[ SECRET POST #219 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #219 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 103 secrets from Secret Submission Post #032.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 ] broken links, 0 not!secrets, 0 not!fandom.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Monday, August 12th, 2007.
Current Secret Submission Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

7. Since my first response to this was BA-leeted, I'll try and be slightly less angry: You are allowed to think whatever you want about people depicting things you are morally opposed to, but unless they are obscene (not one iota of artistic merit whatsoever) there is NO LAW stating that what anyone does here is illegal. I'm sorry if you're not comfortable with some pairings on the internet, but the fans that write honestly top-grade stories about these pairings, and the talented arists who depict these things with their drawings, do not deserve the slander they're recieving just so that you can feel better at night. The beautiful thing about fandom is that it's a place for intellectual discourse. I'm not talking about badfic porn, I'm talking about the stuff that really strikes a chord. It shouldn't matter if it's two sixteen year olds or two twenty year olds, because it's art.

Probably going to be deleted again, but there you have it.

[(Anonymous)]

And yet porn is still porn, "artistic" or not. And if it involves children, it's still child porn. Hence the problem still exists.

Not that I exactly agree with the OP, either, or LJ's policies with the whole matter. But you have to call it like you see it.

[(Anonymous)]

Funny thing, it's NOT child porn, by legal definition. Pornographic text isn't covered by US child porn laws, and drawn depictions are exempt. The only those two fall under are US obscenity laws, which are dictated by whether or not the piece in question holds any artistic merit.

This is also why those drawing fan art are being more easily targeted than those writing fanfiction.

[(Anonymous)]

And because I can't type:

*The only laws those two fall under

[kinneas.livejournal.com]

Legally you are correct, though only in the States (which is, admittedly, what 6A must adhere to). However, porn involving children = child porn, and there's not really a lot of arguing against that.

[(Anonymous)]

And the next step in the devolution of this argument is how to define a "child." And are a child and a minor the same thing. Let's not go down that road, and say that, squicking your moral qualms or not, what goes on here is legal. And the OP is asking for it if he/she's going to go around condemning people for the art they make on objective grounds instead of, oh, say, legal grounds.

[kinneas.livejournal.com]

I think you mean "subjective", and you're implying somehow that the law is NOT?

[aishiteru.livejournal.com]

... touche, anonymouse. I didn't actually know that. "Drawn depictions" .. wow. That makes LJ's take on this whole mess even MORE fucked up than I already thought!

Is that why that one artist was told their piece lacked "artistic merit"? I've only heard about most of this wank practically third hand - I was abroad while all of it was actually happening and had no internet access.

That's ridiculously sad. The defense rests.

I mean, like I said, I still see the OP's point. It's just overly extreme. Just like LJ's hardline on the matter! Funny, that.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh please. I look at gay porn but I'm neither gay nor even entertain the idea of having buttsex.I also play video games where I kill people but it's not as if I'm going to go out on a killing spree. I know the difference between fantasy and reality, do you?

[aishiteru.livejournal.com]

I .. don't actually see what bearing that statement has at all on my comment.

I didn't say looking at child pornography makes you a pedophile, though it certainly ups the chances. I just said that porn depicting children .. is child porn. It's just a statement, not a drawing of a line between fantasy and reality, which I could care less about. If you can't tell the difference, that's not my problem. Whine at LJ, not me.

[kinneas.livejournal.com]

There is a rather large difference in Michelangelo's David and La Blue Girl.

Not to say I disagree with our sexuality vs violence issues in the States or your views on censorship on a general level. I just have little problem with a private corporation enforcing their no-more-vague-than-actual-laws TOS.

[kiradesu.livejournal.com]

Ack, sorry about this Dx I moved comment here (http://community.livejournal.com/fandomsecrets/69495.html?thread=9734519#t9734519) cos I decided to post it standalone at the last second lol

But yeah, definitely a difference between David and La Blue Girl... And I think that always has to be taken into account. But something I'm seeing a lot of is "child porn is child porn is child porn, no exceptions!" That's very misguided thinking, don't you think??

[(Anonymous)]

The problem with the "artistic merit" argument is that the images in question were fairly obviously drawn to titillate. While obscenity is subjunctive, looking at the images in question does not evoke thoughts of "what masterful composition" or "what a deep understanding of the characters," but rather, "Harry is getting sucked off by a dog." (okay, that's not the image that was deleted, but the point remains, it was pretty blatant porn.)

There are major differences between Lolita and Debbie Does Dallas. And to me, this image falls towards the more obscene end of the spectrum.

[(Anonymous)]

It's "art" in the same way "Piss Christ" is art.