A Creation of Child Pornographers?

December 9, 2003 8:11 AM

Deus Ex 2: Possibly too realistic?
posted by cedar (28 comments total)

Can anybody verify that this is really in the game? Not knowing Kevin Klerck, the creator of this site, he could have just Photoshopped that for all I know.
posted by waldo at 8:16 AM on December 9, 2003

Wait a damn minute. This is the same guy that started the "Rename the Two Towers" petition. He apparently believed that the title was created after September 11th, and named to capitalize on the attacks.

Feh.
posted by waldo at 8:19 AM on December 9, 2003

I decided to play through a second time, and it was during this time that I discovered this. The model is a young girl in New Cairo who I accidentally killed while fighting an enemy. Her body was strewn in such a way that it was possible to see up her skirt. However, I saw much more than I wanted -- I saw simulated child pornography.

Accidentally "killing" a virtual being dosen't bother the guy much, but seeing a simulated vagina does? Anybody else find that kind of bizarre?

I mean I loathe any exploitation of children, but this is downright weird.
posted by jonmc at 8:19 AM on December 9, 2003

Agreed, this seems dubious.

Also, it seems strange that this person is against simulated child pornography, yet had no qualms otherwise about the simulated murder of the self same virtual child.
posted by BigPicnic at 8:21 AM on December 9, 2003

Not to mention that he had no qualms posting an uncensored picture of said occurence...
posted by twiggy at 8:22 AM on December 9, 2003

Should it be illegal to draw (or create graphically) a picture? No. If this is an actual screenshot, is what the game designers did beyond bad taste? Yes.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:23 AM on December 9, 2003

Wait, so...it's a video game. Lots of killing, blowing shit up, accidentally killing people in Cairo. The guy has no problem with that, but he gets all bent about a coochie shot? If it's leagal to marry a girl in Egypt when she's 14, is it still child porno over here? This is silly. And a (well-done) Photoshop job - the clothes are kinda blocky (look at socks), but the unmentionables have a lot more detail. The left hamstring of the character even has a bit of definition!
posted by notsnot at 8:24 AM on December 9, 2003

My Mama used to always tell me to wear clean underwear, just in case I got shot or something. Guess nobody told that girl in the video game....
posted by spilon at 8:27 AM on December 9, 2003

This was mentioned in a Slashdot thread yesterday.

I'm calling Photoshop.
posted by grabbingsand at 8:31 AM on December 9, 2003

klerck is a world famous troll. He pioneered posting the ASCII version of goatse.cx man to slashdot, started the Two Towers petition as a troll, and used to troll on shacknews.com and a few other places. While amusing at times, he's a known troll.
posted by mikeh at 8:32 AM on December 9, 2003

I thought this discussion was going to be about beer.

I am getting so old.
posted by bradth27 at 8:32 AM on December 9, 2003

Actual Picture referred to in article.

Whoa! Well, lots of good issues brought up already. My first thought was, "Is this photoshopped, has anyone reproduced it?"

For those of you who find it funny that he's more upset over a simulated child's vagina than the simulated murder of a child, think of this - you can murder your simulated child and then jerk off! Child snuff pornography.
posted by PigAlien at 8:33 AM on December 9, 2003

If in fact it is photoshopped and he's trolling, he could be in serious trouble with the makers of Deus Ex 2 for libel. Don't have a guess as to whether he'd care or not.
posted by PigAlien at 8:36 AM on December 9, 2003

This thread from squabble.org, including posts from Klerck, says all that needs to be said. It's a troll. Solid.

http://www.squabble.org/index?id=527068
posted by Hogshead at 8:36 AM on December 9, 2003

I checked Ion Storm's forums. It's fake, and the company is apparently taking appropriate measures against Klerck.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:39 AM on December 9, 2003

Again, can't we stop with the vagina comments? ;-)
posted by planetkyoto at 8:49 AM on December 9, 2003

Big deal, Half-Life was filled with underage headcrab poontang.
posted by bondcliff at 8:49 AM on December 9, 2003

Relieved its a troll. I don't think I could take the news of Black Isle closing AND Warren Spector creating kiddie porn in the same day.

