![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Given Boldthrough '07, I think we should talk about legal issues regarding underage characters. NOTE THAT I AM NOT A LAWYER. Also note that I understand that LJ and SA are private organizations [ETA: and therefore can delete whatever the hell they want, legally], that they are under tremendous pressure, and that the law is kind of confusing sometimes, and covering your ass is understandable.
That said.
I am pretty sure, and PLEASE, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, that any fiction, and any art that is not photographic or photo-realistic, depicting minors either fictional or real, is not considered child pornography. I've been madly Googling for hours, and I'm fairly sure this is true. The only things which can legally be defined as child pornography, as far as I can figure, are photographs, videos, realistic photomanipulations, or anything else that in any way depicts or might be mistaken for depicting actual children engaged in sexual activity. There is, as far as I can figure out, no legal distinction between fictional and non-fictional participants in art, for the purpose of considering child pornography – for the very simple reason that child pornography MUST be or appear to be a representation of child abuse, and fiction doesn't actually enter into it. Non-visual depictions, drawings, or sculpture, are not considered child pornography, period. Let's just leave the whole loaded phrase "child pornography" behind, because it does not apply. Okay? Okay. Given that this is the case, the only real way in which the material which is under consideration in fandom (disregarding manips, because those are tricky) can be considered illegal speech is, like other speech, if it is considered obscene.
I'm sort of tempted to say, at this point, that the entire involvement of minors is therefore irrelevant – but of course, the inclusion of characters who are minors engaged in explicit sexual activity makes it exponentially more likely that a work will be challenged as obscene. (Never underestimate moral panics.) So I'll refrain. Also, the less mainstream the fetish, the more likely it is to fail the first part of the Miller Test – but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Obscenity is ridiculously hard to pin down. It's famously hard to pin down, actually. But we do know that for something to be considered obscene, it must have all three of the following characteristics, as stipulated by our good friend, the Miller Test:
That last one is the real kicker, folks. That's our defense, that's our real argument – and it's one I happen to think we can win. (I'm speaking legally, here, not about LJ/SA, because clearly the law isn't their primary concern, and I have NO idea how to challenge them on that.) I have about four thousand pages of meta I could write right now about why PWPs in fandom are wildly different in nature from plotless pornographic stories found at places like nifty.org – but I'll spare you. (Here's a sneak preview: if it's possible to meaningfully comment on a work's characterization, pacing, language use, and emotional impact, it just might have some redeeming literary or artistic value.) And hey, if that's not compelling enough, let's not forget to mention that mainstream commercial pornography is not considered obscene. Yes, folks, that's right – Horny Cumsluts, Vol. 8, is not obscene, in stark contrast to Ponderosa121's fanart. (WHAT.)
My point is that while LJ can kick us offsite any time they please, we, and the work we produce (disregarding explicit manips), are not in violation of any United States law, unless a specific work is declared to be lacking in literary or artistic value. (Now, copyright/trademarks – thaaat's another issue, and one I'm seriously unqualified to address.) I have absolutely no idea why LJ, or anyone else, is under the impression that textual depiction of children in explicit sexual situations is, by nature, illegal. It's not. It's actually not even illegal, as far as I can tell, to talk about sexual crimes you have personally committed (even though NO ONE is claiming LJ needs to host such material), although it may lead to your arrest for the crimes themselves. Speech about illegal activities is not illegal, unless it is obscene, or it constitutes an attempt to actually solicit or encourage such activities. Which fanfiction and fanart, taken as a whole? Most certainly do not.
The only LEGAL reason for suspending Ponderosa121 would be if her work were obscene – not just the fact that it exists and depicts minors (uh, debatable minors). The reason we are currently at risk is not our material itself. It's that LiveJournal is carrying out quasi-legal, self-policing attempts at the Miller Test, and that we wholeheartedly disagree with their conclusions. Also, that they're carrying it out in a massively douche-y way.
And a note regarding RPS: while the law doesn't distinguish, for purposes of child pornography or obscenity, between fictional and non-fictional characters, and this is therefore kind of irrelevant, I might as well mention that the law DOES distinguish, for purposes of libel/slander, between public figures and non-public figures – and comes down on our side. See, especially, Larry Flint vs. Jerry Falwell. I can't say for sure that the description of Falwell's first sexual experience as occurring with his mother in an outhouse ALSO said he was a minor at the time, but, uhm. I don't think our romantic pornfiction about 16-year-old Patrick Stump falling for his bandmates is going to pose that much of a problem.
