?

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 01:33 am (UTC)
bubble_blunder

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.

~Lisa

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:41 am (UTC)
kudra2324

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 01:51 am (UTC)
scarah2

Oh hay Lisa, you're internet famous :D

I certainly hope that you are correct. However, given LJ's interpretation of other stuff, I'm not sure that I trust so myself.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 01:57 am (UTC)
bubble_blunder

Oh hay Lisa, you're internet famous :D

LOL

Last night my best friend called me and asked to speak to the LJ celebrity. You know, I never expected things to take off like they did. I honestly figured that a hundred or so people would be interested in signing the letter based on it getting linked by my own flist. I never figured it would get so big.

As for the other, I hope that I'm right, too, although I certainly understand the lack of trust in light of everything else that's been going on. And frankly, with all of the other questions going on in the comments to that post that could have been answered and weren't, it kimnd of amazes me that the LJ staffers chose that one to respond to when they couldn't actually provide an answer. It seems like their efforts would have been better placed with the questions that had answers that could be admitted to in public.

~Lisa