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

[scarah2]

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

Comments

Re: as I said on FW

[undomielregina]

IANAL, but something I'm wondering about: the Livejournal employees have repeatedly claimed that Pond and Elaboration were TOSed for child pornography in the comments to the lj_biz post. If this is the case (and especially if they reported Pond and Elaboration) could the artists sue them for libel? The work is most decidedly not child porn, and is only obscene content once declared so in court, so at the moment it is at worst, potentially illegal. Claiming that Pond and Elaboration had child porn is thus claiming publicly that they are guilty of a very serious crime that they did not commit and one that comes with a serious impact on their reputations. If they turn out to have been reported and action is taken against them it might be wise to remember this.

It is in fact possible that the court might judge that Pond's art recognizably depicts an underage Daniel Radcliffe in which case it is child pornography (I cannot evaluate any such claims about Elaboration's picture since I do not have access to a copy), but I think that it is sufficiently dubious that Pond's picture represents Radcliffe as all the physical markers that would be used to identify him are also markers of Harry Potter as described in the novels (eg, messy black hair). There are also clear differences: the size of the nose, the general facial shape, and the lack of chest hair (thank you, Equus) all diverge from publicly available pictures of Radcliffe, including images of him as Harry Potter from the latest film. Furthermore, no reasonable person would assume that this is a picture of Daniel Radcliffe being buggered by Alan Rickman, rather than a picture of Harry Potter being buggered by Severus Snape.

Re: as I said on FW

[scarah2]

IAWTC. If I were the artists in question, I'd be motherfucking pissed at all the comments. Unless SixApart has expanded its properties to include a court of law.

Re: as I said on FW

[skyshark]

So, wait.

Under national state law, or California law?

No, seriously. Humor me.

Re: as I said on FW

[undomielregina]

Under national law. As far as I could tell, California child porn statutes are functionally identical to federal ones, but I wouldn't swear to that.