In conclusion, here are some things which I believe are irrelevant, and being used as straw man arguments:
And here's something we need to take seriously:
Some of the links I used to cobble together this post, which does NOT constitute legal advice, and is entirely subject to my error/idiocy:
Is a text sex story that involves kids considered child porn?
a thread in lj_biz
a thread in elynross's LJ
PROTECT Act of 2003
The Miller Test
Definition of Child Pornography
ETA: a similar post about obscenity
ETA again, because I can't shut up: Just to put this on the record, this post was largely made because the general fannish response to LJ's assertions here and elsewhere has been, "Artistic merit? Obscenity? WTF? Can you define that?" So I wanted to point out that those terms have been defined, by the US Supreme Court. The Miller Test isn't some new, random, subjective thing Six Apart made up – it's been around for forty years. There are precedents, there are test cases, there's more legal information available to us than just the original phrasing, and I absolutely believe that it would without question uphold our work as not obscene. That's why I'm so damn irritated by LJ's attempts to hide behind it. LJ, what? That's not how the law WORKS. Come on. Please just admit that you're going further than the law requires because you want to, and because you can – not because you have no other choice.
And last but not least, a plea to all readers: please, PLEASE correct and link me to information that contradicts that found in this post, if you encounter some! I'm only a college student with Google! I make mistakes.
That said.
I am pretty sure, and PLEASE, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, that any fiction, and any art that is not photographic or photo-realistic, depicting minors either fictional or real, is not considered child pornography. I've been madly Googling for hours, and I'm fairly sure this is true. The only things which can legally be defined as child pornography, as far as I can figure, are photographs, videos, realistic photomanipulations, or anything else that in any way depicts or might be mistaken for depicting actual children engaged in sexual activity. There is, as far as I can figure out, no legal distinction between fictional and non-fictional participants in art, for the purpose of considering child pornography – for the very simple reason that child pornography MUST be or appear to be a representation of child abuse, and fiction doesn't actually enter into it. Non-visual depictions, drawings, or sculpture, are not considered child pornography, period. Let's just leave the whole loaded phrase "child pornography" behind, because it does not apply. Okay? Okay. Given that this is the case, the only real way in which the material which is under consideration in fandom (disregarding manips, because those are tricky) can be considered illegal speech is, like other speech, if it is considered obscene.
I'm sort of tempted to say, at this point, that the entire involvement of minors is therefore irrelevant – but of course, the inclusion of characters who are minors engaged in explicit sexual activity makes it exponentially more likely that a work will be challenged as obscene. (Never underestimate moral panics.) So I'll refrain. Also, the less mainstream the fetish, the more likely it is to fail the first part of the Miller Test – but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Obscenity is ridiculously hard to pin down. It's famously hard to pin down, actually. But we do know that for something to be considered obscene, it must have all three of the following characteristics, as stipulated by our good friend, the Miller Test:
- The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, and
- The work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law, and
- The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.
That last one is the real kicker, folks. That's our defense, that's our real argument – and it's one I happen to think we can win. (I'm speaking legally, here, not about LJ/SA, because clearly the law isn't their primary concern, and I have NO idea how to challenge them on that.) I have about four thousand pages of meta I could write right now about why PWPs in fandom are wildly different in nature from plotless pornographic stories found at places like nifty.org – but I'll spare you. (Here's a sneak preview: if it's possible to meaningfully comment on a work's characterization, pacing, language use, and emotional impact, it just might have some redeeming literary or artistic value.) And hey, if that's not compelling enough, let's not forget to mention that mainstream commercial pornography is not considered obscene. Yes, folks, that's right – Horny Cumsluts, Vol. 8, is not obscene, in stark contrast to Ponderosa121's fanart. (WHAT.)
My point is that while LJ can kick us offsite any time they please, we, and the work we produce (disregarding explicit manips), are not in violation of any United States law, unless a specific work is declared to be lacking in literary or artistic value. (Now, copyright/trademarks – thaaat's another issue, and one I'm seriously unqualified to address.) I have absolutely no idea why LJ, or anyone else, is under the impression that textual depiction of children in explicit sexual situations is, by nature, illegal. It's not. It's actually not even illegal, as far as I can tell, to talk about sexual crimes you have personally committed (even though NO ONE is claiming LJ needs to host such material), although it may lead to your arrest for the crimes themselves. Speech about illegal activities is not illegal, unless it is obscene, or it constitutes an attempt to actually solicit or encourage such activities. Which fanfiction and fanart, taken as a whole? Most certainly do not.
