?

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 03:20 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 04:00 am (UTC)
swansong33

Hey, thanks! It's nice to know my rant did something more than allow me to calm down enough to actually sleep last night. :P

Thu, Aug. 9th, 2007 10:30 am (UTC)
longlongwaytogo

One of the comments above actually had the opposite... 'including' illustrations. Can someone please explain which is right and how so?

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

http://raaven.livejournal.com/508325.html well if this person is correct, they have to refund those two people according to california law.

Sun, Aug. 19th, 2007 02:35 am (UTC)
mamasboo

Yep and a fetus in the womb is actually ALIVE. Harry Potter is not real, nor alive, nor a child. If he were real, he'd be in his freaking 30's anyway, right? This is sooo nutty.

Is it just me, am I crazy or does anyone else also see child stuff as more like an under the age of puberty type thing? I mean if I saw a drawing of a little kid having sex with some adult I'd be squicked but it isn't the same with a depiction of say a 16 year old.