![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A few thoughts about the fanfic debacle.
Aug. 5th, 2007 01:57 pmFirst, two disclaimers.
1) I have never written fanfic per se, but the book I've written that is actually published is only one small step from it. Some of the characters are mine, others are not, and the setting isn't at all mine.
2) This is not meant as a criticism of anyone on my friends list or off it.
I had no trouble seeing the problems with Strikethrough a few weeks ago. It was done hastily and without consultation, and had a variety of problems related to those things. LJ was right to reinstate most of those journals.
But this time? I'm just not seeing it.
California law states that child pornography is images or writings depicting minors (under 18) in sexual acts. It also states that the children do not have to be real people in order for the work to count as pornography - that is, fictional minors are not any better than real ones in terms of the legalities. Possession of child pornography is illegal, as is distribution, creation, etc, etc.
The arguments I've seen about these journals included justifications like, "The journal was entirely locked!" and "I never said ANYWHERE that the characters were under a certain age." Sorry, guys, but the argument that the journal is locked is rather like telling a judge, "The police had no right to come into my house to find the stolen goods! My front door was locked!" Livejournal still has access to your journal, even if it's locked, because it's up to them to ensure that the terms of service are being observed and to ensure that nothing illegal is happening on their site.
If the characters are fictional characters who are underage in the original works, and you don't make it clear in your writing that they're now of age, then it is reasonable to presume that they're still minors. That's what many readers will presume, in any case. So if the characters are all grown up in your writing, just say so, and you're off the hook. Otherwise, be prepared to be accused of creating child porn.
Lastly, on the topic of censorship. Is this censorship? Of course it is. Certain writings are being denied a forum here due to content; that's censorship. The next question must logically be: if it IS censorship, then how is it okay? And the answer: society has drawn lines in the sand about what constitutes protected speech, and anything that paints minors in a sexual context crosses that line. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about whomever you want; just ask anyone ever taken to court for slander. You cannot write/draw/publish/otherwise create something society deems harmful, and hide behind free speech to get away with it. The question of whether or not this type of work should be censored is somewhat separate. If someone wishes to take Livejournal to court over this and test the laws, I wish them luck, because they're going to need it. Until someone does that, until the case law reflects a change in societal mores that might make this kind of work permissible, the publishing body (Livejournal) has every right to stick to the law and to their terms of service, and delete accounts that violate either or both.
So, I'm not even slightly up in arms about this latest round of deletions. They seem to have been done after considerable research and consultation, in accordance with the law and the terms of service.
1) I have never written fanfic per se, but the book I've written that is actually published is only one small step from it. Some of the characters are mine, others are not, and the setting isn't at all mine.
2) This is not meant as a criticism of anyone on my friends list or off it.
I had no trouble seeing the problems with Strikethrough a few weeks ago. It was done hastily and without consultation, and had a variety of problems related to those things. LJ was right to reinstate most of those journals.
But this time? I'm just not seeing it.
California law states that child pornography is images or writings depicting minors (under 18) in sexual acts. It also states that the children do not have to be real people in order for the work to count as pornography - that is, fictional minors are not any better than real ones in terms of the legalities. Possession of child pornography is illegal, as is distribution, creation, etc, etc.
The arguments I've seen about these journals included justifications like, "The journal was entirely locked!" and "I never said ANYWHERE that the characters were under a certain age." Sorry, guys, but the argument that the journal is locked is rather like telling a judge, "The police had no right to come into my house to find the stolen goods! My front door was locked!" Livejournal still has access to your journal, even if it's locked, because it's up to them to ensure that the terms of service are being observed and to ensure that nothing illegal is happening on their site.
If the characters are fictional characters who are underage in the original works, and you don't make it clear in your writing that they're now of age, then it is reasonable to presume that they're still minors. That's what many readers will presume, in any case. So if the characters are all grown up in your writing, just say so, and you're off the hook. Otherwise, be prepared to be accused of creating child porn.
Lastly, on the topic of censorship. Is this censorship? Of course it is. Certain writings are being denied a forum here due to content; that's censorship. The next question must logically be: if it IS censorship, then how is it okay? And the answer: society has drawn lines in the sand about what constitutes protected speech, and anything that paints minors in a sexual context crosses that line. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about whomever you want; just ask anyone ever taken to court for slander. You cannot write/draw/publish/otherwise create something society deems harmful, and hide behind free speech to get away with it. The question of whether or not this type of work should be censored is somewhat separate. If someone wishes to take Livejournal to court over this and test the laws, I wish them luck, because they're going to need it. Until someone does that, until the case law reflects a change in societal mores that might make this kind of work permissible, the publishing body (Livejournal) has every right to stick to the law and to their terms of service, and delete accounts that violate either or both.
So, I'm not even slightly up in arms about this latest round of deletions. They seem to have been done after considerable research and consultation, in accordance with the law and the terms of service.
