Francine - harvest
I Blame the Dutch mpoetess
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
[Insert meaningless subject line here]
Rant about minors who read porn snipped, as drama = too much like work. Gist: Don't care, parental issue, I warn, and if there'd been a web when I was underage, I would've read. If I'd been stupid enough to *tell* people I was underage, I'd have deserved getting yelled at, reported, and booted from lists. However. Being driven nuts by references to the minor breaking the law. Happy to be corrected by legal experts, but I don't think there are many adult-materials laws with the onus of lawbreaking being placed on the child.

cicirossi

2003-06-10 01:14 pm (UTC) (Link)

Nodnod. There was no internet to speak of when I was truly underage (well, not that *I* knew about) but I was always looking for something that I wasn't supposed to be reading. Keep your mouth shut was always my rule ;)

mpoetess

2003-06-10 02:50 pm (UTC) (Link)

Lalalala. This is the song of the intelligent teenager...

gwynnega

2003-06-10 01:22 pm (UTC) (Link)

Being driven nuts by references to the minor breaking the law. Happy to be corrected by legal experts, but I don't think there are many adult-materials laws with the onus of lawbreaking being placed on the child.

Exactly. And, like you, if there'd been an Internet when I was a kid, I would've read the stuff. (And even if it had been illegal for me the kid to read it, I still would've.)


mpoetess

2003-06-10 02:20 pm (UTC) (Link)

Yeah -- I think, if we want to talk about things minors should at least read with their parents' knowledge so they can discuss it -- I read Sybil when I was ... 9, maybe? Which contains graphic descriptions of child molestation and torture, but since it's nonfiction and technically a psychology book (in the general terms that suburban parents might categorize things) no one looked twice at it. That said, it also didn't scar me for life; I sincerely doubt stories thatc ontained loving (or even dysfunctional) adult sex would have.

But I really don't want to get drawn into that larger debate that's raging (or was; things seem to have calmed down) over whether it's actually ok or not, from an adult pov, to let a kid read such. It was just truly making my eyebrows dance to keep reading "If minors read these stories, they are breaking the law." Dudes, no. If minors read these stories after you've told them not to, they are putting *you* and their parents at risk for prosecution, which is possibly not a nice thing for them to do -- but they're not breaking the law, themselves.

kaytee4ever

2003-06-11 12:28 pm (UTC) (Link)

If minors read these stories after you've told them not to, they are putting *you* and their parents at risk for prosecution, which is possibly not a nice thing for them to do -- but they're not breaking the law, themselves.

Exactly! That seemed to get totally twisted around on that refrigerator post you linked to. From what I read, she was accusing the underage teens/kids of breaking the law (and threatened to report them).

*shakes head* and yet, by the parts of the law she pasted, she contraditcts herself..

mpoetess

2003-06-11 12:34 pm (UTC) (Link)

I think, if she means reporting them to their ISP, who would report them to their parents, that part would make sense, and be a reasonable act of protecting herself. (If a minor actually sent her e-mail indicating that he/she was reading the writer's NC-17 material.)

Reporting the minors themselves to the police, though, would I think just get the parents in trouble (and possibly start the kind of lawsuit most of us want to avoid, as the parents fire back with "You shouldn't have made it available to my precious unsupervised child...")

ladycat777

2003-06-10 01:53 pm (UTC) (Link)

Happy to be corrected by legal experts, but I don't think there are many adult-materials laws with the onus of lawbreaking being placed on the child.

I never understood that. Because I started reading various porn-y type things when. . . actually, I think I was twelve. Granted, they were stupid romance novels, but there was actual smut in there. But my point - I new I was breaking the 'rules'. The concept of breaking the law came later, but I knew what I was doing. And if I got caught, I always assumed that I'd be the one in trouble - cause I was the one actively breaking the law.

I understand if it's the case of a young child who doesn't understand what's going on. . . but most under-eighteen year olds that do this? Know damned well what they're doing. Punish *them*, instead of limiting freedom of speech.

mpoetess

2003-06-10 02:07 pm (UTC) (Link)

I guess the point of structuring the law that way, though, is, if the child is old enough to be legally 'punished' for looking at porn -- which he's only not supposed to be reading because he's not old enough to read/understand it -- then, well, he's probably old enough to read/understand it. To write the laws otherwise (to make there be a criminal penalty for a minor who looks at porn) would be to say that the child is old enough to take responsibility for his actions, but not to take responsibility for his reading material. Which I think is a little more obviously wanky about censorship than the government wants to get.

Which is not to say that Mom and Dad don't have any right to kick their kid's ass if said kid has been told not to read porn, and does so. Just, if the government tries it, they have to somehow justify considering the kid competent to make the decision not to read, but not competent to read.

mpoetess

2003-06-10 02:11 pm (UTC) (Link)

Somewhere, way down in the bottom of my black, grimy soul, the guilty bit is saying -- "Oh, come on. Admit it. You personally don't think it's right for anyone -- including parents -- to stop someone from reading anything." And, well, yeah. I don't. I have small, quiet, and extremely rabid views on censorship. But I respect the right of parents who aren't mine *g* to raise their children according to what they believe, not what I do.

7spoons

2003-06-10 03:11 pm (UTC) (Link)

I'm so glad you said that. I feel the same. And I'm also glad you said the part about minors not actually being in violation of the law if they read smut. It had been nagging at me--this idea that kids were breaking the law by reading NC-17 material--and now I know why: it's not true. Phew! I guess the legal system is sometimes sane and fair.

mpoetess

2003-06-10 03:22 pm (UTC) (Link)

:) I can't say for certain that there aren't any laws that kids might be breaking -- especially local ones. But I've never heard of any. Since it's treated like a crime (in some cases like a sex crime) against the minor child, making it punishable on the part of the child would be like... making a law that (openly and specifically) punishes a child for being molested. I can't say there's not a community out there stupid enough to do it, but I haven't heard of one yet.

I think the statute of limitations is up...

Anonymous

2003-06-10 05:38 pm (UTC) (Link)

La la la... I DID read naughty fic when I was underage, and my dad caught me, and that's why I didn't have internet from the ages of 12 to 17.

Moral of this story: What daft bastard lets their kid online without breathing down their neck?
SWS

Re: I think the statute of limitations is up...

mpoetess

2003-06-10 07:35 pm (UTC) (Link)

*nod*

Now mind you, when I was 12, my mother would have freaked at anything, and my uncle would have freaked at nothing, and between them I'd have ignored her and read the porn. Mostly because my mother would freak at me reading it at 18 (or 30) too, for her personal schizophrenically repressed reasons, and it would never have been because I was too young.

There's a point there, I'm sure. I *think* the point was, the world is a better place because there was no www for me to post my Mary Sues on when I was 12.