?

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 03:07 am (UTC)
swansong33

That website still refers back to the original statute which deals only with real children. The NCMEC paraphrased the statute that was linked in the LJ_biz response. Under the statute, the generated image must be either indistinguishable from a real child (anyone looking at it could mistake it for a real child) or of an identifiable person (something, like a birthmark, etc, shows that the picture is of an actual person). Court cases have made it clear that pictures of fictional characters CANNOT be child porn. I sincerely doubt the artists were reported.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 10:20 am (UTC)
longlongwaytogo

I am so confused.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 11:17 am (UTC)
emarkienna

No, the lj_biz post linked to a completely different law (one for actual or indistinguishable, as you say).

The original fictional child porn was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002. Since then, the Government has brought in a law (PROTECT Act 2003) which criminalises fictional child porn, but only if the images are also considered obscene.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legal_status_in_the_United_States . Apparentely only one person has been convicted under the law - and that was a case involving depictions of prepubescent children, and the guy also possessed actual child porn.

That's the law the NCMEC quoted.

Anyhow, whether the law says these images are illegal is beside the point. The point is that LJ said these images are illegal according to definition X, and they said that they report it to NCMEC if it fits their definition of child porn - which is also definition X. Whether definition X includes fictional material or not doesn't matter, the implication is, since LJ think it does include it, that LJ have reported it.

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 02:33 pm (UTC)
ladypeyton

Most of the original law was reinstated in 2003 by Bush's Protect Act.

The only thing not reinstated (I've been told) was that the law no longer applies to older people pretending to *be* minors in film (ie. Lolita), which IIUC was the basis of the 2002 decision.