?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Fandom Scruples [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
fandom_scruples

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

A public post for once. [Jan. 22nd, 2005|11:06 pm]
fandom_scruples
It looks as if some elements of the Harry Potter Fandom have collapsed in on itself and I have to say I'm not surprised. When moral judgement is lapsed, it's a slippery slope and difficult to recover from. Why not spread hatred about our friends? Why not talk anonymously and have no accountablility for our actions? Why not reveal the real name of whatever BNF we feel like this weeK? Why not write stories featuring children having sex? It all become relative when there are no rules involved. The low points that happened a few weeks back were brought on not by a 'nutty Christian' as some would call those who favour religious teachings, but by a couple of people who have defended on many occassion their 'right' to promote what many of us feel is inappropriate fanfic about a series of Children's books. (Yes, they are children's books.)

While myself and the others who are privy to discussion about this journal would agree that there are indeed 'nutty Christians' who would use their faith to call the Potter Books blasphemy, we also aren't blind and can't ignore that while the books themselves are of full of wonderful values, the 'fandom' clearly isn't. It's become a place in which one must navigate carefully in order to avoid things that are so distasteful in civil society yet perfectly acceptable in this arena.

For those who wonder why this journal still exists, it is mainly this reason. Secret Society? Indeed, but we are more than happy to keep to ourselves. (You'll note our lack of posting to other's journals or becoming overly involved in discussion.)
link

(no subject) [Sep. 29th, 2004|06:25 am]
fandom_scruples
I find it particularly interesting that things have seemed to have gotten worse.
The political climate of the fandom community, i.e. the isolation of all those with conservative values, is just a big example of why the hypocrisy is at it's worse.
link111 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Aug. 23rd, 2004|03:13 pm]
fandom_scruples
Looking at porn helps you start to believe the lies it promotes. Examples lies include:

Sexual freedom = happiness
Perverted sex is more enjoyable than "normal" sex (incest, BDSM, etc)
There are no consequences to sexual promiscuity
Sexual expression is a right, not a God-given or God-defined gift
You can live a healthy life with the porn images floating around in your mind
Porn doesn't harm anyone
Sex is something to be done primarily for self gratification
Children can view porn without any lasting side effects
Porn will help your sex life
Porn is just a harmless thing that everybody looks at

I feel sorry for all of you. When I browse through your journals a good deal of you are lonely and depraved human beings and maybe you were just poisoned once upon a time. I hope that whatever you think about me I have at the very least made you think.
link

(no subject) [Aug. 23rd, 2004|12:39 pm]
fandom_scruples
For those of you who actually are interested in locking down your fics and being a socially responsible human being, there is software available. Perhaps if only one of you decides to put this in effect all of this stupid wank will be worth it.

Service Providers

http://adultchamber.com/avs.htm

You can also register your site with some of the software companies that block and filter Web content for people. Registering your site is free, and it further reduces the likelihood that minors will see your smut. Yahoo has a good list of these companies. Is it really all that difficult? No, I think not.
link

(no subject) [Aug. 22nd, 2004|06:25 pm]
fandom_scruples
[mood |frustratedfrustrated]

I won't answer previous comments because I am on dial up and I don't have the time, but for those wondering why I care so much;

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/pornsEffects/clineart.htm

Because I am human and male and surging hormones make living decently very hard at times.

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/pornsEffects/vbctreat.htm

What you write CAN HURT someone, whether you choose to believe it or not. I can understand that it isn't your responsibility to lock up your NC17 material but what I can't understand is why you wouldn't want to.

http://www.connectingwithkids.com/tipsheet/2004/184_july7/porn.html

I've spoken about this with some people and you're right in some ways. I should have asked first but I just got angry and resentful. This is me asking. Please lock up your porn. No one is telling you not to write it or post it but please do your part as a responsible community member and put it on a website that requires age verification.

