Log in

No account? Create an account
Eroticdreambattle [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Fandom [Aug. 4th, 2007|12:12 pm]
Tony Grist
Fandom- I don't get it.

Why would you want to mess with someone else's characters when you can create your own?

Does J.K. Rowling take pleasure in badly written stories about her characters having sex?  I doubt it.  Why- If you admire and enjoy her work - would you want to disrespect her so? 

Isn't "fan" a bit of a misnomer?

But lets move from the general to the specific. An artist just got banned by LJ because of an image she posted of Harry and Snape.

Only the banning seems ineffective because she's bounced back and the image is viewable. (I'm not giving links. I don't want to give her any more publicity than she's getting already).

I clicked. I was expecting an image of them kissing. Boy, was I in for a surprise.

The characters were clearly modelled on Daniel Radcliffe and Alan Rickman. Isn't this defamation of character or libel of something?

Even more to the point:  British comedian Chris Langham is about to go to prison for downloading images which (I assume ) are comparable to this. 

So- forget morality- LJ needs to guard itself against prosecution.

But I don't want to forget morality. You take characters from a beloved children's book and you produce an image of them that any paedophile would be proud to own (you can quibble over whether Harry looks underage or not if you want to be legalistic and miss the point) and  I can't think of any grounds on which I'd be prepared  to defend you.

A lot of fans are up in arms and banging on about censorship.  I just watched a video of a girl give a little self-righteous speech then attempt to burn her LJ shirt with a blow torch .  Fine. Off you trot to some less scrupulous site and good luck to you!  As it happens, I'm perfectly happy to see you go.

[User Picture]From: red_girl_42
2007-08-04 06:38 pm (UTC)

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

but I think if I were hosting a site and found people were trading fantasies on it that were arguably illegal I'd have no problem telling them to go do it someplace else.

Well, LJ is based in the U.S. and by U.S. law, descriptions and images of *fictional* underage characters having sex is not illegal. Laws banning these kinds of images were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because no real minors were being harmed.

I think that this is the only way that it *can* be, honestly. Why make something illegal when there is no victim? Assertions that pornography causes people to go out and do the things they see have never been backed up by study, and actually, there is some evidence to the contrary. I'd much rather have a pedophile get off looking at images of fictional children than to have that person seek out real children or even images of real children.

I may not understand why someone wants to look at that, and I may find it disgusting, but I will support to the death their right to do so. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Would you have governments banning Lolita? After all, it describes the rape of a minor? What about movies that depict murder, rape, or child molestation? No one is actually being harmed in those films, but the acts being portrayed are certainly illegal.

I understand that there's a big difference between Lolita and fanfic about Harry and Snape, but I don't think it's the law's job to judge where that line lies.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2007-08-05 10:04 am (UTC)

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

UK law is stricter (maybe unreasonably so) than the law in the US. People go to jail for possessing images comparable to this.

Actually I'm a libertarian. And I wouldn't ban anything. If I had happened upon this image by chance I certainly wouldn't have run to call the cops. However, by the time I came across it it was already controversial. My opinion amounts to this: that the decision to take it down is defensible and that the Fandom community is being naive.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)