Dead or Alive Dimensions May Be Child Porn in Sweden

According to several sources, Nintendo of Europe will not be distributing Dead or Alive Dimensions in Sweden and possibly Norway and Denmark.

Why?  Well, there’s no official word but rumor has it that the distributor is afraid the game may break a Swedish child pornography law.

“But wait!”, I hear you say.  “How could the game be child porn when there’s no children or porn?”

That’s a very good question.  There is a mode in the game that allows players to take pictures of the characters in canned poses.  According to a post on NeoGAF, “the law says that if someone is picturing a girl under the age of eighteen, fictional or not, in a pornographic situation, that accounts for being child pornography.”

Of course, none of the poses are pornographic, there’s no sex, and aside from one character who, according to the ESRB, is “briefly depicted topless,” there’s no nudity.   And yeah, while Kasumi’s bio says she’s 17, she was introduced in 1996 so really, she should be in her 30s by now (Ayane would be pushing 30 and Kokoro would be early-20s).  Ignoring that, the youngest character in the game is 16 and Swedish Kotaku reader Doneaux points out that the age of consent in his country is 15.

Via: Kotaku, VE3D

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Contributing Editor Andrew Eisen

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

27 comments

  1. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    So I am… torn on the whole thing.  I’m very pro freedom of speech, but I’m very anti child sexualization.  There’s a whole psychology and mental development lecture behind that, not just "it makes me uncomfortable", but I don’t want to write an essay here.

    I understand your points, but mostly of the cases relating children and sex, is indeed a matter of "it makes me feel unconfortable".

    There is a culture in many countries for keeping children ignorant about sex, because in our societies adults can´t stand the fact that "children" or teenagers also can have sex.

    I´m not saying that young teens should have sex all the time, but I think that society should be more responsable and use information instead of censorship.

    Recently, a mayor of a city in Sinaloa, Mexico has banned miniskirts not only in young girls, but also in older women. That´s completely backwards for this century. And many other places actions like this has been applied with no other reason than the phobia for sex.

  2. Arell says:

    Hmm.  I’m on the fence about "virtual" child pornography laws.  I don’t think the sexualization of children is right in any medium, to the point where I find lolicon characters in anime disturbing as a concept, so outright virtual child porn just seems atrocious (to me).  I also don’t think it’s exactly the same type of issue as fictional "violent" media (violent games don’t make people more violent), since the type of stimulation is different.  The whole point of porn is to get you horny and want to have sex or masturbate, you can’t say the same thing of violent games making people want to go out and kill someone.  Animated porn is no different, you’re trying to get arroused sexually, and cartoon porn works because the art is representative of something real that you can relate to.

    But all that is personal preference and opinion.  Where it gets murky for me is actual laws against it.  Starting with the fact that there are no exploited children, since it’s virtual.  Still, I wonder if supporting such fetishes is really defencible, isn’t it a form of positive reinforcement to continually expose someone to underage sexual imagery?  "Hey, get horny on 11 year old girls flashing their nudity and blushing in anticipation, it’s a good thing!  But don’t lust after real little girls, you pervert!"  The second part is the whole freedom of expression thing.  A major deal in the US, where this concept is hardwired into our Constitution, but also in many other modern countries.  Although, most societies, even "Western" ones, admit that there are limits on how far freedom of expression should go.  The problem comes in, what is the line that shouldn’t be crossed, and who decides that line?  So I am… torn on the whole thing.  I’m very pro freedom of speech, but I’m very anti child sexualization.  There’s a whole psychology and mental development lecture behind that, not just "it makes me uncomfortable", but I don’t want to write an essay here.

    All of the above, of course, is pointless for this particular article.  DoA doesn’t have child pornography, virtual or not.  A questionable and possibly misogynistic depiction of women, sure.  But nothing more heinous than goofy, lighthearted cheesecake.  Even the youngest character couldn’t really be described as a child.

  3. ecco6t9 says:

    Yes because a girl who is 17 and 364 days it’s wrong to do anything but the next day it’s okay.

  4. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    I watch it on TruTV on Beach Patrol, but yeah, there are also endless instances.

  5. hellfire7885 says:

    Agreed.

     

    I don’t know if this is a true story, but I heard about one man who was taking pictures of children playing at a public park, when someone started making a scene, and for other people to gang up on him, demanding his camera and calling him a pervert.

    The hitch is that the children he was photographing were his own.


  6. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    This is getting more and more common. In United States, art site Deviantart does the same by banning every character under 21 years old in depicted in suggestive manner, even when the character was actually designed in that way, as many japanese characters are.

    Even when some character has officially appeared as an adult, the ban still applies.

    Terms like pornographic and child porn are getting to overreaching nowdays and it´s just ridiculous.

  7. State says:

    Sweden are not violating any laws. They’re also under the European Convention of Human Rights (the worst set of laws ever created), and they’re clearly not breaking anything under that.

