Log in

Wed, Aug. 8th, 2007, 04:00 pm
scarah2: I just want to make sure everyone has seen this buried subthread

We report child pornography to the NCMEC, as required by law.

Scroll down to markf's reply in particular. It's heavily implied that ponderosa121 and elaboration were reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Harry Potters Children.

I'm going to check innocence_jihad and if this isn't already there, I'm gonna crosspost it. Sorry if you see it twice, but I'm finding that a lot of people haven't lurked quite as aggressively as I have and haven't seen it.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:10 am (UTC)

I'm sorry...

But is this a competition with lj now. Let's see who can be the stupidest the fastest? I can only hope that both artists have not been reported. I mean seriously what did they say to them? OMG!LOOKSHEDREWNAKEDHARRY111!!!!

Thanks for the post though :)

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:11 am (UTC)

Oh, they didn't. *eyerolls* This just gets dumber and dumber.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:12 am (UTC)


Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:12 am (UTC)


So does this mean that we can report LJ for assisting in people killing themselves through their website by pro-ana communities?

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:25 pm (UTC)

thats not a bad idea actually XD

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:15 am (UTC)

Oh, god, I really hope they did. 'Cause I think the NCMEC would rip 6A/LJ a new one for wasting their time. I can hear it now: "Hi, we have real predators to deal with. 20-something girls drawing pictures of fictional characters are not a threat. Please go away."

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:28 am (UTC)

I was thinking along those lines too. It occurred to me earlier today, what if some very brave selfless person basically handed themselves with the image to the police. Either we find out that such images are legal after all - or if not, perhaps the 30,000+ people opposed to this can turn their efforts against politicians (there's only been one case AFAIK where someone has been prosecuted under the new fictional child porn law, and that was someone who also had actual child porn - add to that the ambiguous age, and it being Harry Potter, such a case could generate quite a bit of publicity!)

Although obviously it's horrible for those two to be reported, when I'm sure they didn't want to be the sacrificial lambs...

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:19 am (UTC)

Quick! Somebody make an icon: "LJ. We know stupid when we see it."

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:40 am (UTC)


Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:21 am (UTC)

I can only imagine if I was a... whatever sort of law-enforcement professional... who got one of those pictures. I mean, you've got Law&Order:SVU style crap happening every day, loads of pictures and videos of real genuine children floating around cyberspace... and you send me... a drawing of the Weasley Twins?

I mean, would I laugh? Cry? Arrest you for the kiddie porn equivalent of a fake 911 call?

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 03:09 am (UTC)

All of the above?
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:23 am (UTC)

I am very seldom speechless but this... I just have no words.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:31 am (UTC)

All of this "we can't confirm or deny anything" bullshit is really starting to irritate me. What it tells me is that no one who is speaking on behalf of LiveJournal/Six Apart really knows what the hell is going on in their offices. They need to get someone out there who is actually calling the shots, and then they need to explain in clear and concise terms exactly what is happening in these Super-sekrit ToS Violations Meetings they're having. The whole secret society atmosphere is only lending to the panic.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:32 am (UTC)

Hmm. Going by the NCMEC's website, I would think the implication was that LJ *didn't* report anyone, given how much stress is placed on the harm done to the actual child.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:39 am (UTC)

I was presuming they did - the law cited on the NCMEC's website is the exact same law for obscene fictional images that LJ are using (emphasis mine):

Under federal law, child pornography1 is defined as a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it

depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or

depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.2
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:33 am (UTC)

I went to the link markf posted. Based on that, my own conclusion would be that they didn't report it. Now I could be wrong (and hope I'm not, obviously) but I read the page that he linked to from top to bottom 3 times. And everything in it talked about images of a minor or of someone who appears to be a minor.

In the eyes of the law, Harry Potter is not a minor. Harry Potter is a character in a book. My understanding of that page is that images of fictional characters, even if they otherwise meet all of the relevant criteria (which the pics in question didn't) do not fall under the federal definition of child pornography.

That being said, it is, I suppose, possible that some state laws might be different, but I don't know what LJ's obligation would be to report something to the state law enforcement agencies if it isn't a violation of the federal law. Being that they didn't mention the states when they mentioned the federal, I am assuming that there isn't one.


Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:41 am (UTC)

In the eyes of the law, Harry Potter is not a minor. Harry Potter is a character in a book. My understanding of that page is that images of fictional characters, even if they otherwise meet all of the relevant criteria (which the pics in question didn't) do not fall under the federal definition of child pornography.

i'm pretty sure that this is right. a lot of the confusion over the past few days has been generated, i think, by lj originally, correctly noting that non-photographical images were unlikely to be pornography but might be obscene; the most recent post conflated the two things, with this sort of confusion as a result.

after all, what is the NCMEC going to do, rescue harry potter from the clutches of someone's brain?

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:35 am (UTC)

Wow. I hope they got bitched at for wasting police time. WTF?!

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:37 am (UTC)

I just thought I'd mention that the AFA has decided to jump on the bandwagon concerning obscenity. I don't think it's a coincidence that they sent out this bulletin to anyone who subscribes to their news letters at the same time that LJ finally decides to come forward with so called "clarifications". Here's what their current e-mail says, just for reference.

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

Protect our children from obscenity; sign the petition asking candidates to enforce obscenity laws

Pornographers go after our children while elected officials refuse to enforce obscenity laws

Dear Kirsten,

Our children need your help! It has been reported that there are as many as 10,000,000 pornographic sites on the Internet. The average age for those first exposed to Internet obscenity is 11 and the largest consumer group is 12-17 year-olds. Nine out of ten of 8-16 year-olds have viewed pornography online. Yet, in the past 15 years, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, there has not been a single federal prosecution of a major distributor of Internet, in-room movie, cell phone or cable TV obscenity. Not one! (There were a couple of prosecutions of small, mom and pop type pornographers.)

