CSAM in the EU and what's to come

Art and fiction
1

We are experiencing a lot of change regarding CSAM and its definition. A lot of political movement going on within the EU to criminalize “Pedophilia” itself. I can’t find the quote again, but countries are talking about “fighting Pedophilia” instead of CSA.

Denmark:

“They have become even more lifelike, with a body temperature and the like. Then, we become concerned that it can have a negative effect. That sexualisation is so hard to overlook that, purely from a moral standpoint, we have to say no now,” psychologist Kuno Sørensen explained.

Notice the keyword “moral standpoint”. He admits that there is no real evidence outlined by the “can have a negative effect”. It’s currently a trend I have noticed within the EU, to limit everyones freedom on mere assumptions and morals.

“These are real dolls that look like little kids. They wear children’s clothes, they have light in their eyes and say ‘no, no, daddy’; they are made to look like young children for people to fulfil their desire to have sex with them."

Does this apply to every doll? I think this seems to be a very expensive and rare type of doll he picked out to strengthen his argument. This statement was then followed by a false claim that lolicon drawings are also already illegal in Denmark. It’s not due to a study done by Denmark, but coming from the partys legal spokesperson I can only assume that a ban on Lolicon is on its way. Completely negating the own study they have done.

What about the other countries?
Germany for an example drastically increased their penalty on real CSAM, but without providing additional funding and personell to fight these crimes, or any other increase in preventive measures. Every single legal expert did speak out against this increase in penalty since it will be of no real use and would criminalize young adults and not allow for light offenses (18 y/o kissing a 14 y/o = one year in jail thus ruining his life). Accessing CSAM is now punished twice as much as physically abusing a child and as equal as life endangerment. This was criticised by experts, but ignored.

Finland is pretty much one of the only countries that changes nothing and also the only country in the EU where Lolicon is 100% legal. However, there are currently concernes regarding Freedom of Speech since Päivi Räsänen (politician) was facing 6 years in prison for tweeting bible verses. I feel that Finland will have to give in after other nordic countries will also start to criminalize Lolicon (Denmark?).

Definition of CSAM is broadened to include fictional characters and objects (dolls) throughout the EU. We see an increase in protection for “non-persons” without any regards to actual preventive measures for real people.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression and the Right of Privacy are all currently being abandoned within the EU.

I will have to pull Germany up again. Over there politicians are currently working on an AVS (Age-Verification-System) that will be implemented on the OS level. Microsoft and probably major Linux distributions will be forced to implement an AVS that will filter out every single site that has no proper AVS of their own (confirm age through ID). This will pretty much cause germany to have their national intranet of sorts.

So what’s to come?
Seeing how a good portion of EU citizens actually support these changes I honestly think that they will all be implemented (excluding the AVS from germany since it seems too ambitious). Lolicon and other sexual outlets such as dolls will continue to be made illegal in the remaining EU countries. Some countries are also working on “Anti-Hate-Speech” laws. Which will indefinetly effect Freedom of Speech.

7 Likes
2

“purely from a moral standpoint”

“psychologist”

Pick one.

6 Likes
3

This is simply not possible. CSAM is a normative term that specifically emphasizes the use or involvement of REAL children, actual people. Not the idea of children, or children as a mere concept as seen in fictional characters.
This distinction is extremely important if we are to take the sexual abuse and exploitation of children seriously.

This is gravely concerning to hear and I hope it is not as bad as you make it out to be.

Was this from someone affiliated with the state of Denmark? Like an actual state-sponsored psychologist or was it just someone who agreed to participate in an interview with some publication?

I also agree with Dean. Invoking morality as a reason to ban something is never, never okay. There must be harm or a very likely, imminent degree of injury associated with said thing or acts to justify such a heavy-handed approach.

It simply isn’t possible to outlaw pedophilia, nor is it reasonable. That would be like criminalizing homosexuality.
You cannot successfully regulate how people choose to express or indulge in their sexual fantasies or desires. It’s simply not possible to do.

