We bid a very fond farewell to
rahaeli last week, who started working for LiveJournal back in January 2003 when the LJ staff consisted of just a few people. We're sending out huge thanks for all of her work and contributions, and best of luck in her future as an author. You can keep track of her writing career at
mccuneblog. We'll miss you, D!
Updates To Your
(
Read more... )
Dear LiveJournal user stormcloude ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Hell, even in the US the age of consent varies by state.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Hence, not all teens are minors.
Reply
Reply
Therein lies the problem. Because it is a drawing, only the artist knows how old the people in the drawing are. However, LJ has decided they are going to determine the ages of people in drawings and fiction. Which is terribly unfair to the artists and writers.
Reply
LJ is working in their OWN best interests so that when the government comes knocking on their door they can say that they made a good faith effort to police themselves when it comes to child pornography.
It doesn't MATTER how old the artist thinks the character is. It's how old someone who is NOT invested in fandom considers a character to look when the gov't comes calling. (FWIW, 100% of the nonfandom people I have shown that picture to have said that Harry looked underage).
If you're even remotely intersted in the reasoning behind LJ/6A's stance read synecdochic's post on the issue here.
Reply
It could constitute obscenity, but whether or not something is obscene has to be decided in a court of law.
Your friend is quoting an outdated law. That section about the drawings and whether or not the child exists was taken out. In that decision, the Supreme Court said, "However, it is possible it could fall under the obscenity law." That law, however, is extremely vague and the Supreme Court has also stated it's on a case by case basis.
Reply
That is patently untrue. US law makes no distinction between drawings of fictional characters and videos of real children.
Reply
Leave a comment