Protection of Children Act

[Siege40]

Protection of the Children Act

Definitions:

Child(ren) - Any person(s) under the age of 18.
Child Pornography - Pornographic images, and film that display graphic scenes of a sexual nature with children.

Section 1 - All pornography containing children is hereby banned.

Section 2 - Any person found in possession of child pornography will serve a minimum of 5-15 years and $100000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices and identification of victems.

Section 3 - Any person found distributing child pornography will serve a minimum of 10-20 years and $150000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices, purchasers and identification of victems.

Section 4 - Any person found producing (in anyway making child pornography) will serve 15-25 years and $200000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices, purchasers and identification of victems.

Section 5 - Psycological aid will be provided for children who are abused.

Section 6 - It is the responsibility of the FBI to track down and arrest those running pornographic websites including children within Atlasia, and pass the appropriate information onto authorities in other nations pretaining to their own domestic pedophiles.

Section 7 - Allocation of $20000000 to the FBI for the investigation and prosecution of those possessing, producing and distributing child pornography. $5000000 to a fund to pay for the therapy of families unable to afford therapy to abused children.

[Siege40]

A recent case in Toronto triggered me to write this legislation, and even if this doesn't fix the problem, something needs to be done.

Siege

[minionofmidas]

So you're raising the penalties on pornography depicting under 16-year olds while legalizing currently illegal pornography depicting 16 and 17 year olds?

[Siege40]

So you're raising the penalties on pornography depicting under 16-year olds while legalizing currently illegal pornography depicting 16 and 17 year olds?

Sorry... (embarrassed) finger hit the wrong key I guess... I corrected it.

Siege

[Dr. Cynic]

Seige, this bill will definitly help curb the child pornography. I urge the Senators to support the bill.

[??????????]

I can support this.

[minionofmidas]

Section 4 - Any person found producing (in anyway making child pornography) will serve 15-25 years and $200000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices, purchasers and identification of victems.

At current, this bill would take hold of a 19-and 17-year old couple filming themselves at sex.

[Siege40]

Section 4 - Any person found producing (in anyway making child pornography) will serve 15-25 years and $200000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices, purchasers and identification of victems.

At current, this bill would take hold of a 19-and 17-year old couple filming themselves at sex.

Kinky, any suggestions? If I put in a clause for distribution that means that sickos could make the stuff at home for their... own enjoyment... any ideas?

Siege

[John Dibble]

Section 4 - Any person found producing (in anyway making child pornography) will serve 15-25 years and $200000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices, purchasers and identification of victems.

At current, this bill would take hold of a 19-and 17-year old couple filming themselves at sex.

Actually, if we took the bill literally, a 17-and 17-year old couple could get arrested for that. It just says 'any person' not any person over the age of X. Of course, we don't want 17 year olds to be able to legally produce the really bad type of child porn, but a 17 year old taping him/herself with another 17 year old getting 15-25 and a $200k fine seems a tad ridiculous.

While I think that this bill has very good intent, it needs some revision for some of the wierder cases.

[Siege40]

Section 4 - Any person found producing (in anyway making child pornography) will serve 15-25 years and $200000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices, purchasers and identification of victems.

At current, this bill would take hold of a 19-and 17-year old couple filming themselves at sex.

Actually, if we took the bill literally, a 17-and 17-year old couple could get arrested for that. It just says 'any person' not any person over the age of X. Of course, we don't want 17 year olds to be able to legally produce the really bad type of child porn, but a 17 year old taping him/herself with another 17 year old getting 15-25 and a $200k fine seems a tad ridiculous.

While I think that this bill has very good intent, it needs some revision for some of the wierder cases.

Well, in reality, as long as these people didn't broadcast this tape on the internet, sell it to friends or what have you, nothing would really happen to them. It is unlikely that the FBI would ever discover it. Should I write a special provision providing for... such cases?

Siege

[minionofmidas]

Section 4 - Any person found producing (in anyway making child pornography) will serve 15-25 years and $200000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices, purchasers and identification of victems.

At current, this bill would take hold of a 19-and 17-year old couple filming themselves at sex.

Actually, if we took the bill literally, a 17-and 17-year old couple could get arrested for that. It just says 'any person' not any person over the age of X. Of course, we don't want 17 year olds to be able to legally produce the really bad type of child porn, but a 17 year old taping him/herself with another 17 year old getting 15-25 and a $200k fine seems a tad ridiculous.

While I think that this bill has very good intent, it needs some revision for some of the wierder cases.

Well, in reality, as long as these people didn't broadcast this tape on the internet, sell it to friends or what have you, nothing would really happen to them. It is unlikely that the FBI would ever discover it. Should I write a special provision providing for... such cases?

