of children and adolescents can be found legally in press, tv, and internet, that we can not understand the urge to criminalize possession of such movies. Normally, perpetrators of crimes get punished, not people who watch the crimes in the News.
c) Furthermore there is strong scientific evidence that consumption of true child porn can help true pedophiles to act out their desires with movies at home and thus can reduce true true child abuse. (Milton Diamond). In other words, the net effect of all this legissation, of tens of thousands of men jailed for possession of photos could be an increase in child abuse
| This joke is tasteless but has a deeper meaning. Looking at photos is relatively harmless compared to actual child abuse. | After being found guilty of the abduction, torture, sexual abuse and then murder of one child, I would have thought now being caught wanking over child porn was demonstrating an improvement in behaviour. (Unborn child porn spoof) |
The criteria for criminalisation also have to be balanced against constitutional rights and basic
principles of criminal law: threatening and enforcing punishment constitute the most extreme
form of state interference with human rights. Therefore the use of criminal law has to be very
scrupulous and restrictive. Criminal law must not be abused for protecting the morality of
certain groups.
Amen!
Instead it must always be the ultimate means to protect citizens from
substantial violations of their human rights. And the legislature must always look for effective
solutions outside criminalisation. Sexual self-determination and physical as well as mental
integrity can only successfully be protected by the criminal law if beforehand society provides
socialisation and family structures that allow for a capacity to bring up children properly and
to control oneself. Only good and substantial social policy can minimise the risk of sexual
perpetration.
Basically, not draconian laws with 25 year jail terms for possession of often harmless movies, but good social environment, intact families, are the solution to protect children from abuse. We also want to stress how dangerous non-sexual criminal violence against children is treated much more leniently then possession of pictures.
Once again we must observe how on the level of the EU political action takes place
according to the principle “The end justifies any means”. The fragile balance of criminalisation
and protection of human rights has to some degree been distorted by EU-measures in the
realm of vaguely defined organised and sexual crimes. Like many other measures this one
has largely been motivated by and based on UN-conventions. These have, in turn, been
strongly influenced by the specific morality and an extremely repressive crime policy of the
USA. This is moral colonisation.
13 February 2011 Adolescents and young adults are no children
Another kind of colonisation, perpetrated by McDonalds, is much more dangerous to the well being of children, adolescents, and adults alike.
Child food porn: feeding children the wrong way (without fheir informed consent) kills millions in obesity pandemic
Furthermore, we documented child food porn., Advertising specialists, the media and the proper parents feed children that are too immature to give informed consent, into obese diabetics. Millions of them will die a premature death. This world wide obesity pandemic deservedly should get the amount of attention that is squandered on the child porn issue. Read child food porn
4 thoughts on “Leading sex research experts against child porn laws: "Adolescents and young adults are no children"”