Hard to Believe, But True

[sanjuuro]

proanorexia does "far more good than harm"? LJ Abuse apparently thinks so. It didn't do much good to its one-time moderator, who starved herself to death...

Comments

[sanjuuro]

Unfortunately for that line of reasoning, which has consistently been the one that Six Apart's minions have been attempting to push, the very strict laws against child porn have specifically exempted drawings--the pretext for the latest round of bannings--from falling under that description. So "kiddy porn" can't be the issue.

Wikipedia has a fair rundown on the PROTECT Act, which has attempted to expand what falls under this definition and notes that it "Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the (Miller test) of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors)."

So, Six Apart's claims fail on several grounds here: first, it's entirely unclear that there are any "minors" in the picture to which they took exception--apparently the picture was intended to accompany a story in which Harry is age 22. Further, I don't see how LJ proposes to implement a Miller test--where's the "community standard" come from? Who assesses "serious artistic merit"? And, finally, since the putative "minor" in question is entirely fictional, Miller is all they have to fall back on.

In short, it's pure censorship by Six Apart, without a real legal pretext behind it...