Oh, wow! One of those links posts!

[vayshti]

Thursday night was the monthly London droo fan gathering at the Fitzroy Tavern, which I'd not been to for a number of months prior. It definitely does not attract the numbers it used to. That was made very obvious when apparently only 8, *8* people rocked up to the anniversary drinking session that preceded this one. The other groups I kind of

Comments

[mako_pretty]

I had a whole list of comments, but sperm cookery made me forget what I was going to say.

[vayshti]

I wanted to use the term 'gob-smacked', but under the circumstances, I thought it a rather dangerous phrase.

[mako_pretty]

*sniggers* I'd say!

[misumaru]

WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT FIRST ONE ABOUT? Oh, and the Quality Street ad disturbs more than it probably should. XD

I saw that news article on the BBC site earlier and my first thought was "Just as well I don't like shota..."

...

That cookbook.

...do I even want to know how they collected enough samples to test the recipes?

[vayshti]

I. Have. No. Idea.

But the same can be said about the StarWars Xmas Special as well.

It's interesting you use the word shota - which really, really does mean pre-pubescent. It's clear. The term works.

Child is more fuzzy. Child can legally mean up 21 years old in some places, 15 in others, and in other places again, 10 or 11. So when we're talking legal definitions and interpretations etc. it gets very messy and very murky.

But my actual problem here is who is being hurt / who is being protected? Would this be better or worse if the vidder had drawn their own characters? What does this mean for fictional depiction within live action film? Are we going to have vague 'this might be used by some deviants for sexual gratification, so you have to censor it or be prosecuted'?

What does this mean for fiction? Not just fanfic, but published fic, both aimed at children/teen markets, and adult fiction?

When the laws were there to protect real people from getting hurt, it made sense... but now? Less so.

/end "reckon"

[misumaru]

I never been brave enough to hunt it down - if Lucas, a man who still seems to be proud of Jar Jar, thinks it's bad, then it must truly be a thing of horror. :S

Hmmm, very good points, although after rereading the article I think the major issue in this case was that the characters involved were incredibly young - one of the characters he used was Maggie and there's no way you can defend that, be it existing or original characters. I get the feeling that this might have been what influenced the judge the most.

[vayshti]

I'm sure it did, and if we could jail people on squick factor alone it'd be a different matter!

I have no doubt it was in exceedingly poor taste. But for the ruling to be that Lisa and Bart are to be considered people, and therefore they were harmed...

[annieroo2]

Mwahaha!! Those were hilariously awful. Wanna know the worst part? That crocheted shawl in that commercial? My mom made dozens of those in the 70's for everyone one in my family. I bet we still have one or two in a closet at home. *shudders*

[vayshti]

I had a ton of those craft things as well (candle making set, copper art, weavers, pompom makers, some weird stinky clay substitute), but somehow missed out on the delight of the flower maker.

Depending on the colour choices, that shawl might be the height of fashion about now!