August News

Aug 02, 2007 16:18

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... )

Leave a comment

stormcloude August 3 2007, 21:14:26 UTC
I guess Six Apart has drawn a line in the sand:

Dear LiveJournal user stormcloude ( ... )

Reply

geeklite August 3 2007, 22:31:13 UTC
Except the age of consent isn't 16.

Reply

flyingwild August 3 2007, 22:32:49 UTC
Depends on where you are. A lot of places in the world, it IS 16.

Hell, even in the US the age of consent varies by state.

Reply

kateshort August 3 2007, 22:39:00 UTC
That may be, but LiveJournal is using the age of 18 as its standard.

Reply

geeklite August 3 2007, 22:39:36 UTC
Yes, but I am in California. Where LJ also is. Where I believe the age of consent is 18.

Reply

You're right lorrainec August 3 2007, 22:41:20 UTC
undead_sadist August 4 2007, 00:45:14 UTC
In some states and a good number of other countries it is.

Reply

geeklite August 4 2007, 01:40:11 UTC
Yes, I know. But you can't just say "The age of consent is 16" and have it be so. It's not in California, where LJ is located. And it's not in many other places. Some it's higher, some it's lower.

Reply

ladypeyton August 3 2007, 23:06:46 UTC
The age of consent (which varies from state to state, btw) has nothing to do with child pornography. One can be of age to HAVE sex in some states and still be too young to be depicted having sex in the US.

Reply

kat_chan August 4 2007, 03:33:25 UTC
Alas, the post that was made about the clarifications to ToS stated that they would be held to the standards of US child porn laws, which invariably indicate 18 as the minimum age, no matter what age-of-consent may be. Legally, there's no leg to stand on when you bring up age-of-consent, because that is not the standard that LJ/6A are using in determining "minor" in these cases; they are using child porn laws.

Reply

whiskeygirl8 August 3 2007, 23:02:20 UTC
An 18 year old is a teenager. Due to there being "teen" in the spelled out version of the age.

Hence, not all teens are minors.

Reply

ladypeyton August 3 2007, 23:11:22 UTC
Let me clarify, then. Harry doesn't look a stitch over 16 in that image, to me. He doesn't look anywhere near as old as Daniel Radcliff, who had JUST turned 18 IIRC, looked in the Equus stills.

Reply

whiskeygirl8 August 3 2007, 23:15:23 UTC
And others think that he looks over 18.

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

ladypeyton August 3 2007, 23:37:05 UTC
*Life* is terribly unfair to artists and writers (and everyone else under the sun).

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

whiskeygirl8 August 3 2007, 23:41:40 UTC
Child pornography is irrelevant as US law states that drawings of fictional children in sexual situations does not constitute child pornography.

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

ladypeyton August 3 2007, 23:43:48 UTC
Child pornography is irrelevant as US law states that drawings of fictional children in sexual situations does not constitute child pornography.

That is patently untrue. US law makes no distinction between drawings of fictional characters and videos of real children.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up