The only LEGAL reason for suspending Ponderosa121 would be if her work were obscene – not just the fact that it exists and depicts minors (uh, debatable minors). The reason we are currently at risk is not our material itself. It's that LiveJournal is carrying out quasi-legal, self-policing attempts at the Miller Test, and that we wholeheartedly disagree with their conclusions. Also, that they're carrying it out in a massively douche-y way.
And a note regarding RPS: while the law doesn't distinguish, for purposes of child pornography or obscenity, between fictional and non-fictional characters, and this is therefore kind of irrelevant, I might as well mention that the law DOES distinguish, for purposes of libel/slander, between public figures and non-public figures – and comes down on our side. See, especially, Larry Flint vs. Jerry Falwell. I can't say for sure that the description of Falwell's first sexual experience as occurring with his mother in an outhouse ALSO said he was a minor at the time, but, uhm. I don't think our romantic pornfiction about 16-year-old Patrick Stump falling for his bandmates is going to pose that much of a problem.
In conclusion, here are some things which I believe are irrelevant, and being used as straw man arguments:
- Fictional vs. non-fictional participants
- The content of non-photographic or photorealistic artwork
- The content of fictional works, including RPS
- Child pornography, full stop
And here's something we need to take seriously:
- Obscenity
Some of the links I used to cobble together this post, which does NOT constitute legal advice, and is entirely subject to my error/idiocy:
Is a text sex story that involves kids considered child porn?
a thread in lj_biz
a thread in elynross's LJ
PROTECT Act of 2003
The Miller Test
Definition of Child Pornography
ETA: a similar post about obscenity
ETA again, because I can't shut up: Just to put this on the record, this post was largely made because the general fannish response to LJ's assertions here and elsewhere has been, "Artistic merit? Obscenity? WTF? Can you define that?" So I wanted to point out that those terms have been defined, by the US Supreme Court. The Miller Test isn't some new, random, subjective thing Six Apart made up – it's been around for forty years. There are precedents, there are test cases, there's more legal information available to us than just the original phrasing, and I absolutely believe that it would without question uphold our work as not obscene. That's why I'm so damn irritated by LJ's attempts to hide behind it. LJ, what? That's not how the law WORKS. Come on. Please just admit that you're going further than the law requires because you want to, and because you can – not because you have no other choice.
And last but not least, a plea to all readers: please, PLEASE correct and link me to information that contradicts that found in this post, if you encounter some! I'm only a college student with Google! I make mistakes.
(no subject)
Basically, corporate dictatorship FTW. /o\
(no subject)
They're totally within their rights to TOS the fuck out of us, and I'm not disputing that. The manner in which they're doing it, and the excuses they're using, and the contradictions, and the weasely underhandedness of the whole situation? Total. Fucking. Bullshit. I call shenanigans on "only content that's illegal under US Law," LJ! I call shenanigans on kiddie porn!
Uhm. That got off track. /o\
(no subject)
On the one hand, I am pissed at LJ because I think, again, like you said, despite the stressful atmosphere that exists right now, how they treated their users, one who had a permanent account, no less, was appalling. I understand that they have the right to terminate anyone's journal without notice, but WHY in the world would they do this, at least without asking them to take down the artwork in the first place? I understood that they did that in the May Strikethrough, but it wasn't permanent then, or without the possibility of being appealed, especially for fandom journals.
On the other hand, I am like, guys, seriously, lock that shit down. I'm just saying, haven't we learned anything from the May Strikethrough? This isn't anything to do with breaking laws, at least on our part; I think
Anyway, at this point, I don't even know what to think. I defended LJ/SA in the May Strikethrough, and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I don't know. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
(no subject)
Yes. Yes! WHY THE DOUCHERY? I just, come ON, stop pussyfooting around this shit. Tell us what you are going to do, in general, before you do it. Tell us what you are going to do, specifically, before you do it. Tell us WHEN you do it, instead of hoping we don't find out. AND DON'T DO IT DURING A CON WEEKEND. AAARGH. It's not that they aren't justified (although by the reasoning they announced, they AREN'T), it's that they're being dishonest, and cowardly, and basically just dicking around a lot and pissing people off. Way to go, LJ!! LJ FTW!
