"Buggery is the Genus, of which Sodomy and Bestiality are the species."
--Thomas Jefferson

the Jack

Play in LJ-Land

LJ-Land Home
about buggery:
the Jack
buggery time
memorable buggery
favourite buggerers
current buggery

Screw Around
with LJ-Land

LJ nifty
LJ stats
LJ buggered?
LJ connect
random LJ
bugger, where am I?
do I know you?
do you like me?


Who's Who
Titans Who's Who
Animated Series
Women of Gotham
Buy comix at eBay

Warren Ellis
Devin Grayson
Elliot S! Maggin
Alex Ross


Babel Fish

20 July 2007, Friday
Political cartoon: Fandom and SixApart 5:43 pm   (heart this)

Last night brown_betty, in between writing brilliant posts and comments about the "clarification" (I do not think that word means what they think it means) of LJ's permissible content policy, she came up with a brilliant idea for a political cartoon about the whole mess.

Alas, as she lamented to me, Betty cannot draw. (I'm not sure I entirely believe this, as I haven't yet come across anything else she can't do.) She described the cartoon she envisioned so well I thought I could almost see it too. So, I offered to try drawing it for her.

Peek shot: LiveJournal: Dedicated to separating its users at least six degrees away from their community. Click here, read more, see the cartoon in all its glory.Collapse )

Who knew sheep could be such woobies?

(21 buggerers before you | bugger me)

(bugger this)

Fanart: Teen Kilroy (rating to be determined after Abuse deletes my account) 9:12 am   (heart this)

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! NSFW, obviouslyCollapse )
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?

(12 buggerers before you | bugger me)

(bugger this)

 more recent buggery   buggery through the ages, day by day   past buggery