My Only Post on the Topic

[sdelmonte]

innerbrat posted this link to a post that explores both why SixApart is acting the way it is and what fandom ought to consider in its reactions and its actions. I don't agree with everything that is said, but it pretty much says a lot of what I've been thinking but that would come out all wrong if I posted about it. This isn't to excuse SixApart if they are really being as dumb as they seem, again. But sometimes it's good to have some perspective.

As for me, I am not going anywhere. I will get accounts at other blogsites if need be to keep up with friends, but LJ is still home to me.

And don't think that every last blogsite won't have to do what SixApart is doing, given the current climate.

As for my day's supply of anger, I plan to direct it at Delta Airlines...

Comments

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"As for my day's supply of anger, I plan to direct it at Delta Airlines..."

After my last trip with Delta, I concluded that running an airline is at least a Beta Minus job.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Innerbrat disabled comments, so I will point out here that the definitional issues on pornography and child pornography are more complex. The definition she cites was rejected by the Supreme Court as overly broad to the extent it banned merely indecent speech based on the context of community values. Traditionally, sexual acts involving actual children that would be considered merely "indecent" rather than "obscene" are subject to prosecution because of the State's interest in protecting actual children from the harm involved. So while "soft core" pornography may be merely "indecent" and non-actionable under the First Amendment, the same acts committed by children would give rise to legal liability because the state is entitled to protect children from the harm of performing such acts.

When the Supreme Court considered the expanded definition cited by innerbrat, it found that the same rational could not apply to mere depictions of child pornography that did not involve actual children. The majority rejected the rational advanced by the government that it permitting the creation and dissemination of such images harmed children in that it (a) encouraged adults to move from mere visual representations to actual sexual activity with children; and (b) such images could be used to encourage children to participate in sexual activity. The majority found that this "bad thoughts" argument was simply too speculative and too far removed from the actual harm to trigger the State's special interest in protecting children.

The case in question is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html