You all can make fun of me if you want to but here is proof that I'm right about children writing and reading this stuff freely.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/fandom_scruples/2268.html?thread=169692#t169692

I have never posted on anyone's journal, I'm not a BNF, and you can choose to ignore me but I don't think you will because I think you know what's going on in what should be a fandom full of children isn't right.
link

BNF ROAST [Aug. 15th, 2004|03:11 pm]
fandom_scruples
[mood |angryangry]

Perhaps you were all right and maybe JKR is unethical. Her statements regarding a few things and on her website have made me reconsider my high opinion of her. Lets talk about Hero worship for a moment and how I forgot my place in this world. It's clear to me that perhaps I placed too much faith in a person I didn't know and have never met. I assumed she hated the way fanfic had been written about irresponsible topics including incest and sex with underage characters. I still hope she does hate it, but I will acknowledge that knowing that she enjoyed Lolita, which I consider no more than an excuse to write paedophilia, truly disturbs me.

EDITED: 18:21

I took down the rest of this post because I realize it was the wrong thing to do. It was a way to express hate which I am not trying to do. I am trying to express outrage, but hate was not appropriate. For that I apologize.

http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/childaccess.htm

(Some light reading everyone should do.)
link

We live in a society where... [Feb. 18th, 2004|12:25 pm]
fandom_scruples
[mood |angryangry]

Immorality is normalized. And adolescents, who are most likely to come onto our journals and click the links to immoral fics, become youth at risk for copy-cat sexual acts, desensitization, exaggerated fears, and false impressions of sexual intimacy, gender, and their world.

We can't expect any of you to understand this?

I suppose not.
link

(no subject) [Jan. 26th, 2004|05:44 pm]
fandom_scruples
Some history for you:

Obscenity and the Internet

In 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 820 (1996), was presented with the issue of defining "community" in order to determine whether materials that had been transported over the Internet were obscene.

Defendants, a husband and wife, operated a computer bulletin board system (BBS) from their home in California. A postal inspector in Tennessee became a member of their service and subsequently received images by means of a computer and by mail. These materials depicted a wide variety of sexual conduct, including bestiality, torture and excretory fetishism. The couple was convicted by a jury in the Western District of Tennessee for violating federal obscenity laws [18 USC 1462 and 1465] in connection with their operation of their BBS.

The couple appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit. Their appeal was based on the assertion (among other grounds) that the trial venue was improper because it was in Memphis, where undercover Federal agents accessed and downloaded files, not in California; and it was unclear which community's standards should apply in determining whether the contents of a nationally-accessible BBS are obscene.

In upholding the convictions, the Court of Appeals rejected defendants' argument that the materials should have been judged by the community standards of California rather than Tennessee. The Court stated (in part): "Furthermore, it is well established that there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent."

In 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invalidated the Child Online Protection Act because the law, which restricts children's access to obscene-for-minors material on the World Wide Web, uses "community standards" in determining whether sex material is obscene for minors. In 2002, the Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit (Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 00-1293), with five judges concluding that federal obscenity laws were not unconstitutional as applied to the Internet solely because obscenity laws require application of community standards.

We realize that not every website is based or hosted by a US ISP and we are reviewing the TOS to those websites, with positive responses.

also, from Morality in Media...

Cliches About Obscenity Law and the First Amendment
1. You are advocating censorship by urging enforcement of state and federal obscenity laws.
Absolutely not. From a constitutional perspective, censorship means prior restraint of First Amendment rights by government. The Federal and state obscenity laws operate after, not in advance of publication. Quoting from an earlier opinion, the Supreme Court said in its landmark 1931 Near v. Minnesota decision that the "main purpose" of the First Amendment provisions regarding free speech and the press are "to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments, and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare." The First Amendment has never been interpreted as preventing censure for criminal matter when published, and persons can be fined and imprisoned if they disseminate obscene material.

2. But the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the press.
Of course it does. But despite its unconditional phrasing, the First Amendment was never intended to protect every utterance, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that there are narrow categories of speech which are not protected by the First Amendment, which include obscenity, child pornography, inciting to riot, libel, false advertising, perjury, contempt of court, harassment, threats, copyright infringement and invasion of privacy. Obscenity is not protected speech. It is a crime.

