?

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 02:09 am (UTC)
norbert02

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)
scarah2

I know!

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

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)
swansong33

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)
soundandvision

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)
soundandvision

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)
yrena

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

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

No. Fucking. Way.
(Deleted comment)

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

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

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 06:57 am (UTC)
ex_leianora730

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)
scarah2

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.

(Deleted comment)

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

If that's true, that's horrendous.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 11:14 am (UTC)
nagaina_ryuuoh

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)
scarah2

trolling.

As an official representative of LJ staff.

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.

*snorts*

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

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 11:24 pm (UTC)
avialle

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 . . .