||[Aug. 4th, 2007|12:12 pm]
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.
2007-08-05 06:07 pm (UTC)
Re: SAY SO. Tell us this is not a fandom-friendly site, and we'll migrate.
Pedophilic pornographic images are ugly and they can be and are used to stimulate the sickness of pedophiles.
Ugly? Sure. But there is no good evidence out there that seeing pictures of pedophilic acts causes people to go out and *commit* pedophilic acts that they wouldn't otherwise have committed. Pedophiles are mentally ill. Most of them were molested as children themselves. Their illness isn't caused by porn. In fact, it could just as easily be argued that getting off to fictional porn (or perhaps engaging in consensual ageplay with other adults) might prevent them from needing to act out their fantasies on real children.
Healthy people who are not attracted to children do not see child porn and then suddenly go out and commit pedophilic acts. Porn doesn't create pedophiles.
Likewise, mentally healthy people do not watch a violent movie and then go shoot up their schools. The kids who have done the school shootings have had other problems that weren't being addressed. Most of them were horribly bullied. In other words, they were primarily inspired by real-life cruelty and violence.
Blaming porn or video games or Marilyn Manson songs is a great way for a criminal to deny his own responsibility for crimes he has committed. But the fact is, the vast majority of people out there see porn and hear violent songs and *don't* commit crimes. The vast majority of people are capable of separating fantasy from reality (I've had fantasies about being raped...does that mean I'm compelled to go out and actually have it happen? No.) The people who can't make that disctinction that are mentally ill. Blame the illness, not the art.
You of course are entitled to your opinions about the worth of certain works of art. I personally think that images of child sex are disgusting, and I won't let my son watch violent movies/tv shows--even a lot of them that other kids his age regularly watch. However, I am an ardent supporter of free speech and I don't think that it's okay to claim that certain fictional works are *causing* crimes unless you have the empirical data to back it up.