Comments | fandom_flies: I just want to make sure everyone has seen this buried subthread

scarah2 in fandom_flies

I just want to make sure everyone has seen this buried subthread

Aug 08, 2007 16:00

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 ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

Um what. tamburlaine August 9 2007, 15:24:33 UTC

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 ( ... )

Re: Um what. haights August 9 2007, 15:39:34 UTC

*snorts*

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

Re: Um what. tamburlaine August 9 2007, 15:54:29 UTC

Oh really? I'd ask why, but it seems that my completely reasonable opinions are not valid here.

So I'll just say this: Sarcasm is cheap. If you want to have a useful debate about these topics, I'm more than willing to engage you on a mature level.

Re: Um what. haights August 9 2007, 16:21:57 UTC

What made me laugh at you was this statement, "You're not suggesting that Livejournal break the laws, are you?"

If LJ says that they're going to follow the laws with this whole fandom thing, then they should at least follow through all the way with all the other issues here on their website which have been pointed out to them and they've brushed them off. This isn't just about fandom now, it's more than that and LJ doesn't seem to care that harmful things are happening on their website besides what's going on right now.

Re: Um what. tamburlaine August 9 2007, 16:50:17 UTC

If you're talking about the pro-anorexia communities, they have always been under close scrutiny but unfortunately there is no law that can penalize a company for providing a community that aids eating disorders. There is a lot of reasonable doubt. Until someone dies because they followed, to the letter, each bit of advice to be found on a pro-ana LJ community, there is nothing to be done. This may or may not be because eating disorders are mental illnesses; pro-ana communities are in effect "lifestyle communities" that do not explicitly violate any law.

The laws and regulations for pornography, however, are clearly delineated and are growing more restrictive every day.

Re: Um what. lexin August 10 2007, 09:55:29 UTC

While I agree with your OP above, what about those groups promoting the use of abusive methods in child rearing? LJ doesn't seem to be taking action on them, either.

Re: Um what. lexin August 10 2007, 10:04:50 UTC

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm referring to things like trainupachild", both of which were discussed here on dark_christian.

Re: Um what. tamburlaine August 10 2007, 18:38:23 UTC

The religious issue and the freedom of religion in this country makes such communities an even murkier area than one that provides unacceptable material with no religious message. -- And this isn't me defending anything, it's just the way a lawyer would argue it.

Re: Um what. lexin August 10 2007, 21:05:06 UTC

Surely the fact that such ideas (and such places) pose a danger to children should trump any 'religious' message they may purport to have? Or is a danger to real children with a religious message less important than banning depictions of fictional children?

Re: Um what. tamburlaine August 10 2007, 21:34:18 UTC

I have no idea what should and does trump one issue over another. We don't even know whether these religious communities are under surveillance or not. They may be deleted next week, for all you know.

And just out of curiosity, I've yet to see why do you all think Livejournal banned the fanart content that it did. And I mean really why? What do you think motivated the removal of Ponderosa's art?

Re: Um what. lexin August 10 2007, 23:28:31 UTC

Personally, and not speaking for anyone else in fandom, I think someone reported it.

The puzzle is why LJ/6A decided to act on this report of wrongdoing, when many others have gone ignored or been brushed off.

Re: Um what. scarah2 August 9 2007, 17:10:45 UTC

completely reasonable opinions

It's your completely reasonable opinion that artists are deluded as hell for being upset at possibly getting reported as pedos for drawing erotica featuring 22-year-olds. Good to know!

Re: Um what. belleamant August 9 2007, 15:56:51 UTC

Actually, as much as I don't like what tamburlaine had to say, she didn't _sound_ like a moron at all. It was a well thought out, well-spoken argument.

On the other hand, I don't like being called deluded or have it considered that my explicit art (though its fiction) could be called "collateral damage".

There are some very serious issues here on the grander scale than fandom, but fandom is being attacked at the moment, which makes this personal.

-Belle

Re: Um what. haights August 9 2007, 16:01:04 UTC

Actually what made me call her a moron was this statement right here: "You're not suggesting that Livejournal break the laws, are you?"

Re: Um what. belleamant August 9 2007, 16:03:35 UTC

Ah. That's understandable, especially as the interpretation of the laws can be debated (a lot).

-Belle

Re: Um what. tamburlaine August 9 2007, 16:40:43 UTC

Okay, I'm sorry I used the word "deluded." But there are those in fandom who continue to think that Six Apart's/LJ's decision to erase "offensive materials" came about as a result of a "grudgewank" or vendetta. I think this is utterly untrue. The actions of Six Apart arose as a direct result of the tightened restrictions for explicit material on the internet. These restrictions became more fierce in order to protect people and to avoid the possibility of fostering a community of sex offenders. (Refer again to the banning of 29,000 rapists that had until last week roamed MySpace ( ... )

Back to all threads