The major pornographers have no fear of prosecution. Why? Because those responsible for enforcing the law fear the pornographers more than they fear the mothers and fathers of America, and they care more about the hawkers of pornography than they do our children.

Our children are being robbed of their childhood by greedy pornographers and cowardly officials. Please understand that I’m not referring to trashy TV. I am referring to hardcore pornography.

For a description of the kind of material bombarding our children, and the kind of material officials refuse to prosecute, click here. WARNING! This description is taken straight from movies being offered in hotels, on the Internet, on cell phones and on cable TV. It is graphic and extremely offensive.

Please join me in signing a petition to the presidential candidates asking each candidate to sign a pledge that if elected, they will enforce federal obscenity laws. We will notify you, the public and media of each candidate’s decision. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that obscenity isn’t protected under the First Amendment.

Thanks for helping protect our children. Our children’s future is indeed dark if caring adults refuse to help them. If you believe our efforts to be worthwhile, would you consider making a small tax-deductible donation to help us continue? Click here to donate.

Take Action
Sign the petition to presidential candidates asking them to pledge to enforce federal obscenity laws.
Please help us promote this effort to protect our children. Forward this to your family and friends. Ask your pastor to promote this effort in church newsletters and bulletins.
Print and distribute the Enforce Obscenity Laws Petition. (PDF format)

If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.


Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:42 am (UTC)

I despise how these so-called "family" groups are always screaming "MAKE A NEW LAW!" instead of "Hey, where are these kids' parents?"
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:38 am (UTC)

Well, perhaps LJ should study up on what is and isn't child pornography before they go off and report anything.

Even if they did report it, I don't see anything serious coming out of it. I honestly don't see NCMEC even pretending to care about this. Though, I would be nice to see the response LJ gets if they did report the images...

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:50 am (UTC)

I am *so* snagging both those icons. :-)

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 02:09 am (UTC)

Awsome! Make fandom a whipping boy! Then ACTUAL PEDO'S fly under the radar. The world is so fucked up. Worrying over Harry-Fucking-Potter while LIVE SITES OF REAL CHILDREN are being accessed by REAL CRIMINALS.
It makes me weep.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 02:29 am (UTC)

I know!

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 02:26 am (UTC)

This just scares me. A lot. :(

Just, this week has been too stressful. Imagine how Ponderosa and Elaboration feel right now.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 03:20 am (UTC)

I sincerely doubt the two artists were reported. The NCMEC website paraphrases the statute linked in lj_biz. The statute deals ONLY with visual images that are indistinguishable from an actual child (anyone looking at the image would think they were looking at a real child) OR is of an identifiable minor (something in the picture shows exactly which actual minor was victimized). The images in question were not of an actual person(s), nor could you mistake the images as being of an actual person. They don't meet the statutory definition of child pornography, so it would be phenomenally stupid of LJ to report them. They said they reserved the right to ban material that WAS LEGAL, and that is what they did there. It may meet LJ's expanded definition of child porn, but it doesn't fall under the statute.

Further, a "minor" under the statute is a PERSON under the age of 18. Fictional characters CANNOT be a person under the law. To make a point: A fetus in the womb is NOT considered a person under the law. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY a fictional character would be afforded the status of a person under the law, when a fetus is not.

I gave a detailed description of what LJ's response does for them in the greater scheme of things on my LJ, so I won't go into here. But in general, in their responses they MUST make it appear that they are concerned solely with the illegality of the material they are banning, when, in actuality, they have said they WILL be banning material that is legal and protected by the First Amendment. That's what happened with the ponderosa121 and elaboration, and they are using illegal child porn as a smoke screen to hide their real actions. 6A's actions are brilliant from a company and public perception standpoint, and they have ensured that the only people who know what's really happening are the one's with a vested interest in delving into the issue. I wouldn't worry about reporting or the law because it is on fandom's side, as it stands now. 6A is just directing attention away from what they are really doing.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 03:45 am (UTC)

Have to mention, that was a brilliant point by point breakdown you did on your lj about this situation. You brought up a lot of food for thought and shed new light (for me anyway heh), I'm so glad to see so many intelligent and well spoken people band together in this. :)

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 03:27 am (UTC)

How is that...I don't even...I really think my brain has just imploded. Is it 1950, has HUAC been reinstated and beginning it's new quest to remove individualist thinking from America? I'm so entirely disgusted by how far this has gone; true or not, the insinuation that they would report this is worthy of suing over defamation of character.

Fri, Aug. 10th, 2007 06:04 pm (UTC)

I just wanted to say this was one of the best comments ever.
(Deleted comment)

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 05:33 am (UTC)

No. Fucking. Way.
(Deleted comment)

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 07:54 am (UTC)

I read it. And fuck-- it's horrifying. Profanity doesn't even begin express my disgust.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 06:57 am (UTC)

Oh... markf, markf, markf! Stop trying to show us what a small brain you have! Your attempt at a scare tactic didn't go over very well, did it? You just made the entire fandom laugh at you, and you didn't really scare anyone. We're all just sitting here shaking our heads at how stupid your desperate need to play the big, powerful LJ man with mysterious abilities and LJ staffer secrets of doom and statements you can't confirm or deny just made you look. Here's lookin at you, jackass!

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 06:59 am (UTC)

Well, he scared me to the point where I deleted all my entries. Except for the one with a macro saying that I deleted all my entries.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 10:08 am (UTC)

Oh for the love of...

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 10:09 am (UTC)

If that's true, that's horrendous.