August News

[news]

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

Comments

[stormcloude]

I guess Six Apart has drawn a line in the sand:

Dear LiveJournal user stormcloude

[whiskeygirl8]

You are reading the obscenity law, which also states that if the item has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" then it is not obscene (which is pretty much a standard in obscenity laws.)

Here is the US child pornography law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

Honestly, LJ/6A have conceded this themselves, so I don't know why so many people don't get it. If people are really interested in what LJ/6A is basing their decisions on, maybe they should read the posts that LJ/6A made on the subject. LJ/6A is extremely vague in how they are interpreting it, but I guarantee you they are not basing it on child pornography laws except in the cases where actual children are used.

I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass.

[ladypeyton]

Did you actually read the statute?

"child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct"

I found the statute here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2256

[ladypeyton]

I quoted 18:2256 which is EXACTLY what you keep linking to.

[webbgirl]

You need to look further down...

“identifiable minor”-
(A) means a person-
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and

[ladypeyton]

This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

Remember, we're in the definitions part of the statute, not the statute itself which starts at 18:2251 and runs up to and past this point to 2260.

It doesn't say this *statute* doesn't apply to drawings it says this "definition" doesn't apply which means that when the word "indistinguishable" is used in Chapter 110 - SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN it doesn't apply to cartoons, drawings, etc.

I was pointing out the definition of the phrase "Child Pornography" not the definition of the word "indistinguishable"

Remember, you're arguing with footnotes.

[cacahuate]

That section about the drawings and whether or not the child exists was taken out.

Really? Is there a cite for this? (I'd find one myself but I suck at law-googling...)

[undead_sadist]

Knock that percentage down. I have no frickin' clue with that fandom and I think he looks like an adult.

If you ask me, trying to place age to people portrayed in artwork, not photography (in which case it's easy to get records of their age) is a no-win situation. Because, like it was stated earlier, only the artist knows the true age of people depicted in the work and therefore only the artist can ultimately say whether a work toes the line of child pornography or whatnot.

On the other hand, viewers may disagree with what the artist says their age is, as you have proven. Hence that no-win madness pops up.

However, I have to side with the artist simply because it's their work, not the viewers and as such the viewer should has no right to trash it. It would be like going to an art museum and taking down paintings that you deem unfit even if others disagree.

I nominate the "if you don't like it then move on" rule. As long as real minors/children/whatever aren't involved then there's no harm.

[ladypeyton]

I have no frickin' clue with that fandom and I think he looks like an adult.

I didn't specify a *certain* fandom. I said *in fandom*. You're a member of fandom_counts and read fanfic ergo you are *in* fandom.

Re: ...

[ladypeyton]

Ahhh. When logic fails try the ad hominem attack. To be honest I expected it earlier.

[terrie01]

I looked under 18 until I was 26. The picture is ambiguous. He could be on either side of the line. And that is what bothers many people. A person was banned without warning for something that is NOT a clear cut violation.

[pica_scribit]

Agreed. My sister looks about 15. She is 25 this month. If the artist does not say that the image is of an underage person, and there is room of it to be ambiguous and open to individual judgement, then that would seem to me to be the definition of *not* "a clear cut violation".

[powercorrupts]

Personally, I think the Harry in that picture looks older than, say, the Harry in the cover of Deathly Hallows, wherein he is supposed to be 17.

Really, I'd say it's hard to tell, because I thought he looked somewhere between 16 and 20. And about half of that age group falls into the dangerous zone, and half doesn't.

Of course, one would think LJ would have the good sense to ban people who are drawing obviously, painfully and clearly underage porn. I mean, if you're going to target pictures, why target one where some number of the people who look at it will think that the subject is of legal age?

[venado]

Really? I didn't thought he looked older than 16 when I looked at it. Of course, I also ran into a girl who looked about my age & as it turned out, I was starting college when she was in the 4th grade. At some point age can be hard to determine with certain people. I was 21 & got carded for a rated r movie, so basically the person thought I could have been 16.

[venado]

but do 18 year olds & 17 year olds look different? If the age is not explicitly stated, how can the people looking tell?