    I do grow tired of the same old "freedom of speech" argument being trotted out every time a game is banned. If a country has decided it should be banned, well that’s up to them. I just find "freedom of speech" argument lame and inevitably always ends up with exceptions and no one actually argues on the merit of the content or the reason why it has been banned.

    Let’s not forget that Sweden haven’t banned the game, Nintendo have decided not to release it there. No ban exists and so why do not know if the game actually violates any Swedish law. Nintendo just don’t want to risk it.

  8. LegallyBlindGamer says:

    With regard to Alpha-152, she’s a clone of Kasumi, who was 17 when she was introduced. Plus, you can’t see anything because she’s a transluscent blue in DOA4. Upon doing more research, it appears to me that Sweden’s law violates Articles 7, 12, 19, 27, 28, and 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

     

     

  9. State says:

    Children are no way near as "developed" as the women of DOA are. Just looking at the characters it’s pretty obvious that they’re all adults. Although that age option in the options is questionable.

  10. Neeneko says:

    Hrm.  Not how I remember it being reported at the time, but looks like what you found is accurate so I stand corrected.

  11. Shahab says:

    I don’t believe that one bit. That is either not true or you are misrepresenting the situation. Link?

    EDIT: OK, I looked it up and you did totally misrepresent it. Basically this guy got pulled over and a search warrant was obtained for his computer, which was in the car when it was towed. They found the pictures of partially dressed underage girls, 15 and 13, wrestling in makeshift ring in his basement. He also pictures of the 15 year old completely naked. He was convicted of sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,corruption of minors, interference with the custody of children, criminal conspiracy and unlawful use of a communication facility.

  12. Neeneko says:

    Thing is, it is up to a judge if the photo is ‘pornographic’ or not.. in which case they just have to decide if the outfit, pose, or framing of a picture at a pool is too naughty.  ‘children being children’ can include some very suggestive things.

    I can recall a guy in Pittsburgh was arrested for taking pictures of two (young) girls in bathing suits wrestling.  Not an unusual activity for kids horsing around to do, but it was enough to count as kiddy porn in the US.

  13. Andrew Eisen says:

    "Actually that doesn’t come into it."

    Of course not.  It was just a joke.  Albeit, not a very good one.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  14. skadlig says:

    Actually that doesn’t come into it. Remember, this law is about persons or characters portraied in a sexual context. Photografing children being children in a pool wouldn’t trigger that law or part of it. It might be against some other law of course but not that I know of.
    On the other hand there is one new law being discussed right now that would make it illegal to photograf someone if they feel harassed by it… say photografing the police harassing teenagers…

    Sadly our minister of justice, Beatrice Ask, has a shaky grip on human rights, habeas corpus and things like it.

  15. Andrew Eisen says:

    Which is why no one in Sweden is allowed to bring a camera to a public pool.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  16. skadlig says:

    Ya that will actually not help. Its’ worse than you all think.
    In Sweden it’s up to the judges to decide what age the character is, especially if there is no age listed.

    So if the character "appears" to be underage (younger than 18) and depicted in a sexual way then it might be child porn. I’m not actually certain that the character needs to be in any way naked.

    If this seems to be f****d up then you have understood the gist of it.

  17. hellfire7885 says:

    Anyone who has even looked at screenshots of Dead or Alive should know there are no children in it.


  18. Shahab says:

    These laws are too overreaching. Because a 3d model of a woman might look a little underage you are going to be convicted as a child pornographer? What the hell is that? I am all for “protecting the children” but too often is that used to limit free expression. I don’t think anyone who reads this site think that Dead or Alive has ANYTHING to do with child porn.
    Laws so overreaching and broad need to be stricken from the books. Does Sweden have a court system that can rule a law unconstitutional?

  19. Adrian Lopez says:

    “The law says that if someone is picturing a girl under the age of eighteen, fictional or not, in a pornographic situation, that accounts for being child pornography.”

    As if we needed more proof that humans are idiots.

  20. Andrew Eisen says:

    That’s the scuttlebutt.  Someone wanted to call attention to the silly law and hopefully get it changed but someone took it seriously and either reported the game or threatened to report it.  Either way, it was enough to spook the distributer out of releasing the game.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  21. Felgard says:

    you are correct it’s due to that.
     

    Antisthenes – Observe your enemies, for they first find out your faults.

  22. State says:

    I thought part of this ban was related to a fact that recently a Manga translator in Sweden got charged with possession of child pornography.

  23. Andrew Eisen says:

    Could be, but none of the "under 18" characters are naked in this game.  The “briefly depicted topless,” character is Alpha-152 whose age is listed as unknown.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  24. -Jes- says:

    The age of consent may be 15 in his country, but I’m quite sure the legally minimum age for all participants in ‘distributed nudity’ is 18.

  25. DorthLous says:

    Thought crime, thought crime, what are you gonna think when they come for you. (refering to the "fictional" part of it, of course)

Comments are closed.