I Blame the Dutch (mpoetess) wrote,
I Blame the Dutch
mpoetess

Because everyone has one (an opinion and an asshole, yadda yadda)

Dawnsex.

I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion. I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion. I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion. I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion. I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion. I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion. I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion. I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion. I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion. I don't need to have an opinion just to have an opinion.

I do have an opinion, dammit. (Dammit for me not being able to tell the difference, not dammit because I'm extremely het up about the topic). And it's not just in order to have an opinion. It concerns free speech, and the US Government's definition of child pornography. Which does *not* include written material unless that written material is an advertisement for a film or photos containing images of children or people purported to be children, engaged in sexual acts, or filmed in a sexual manner. It definitely does not include written fiction.

Title 18 Section 2256

The story in question, which is not posted anywhere that I could link to, or I would, for fairness, is "The Memories of Monks" by Jenny Crighton. Badly written, yes - the characterization is questionable for Spike, and awful for Dawn. (Matter of opinion.) Illegal by US law, no. (Matter of fact.) Illegal by some state laws, possibly. (Too lazy to look it up at the moment.)

The quality of the writing does not decide whether something deserves to be protected under free speech laws, people. It doesn't. Neither does the subject of the writing, when it doesn't describe a real person, or otherwise fall under current laws of child endangerment. (I.e., reading the story aloud to a child might very well be illegal. Posting it on an age-restricted mailing list is not -- or at least it would be very difficult to prove, and *everything* on the list that was NC-17 would fall into that category.)

When you accuse someone of writing something *illegal*, instead of simply writing about an illegal act, (which would include all stories that discuss rape, murder and theft, as well as any fiction written about Angel having sex with Buffy on her 17th birthday, since the age of consent in California is 18), you're playing dangerously loose with the truth.
Tags: fandom-bitching/snark, fic-meta
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 25 comments