Sure, we can ban child sex dolls, pedophilic erotic fiction, pornographic art, and other forms of expression, but at what cost and for what benefit? Will it lead to a reduction in sex crimes across the board? Would making someone with pedophilic fantasies think twice about masturbating to them really have the effect of reducing the risk that they abuse children? If population data statistics are anything to go by, as well as studies in prisoners and the research backing up risk assessment profiles for child sex offenders, the answer to that is no.
The regime of censorship is a cold, unfeeling one. One that chills the very fiber of your being, like an otherworldly shackle that coils around the stem of your mind crippling your ability to not only communicate it, but also simply think or measure it logically or rationally. Limiting ways that people who have these interests are allowed to interact with them would only intensify the stigma surrounding it and place people in jeopardy for the crime of simply being themselves, of being honest with who they are, and for engaging with an aspect about themselves critical to humanity as a necessary condition to live rationally and comfortably.
Liberal inventions, such as the freedom of speech and expression, were not conceived in a vacuum. They are not ‘feel good’ ideals that only exist because we like them.
No.
Rather, they are the natural consequence after centuries of human existence, and are seen by liberal scholars and philosophers as necessary parts of the human experience. The right of man is to be free, for it’s in his very nature.
To deny man that freedom for scientifically invalid reasons or out of prejudice is to deny man’s very nature. Invoking ‘morality’ with regard to this is just prejudice with a drape thrown over it.

A line has already been drawn in the sand with regard to this expression, and that line is with that of real children. If any real child is implicated, let alone harmed or exploited through these acts, then it is only right that actions be taken against those who harm them.
Nobody with a brain would argue that sexual contact, of any kind, between a child and an adult is tolerable.
But to apply that same logic in instances where no child is involved, after having numerous studies on how fantasy engagement, pornography consumption, and sexual preoccupation relate to sexual offending, it’s very clear that such a causal link simply does not exist.

I hope that the EU can see reason and not fall victim to the same fear and zealousness that brought about the rise of Nazism.
I briefly considered writing up a forum post discussing why Germany became so liberal in terms of sexual expression, going so far as to outright protect lolicon/shotacon publications from censorship, but their actions against dolls made me reconsider. There’s a lot of history with Germany and sexual freedom that occurred after the fall of Nazism, and a great deal of it was in part the rejection of Nazi ideals of sexual modesty and repression. Nazis believed that pornography was a vice worthy of eradication, that it made men weak and was a threat to their idealistic Aryan family system (think nuclear family). Writers and artists who created ‘obscene’ works, in addition to their consumers, were routinely locked up and imprisoned. Pornographic publications and films were rounded up and burned in town squares by Nazi sympathizers alongside other media they found to be offensive their ideology, including Jewish media.
A cursory glance at the way American conservatives view pornography is almost identical to how the Nazis did.
That’s why I draw so many comparisons between those who wish to ban virtual/simulated child pornography and Nazis. Nazis did it not out of just prejudice, but also the genuine desire to prevent what they envisioned would cause harm to their society. It is this fear, that which is ultimately unfounded by the evidence, which goes hand in hand with prejudice that defines the evil we fought against.

@terminus are there perhaps any legal actions that can be taken against their child sex doll ban? Like perhaps a challenge against the law in the German court system?

2 Likes
4

This is happening.

2 Likes
5

you’re a saint, Mr. Malcolm.

We need more people like you in the world.

2 Likes
8

Save the Children

A suggestion for a new, more accurate, name:

Save the silicone!!

The new battlecry of people who are too lazy to try and make a real difference.

4 Likes
9

It’s a really sad state of affairs. All you hear from the organisations and even governments is how hard they go on silicone and drawings. Has anyone of you heard of anything for real victims or potential offenders? Any demand to increase the availability of therapies, or education for children?

They are going the fear route. Criminalizing everything that resembles a pedophiles sexuality just to signal how wrong, disgusting and sub-human they are. It’s not about protecting the children anymore. It’s a movement to push someones moral ideology. A very powerful tool to push all sorts of new laws and regulations (Apples Scanner, EU’s AI Chat Scanner etc.). Science has long been abandoned on this topic and that’s a sign of authoritarianism.

