the Jack ([info]buggery) wrote,
@ 2007-07-20 09:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current location:preparing to move

Fanart: Teen Kilroy (rating to be determined after Abuse deletes my account)
Okay, LJ is claiming that not only text-only description, but any non-photographic depiction of someone under 18 (and photos, too, which I'd say everyone was on the same page about except that LJ has spectacularly failed to specify that only photographs of minors which include nudity and/or a sexual theme are obscene, so anybody who's posted fully-clothed photos of their babies, godkids, nieces, nephews etc. is distributing obscene material by the latest "clarified" definition) falls under the definition of "obscenity" in the United States and is therefore prohibited by LJ's Terms of Service.

The three standards a work has to meet to be considered obscene under US law are:

1) It has to appeal mainly to prurient interest, in the opinion of an average person (one with 2.3 children, one supposes? sounds like a paedophile serial killer to me) applying the standards of whatever "community" is relevant to the case at hand; and
2) It has to depict a sexual and/or excretory act which is "patently offensive" and also explicitly (HEH) listed in some state's criminal code; and
3) It has to be devoid of any "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

I'm going for the trifecta of visual (non-photographic) art involving a minor. Tell me how I did?



Here are the main areas I am seeking constructive criticism regarding:
Is his statement of age suffficient to establish that he's a minor?
Is it prurient, are you average enough to decide, and which community's standards did you choose?
Is the act depicted patently offensive, and if it's covered under a state statute, please indicate which one?
Is my hope of avoiding even political value defeated by the very circumstance under which the work was created?

(Post a new comment)


[info]petronelle
2007-07-20 01:59 pm UTC (link)
If I count my cat as .3 of a child, I am part of the way to being average!

I find the statement of age insufficient; no thirteen year old with hormones strong enough to cause that sort of genital growth could possibly be free of acne.

By the standard of "Would this make people snicker and/or blush?" it is prurient, as it is by the standard of "Would I hesitate to show this to my grandmother?" Mind you, my grandmother might be involved in this debate under a pseudonym and keeping her identity secret from me, so the latter case is less applicable.

The act of ejaculation itself seems as though it can be no more offensive than snoring (which is mighty irritating in the middle of the night, but not worth a court case unless one means divorce), given that men do both in their sleep. There is no indication of whether the minor depicted has been masturbating or engaging in some other form of sexual activity.

As for the latter question, yes, dear. You might have done better to seek out R. Crumb and repost some.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]buggery
2007-07-21 06:23 am UTC (link)
You have a very long way to go towards being average. (;

I left pimples off as a matter of artistic license. They would've detracted from the image's ability to arouse prurient interest, don'tcha think?

Personally, I'd have no problem showing li'l Kilroy to my grandmother -- my dead grandmother, my senile-from-Alzheimer's grandmother, or my blind grandmother.

There is no indication of whether the minor depicted has been masturbating or engaging in some other form of sexual activity.
Curse it, you're right! It could just be one of those spontaneous random ejaculations which are commonly associated with that degree of penile hypertrophy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]vassilissa
2007-07-22 02:22 pm UTC (link)
Mind you, my grandmother might be involved in this debate under a pseudonym and keeping her identity secret from me, so the latter case is less applicable.

*is suddenly very relieved that my grandmothers are both dead*

(But then, in Star Trek fandom there used to be the saying "not your grandmother's Star Trek". Which suggests that there's some form of Star Trek which *is* your grandmother's Star Trek. I shall have to think more about this.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rubynye
2007-07-20 03:50 pm UTC (link)
Unfortunately, I ccan't really answer your questions sensibly, since I'm rather too busy laughing my head off. And adoring you even more than I already did.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]buggery
2007-07-21 06:24 am UTC (link)
\o/

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]suzycat
2007-07-20 10:15 pm UTC (link)
Bwah and ha!

One loophole I suspect would be, if the "community" in question is a fandom. If people post flocked material with warnings all over it, surely then the burden of whether or not the material is obscene falls to those able to view it, ie the members of a particular LJ community or the people on a particular flist?

This whole thing is so unsettling. Obviously I don't want to be seen to support paedophilia, and I think that's the sticking point with this situation. But people DO have sex with each other below the age of 18 and personally, I think anything with people aged 15 to 18 is fair game. They're physically adult and highly likely to be engaged in some form of sexual activity. Preferably not with their parents or teachers, but.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]buggery
2007-07-21 06:43 am UTC (link)
Much as it seems reasonable to expect LJ to judge fannish creative works by the standards of their fannish communities, if one were to judge posts in an LJ community journal founded by paedophiles by *their* community standards, well. You see why LJ can't apply that kind of standard.

(Though, if there were a hypothetical LJ-community for people with paedophilic desires whose purpose was to help its members not to act on those desires, its community standards might well preclude glorification of sexual activity with minors of the sort which SixApart is trying to keep off LJ.)

I got into (briefly, and got right out again once it became clear the other user was a liar, a moron, a troll or all three) an argument with another commenter on one of the [info]lj_biz posts who suggested that it was hinky to regard anyone under 18 as a sexual being, and claimed never to have experienced any sexual desire or curiosity before the age of 18 themselves. *Humans* are sexual beings, as any psychologist can tell you. Plenty of infants and toddlers figure out all by themselves that touching their own genitals feel good. Some of the hard-line proposals for enforcing prohibitions against paedophilic abuse would lead to kindergarteners being arrested for playing "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Which is a somewhat long-winded way of saying: Yes, I agree with you!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]herbailiwick
2008-02-06 03:09 am UTC (link)
My little cousin got in trouble for showing herself to another girl. Social services came to her house to evaluate my aunt and everything!

That's taking it way too far -- don't most kids look at their siblings' bits when they're really young? I know me and my sister did.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]thete1
2007-07-20 11:04 pm UTC (link)
You may very well be my favorite. SHH. IT'S A SECRET.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]buggery
2007-07-21 06:45 am UTC (link)
::gasps:: RLY?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]minim_calibre
2007-07-22 05:01 am UTC (link)
I would answer (now that, hey! I'm not at work!), but like others, am laughing too hard.

(Reply to this)


[info]vassilissa
2007-07-22 02:19 pm UTC (link)
I don't know if it's prurient enough. It didn't turn me on. But perhaps I am NOT AVERAGE! (Ohnoez.)

His dick looks kind of like a toilet roll with a rope coming out of it.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…