Siege

It gets even worse...how do you define "in any way making"? Does that take hold of the persons caught on film? In other words, would we have to lock up the children themselves?
I'd advocate researching into the current legal situation in the US. What are the current penalties? What are the current definitions? (I think R.Kelly has a tale to tell on the subject, btw.)
Only then can we see if any new legislation is needed and what it would have to look like.

[Redefeatbush04]

Nice idea, but the bill needs to be changed a bit. Those who are 16 should be able to look at fellow 16 year olds. Actually lower everything to 16. The age is a bit high. We need to protect children, not older teenagers.

[Siege40]

Nice idea, but the bill needs to be changed a bit. Those who are 16 should be able to look at fellow 16 year olds. Actually lower everything to 16. The age is a bit high. We need to protect children, not older teenagers.

16 was the original age, but Lewis raised legitimate concerns. I'll redraft the legislation soon. Please continue with your suggestions, they are invaluable.

Siege

[12th Doctor]

I fully support this.  However, I would apprieciate it if everyone would slow down with the bills.  I haven't even got a vote on  the one I proposed 2 weeks ago, yet.

[Siege40]

I fully support this.  However, I would apprieciate it if everyone would slow down with the bills.  I haven't even got a vote on  the one I proposed 2 weeks ago, yet.

Sorry, but it came to my attention that with presentation, exams, and the flu that this legislative session I haven't introduced one piece of legislation, and since I feel strongly about this... here we are. I'll gladly not bring this to a vote until yours goes through Senator.

Siege

[Reaganfan]

As Senator, I would definitley support this. Good work Siege.

[Siege40]

As Senator, I would definitley support this. Good work Siege.

Thanks... but as stated, there are problems. I plan to post a new version soon...

Siege

[Siege40]

Protection of the Children Act - V.2 February 5, 2005

Definitions:

Child - Any person 16 years old or under.

Child Pornography - Pornographic images, and film that display graphic scenes of a sexual nature

with children.

Section 1 - All pornography containing children is hereby banned.

Section 2 - Any person found in possession of child pornography will serve a minimum of 5-15

years and $100000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of

accomplices and identification of victems.

Section 3 - Any person found distributing child pornography will serve a minimum of 10-20 years

and $150000. Sentence depending on co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices,

purchasers and identification of victems.

Section 4 - Any person found producing (in anyway making child pornography, filming,

photographing, producing, directing) will serve 15-25 years and $200000. Sentence depending on

co-operation with the police, identification of accomplices, purchasers and identification of

victems.

Section 5 - Psycological aid will be provided for children who are abused.

Section 6 - It is the responsibility of the FBI to track down and arrest those running

pornographic websites including children within Atlasia, and pass the appropriate information

onto authorities in other nations pretaining to their own domestic pedophiles.

Section 7 - Allocation of $20000000 to the FBI for the investigation and prosecution of those

possessing, producing and distributing child pornography. $5000000 to a fund to pay for the

therapy of families unable to afford therapy to abused children.

Section 8 - Any person found video-taping anyone performing sexual acts without their expressed

written or oral consent will face 5-10 years and $100000. This applies to outside of children.

Section 9 - Any one over the age of 18 performing sexual acts with anyone defined as a child will

face standard rape charges, as defined by the region, and depending on involvement in the

creation of the pornography may be found guilty on other charges outlined in sections 1-4.

[Redefeatbush04]

Much better but one problem:

Protection of the Children Act - V.2 February 5, 2005
under the age of 16 and under.

Seems a bit redundant doesn't it

[John Dibble]

Much better but one problems:

Protection of the Children Act - V.2 February 5, 2005
under the age of 16 and under.

Seems a bit redundant doesn't it

Agreed, and be careful how you reword it. If it is 'under the age of 16' then it means those who are 15 and under. If it is '16 and under' then it includes 16 year olds. I don't really have a preference, I'm just noting it for whatever your intents are.

[PBrunsel]

If this passes, and I bet it will, i'll sign it. This is a great bill.

[Siege40]

I correct the mistake. It now says 16 or under. I was conflicted as to what to write, so after changing it 3 or 4 times, when I made my mind I guess I left it pretty screwed up. Sorry.

Siege

[12th Doctor]

I fully support this.  However, I would apprieciate it if everyone would slow down with the bills.  I haven't even got a vote on  the one I proposed 2 weeks ago, yet.

Sorry, but it came to my attention that with presentation, exams, and the flu that this legislative session I haven't introduced one piece of legislation, and since I feel strongly about this... here we are. I'll gladly not bring this to a vote until yours goes through Senator.

Siege

Don't worry about it, really.  I got my vote. 

I do have two more bills I want to propose, but I'm holding off until we can get this mess cleaned up.

[Siege40]

Bump

Siege

[Gabu]

Bump

Siege

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about this.

Yours is near the top of the pile.  Once we get two (I think...) pieces of legislation done with, which should happen fairly quickly, given that I just sent a notice to senators to vote on stuff, we'll get to this one.