Log in

No account? Create an account

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 11:14 am (UTC)

Breathe. Unlike LJ, NCMEC knows what the actual content of child pornography laws are and what real child porn entails. The fucker was trolling.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 05:21 pm (UTC)


As an official representative of LJ staff.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 05:37 pm (UTC)

Considering the generally atrocious behavior of not one but several 6A/LJ employees during this entire fucktarded debacle, nothing surprises me anymore. But, in retrospect, perhaps 'trolling' is not the term I should have used -- attempted intimidation by vague inference might be more accurate.

Look, in my real life, I am not a lawyer. I am, however, a professional freelance writer and my most recent professional commission has required me to wade hip-deep into just the sort of territory organizations like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children actually investigate. This ain't it. Why? Because it is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children not the National Center for Missing and Exploited Fictional Characters. Might they have reported it? Sure, if only to engage in a thoroughly ridiculous even under current law CYA gesture. I can say, with absolute certainty, that the NCMEC does not smile kindly on people wasting their time reporting "crimes" against children who do not actually exist.

Sun, Aug. 12th, 2007 03:58 pm (UTC)

"Because it is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children not the National Center for Missing and Exploited Fictional Characters. "

Sun, Aug. 12th, 2007 11:39 pm (UTC)

Seriously. I read that remark and just facepalmed. In real life, for cripes' sakes, AT MY WORK COMPUTER. And restrained myself, oh so mightily, from asking when we could expect to see a HAVE YOU SEEN THIS CHILD? flier appearing in our snail-mail with Harry Potter's face on it.

Sun, Aug. 12th, 2007 03:59 pm (UTC)

Also, do you think they'll fine 6A, the way the 911 does when you call them for no real reason?

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 03:24 pm (UTC)
tamburlaine: Um what.

Fandom, there are much larger issues involved here.

And with all due respect, either you people are deluded as hell or just in complete ignorance of the US' policies.

Says markf: I think this illustrates rather well, though, what the legal climate is on this type of material, and people could argue indefinitely over child porn vs. obscenity, and what is artistic merit. The bottom line is, until you've changed the opinion of some much greater powers, it's more or less irrelevant what anyone at Six Apart or LiveJournal personally thinks.

Exactly. Clearly the decisions made by Six Apart were made to avoid negative/destructive entanglement with the laws and standards of a much much much higher power. And with good reasons -- the least of all being the safety of its visitors. The public -- "fandom" -- must consider the frenzied climate that online businesses are having to live in in the wake of MySpace's account terminations of over 29,000 registered sex offenders.

For better or for worse, explicit HP fanart will sometimes have to be the collateral damage of such government-sanctioned tough love.

If those fanartists were reported to the NCMEC -- which I will doubt until I see proof -- it was because Livejournal is compelled to follow the laws of the United States government. You're not suggesting that Livejournal break the laws, are you?

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 03:39 pm (UTC)
haights: Re: Um what.


Congratulations! You have succeeded in making yourself look like a complete moron. Maybe you and markf should hang out.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 03:54 pm (UTC)
tamburlaine: Re: Um what.

Oh really? I'd ask why, but it seems that my completely reasonable opinions are not valid here.

So I'll just say this: Sarcasm is cheap. If you want to have a useful debate about these topics, I'm more than willing to engage you on a mature level.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 04:21 pm (UTC)
haights: Re: Um what.

What made me laugh at you was this statement, "You're not suggesting that Livejournal break the laws, are you?"

If LJ says that they're going to follow the laws with this whole fandom thing, then they should at least follow through all the way with all the other issues here on their website which have been pointed out to them and they've brushed them off. This isn't just about fandom now, it's more than that and LJ doesn't seem to care that harmful things are happening on their website besides what's going on right now.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 04:50 pm (UTC)
tamburlaine: Re: Um what.

If you're talking about the pro-anorexia communities, they have always been under close scrutiny but unfortunately there is no law that can penalize a company for providing a community that aids eating disorders. There is a lot of reasonable doubt. Until someone dies because they followed, to the letter, each bit of advice to be found on a pro-ana LJ community, there is nothing to be done. This may or may not be because eating disorders are mental illnesses; pro-ana communities are in effect "lifestyle communities" that do not explicitly violate any law.

The laws and regulations for pornography, however, are clearly delineated and are growing more restrictive every day.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 05:10 pm (UTC)
scarah2: Re: Um what.

completely reasonable opinions

It's your completely reasonable opinion that artists are deluded as hell for being upset at possibly getting reported as pedos for drawing erotica featuring 22-year-olds. Good to know!

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 03:56 pm (UTC)
belleamant: Re: Um what.

Actually, as much as I don't like what tamburlaine had to say, she didn't _sound_ like a moron at all. It was a well thought out, well-spoken argument.

On the other hand, I don't like being called deluded or have it considered that my explicit art (though its fiction) could be called "collateral damage".

There are some very serious issues here on the grander scale than fandom, but fandom is being attacked at the moment, which makes this personal.


Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 04:01 pm (UTC)
haights: Re: Um what.

Actually what made me call her a moron was this statement right here: "You're not suggesting that Livejournal break the laws, are you?"

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 04:03 pm (UTC)
belleamant: Re: Um what.

Ah. That's understandable, especially as the interpretation of the laws can be debated (a lot).


Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 04:40 pm (UTC)
tamburlaine: Re: Um what.

