(no subject)
Aug. 5th, 2007 10:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyI am watching with some bemusement as Six Apart establishes for itself a highly untenable position in both law and public relations. Ineffective censorship sacrifices important legal protections and carries with it the burden of being effective -- plus angering your so-called community.
The law is clear. If you want to portray someone else's characters in sexual situations, you'd better RUN, not walk, to the legal definitions of "parody" and become very, very familiar with them. So if you want to show Snape and Dumbledore in a threesome with Harry's mother, it's not enough for it to be "HAWT" . . . it needs to do a good job of social commentary on the Harry Potter books. The very lack of sex in the series cries out for parody, in my arrogant opinion. Just do it right.
The law is even more clear on the subject of portrayals of minors engaged in sexual situations. In static text, a 1st Amendment right may or may not exist . . . but in text chat, graphics or video, not only do you NOT have a right to such portrayals, but you risk criminal prosecution under our felony child pornography laws.
Harry Potter is a minor under US law. Never mind that he's been in the kind of close combat that is unusually likely to trigger PTSD and flashbacks. If you write the phrase "Potter's cock cried out for attention" you'd better be talking about a clay-worker's rooster just at dawn.
I remain bemused by the case of the sixteen year old girl who took pictures of herself in bed with her seventeen year old boyfriend . . . and was convicted on child pornography charges. Article | comments on topix.net
I am also concerned about this case, where poses that are shown constantly in such publications as Seventeen and Teen Cosmo are now being criminally prosecuted.
Our Draconian laws have slipped far behind the social reality and far, far behind our technology. I can't speak for everyone else, but I didn't discover that I had genitals on the day I turned eighteen.
I was going to write a dissertation touching on some of these issues, but I was frostily informed that the Internet was not relevant to discussions of social deviance, and that pursuing such research would be a dead end. Now I'm kind of glad I didn't, because writing for academia is a form of intellectual masturbation . . . except that after self-abuse, one has something to show for it.
I'd also like to wave a cheery "hi" to the Six Apart abuse team member / employee who hits this post due to keyword searches. Be aware, your participation in Six Apart censorship puts you at risk of personal liability for being sued. Cheers.
The law is clear. If you want to portray someone else's characters in sexual situations, you'd better RUN, not walk, to the legal definitions of "parody" and become very, very familiar with them. So if you want to show Snape and Dumbledore in a threesome with Harry's mother, it's not enough for it to be "HAWT" . . . it needs to do a good job of social commentary on the Harry Potter books. The very lack of sex in the series cries out for parody, in my arrogant opinion. Just do it right.
The law is even more clear on the subject of portrayals of minors engaged in sexual situations. In static text, a 1st Amendment right may or may not exist . . . but in text chat, graphics or video, not only do you NOT have a right to such portrayals, but you risk criminal prosecution under our felony child pornography laws.
Harry Potter is a minor under US law. Never mind that he's been in the kind of close combat that is unusually likely to trigger PTSD and flashbacks. If you write the phrase "Potter's cock cried out for attention" you'd better be talking about a clay-worker's rooster just at dawn.
I remain bemused by the case of the sixteen year old girl who took pictures of herself in bed with her seventeen year old boyfriend . . . and was convicted on child pornography charges. Article | comments on topix.net
I am also concerned about this case, where poses that are shown constantly in such publications as Seventeen and Teen Cosmo are now being criminally prosecuted.
Our Draconian laws have slipped far behind the social reality and far, far behind our technology. I can't speak for everyone else, but I didn't discover that I had genitals on the day I turned eighteen.
I was going to write a dissertation touching on some of these issues, but I was frostily informed that the Internet was not relevant to discussions of social deviance, and that pursuing such research would be a dead end. Now I'm kind of glad I didn't, because writing for academia is a form of intellectual masturbation . . . except that after self-abuse, one has something to show for it.
I'd also like to wave a cheery "hi" to the Six Apart abuse team member / employee who hits this post due to keyword searches. Be aware, your participation in Six Apart censorship puts you at risk of personal liability for being sued. Cheers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-06 07:27 am (UTC)Back in "the day," this would have been handled as evidence of unfit or abusive parents and the kids would be taken into custody and placed (separately) as wards of the court, with counseling. Nowadays, there are so many abusive parents and so few placements, even for children who are being badly abused, that maybe juvenile probation and monitoring is the best answer.
The English common law doctrine of mens rea suggests strongly that a person eight years old or younger would be exempt automatically from the statute, as being unable to distinguish between right and wrong sufficiently. So nine through fourteen year olds would merely fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which has wide discretion to act in the best interest of all parties. Fifteen through seventeen year olds likewise, but face the potential of being charged as an adult with all of those consequences. Eighteen and older, the venue shifts to criminal court.
So on its face it looks ugly, but in the context of the juvenile justice system and our history of jurisprudence, it's actually quite reasonable.
The question that no one is willing to examine (for a variety of reasons) is simply this: should there ever be a case where a minor has sexual relations, that does NOT at least in theory require the intervention of the juvenile court, plus criminal court if the other party is not a minor (by age or adjudication.) Note that any loophole will be immediately exploited by unscrupulous predators.