2 Likes
10

Using the term “moral obligation” or “morality” is often a cheap way to silence people because anyone who would gainsay the statement afterwards would just be labeled a “sociopath”.

2 Likes
11

This is… honestly insane. Actually, clinically, and probably insane… has this Skaarup person suffered a stroke?? What is the meaning of this?? There is literally nothing of sense or logic here!

Isn’t it funny how I mentioned that they would engage in moralist arguments, rather than scientific ones? Part of the reason why we differentiate between morality and ethics is precisely how such ideals matter in the scientific arena.
Whether or not murdering a pedophile who hasn’t committed a crime or imprisoning him for owning a sex doll or work of fiction is moral is anybody opinion, but none of that is in any way ethical.

It’s this kind of loose cannon rhetoric that makes me nervous.

4 Likes
13

Your braver than most, but as long as you can convert a few people that progress.

14

I’d prefer to move to Denmark. They tried to ban such materials awhile back but failed to find any scientifically-backed justification, such adherence to logic and reason is very much appreciated.

The US isn’t much better, with many of our politicians trying to ban dolls and fiction. It will change, though, once the SCOTUS finally re-evaluates the constitutionality of anti-obscenity laws. At that point, the culture will conform.

15

I already addressed this.

“Children should not be portrayed in sexual situations. This is also why it is nowadays prohibited to make cartoons or computer animations of these situations. Therefore, of course, it should also be prohibited to manufacture, import and own these dolls, which look like children,” he stressed.

He is wrong with this comment, but you can already tell that it will get banned. They banned dolls on a moral standpoint, so they will also ban drawings on a moral standpoint. Their study also only showed that it does not lead to child abuse. It did however not say if it would reduce abuse, so a ban on morals would still be possible. EU regulations are also above national law. Seeing how it is outlawed pretty much in 90% of the EU it seems possible.

16

He is wrong in his comment, indeed… Denmark even flat out says that it’s legal, and such things ought to remain legal.
It can’t be that solid of a majority. The dolls themselves are harmless, and they can’t expect to fall prey to the same arguments made by Nazis to justify banning erotic literature. Morality is as poisonous as it is pervasive in matters such as this.

@terminus
We need to rally further on this.
Right-wing rhetoric on fiction and fantasy seems so insane - they cannot be expected to go back on literally decades of progress on this.
Banning dolls and fantasy will only lead to an increase in abuse! It’s only logical! In countries where drawings and art are illegal, child pornography offenders have no reason to abstain from actual abuse material.

1 Like
17

Basically people having the zeitgeist to “burn witches” then feeling bad about it longer afterwards when they do. As I repeat, I’d rather rescue the “witch”. I feel nothing about the stupid peasants being collateral damage to do so. Remorse afterwards is worthless, in this context.

18

This article was from 2020… did they ban them yet or was it dropped? Or was the vote postponed due to the pandemic?

19

They already banned them (dolls). I just gave an overview what’s going on in the EU. It was inevitable since even therapists that treat pedophiles wanted them banned. Everything else is current tho.

20

Are they, though??

What therapists that treat pedophiles…? No therapist would dare use morality as a talking point with matters of legal and criminal policy!

Can you cite an updated legal text or document cementing their recently-passed criminality in Denmark?
I know loli/shota pornography is very much legal there still.

1 Like
21

I checked some legal sites and couldn’t find anything regarding lolicon or cartoon (tegneserie) pornography. No new publications or drafts are on the works right now. It seems to be still legal. The official legal response from 2013 can be found here.

22

but what about dolls? If they can muster a legal argument based on nothing but feelings and emotions, then they can likely do the same for anything.

I can’t read Danish, so it’s hard for me to navigate their websites.

23

It seems that the law is actually not fully passed yet. If you look at the current legal progression of it then you see that the second vote is missing and the status is not “Confirmed” as it is with the cartoon verdict I linked. https://www.ft.dk/samling/20191/beslutningsforslag/B57/beretning.htm

I am not familiar with how the danish legal system works, but comparing it to other legal procedures it seems to miss two more voting phases. Not sure what could still change tho.