I just want to make sure everyone has seen this buried subthread

[scarah2]

We report child pornography to the NCMEC, as required by law.

Scroll down to markf's reply in particular. It's heavily implied that ponderosa121 and elaboration were reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Harry Potters Children.

I'm going to check innocence_jihad and if this isn't already there, I'm gonna crosspost it. Sorry if you see it twice, but I'm finding that a

Comments

[janeaverage]

I can only imagine if I was a... whatever sort of law-enforcement professional... who got one of those pictures. I mean, you've got Law&Order:SVU style crap happening every day, loads of pictures and videos of real genuine children floating around cyberspace... and you send me... a drawing of the Weasley Twins?

I mean, would I laugh? Cry? Arrest you for the kiddie porn equivalent of a fake 911 call?

[slythwolf]

All of the above?

[janeaverage]

Having worked with Special Victims Squad, I assure you no one gives a shit.

[avialle]

I hope you guys are right. God. :^\

[wiccanslyr]

I am very seldom speechless but this... I just have no words.

[bungee]

All of this "we can't confirm or deny anything" bullshit is really starting to irritate me. What it tells me is that no one who is speaking on behalf of LiveJournal/Six Apart really knows what the hell is going on in their offices. They need to get someone out there who is actually calling the shots, and then they need to explain in clear and concise terms exactly what is happening in these Super-sekrit ToS Violations Meetings they're having. The whole secret society atmosphere is only lending to the panic.

[leomona]

Hmm. Going by the NCMEC's website, I would think the implication was that LJ *didn't* report anyone, given how much stress is placed on the harm done to the actual child.

[emarkienna]

I was presuming they did - the law cited on the NCMEC's website is the exact same law for obscene fictional images that LJ are using (emphasis mine):

Under federal law, child pornography1 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.2

[kudra2324]

i think the distinction is the "and is obscene" - for it to be obscene, it has to go through the miller test, and then we're right back at the "literary or artistic merit" question. the mere presence of a minor in a "sexual situation" wouldn't be enough.

i saw someone link to a formal definition of child pornography - as opposed to obscene material - earlier today and now, of course, i can't find it, but i believe in that instance it had to be an image that was indistinguishable from a photograph of an actual minor engaged in sexual acts, which is to say, not a drawing.

[emarkienna]

Yes, the usual child porn law (that doesn't require obscenity) covers only actual children, or indistinguishable cases.

But the definition posted on their site *is* the "fictional images count if obscene" definition. Since LJ stated that (a) they banned the fictional images because they believed them to obscene, and (b) they would report them if they matched the definition on that site, it surely follows that they have reported it.

[bubble_blunder]

I went to the link markf posted. Based on that, my own conclusion would be that they didn't report it. Now I could be wrong (and hope I'm not, obviously) but I read the page that he linked to from top to bottom 3 times. And everything in it talked about images of a minor or of someone who appears to be a minor.

In the eyes of the law, Harry Potter is not a minor. Harry Potter is a character in a book. My understanding of that page is that images of fictional characters, even if they otherwise meet all of the relevant criteria (which the pics in question didn't) do not fall under the federal definition of child pornography.

That being said, it is, I suppose, possible that some state laws might be different, but I don't know what LJ's obligation would be to report something to the state law enforcement agencies if it isn't a violation of the federal law. Being that they didn't mention the states when they mentioned the federal, I am assuming that there isn't one.

~Lisa

[kudra2324]

In the eyes of the law, Harry Potter is not a minor. Harry Potter is a character in a book. My understanding of that page is that images of fictional characters, even if they otherwise meet all of the relevant criteria (which the pics in question didn't) do not fall under the federal definition of child pornography.

i'm pretty sure that this is right. a lot of the confusion over the past few days has been generated, i think, by lj originally, correctly noting that non-photographical images were unlikely to be pornography but might be obscene; the most recent post conflated the two things, with this sort of confusion as a result.

after all, what is the NCMEC going to do, rescue harry potter from the clutches of someone's brain?

[scarah2]

Oh hay Lisa, you're internet famous :D

I certainly hope that you are correct. However, given LJ's interpretation of other stuff, I'm not sure that I trust so myself.

[bubble_blunder]

Oh hay Lisa, you're internet famous :D

LOL

Last night my best friend called me and asked to speak to the LJ celebrity. You know, I never expected things to take off like they did. I honestly figured that a hundred or so people would be interested in signing the letter based on it getting linked by my own flist. I never figured it would get so big.

As for the other, I hope that I'm right, too, although I certainly understand the lack of trust in light of everything else that's been going on. And frankly, with all of the other questions going on in the comments to that post that could have been answered and weren't, it kimnd of amazes me that the LJ staffers chose that one to respond to when they couldn't actually provide an answer. It seems like their efforts would have been better placed with the questions that had answers that could be admitted to in public.

~Lisa