*breathes heavily*
Oh my God, I hate locking fic so much, though! I'm sorry, I just. I was a lurker for SO LONG, and I keep my flist STRICTLY defined by "people whose journals I want to read" rather than "people I trust with pornfiction," and I don't know, maybe flock works for some people, but I hate it as a general fandom rule. I don't want to go into hiding for stuff that's both morally and legally FINE. It's not in my nature.
I defended them, too. And I never thought I'd say this. I honestly love LJ. But we need to get the hell out – and not just to IJ or GJ or JF. Color me a conspiracy theorist and build me a damn bomb shelter: we need a server of our own.
(no subject)
I totally agree with you, I keep my f-list the same way and I HATE f-locking things, which is why I only do it if they're personal posts, and not even then, sometimes. It irritates me whenever I come across an f-locked entry, so.
And, yeah, I was totally not convinced to leave LJ the last time this happened, but this time around -- I'm inclined to agree with you. But it's just, god, it's so fucking hard to set up a place for our own, and I know people are trying with
(no subject)
Exactly, dude. I actually try and remember to click *do not share* on del.icio.us for locked posts, just because I find it so profoundly irritating to click on a link to a story that sounds good and get denied access.
(no subject)
But, see, that's the thing, innit? Even if someone sets a place up, who's to say everyone will go there? Even now, fandom hardly has a consensus on the issue, despite the fact that it seems that there are more people who are leaning towards leaving. "Mainstream" fandoms or the ones that have been targeted, like HP, might be ready to leave, but, god, and this kind of makes me a little ashamed, I have yet to see ONE bandom member write a single sentence on the issue, besides, like, you and
Therefore, I think bandom, out of all the fandoms, is probably the least inclined to leave LJ, which, god, makes me so conflicted about this.
(no subject)
(no subject)
The exact wording of the act (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/s1237_95_hatch.intro) unfortunately does not help (emphasis mine):
Under this bill, any visual depiction, such as a photograph, film, videotape or computer image, which is produced by any means, including electronically by computer, of sexually explicit conduct will be classified as child pornography if: (a) its production involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (b) it depicts, or appears to depict, a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (c) it is promoted or advertised as depicting a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
I don't think the intent was necessarily to sweep up illustrations and paintings along with photomanips, since this is a bit of a technology-panic law, but there was certainly no attempt to protect them either. (But hey, text is apparently A-OK.)
That said: 6A/LJ need to get their acts together yesterday. Their actions and decisions are completely arbitrary. They are not following their own guidelines in regards to how questionable content is handled - their own TOS indicates that warnings are to be issued. If they honestly thought these images were so beyond the pale as to require immediate action... then one has to honestly wonder why it's being handled privately and not in concert with the legal system.
The truth is, they can suspend any journal at any time. That's their prerogative, written right into the TOS. But they keep telling us that they don't/won't suspend without cause. Well, I'm sorry, but that seems a bit disingenuous considering what's been going on this summer.
I would love to see people with suspended/deleted paid or permanent accounts take legal action, if LJ isn't automatically refunding these accounts. Because I suspect there is an argument for contract violation, albeit not an ironclad one - and the damages would be in Small Claims range (cheap to file! odds are good they'll fail to appear!). Unfortunately, that would mean coming out of the fandom closet in a big way, so I don't see it happening. Which I'm sure they're counting on.
(no subject)
the term "indistinguishable" used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
So while there are certainly a lot of people trying to move us toward thoughtcrimes, we're not quite there yet. :)
I completely agree. As far as I'm concerned, their actions are inexcusable, dishonest, and cowardly. I am NOT okay with the way this has gone down, regardless of their reasons, regardless of any explanation they might give. This is just offensive.
I'd sort of like to avoid legal action, if only because it's highly likely that'd bring the prosecution down on us for copyright/trademark violation, and defending explicit underage sex is NOT where we want to be coming from for THAT test case. Honestly, I think we should just, you know, take our toys and leave. It seems like the best option, much though I'm averse to admit it.