3. Obscenity is difficult to define; there is no clear definition on the books.
False. The United States Supreme Court defined obscenity in its landmark 1973 decision, Miller v. California. The definition isn't perfect, but it is workable when applied in a common-sense manner. Before sexual material can be judged obscene and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment, a judge or jury must determine: 1. that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest; 2. that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law; and 3. that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.

4. It is impossible for the owners of Web sites or stores selling pornographic materials to know if the material is obscene.
A. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected vagueness challenges to the obscenity definition. For example, in its 1957 decision Roth v. United States, the Court said that the Constitution "does not require impossible standards; all that is required is that the language [of the law] conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct ... [W]e hold that these [obscenity] statutes ... do not ... fail to give men ... adequate notice of what is prohibited."

B. In its landmark 1973 Miller v. California obscenity decision, the Court said that "no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive 'hard core' sexual conduct specifically defined ... We are satisfied that these specific prerequisites will provide fair notice to a dealer in such materials that his ... activities may bring prosecution."

C. What business owner (or manager) doesn't know about the products he sells? You expect, for example, a computer store owner (or manager) to know about computers, or a pet store owner to know about parakeets and tropical fish. How can an owner (or manager) not know that the pornography being sold by his or her business is hardcore? The owner (or manager) also has the responsibility to be familiar with both federal and state obscenity laws.

5. Obscenity laws are impossible to enforce.
This is another excuse provided by prosecutors who are afraid or unwilling to commit the resources necessary to enforce obscenity laws. The obscenity definition provided by the Supreme Court is workable when applied by a judge or jury in a common sense fashion. High-paid defense attorneys will try to pick jurors who are ideologically opposed to obscenity laws and to confuse or mislead other jurors with "expert witnesses," surveys, and distorted arguments about the First Amendment. Properly prepared and motivated prosecutors, however, have proved over and over again that obscenity laws can be enforced.

Morality in Media has many legal materials to assist prosecutors, including the Handbook on the Prosecution of Obscenity Cases, by George M. Weaver, the three-volume Obscenity Law Reporter, and the bi-monthly Obscenity Law Bulletin.

6. I have a right to watch what I choose in my own home.
The Supreme Court has held that obscenity laws cannot be applied to the mere possession of obscene material by the individual in the privacy of his or her own home. There is no such thing, however, as a constitutional right to sell or obtain obscene material in the marketplace. Obscenity laws punish the purveyor, not the home viewer. Possession of child pornography in the home, however, is a crime.

7. What next? Where do you draw the line? A ban on obscene materials today will lead to real censorship tomorrow, with maybe the Bible or Michaelangelo's "David" being banned next.
A. We have enjoyed political and religious freedom for more than two centuries. That is the clearest proof that enforcement of long-established obscenity laws does not threaten our First Amendment freedoms. As the Supreme Court said in its landmark 1973 Miller decision: "We do not see the harsh hand of censorship of ideas -- good or bad, sound or unsound -- and repression of political liberty behind every state regulation of commercial exploitation of human interest in sex."

B. The American people are too intelligent to fall for the "slippery slope" scare tactics that would have you believe that a prohibition against obscenity today will ultimately lead to a ban against everything from the Sistine Chapel to a diaperless Donald Duck. If you believe that, you would believe that a ban against playing loud rock music at 3 a.m. in a residential area would lead to a ban on the right of a symphony orchestra to perform in Carnegie Hall.

C. The question, "What next?" should be asked in the context of what next will happen if the obscenity laws are not enforced. What happens when the dehumanizing, depraved materials are allowed to spread with dazzling speed by means of high-tech advances? What happens when virtually all moral restraint is gone, in significant measure because of pornography?

