We're Left Out of the Law
If this doesn't make sense or is just plain stupid, please hit me with a rolled up newspaper.
I recently posted a comment on the WIRED thread about all this,
...and it reads as follows:
I'm starting to think that this is deracting farther and farther from actually trying to protect children, and more towards what makes the higherups squirm in their chairs. When discussing this with others, they had said, 'well, LJ has to follow U.S. law, and graphic depictions of underage sex are subject to that.' In these discussions, I fully understood and accepted that the law was created to protect minors, and a great thing.
But at the time, those who created it couldn't fathom any reason for those depictions other than someone being a pedophile. They didn't have the frame of mind to understand that working through it in a literary environment, not to mention with FICTIONAL characters and scenarios, can serve a purpose other than to be all 'huzzah for raping children/watching child sex!'
This leads me to believe that again, it comes back to what makes them uncomfortable, and what they don't understand. Do I think they should go so far as to alter that U.S. law? Not really. But they need to take into consideration that there are no actual 'kiddies' in this 'kiddie porn', and that it is not designed to arouse pedophiles or assist them in any way.
When you weild a certain amount of power, you damn sure better take the effort to use it the right way. Isn't that KINDOF the reason our ancestors came over here on the boat in the first place?
Another poster's response to mine was thus:
This latest round of suspensions is not about 'kiddie porn', that's what needs to be understood here. It's about two drawings, admittedly graphic, of young men, who appear to be a few months to one side or the other of their 18th birthday. That's why it's caused so much controversy; if LJ had suspended users for posting pictures of, say, a 10-year old Harry Potter, naked with one of his teachers, that would be entirely different.
Doesn't that kindof....prove my point about the bosses and their squirminess? It leads me to believe that fandom is the first of many targets, and that it will eventually lead to other communities that deal with things that squick them. Fandom has come under a huge spotlight, and I really think that's thanks in part to Harry Potter, with all the media attention it's getting.
My main point is, I feel like fandom is left out of the protection of the law because the lawmakers don't understand. But just like with everything else, they need to get with the times. They made changes to the law for things like domestic violence disputes when they realized, 'hey, it's not just a private issue when a guy beats his wife. It's not just THEIR BUSINESS. Now it's OURS.' Is this as severe? I say, yes and no. No one is being pysically abused, but the right to free speech is something just as fragile, and essential to our society. I don't feel like I'm making sense anymore...so spam me with comments to correct any ridiculous assumptions you feel I've made.
I recently posted a comment on the WIRED thread about all this,
...and it reads as follows:
I'm starting to think that this is deracting farther and farther from actually trying to protect children, and more towards what makes the higherups squirm in their chairs. When discussing this with others, they had said, 'well, LJ has to follow U.S. law, and graphic depictions of underage sex are subject to that.' In these discussions, I fully understood and accepted that the law was created to protect minors, and a great thing.
But at the time, those who created it couldn't fathom any reason for those depictions other than someone being a pedophile. They didn't have the frame of mind to understand that working through it in a literary environment, not to mention with FICTIONAL characters and scenarios, can serve a purpose other than to be all 'huzzah for raping children/watching child sex!'
This leads me to believe that again, it comes back to what makes them uncomfortable, and what they don't understand. Do I think they should go so far as to alter that U.S. law? Not really. But they need to take into consideration that there are no actual 'kiddies' in this 'kiddie porn', and that it is not designed to arouse pedophiles or assist them in any way.
When you weild a certain amount of power, you damn sure better take the effort to use it the right way. Isn't that KINDOF the reason our ancestors came over here on the boat in the first place?
Another poster's response to mine was thus:
This latest round of suspensions is not about 'kiddie porn', that's what needs to be understood here. It's about two drawings, admittedly graphic, of young men, who appear to be a few months to one side or the other of their 18th birthday. That's why it's caused so much controversy; if LJ had suspended users for posting pictures of, say, a 10-year old Harry Potter, naked with one of his teachers, that would be entirely different.
Doesn't that kindof....prove my point about the bosses and their squirminess? It leads me to believe that fandom is the first of many targets, and that it will eventually lead to other communities that deal with things that squick them. Fandom has come under a huge spotlight, and I really think that's thanks in part to Harry Potter, with all the media attention it's getting.
My main point is, I feel like fandom is left out of the protection of the law because the lawmakers don't understand. But just like with everything else, they need to get with the times. They made changes to the law for things like domestic violence disputes when they realized, 'hey, it's not just a private issue when a guy beats his wife. It's not just THEIR BUSINESS. Now it's OURS.' Is this as severe? I say, yes and no. No one is being pysically abused, but the right to free speech is something just as fragile, and essential to our society. I don't feel like I'm making sense anymore...so spam me with comments to correct any ridiculous assumptions you feel I've made.