(no subject)
... so that brings us back to the Miller Test. Which is kind of subjective - prurient interest? Um, yeah, that's why I READ erotica as well as the occasional romance novel! - but 6A/LJ could be upfront about what their community standards are going to be.
I think the test case for fanworks is likely to be something that leaves a good number of fans themselves uncomfortable. Because that's what a copyright holder is more likely to win on. But I don't think a small claims case is likely to attract the attention of the pertinent copyright holder (or for that matter the local prosecutor), so the odds of becoming that test case don't seem significantly higher than posting openly on the internet. I suppose 6A/LJ might intentionally try to get their attention, though.
I hate the leaving option. But at least now I'm set up for it.
(no subject)
Yeah, you know, it IS pretty subjective – but the way the courts have applied it, which matters at least as much as the actual law, is incredibly liberal. No text, under Miller, has EVER been declared obscene, and while I'm not sure of the status of art, I'd guess that it would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to declare any even remotely creative work to be obscene under US laws. [One of] the [many] thing[s] that so deeply frustrates me about LJ is that they're acting as if that rule exists to be applied based on personal, subjective judgement, and it just doesn't. That's not how the law WORKS. If they're banning things based on tastelessness, okay, fine – that's their right. But don't pretend it's a legal decision, because it isn't, and that's dishonest.
I think you're right, unfortunately. Still, I think it's not such a good idea to go to court to defend our right to post explicit drawings, if we have ANY control over such things? I don't know, it just doesn't strike me as the best plan, because it seems like the trademark thing would be EXACTLY the kind of thing the defense would grab onto with both hands as a distraction.
Yeah, ditto. SIGH. And here, let's put this on the record, too: I effing hate GJ, JF, and IJ. I think they all, for different reasons, SUCK. Ugh, I hate this, I really do.
(no subject)
Not to mention, LJ doesn't own the copyrights/trademarks, WB does, and they've avoided that can of worms. I just don't see them jumping into this, because not only would it piss of fandom, but it would then come out that they've known about and allowed this for years.
Considering Pond's work didn't include any underage people, I don't know if you can get a better fact pattern.
(no subject)
Also, I hate the "porn" word because it is ugly. :)
Okay, so. I realize you are of a younger generation than I, and this is your lingo, and that the majority of online fen were not in fandom pre-Internet, and that it is they who arrived on line and brought their lingo with them. I realize there's the whole issue of reclaiming pejorative terms, etc., as people have done with "queer," and so on. But calling what we produce "porn" and "smut" is a relatively new phenomenon, and I've never thought it was a positive development. Most important, the term is inaccurate and it hurts the image of fandom. We're already the geeks and freaks, you know? Why give the mundanes any more ammo?
I dunno. Fen will most likely just go on using the terms they use, and I guess I don't really expect anybody to listen to me on this. But I really think it might help our relationship with the outside world if we were to immediately stop calling stuff bad and wrong and dirty when--as you said--it's not! It's nothing to be ashamed of, and in so many cases is quite beautiful. Or entertaining, amusing, educational, whatever. It's just...almost all of it is so not "porn," no matter how explicit it gets. But it will be very, very hard to get the outside world to understand that if we keep calling it "porn" and "smut."
Thanks for listening. :)
(no subject)
You know, I actually can very much see where the "porn" terminology is coming from, and I do understand it – but I also agree that it creates problems for us. I think that fandom, as a highly sex-positive, liberal, third-wave-feminist group, had some real problems with the term "erotica," even though it's actually a lot more accurate to describe what we do. "Erotica" is, in many ways, a term used to designate "pornography we respect", and I think people had problems with that entire concept; it's also often used to designate "soft-core, wimpy porn," and/or "porn for women and pretentious intellectuals," and I can very much understand why people shy away from that usage. It's almost a pride thing – fuck it, we don't write "erotica," we write PORN. We're sex-positive, and proud of it. (I also know very few fangirls who wouldn't proudly describe themselves as "geeks and freaks," for what it's worth.) We aren't ashamed of what we do and are, so we grab onto the harshest terminology with both hands.
That said – I think you're right, I think it does create problems for us. I have never, ever, EVER seen fanfic that fits in the same category as "porn for men" or "mainstream" porn. Some of it is FILTHY, of course – but almost none of it is mindless or de-humanizing, and the more it becomes that way, the less accurate it is to describe it as fanfiction. (The any-two-guys criticism, for example.) Fanfiction BY DEFINITION has more redeeming artistic value than men's porn does, because it requires things like characterization and setting, and not just in the sense of "a pizza boy and a hot bored housewife on the living room floor." And I'm not sure outsiders do understand that.
