[ you must chill ]

[winterlive]

everybody knows i love freedom of expression.

this ain't it. (link is nsfw and also pretty despicable, imho.)

maybe we'll all pick up and wander off or whatever. maybe fandom will decide to go all haywire and make their own space on the web, maybe we'll all have to uproot ourselves and exodus from the reign of stinky stinky six apart. but let's not make martyrs out of molehills, okay?


eta: in case i was somehow unclear, the following two things are true:
1. i find that image repulsive. personally, ethically, ugh. i also find rapefic, bestiality and torture to be by and large repulsive.
2. i cannot fault lj for banning it because it's illegal. i do not support the banning of any user over the perceived offensiveness of their material, only its legality.

eta II, much after the fact: i see that people are still keen to talk this one over. good for you. it's good to keep informed. but just so you know, a lot of information came out between the time this was posted and the three days later that some of this conversation is happening in. we know more things now, things have been confirmed, proven false, proven different. i therefore stand by two things i said in the original post: 1. sixapart stinks, and 2. you must, MUST chill. i stand by all things said in the first ETA.

Comments

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

if lj kicked somebody off their server for displaying art (it's the good qualifier, fic is harder to prove) of grown up dean and little sam, i couldn't condemn them, no. it's illegal.

at the same time, i would never report them if i ran across them. we're in fandom, we protect our own. even if i find somebody else's kink abhorrent, i wouldn't ever turn 'em in unless they were, like, planning something illegal in the real world, maybe i'd consider then. but it would be a hard decision.

[phaballa.livejournal.com]

Well, not to be all details about it, but shouldn't all art displaying incest be judged on the same scale as chan? Even if both of the characters are of legal age, sibling incest is still illegal in the United States, and gay sex is illegal in several other countries. The point being that we can't judge art based on our own squicks or kinks, because everyone is different. I might see merit in 'Detention Served' whereas someone else might not.

But fictional incest is certainly not illegal, and neither is fictional chan. If that were the case, VC Andrews has a lot of explaining to do in BOTH cases (although she's dead, soo.)

Anyway, I know you've been arguing back and forth in the above comments and I don't pretend to be a good enough debater to change anyone's mind. I'm just saying, art is subjective. Geiger's art, for example, is often very contraversial and sexual and involves dead babies and penises and aliens fucking all in one. I don't particularly enjoy his art, but I would defend his right to create it.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

i fully agree.

fod made an interesting analogy a little while ago - what if ponderosa had been uploading music files? is she legally culpable? well, that's debatable. but it's against LJ's TOS and as they don't have the money to engage in a court battle over it, they punted it. which is totally within their right.

we, fandom, we bear a certain responsibility too. we post fanfiction, the legality of which is debatable at best, let alone the nigh-infinite kink factory we put all of our best beloved characters through. just as we don't shove our fanfiction in producer's faces, just as we don't take a box of sex toys to our favorite actor - and we totally forsake the one who does - there is a line, see?

[phaballa.livejournal.com]

I don't see that ponderosa has shoved her art in anyone's face. I understand the line, I just don't see how it's applicable in this situation. Her art (or at least the example you link to) was posted in a Harry Potter porn community. It was drawn at the request of someone else for a fantasy fest fic, so clearly, someone wanted it. I guess what's bothering me is that I'm a little offended by the way you've described someone else's work in your post, and that you say their right to create it doesn't deserve to be defended.

Maybe I'm extending your statement to mean more than you intended. Possibly you meant that it doesn't deserve to be defended in regards to LJ and TOS and so on. In which case, that's fine and that's your opinion, although I think it's a narrow one. But if you did mean it to include not just LJ and TOS and deletions, but in general, in the greater world outside LJ and fandom? Then I really, really disagree.