I've been wondering about this for a while though. As computer graphics get better, its probably inevitable that there is going to be some really sick stuff produced that will be pretty much indiscernible from the reality. Will this "virtual" porn will be regarded in the same light as the "real" deal, if no-one is actually being exploited and harmed in the making of it?
posted by arha at 8:55 AM on December 9, 2003

Um. A NSFW notice would have been appreciated.
posted by silusGROK at 8:57 AM on December 9, 2003

No kidding.
posted by Songdog at 8:59 AM on December 9, 2003

I agree with Klerck that this is outrageous and the game should be taken off the shelves. Additionally, Klerck's website should be taken offline until his capture of the image is removed. Furthermore, google should be taken offline until it's cache is confirmed to be clear of the image from the game from the website.

Oh wait, I don't agree at all, I think he's just a useless troll. My bad.
posted by mosch at 9:05 AM on December 9, 2003

OK, it is a troll, but as arha said, there is a kernel of a relevant issue in there. I draw a firm line between porn that is a document produced by exploiting people (not just children) and porn that is an imaginary creation produced by manipulating graphics tools, whether physical or virtual (the rampant dissemination and/or zoning of such content is a separate issue). But as the graphics get better, this is definitely going to come up, in a non-troll way.
posted by soyjoy at 9:16 AM on December 9, 2003

Wunnerful ... although a hoax, it'll be waved around as bona fide evidence for years by the "what-about-the-children" crowd.
posted by RavinDave at 9:17 AM on December 9, 2003

Will this "virtual" porn will be regarded in the same light as the "real" deal, if no-one is actually being exploited and harmed in the making of it?

It probably depends on who's in the Supreme Court at the time... however, I'd like to throw in my two cents and say that yes it should be considered one in the same. I know that may be a drastic strengthening of Washington's power, but if it's indistinguishable from the reality, then it would have the same psychological effect on the viewer/player as if it had been filmed in the real world. You know, the gratification of those sick fantasies, and the amplification of the desire to play them out in real life. Also, if it was legal, it would probably allow a lot of said films to escape legislation by passing themselves off as "virtual," especially if the government had no way to verify this.
posted by Laugh_track at 9:22 AM on December 9, 2003

I didn't need to see that... but since I'm already here, I might as well pose a question — it's not as articulate as I'd like, but I hope it suffices :

Many of us in this forum believe that crimes that target a person because of their ethnicity, orientation, religion, or the like exist in their own sphere (hate crimes), and deserve harsher punishment.

My understanding of the logic behind such a mindset (one that I share, in large measure), is that although the crime was committed against a specific person (or persons), that the effects of the crime somehow reverberate through an entire community. So now we have an act that is in large measure virtual in nature.

With that background, let's talk about virtual child pornography... is there a difference between the victimization of an entire class (children) here, and the victimization of an entire class in a hate crime?

In another vein, current legal thinking (as far as I understand it) is that employees suffer if an employer allows various activities at the work place... I can't remember the phrase, exactly, but it's something like "an un-safe work environment". At any rate, the idea seems to be that acts that are (in and of themselves) not sexual harassment can contribute to an environment that is conducive to sexual harassment... as such, the act somehow becomes criminalized because of the environment the act fosters.

Couldn't the act of consuming/creating virtual child pornography be considered in a similar light? That it creates an environment where children are treated as objects of desire?

Just a few questions... I'm eager for your comments.
posted by silusGROK at 9:22 AM on December 9, 2003

What about thinking about kiddie porn? Could we also outlaw that? Because there's way to much unfettered thought going around these days.
posted by signal at 9:29 AM on December 9, 2003

if it's indistinguishable from the reality, then it would have the same psychological effect on the viewer/player as if it had been filmed in the real world.

Well, maybe, but we don't ban child porn because of the psychological effects on the viewer.
posted by kindall at 9:35 AM on December 9, 2003

I think that we should make oregano and bleached flour illegal. Also, squirt guns, kids' toy stuffed versions of endangered animals, and movies that depict murder.
posted by waldo at 9:44 AM on December 9, 2003