D. Where do you draw the line? The U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress, and most state legislatures and state supreme courts have already drawn that line, and it has been repeatedly upheld as constitutional. As former Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in a 1964 obscenity case, Jacobellis v. Ohio: "No government ... should be forced to choose between repressing all material, including that within the realm of decency, and allowing unrestrained license to publish any material, no matter how vile. There must be a rule of reason in this as in other areas of law, and we have attempted ... to provide such a rule."

8. Bad speech should be fought with good speech rather than banned.
This may make good sense when the speech consists of ideas and opinions that can be refuted by better ideas and opinions. For example, the lie that pornography is harmless can be refuted by reason and evidence. Pornography (like illegal drugs), however, draws individuals into destructive addictions.

As the Supreme Court said in its 1973 Miller decision: "To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment ... It is a 'misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press' ... 'The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people' ... But the public portrayal of hard-core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the ensuing commercial gain, is a different matter."

9. You can't enforce obscenity laws on the Internet.
The laws against obscenity apply even to the electronic transmission of computer files. The medium is irrelevant. In 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the sentences of a California couple who had been convicted on Federal obscenity charges in U.S. District Court in Memphis, Tenn. The Court of Appeals rejected defendants' argument that the materials should have been judged by the community standards of California rather than Tennessee. "Federal obscenity laws, by virtue of their inherent nexus to interstate and foreign commerce, generally involve acts in more than one jurisdiction or state. Furthermore, it is well established that there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent," the Court stated. (United States v. Thomas). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case.

In May 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which restricts children's access to obscene for minors material on the World Wide Web. In their decision (Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 00-1293), five of the justices concluded that federal obscenity laws were not unconstitutional as applied to the Internet solely because obscenity laws require application of "community standards."



Copyright © 2001-2003, Morality in Media, Inc. All Rights reserved.
link

Announcement [Jan. 26th, 2004|03:21 pm]
fandom_scruples
After a week or so of debate on this topic, we've gathered , and have on file a good deal of information.

We believe in public responsibility.

To those who might not know it, Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was passed on Oct. 21, 1998. The Act makes it a federal crime to use the World Wide Web to distribute "for commercial purposes" material considered "harmful to minors," with penalties of up to $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison.

We have compiled evidence against several websites who have knowingly violated this law.

We believe everyone is responsible for the social welfare of children online and that website owners can easily provide adult authentication access for free or for a fee to adults.

There are no excuses. We have come to a decision that we will give websites two weeks to comply with COPA or we will report them to a federal agency that we have sought advice from.

Comments aren't necessary.
link

(no subject) [Jan. 14th, 2004|02:33 pm]
fandom_scruples
We anticipated that we'd get a good deal of flames. That's why we're screening posts. Eventually they'll get bored and move on. Let me try to be clearer on what our motives are.

We're not attempting to harass anyone. We're unhappy with the way it's "okay" to simply post x-rated fic or fic with sensitive subject matter in a public forum without so much as a password or a warning. We never once said this was a campaign to get people to stop writing this type of fic. It isn't. It's your life and you can spend it writing trash if you want to, but I think you should at least be responsible enough to make a reasonable attempt to keep adult material away from children.

Why is it such a horrible idea to get people to act responsibly? We are asking those listed below to please lock down their fic. Nothing else. We aren't asking them to stop writing, or reading.

There was some controversy about ivyblossom being on the list as she locks down her fics on her website. While we applaud her doing this, we've browsed several fics on her LJ containing what we consider to be adult content and she will remain on the list until those things are locked down.

It has also come to our attention that a few of the writers mentioned are key organizing staff for Nimbus 2005 (which we won't link to) and we are calling for a boycott of that conference unless they make a reasonable attempt to keep their adult material away from underage readers. We don't think this is an unreasonable request.

Several fics found at FictionAlley we believe have crossed over the R rating (which many feel is inappropriate for a site that allows 13 year olds to register at) and we are currently in the process of compiling a letter of complaint to send to heidi8. Because she may not be aware of these fics, we have left her off the list for now.



The Black ListCollapse )
link

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]