Okay, I'm sorry I used the word "deluded." But there are those in fandom who continue to think that Six Apart's/LJ's decision to erase "offensive materials" came about as a result of a "grudgewank" or vendetta. I think this is utterly untrue. The actions of Six Apart arose as a direct result of the tightened restrictions for explicit material on the internet. These restrictions became more fierce in order to protect people and to avoid the possibility of fostering a community of sex offenders. (Refer again to the banning of 29,000 rapists that had until last week roamed MySpace.)

I maintain that Six Apart's decision was not at all "personal." They want to escape any possibility of legal liability -- as they should. Fandom is "being attacked" only insofar that some of its art exists in a grey area of acceptability that Six Apart does not want to tolerate at this time and has so seen fit to remove from its liabilities.

The phrase "collateral damage" isn't necessarily a negative term, it just describes the incidental damage that can occur when a large attack is launched. Six Apart's grand attack was on the communities that advocate illegal and heinous activities, and unfortunately the more lewd, offbeat, but arguably legal tastes of the fandom community also got caught in the blast.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 04:57 pm (UTC)
belleamant: Re: Um what.

Thank you for another good argument.

I understand what you mean about the tightened restrictions on the internet, but LJ/SixApart's overreactions make it feel more personal. Removing an entire journal for the supposed one piece of art. Honestly, that particular piece really shouldn't have been the one that got her banned. When I fear for my own safety as an artist, that makes it more personal. I personally do not think that Six Apart or LJ is "attacking" fandom so that was a bad choice of words on my part. If they'd taken out pornish_pixies again, perhaps I would change my opinion, but two relatively well-known fanartists does not make up the entirety of fandom. I know.

Basically, I'm scared of being their next victim, and I don't like that feeling, especially since I've technically done nothing wrong. I still want better answers from the TOS. I want to know what I can and can't post on here because I certainly don't want to be accused of being a pedophile since I'm planning on becoming a youth librarian.

So, LJ was in the wrong by deleting the journals and if they reported them, which I don't think they did, I think that's wrong also, but I can understand why they would be panicking (which might be the wrong choice of words again) about pornographic content given the views in the United States today.


Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 04:10 pm (UTC)
canlib: as I said on FW

I think that part of why HP fanart is so problematic is that there are the books and the movies. LJ judged that ponderosa's pic (and elaboration's though I haven't seen it) could be of a minor. If there was only the books, it would purely be an issue of a fictional character. The existence of the movies mean that a representation of naked underaged Harry cannot be easily distinguished from a representation of naked underaged Dan Radcliff. IANAL and all that but I'm betting that whatever laws exist for that situation are far less clear than any dancing 6A has been doing. It'd probably have to look very different from the actor not to cause concern and I'm 100% sure that the current age of DR would have no bearing at all if the pic was judged to be possibly of a minor. At which point, 6A could be legally required to report it. At least that's probably why they did - if they did.

Fri, Aug. 10th, 2007 10:56 pm (UTC)
everenthralledx: Re: as I said on FW

The existence of the movies mean that a representation of naked underaged Harry cannot be easily distinguished from a representation of naked underaged Dan Radcliff.

And thanks to Equus, we all know EXACTLY what Daniel looks like under his robes.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 08:04 pm (UTC)
undomielregina: Re: as I said on FW

IANAL, but something I'm wondering about: the Livejournal employees have repeatedly claimed that Pond and Elaboration were TOSed for child pornography in the comments to the lj_biz post. If this is the case (and especially if they reported Pond and Elaboration) could the artists sue them for libel? The work is most decidedly not child porn, and is only obscene content once declared so in court, so at the moment it is at worst, potentially illegal. Claiming that Pond and Elaboration had child porn is thus claiming publicly that they are guilty of a very serious crime that they did not commit and one that comes with a serious impact on their reputations. If they turn out to have been reported and action is taken against them it might be wise to remember this.

It is in fact possible that the court might judge that Pond's art recognizably depicts an underage Daniel Radcliffe in which case it is child pornography (I cannot evaluate any such claims about Elaboration's picture since I do not have access to a copy), but I think that it is sufficiently dubious that Pond's picture represents Radcliffe as all the physical markers that would be used to identify him are also markers of Harry Potter as described in the novels (eg, messy black hair). There are also clear differences: the size of the nose, the general facial shape, and the lack of chest hair (thank you, Equus) all diverge from publicly available pictures of Radcliffe, including images of him as Harry Potter from the latest film. Furthermore, no reasonable person would assume that this is a picture of Daniel Radcliffe being buggered by Alan Rickman, rather than a picture of Harry Potter being buggered by Severus Snape.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 08:22 pm (UTC)
scarah2: Re: as I said on FW

IAWTC. If I were the artists in question, I'd be motherfucking pissed at all the comments. Unless SixApart has expanded its properties to include a court of law.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 10:46 pm (UTC)
skyshark: Re: as I said on FW

So, wait.

Under national state law, or California law?

No, seriously. Humor me.

Fri, Aug. 10th, 2007 02:13 am (UTC)
undomielregina: Re: as I said on FW

Under national law. As far as I could tell, California child porn statutes are functionally identical to federal ones, but I wouldn't swear to that.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 11:24 pm (UTC)

8^O Oh for fuck's sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *dies . . . *

They're going to ruin two people's lives over porny fanart??? UGH! This is totally unacceptable and gone way too far . . .

Fri, Aug. 10th, 2007 02:18 pm (UTC)

Is it really wrong that I just collapsed in laughter at the stupid?

That's like reporting a crime that you read about in fanfiction... to the cops.