[claudiawerner]

>Are you completely sure you want to use CAJA 2009 as your example?

Yes, I am sure. Several researchers have noted also there is very little, if any, rational justification for that censorship. On what grounds do you say the concerns of the artists was baseless? My comment on LGBT campaigners was in reference to Cameron's 2015 law on simulated rape pornography.

[lucozade]

They’re baseless because their concerns haven’t materialised. The Act has had no effect on graphic novels.

[claudiawerner]

They've likely had chilling effects, haven't they? Just as with any censorship, there are chilling effects. According to some data I saw a while ago given in parliament, around 20 people a year are prosecuted for possession or production of the material, at least in magistrate courts. Taking the concerns of the graphic novel artists in a more general sense, they were completely right on warning about the juridification of the imagination. It's extremely unsettling how in the face of this you can say that their concerns haven't materialised, even given how overseas artists have lost the UK audience too. If Google were declared illegal to use, would you claim that its illegalisation has had no effect on web search?

As a side note, although there were no graphic novelists to speak for me, other regulation on fiction in the UK has had its own effects on my own online activity. The only way you'd know is if you had a keen enough eye to spot my activity cease when I was made aware of the hideous laws in England.

[lucozade]

I would hope they’ve had chilling effects or what would be the point of the legislation?

The 20 probably refers to the CPS’s VAWG report in 2012. As I’m sure you’re aware that was 20 cases that had magistrates’ hearings covered by section 62. Not convictions and not just cartoons (I don’t believe there were any cartoons but I could be mistaken). It was somewhat more the following year but still very low, <200.

If that has helped reduce the amount of child porn entering the UK from abroad then that’s great. I doubt it though.

No idea what this has to do with Google.

TBH if your work actually flouts section 62 then I’m 100% ok with you stopping. I see no particular need to support someone’s freedom to express depictions of child sex. Freedom of expression has far more important battles to fight than that.

[claudiawerner]

And it's funny that you say the number is so low; according to the stats of 2016-2017[0] there were 971 offences under s.62 recorded.

[0] https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publica... (page 71, A50)

[claudiawerner]

>I see no particular need to support someone’s freedom to express depictions of child sex.

Do you see the particular need to support someone's freedom to make metal music, regular pornography, films with drug use, online roleplayers, teenagers writing fanfiction, etc? What if a few MPs decided they saw no particular need to support your right to comment on HN?

The fact that there are more important battles does not mean this one should be ignored. Matters of justice have little to do with whether you would support the activity, and much more to do with whether you would support the principle. The question I am asking you is whether people should be punished by the state for possession or creation of these drawings, and if so, why? People's lives are literally at risk over these drawings of fictional characters. Going to prison, potentially being put on the register, etc. is no small deal. Suspended sentences are still on your criminal record.

The numbers I was referring to were specifically on drawn fictional non-photorealistic depictions. As such, that included cartoons (like Japanese hentai). Maybe I read the stats incorrectly, though.