The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I agree. The bill looks fine as is.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Alright, it's been 24 hours now.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am fine with voting whenever. I'm interested in whether my colleagues are interested in voting, though; especially Deldem, since he had some questions that he raised.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     That looks good. I will accept it as friendly if Governor Jbrase agrees (since I introduced it on his behalf, after all).

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Alright, I will accept it as friendly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think we should go to a final vote now, if there are no objections.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think we ought to go ahead & begin discussion of this bill:

Pornography Leniency Bill

1. The Pornography Restrictions Initiative is hereby repealed.

2. Regional enforcement of the Anti-Opebo Act is hereby restored to the federal definition of the term child pornography, as provided in the Anti-Opebo Act.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nobody benefits per se, though passing a more restrictive law than the federal one has put the Southeast in the position of having the most conservative child pornography statute. This change brings us in line with the rest of the nation.

     Also, since the pre-existing regional law is based on that of the state of Georgia, I think that means the age of consent in the region is 16, as is the case in Georgia. I think it would make sense that if someone is old enough to consent to having sex, then that person is also old enough to consent to appearing in a pornographic video.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nobody benefits per se, though passing a more restrictive law than the federal one has put the Southeast in the position of having the most conservative child pornography statute. This change brings us in line with the rest of the nation.

     Also, since the pre-existing regional law is based on that of the state of Georgia, I think that means the age of consent in the region is 16, as is the case in Georgia. I think it would make sense that if someone is old enough to consent to having sex, then that person is also old enough to consent to appearing in a pornographic video.

The latter adds much increased long-term consequences and risk for exploitation by adults.

     I suppose the point I am trying to make is that these people are old enough that we entrust them to decide whether or not they wish to be sexually active.

     Besides, the point remains that I do not see why the standard that is good enough for the other four regions isn't good enough for the Southeast. The way I see it, the burden of proof is on the people who wish to place restrictions on individual interactions, & I am not convinced that this merits any restrictions additional to those laid out by federal statute.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nobody benefits per se, though passing a more restrictive law than the federal one has put the Southeast in the position of having the most conservative child pornography statute. This change brings us in line with the rest of the nation.

     Also, since the pre-existing regional law is based on that of the state of Georgia, I think that means the age of consent in the region is 16, as is the case in Georgia. I think it would make sense that if someone is old enough to consent to having sex, then that person is also old enough to consent to appearing in a pornographic video.

The latter adds much increased long-term consequences and risk for exploitation by adults.

     I suppose the point I am trying to make is that these people are old enough that we entrust them to decide whether or not they wish to be sexually active.

     Besides, the point remains that I do not see why the standard that is good enough for the other four regions isn't good enough for the Southeast. The way I see it, the burden of proof is on the people who wish to place restrictions on individual interactions, & I am not convinced that this merits any restrictions additional to those laid out by federal statute.

Participating in an activity is not the same as selling a video of said activity.

The fact remains that they are minors. And while it is one thing to have a relationship with a friend, it is quite another to sell your body for the consumption of strangers. The problem for me isn't the video itself so much as the commercialization. I just see too much potential for abuse here to make it worth it.

     I don't see commercialization as being such a big deal (doing something you are already permitted to do, just with a price tag attached; 16 year-olds are mature enough to make most decisions in my experience), but I guess that's just a difference of opinions.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nobody benefits per se, though passing a more restrictive law than the federal one has put the Southeast in the position of having the most conservative child pornography statute. This change brings us in line with the rest of the nation.

     Also, since the pre-existing regional law is based on that of the state of Georgia, I think that means the age of consent in the region is 16, as is the case in Georgia. I think it would make sense that if someone is old enough to consent to having sex, then that person is also old enough to consent to appearing in a pornographic video.

The latter adds much increased long-term consequences and risk for exploitation by adults.

     I suppose the point I am trying to make is that these people are old enough that we entrust them to decide whether or not they wish to be sexually active.

     Besides, the point remains that I do not see why the standard that is good enough for the other four regions isn't good enough for the Southeast. The way I see it, the burden of proof is on the people who wish to place restrictions on individual interactions, & I am not convinced that this merits any restrictions additional to those laid out by federal statute.

I'm pretty sure the Mideast doesn't allow 16 year olds to be videotaped committing sexual acts. Perhaps you're confusing the age of consent?

Remeber, PiT, we're not talking about the "freedom" for a teenager to videotape themshelves having sex so much as we're talking about the scumbags who would so employ 16 year old kids to make a buck off of using them for porn.

16 year olds are already prohibited from working in a variety of particularly dangerous jobs for their safety (a certain level of maturity is required to be a cop or work around a blast furnace), shouldn't "porn actress" be one of them?

I'm all for freedom for someone to do damn near whatever they want in life, but any good libertarian would agree there are exceptions for those unable to make coherent choices, specifically children and the mentally ill.

In juni court I see a different segment of teenagers with poorer judgment, decision-making skills, and impluse control, but 16 is just too damned young to make the decision whether they want to earn $100 taking their clothes off for the nice man with a camara.