Oh my God, that was a lot of quotation marks. ;)
(no subject)
I am pretty sure, and PLEASE, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, that any fiction, and any art that is not photographic or photo-realistic, depicting minors either fictional or real, is not considered child pornography. I've been madly Googling for hours, and I'm fairly sure this is true.
You've been Googling search strings involving child pornography for hours? You are far braver than I am. *admires*
1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
...The part where that's a bad thing is still confusing me. I mean, if only my fic appealed to the prurient interest. I'd be proud. Weird law. What if something failed 2 and 3 but not 1? Say it showed excretory functions and had no redeeming merit, but wasn't prurient? That wouldn't be obscene, it would just be... what? Gross and stupid, but okay? Laws. Weird.
I kind of wish, LJ being a private company and all, they would stop trying to write a set of rules that could be applied to anything always, and just go around banning the obvious nasty actual child porn stuff they're aware of or made aware of -- of which I've seen many comments saying there's plenty -- and leaving fanfic and fan art alone -- as it sounds like they know about that too. Yes, maybe then actual pedophiles would go undercover as fans and write evil child porn thinly disguised as fanfic, but then we could readjust and find a way of dealing with that, too. (Now I'm picturing LJ abuse team people studying a sheet with a list of things like
All right, so it wouldn't be easy!)
...none of those were very useful comments... just chattin.'
(no subject)
Dude, I very much hope no one ever judges me by my Google search strings, because I am absolutely shameless about what I search for. Out of sheer curiosity, I've searched for things like "how to make a bomb." I just cannot bring myself to believe it will EVER matter, but if it does, uhm. I will be very embarrassed?
I know, dude, I know. The degree to which that law doesn't mesh with my views on life is just absurd. For example, I don't think that appealing to the prurient interest is a bad thing; nor do I believe that the value of "being sexually exciting" isn't enough in itself to justify a creative work. Personally I think that "turning someone on" is a completely legitimate function of art, in its own right. But hey, lucky for me, that last provision means that, judging by precedent, pretty much everything I care about ever will be declared non-obscene. Yay, US Law!
I wish that tooooo. I wish they would just not deal with obscenity, PERIOD, unless a court of law declares something obscene and tells them to take it down. Hey, go ahead, ban all the stuff that is legally considered child pornography, and the stuff that is clearly pedophiles trying to solicit children! NO ONE will stop you, NO ONE will object, you will be completely within your rights! Leave obscenity the hell out of it.
Ahahahahaha, that would be the best thing EVER. I don't know, I don't think they should censor text at all, period, unless it's soliciting/encouraging criminal activity – but if they've gotta do it, that's most definitely the way to go.
(no subject)
I -- have nothing to add because the legal aspects of these things befuddles me greatly. But I'd like to congratulate you on such a well worded & researched post, even though the premise appears to be a somewhat serious & depressing one.
Do you mind if I link this discussion in my own LJ? I just think it's something as many people as possible ought to think about.
On a sidenote: do you study / have you studied law? Or is this simply an occupational interest? It's just, you really sound like you know what you're talking about & I feel quite overwhelmed by your eloquence & intelligence. ^^
(no subject)
Of course not! Link away!
(no subject)
It sucks because it's making us shut down, close ranks, and move toward the underground. Pornish is getting flocked, which I hate even though I know it's the only choice we have to protect the content and everyone who produced it.
*sigh*
I wish the freakin' law would stay away from fandom.
(did you hear the copyright lawsuit rumors? Apparently bloomsbury recently won a copyright case against fans, and there was some talk about the WB finding the pictures - I'm pretty sure the reason the journals were deleted was exclusively the obscenity thing, but if we're getting attacked from two sides? then I'm scared)
reposted to fix icon
God, I hate the underground. Fuck that shit. Lurkers unite!
I WISH THAT TOO. Oh my god, no, I hadn't heard the copyright rumors, and that makes me MUCH more nervous. (It's actually a trademark issue, I think? But still.) That has far, far more of a possibility of making fanac illegal than anything related to pornography or obscenity ever will.