We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Protect the Children Act of 3827
Details
Submitted by[?]: Chann National Party (CNP)
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 3827
Description[?]:
| "Porn being available to Children is reprehensible and impacts their sexual and emotional development negatively. Likewise, the kidnapping and forcing of Children into prostitution is a grave concern that should be addressed!" - Theary Chann, Governess of ChannHealth |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The distribution, purchasing and possession of material depicting pornographic acts.
Old value:: Pornography depicting consenting adults is legal for everyone.
Current: All forms of pornography are illegal.
Proposed: Pornography depicting consenting adults is legal for adults.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The right for a person to prostitute himself or herself.
Old value:: Prostitution regulation decisions are left up to local governments.
Current: Prostitution is illegal.
Proposed: Prostitution is illegal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:40:54, April 07, 2015 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Protect the Children Act of 3827 |
| Message | "Here, Chann uses fear-mongering and dirty politics to enact their party agenda that is extreme. Vote NO." ~Ted Johnson, Head Chairman of the LPS and Prime Minister |
| Date | 05:21:44, April 07, 2015 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Protect the Children Act of 3827 |
| Message | "What an extreme statement coming from one of the most extreme parties that Solentia has every known since its inception. Porn will still be legal for adults, it will only be illegal for children. And the illegality of prostitution should speak for itself. And we're accused of dirty politics in presenting this bill? The LPS is run by a child who themselves engages in childish, dirty politics by calling everything they see and hear that doesn't agree with them as dirty and extreme. Learn your own libertarian platform. Libertarians are all for free speech and ideas aren't they? Oh right, except when it runs counter to their own beliefs. In fact, you are a hypocrite libertarian. If you were a true libertarian, you wouldn't hold cabinet positions because they are the regulatory arms of government. Why not abolish them instead? Child." Kaiser Chann, High Chancellor of Chann Corporation |
| Date | 06:38:26, April 07, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Protect the Children Act of 3827 |
| Message | Please explain. There are no logical arguments for the illegality of prostitution. If Pornography is legal then how is prostitution (pornography without the camera) something that should be illegal? People own their own bodies, the government has no right to get involved in any consensual sexual relations involving adults. Local Governments should continue to have regulations in an effort to curb forced prostitution and child prostitution rings (as you rightly point out) but there is no reason that prostitution for adults should be illegal. Please explain how the illegality of prostitution speaks for itself. I have yet to hear a single argument for it that even remotely makes sense. |
| Date | 06:40:21, April 07, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Protect the Children Act of 3827 |
| Message | As far as pornography, kids will find it on the internet. Regardless of what the law states there is no way to prevent this. And there is no evidence of pornography being harmful to any children. Granted, very hardcore pornography might be, but fairly regular sex between two adults? This doesn't harm any children. Please present your scientific research that it harms them, because no such conclusive evidence exists. |
| Date | 14:13:56, April 07, 2015 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Protect the Children Act of 3827 |
| Message | "It is because the only thing that you deem to make sense is some lofty, esoteric belief in a principle of rights. In legal theory, no right is absolute. Rights are still subject to regulation. A government working as representative of the people cannot function on the basis of absolutely, uninfringe-able rights. Prostitution in most cases is not consensual. Look at prostitution all across this world and it is brought about through subjugation of another human being by a human being who is looking to exploit that persons body for profit. How this often happens is in a mall, a girl will be picked out by a ring operator who will approach her and pretend to be interested in her, shower her in gifts, and in the course of a few months begins to force her to have sex with clients. How do you explain the right to one's own person in that instance? A situation where emotional manipulation turns into physical manipulation. This has been proven as a manner in getting persons to engage in prostitution. The most extreme cases, and most prevalent, are abduction and forced prostitutions. In countries all over the world, including Solentia, human trafficking is a problem. Talk of an esoteric right to one's own body while ignoring these statistical studies is what absolute adherence to rights gets you and that is why absolute rights is unworkable when in governance." |
| Date | 14:15:21, April 07, 2015 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Protect the Children Act of 3827 |
| Message | OOC: FGRP, I caution you on your RP. You leave no room for RP whne you say "Please present scientific evidence" then say "there is no evidence" What kind of roleplay is that? BOth you and the LPS need to tidy up your roleplay. |
| Date | 00:28:24, April 08, 2015 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Protect the Children Act of 3827 |
| Message | OOC: I don't see any problems with what Reformer123 did, and I don't know what you mean by "tidy up your roleplay". You refer to us by our party names in "OOC". That means you're obviously using our party's actions to determine that we don't know what we are doing. Perhaps you should tidy up your role play. Also, why did you even drag me into this in this? |
| Date | 01:37:40, April 08, 2015 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Protect the Children Act of 3827 |
| Message | OOC: LOL That using party names is self-explanatory/quick reference. The way in which you both have been using your parties IS ruining the RP in this country and your statement proves exactly why you need to tidy up your RP. "Perhaps you should tidy up your role play." Listen to how flippant that sounds. That is the same tone you strike in many of your "RP" characters. Since day one, you exhibit a very childish RP where you respond in a very sarcastic, disrespectful, and very unserious way. RP is supposed to reflect how the level of seriousness and professional conduct that occurs in real politics and real life. I have played in Solentia for many years now and the Unionists (Gobbleke) has also. Being a party with different policies and ideas is one thing, but you have to respect the RP - this is a simulation of real government and real politics. This isn't Xbox Online or WorldofWarcraft or Halo or COD where you troll or cuss or act unprofessionally. |
| Date | 20:08:13, April 08, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Protect the Children Act of 3827 |
| Message | Forced prostitution should absolutely be illegal. But under this proposition, what happens to the prostitutes who are forced into it or doing it voluntarily to make some extra money? Do they go to jail as well or do only pimps go to jail? Do those who make use of the services (even when it is a completely voluntary transaction) go to jail? Would Prostitutes be given rehabilitation in this proposal or jail time? After all, if they are forced into it then they have committed no crime, correct? When we say that we support legalized prostitution we mean this: consenting adults can have any sexual relationships. Whether it is a relationship where money is directly exchanged for sex, a relationship where it is indirectly exchanged for sex, a relationship where favors or presents are exchanged for sex, etc. Leave consenting adults free to do as they please with their own bodies. Obviously any forceful prostitution needs to be illegal and anyone found coercing other people to doing anything against their will should receive hefty jail time. But what about cases where it is someone just wanting to make some extra money? What about situations where someone gives gifts in exchange for sex? What if someone is in a relationship and they give gifts and later in the day sex occurs? Where do we draw the line of what is and is not the legal definition of prostitution? Should gifts in exchange for sex also be banned? Why not allow consenting adults to do whatever they please and focus our legal efforts on locking up pimps and those who truly do coerce others into prostitution? Imagine if you offered some random lady you saw on the street 2,000 SOL to have sex with you. She agrees and then you do it. You give her the money and she gets on with your life and you get on with your life. Please explain how this is a criminal act and why such a voluntary agreement should be banned. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 173 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 310 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." - Thomas B. Reed |