     I checked, & the Mideast Pornography and Sex Crime Statute was passed in April 2005, setting the same restrictions. Of note, the Southeastern initiative says that its definition of child pornography is more restrictive than the federal definition, but I do not quite see how that's the case. Explanation on this matter would be appreciated:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I suppose it has to do with my lack of experience in the world, but I just don't see that much of a difference in terms of maturity between a 16 year-old & an 18 year-old. I also suppose it would only be sensible for me to defer to your judgment on such matters, since you clearly know more about it than I do.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     As Badger said to me in a PM, we could come to a compromise by allowing persons 16 or older to make pornographic images or videos of themselves, but still only allow people to do so of other persons if the subjects are 18 or older. Thoughts on that from my colleagues?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well it was more specific than that. People are not allowed to distribute pornographic images or videos of persons younger than 18. Also the punishment would be less severe for acting negligently, as opposed to the real life standard of strict liability.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     How does this look for an amendment?
Replace the text of the bill with:

1. The Pornography Restrictions Initiative is hereby repealed.

2. No person under the age of 16 years may create or distribute pornographic images or videos of oneself, under penalty of no more than two months incarceration.

3a. No person under the age of 18 years may distribute pornographic images or videos of oneself for profit or other valuable consideration, under penalty of four to six months incarceration and a fine of no more than $3000.

3b. No person may receive pornographic images or video of a person under the age of 18 years in exchange for money or other valuable consideration, under penalty of five to fifteen years incarceration and a fine of $100000.

4. No person may distribute pornographic images or video of a person under the age of 18 years other than oneself, under penalty of ten to twenty years incarceration and a fine of $150000.

5. No person may create pornographic images or video of a person under the age of 18 years other than oneself, under penalty of fifteen to twenty-five years incarceration and a fine of $200000.

     Punishments for these crimes are for the most part determined by the federal statute, so as far as I can tell we really don't have leeway to create lighter punishments for negligent acts.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     In that case, I would like to offer it as a friendly amendment. I would also like to accept the amendment, being the sponsor of the bill.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     In that case, I would like to offer it as a friendly amendment. I would also like to accept the amendment, being the sponsor of the bill.

FTR: I oppose extending this to 16 yr olds at all, but since this is just an online sim and the SE leg seems so intent on passing this (so if I ever run for office and an opponent uses this to claim I'm "soft on child pornography, you're a damned liar and you know it).

If I can offer one additional nitpick, maybe the term "or other valuable consideration" should be included along with "profit or money". This would so cover some old slimeball that gives pictures of a naked 16 year old for booze and/or drugs instead of cash.

     Alright, I changed it to include that phrase. I suppose the fact that I hadn't thought of it is a comment on the death of barter as a viable means of compensation for services.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It could be an interesting dynamic if we officially recognized the Lt. Governor's ability to not bring bills he didn't like to a vote, along with giving the legislature some means of overriding that ability. It would give the Lt. Governor real power, rather than being a purely ministerial position.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It could be an interesting dynamic if we officially recognized the Lt. Governor's ability to not bring bills he didn't like to a vote, along with giving the legislature some means of overriding that ability. It would give the Lt. Governor real power, rather than being a purely ministerial position.

Agreed, we need to ad an amendment to the Standing rules if it is approved.

     It would also probably call for a change in veto override requirements. How about we require 3/4 of Legislators to open a final vote in opposition to the Lt. Governor & 3/4 of Legislators + the Lt. Governor to override a veto?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It could be an interesting dynamic if we officially recognized the Lt. Governor's ability to not bring bills he didn't like to a vote, along with giving the legislature some means of overriding that ability. It would give the Lt. Governor real power, rather than being a purely ministerial position.

Agreed, we need to ad an amendment to the Standing rules if it is approved.

     It would also probably call for a change in veto override requirements. How about we require 3/4 of Legislators to open a final vote in opposition to the Lt. Governor & 3/4 of Legislators + the Lt. Governor to override a veto?

So does it need 3/4 of the legislatures and the LT. Gov to override the Veto?

     No, currently it only requires 3/4 of the legislature. I am thinking about making that the requirement for "cloture" & then also requiring the assent of the Lt. Governor to override a veto.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It looks good, though I think the punishment for non-compliance is rather harsh. Maybe set up a three-strikes system of punishment, like the one that exists for selling alcohol to underage persons.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Seeing as how he is the sponsor, I think we should give Deldem a couple more days to appear & address his bill. Also there is currently a vacant seat, so I think we ought to slow the pace a bit until it is filled.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Seeing as how he is the sponsor, I think we should give Deldem a couple more days to appear & address his bill. Also there is currently a vacant seat, so I think we ought to slow the pace a bit until it is filled.

Do you want to put the vote on the side and work on the standing rule's amendments?

     We could go ahead with an open discussion on that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Okay, I am working on the text for that.

     Anyway, Governor Jbrase suggested to me that the Speaker of the Legislature should be charged with maintaining the schedule as well. I think this would be a good opportunity to take care of that too, so how does that sound?