![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
buggeryOkay, 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?
Here are the main areas I am seeking constructive criticism regarding:
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?
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?
Here are the main areas I am seeking constructive criticism regarding:
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 01:59 pm (UTC)I find the statement of age insufficient; no thirteen year old with hormones strong enough to cause that sort of genital growth could possibly be free of acne.
By the standard of "Would this make people snicker and/or blush?" it is prurient, as it is by the standard of "Would I hesitate to show this to my grandmother?" Mind you, my grandmother might be involved in this debate under a pseudonym and keeping her identity secret from me, so the latter case is less applicable.
The act of ejaculation itself seems as though it can be no more offensive than snoring (which is mighty irritating in the middle of the night, but not worth a court case unless one means divorce), given that men do both in their sleep. There is no indication of whether the minor depicted has been masturbating or engaging in some other form of sexual activity.
As for the latter question, yes, dear. You might have done better to seek out R. Crumb and repost some.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 10:15 pm (UTC)One loophole I suspect would be, if the "community" in question is a fandom. If people post flocked material with warnings all over it, surely then the burden of whether or not the material is obscene falls to those able to view it, ie the members of a particular LJ community or the people on a particular flist?
This whole thing is so unsettling. Obviously I don't want to be seen to support paedophilia, and I think that's the sticking point with this situation. But people DO have sex with each other below the age of 18 and personally, I think anything with people aged 15 to 18 is fair game. They're physically adult and highly likely to be engaged in some form of sexual activity. Preferably not with their parents or teachers, but.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 11:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 05:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-27 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-16 12:48 am (UTC)