Meritocratic Isles
November 12, 2018, 10:26:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Meritocratic Isles!
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Prohibit child spamography  (Read 10587 times)
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« on: September 06, 2008, 03:20:10 PM »

The newest WA resolution that has come to vote prohibits child spamography. What do you think of this resolution?

Note: All words containing "spam" have temporarily been taken off of the censored words list for the sake of this thread. Please use this word only in this thread and appropriately. Once this discussion ends the word will be censored again.
Logged
Shieldelf
Citizen
Perioikos
*
*

Merit: 8
Posts: 182


Commander, Isles Militia


« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2008, 04:27:33 PM »

It's a good resolution. Child spam is bullcrap.
Logged

Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2008, 05:09:24 PM »

I too, strongly disapprove of child spamography.
However, I feel that this resolution does a poor job of defining child spamography and could lead to the prosecution of tons of innocent people. For example, child spamography is defined as pictures of children who are naked. Therefore, parents who want to take a picture of their child's first bath could be brought to international court.
Logged
Shieldelf
Citizen
Perioikos
*
*

Merit: 8
Posts: 182


Commander, Isles Militia


« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2008, 07:20:27 PM »

Good point. Generally I think it should be defined as a child engaging in a sex act, they don't have to be naked to do that.
Logged

Robinho
Ephor
Neodamode
*

Merit: 6
Posts: 44


« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2008, 12:17:14 AM »

We in Quinechaba agree that child spamography is unacceptable, plus we also agree with Kadoshin that it is not well defined. Although we feel it should be taken into consideration that it does say that there are exceptions to be made. It does highlight scientific and medical puropses though as opposed to such things as the child playing in the bath mentioned above.


In general Quinechaba supports the resolution, we just feel thbere should be a  clearer definition
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2008, 10:42:41 PM »

WE are in agreement that the spirit of this legislation is morally correct.
WE are also proud of OUR fellow rulers in the Meritocratic Isles as they consider "The Law of Unintended Consequences" which rears it's ugly head in many proposed laws.  Ladies and Gentlemen, give yourself applause  Cool .
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!