Censoring of the Lj - I'm open to people refuting this, pleeeeeeease

[charisstoma]

One of the nice things about bookstores and paid journals is that if you don't like what is happening there you go buy somewhere else. I read the information about the Miller test that was listed on lj biz which was a posting from Wikipedia. I work in a library and one of the things we reiterate again and again is that Wikipedia is not a valid source. It might be a nice place to start (although a waste of time as/)but anything found on that site has to be confirmed at a valid site. I have posted previously about the ads that have been listed on the lj site that do seem to promote pedophilia. It seems to me that Lj has violated its own policy.
But... Here in lies the Real research and its not pleasant See Below or skip to the last 2 paragraphs.


http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/CRS.childporn.ob.3.pdf
On April 16, 2002, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the SupremeCourt declared
the CPPA (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibited pictures that were not produced with actual minors.12 Child pornography, to be unprotected by the First Amendment,must either be obscene or depict actual children engaged in sexual activity (including “lascivious” poses), or actual children whose images have been “morphed” to make it appear that the children are engaged in sexual activity.
appear that the children are engaged in sexual activity. The Court observed in Ashcroft
that statutes that prohibit child pornography that use real children are constitutional
because they target “[t]he production of the work, not the content.”....

The Court found these rationales inadequate because the government “cannot constitutionally
premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts” and
“may not prohibit speech because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be
committed ‘at some indefinite future time.’” ...

The Government may not suppress lawful speech as a means to suppress unlawful speech.”...

In response to Ashcroft, Congress enacted TitleVof the Prosecutorial Remedies and
Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, or PROTECT Act,
Public Law 108-21. This statute prohibits any “digital image, computer image, or
computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging
in sexually explicit conduct. It also prohibits “a visual depiction of any kind, including
a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that . . . depicts a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct,” and is obscene or lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Section 603 of the PROTECT Act amended the CDA to apply to child
pornography transmitted via the Internet.

Child Pornography: Pending Issues
To the extent that the PROTECT Act prohibits non-obscene child pornography that
was produced without the use of an actual child, it may be challenged as unconstitutional.

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/csot/csot_ccchild.pdf
Child Pornography
Under federal law, child pornography (Wolak, 2003) is defined as a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it
• depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
• depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (18 U.S.C §1466A and 18 U.S.C. §2256)
Sexually explicit conduct includes various forms of sexual activity such as intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, and lascivious exhibition of the genitals. It is illegal to possess, distribute, or manufacture these images.

So...*sigh* Make Al and Ed old enough to get around this problem or find a way to conform. I hate to say it but Lj is a business and they are trying to protect their butts, so yes at this time they are in the right. *shudders*

I'm open to people refuting this and proving me wrong, that I'm not understanding what I found correctly..pleeeeeeeese prove it to me. I support the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Someone learned come up with a way to undo what our Congress has done but remember "it's for the good of the children" (I hear that ALOT). Your votes count... or they will someday. *smile*

Comments

[maderr.livejournal.com]

Sheesh. I think people need to chill. This really doesn't make for happy reading. Shota is really not my thing, but I never understood why a drawing or a fic was hurting anyone. Ugh ugh ugh. I can't wait to see what they take the ax to next.

[meridae.livejournal.com]

I'm kinda biased on this I guess (which is why I usually don't comment) . . but from my personal viewpoint, drawing a picture or writing a fic that portrays children having sex with adults as okay and a happy making thing, trivialises what those of us who actually *were* abused as children when through - it minimalises it, 'mainstreams' it more than it should be, makes people have the very attitude you have in your comment "Oh, it doesn't hurt anyone". No, the fic doesn't, well, apart from me psychologically when I have flashbacks I guess . . . but what about when that attitude starts to extend to the abuse itself? "Oh, it doesn't hurt anyone . . . " And trust me, I already *hear* that attitude from the pedophiles themselves . . . quite recently actually, a father referring to his three and five year old girls "They welcomed it, encouraged it, enjoyed the contact." And a policeman saying "A three year won't remember anything anyway." Well, three year olds *do* remember.

I'm not saying that most people will ever go with the 'oh but it doesn't hurt anybody' attitude - but why take the risk?

And why do people (not you, cos you said that!) enjoy shota type things in the first place???

Sorry . . . I'm not trying to bite your head off, and I don't want to snark at you directly (I tried to word my comment non-hostilely) just the more I read about this porn/no porn thing on LJ, the more I feel the need to start a talking.

::random hugs if you want them from me?::

[charisstoma.livejournal.com]

I personally just phase out in my mind that it's an underage kid. It's just two individuals to me as I read it with an extra squick. It never comes over to me as "real" anymore than (less really) when I read in a sci-fi story and they talk about the red grass. Guess I have good suspension of disbelief. If I saw the real thing I would probably be one of the first with the chop off the body part attitude. The evil that happens in real life shouldn't be trivialized but if it's not a real person and doesn't look like a real person than it hurts no one, in my humble opinion,any more than tentacle sex.

[meridae.livejournal.com]

I guess I just have trouble with the whole thing cos I don't want to spoil people's fun and I always try to have a live and let live attitude. And really, it's the minority that have pedophilic tendencies in the first place that spoil it for everybody else. *You* can distinguish reality and fantasy, and you're right - I'm sure that if you saw child molestation in real life, you'd be out for blood like any sane person. But there are people in the world who don't have the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, for whom it's a short step from "Oh, it's not underage kid, it's just two individuals enjoying themselves" to "Oh, it's not a person with thoughts and feelings at all" to "Well, that makes it okay to do in real life - afterall, children aren't people." And you gotta remember, it isn't so long ago that children weren't regarded as people - and it was thought they didn't feel pain. And the thing is, suprisingly rational people can make leaps of thought like that - I do it myself sometimes, albeit not on anything resembling child abuse (fortunately).

I guess the bottom line here is that while the majority might be okay to read this stuff (I still don't understand why) there's a minority who isn't - and if we can't filter those individuals out (Please present your proof of sanity card at the door) then the option that we're left with, is to filter out the potentially problematic material instead.

It sucks, it's not fair on the responsible non-abuse committing reader . . . but then being a four year old sucking cock aint fair either.

[meridae.livejournal.com]

P.S. I gotta stop writing comments until my brain stabilises from the med withdrawal . . . I think I went a bit far with that last line, and I apologise . . . Bad issues! Get back in the Meri!Brain, back I say!

[charisstoma.livejournal.com]

It's ok and no problem. If we need to talk this out more than it'll wait til you feel ready. I wasn't offended at all and hope that I'm not offending. It's not meant to anyway. You're still loved and read even if I don't respond all the time.

[charisstoma.livejournal.com]

You as a victim of past child abuse have a right to feeling your feelings. Whether it spoils someone else's fun or not. That being said, it is unlawful to subject a child to abuse and the laws are there for a reason but there are limits to what is reasonable. Porn itself in many people's minds is an abuse of decent people and shouldn't be allowed. Where I live, if you want a sexual toy you can't buy one as its obscene and against the law, so vibrators are either novelty items that probably don't vibrate or you buy it through the mail discretely packaged.
A four year old sucking cock aint fair, Not At All. Thank God you made it through your experiences and are coming out the other side into light. Thank God that society has changed and it's easier for kids to bring the abuse to the attention of someone who can help make it stop. *hugs you*

[maderr.livejournal.com]

Nope, fair and valid opinion. Rape victims don't like to see rape glamorized, and shota/loli is certainly a variation on that theme - and maybe worse, because it's only children.

*hugs back*