(![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
quietprofanity Dec. 19th, 2008 10:49 pm)
quietprofanity Dec. 19th, 2008 10:49 pm)http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/12/man-convicted-of-possessing-simpsons.html
http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/12/simpsons-porn-case-follow-up.html
http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/12/forgot-to-get-memo.html
http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/12/mary-marvel-cooch-cover-benefit-dinner.html
[groan] I don't even know why I'm writing this. It probably won't fucking convince anyone of anything, but I'll just say it now. I'll break it down into tiny points so maybe people can get it.
1.) I think it is very likely that these SPECIFIC Simpsons porn cartoons ARE dangerous.
No, really, I do. This doesn't mean that I think looking at them automatically makes you a pedophile but I think it is very possible the porn in the Australia case was for-pedos-by-pedos-for-best-results-in-abusing-children.
The comments by "silrana" in this post are extremely illuminating. You should really read all of the comments, especially as it may answer questions I'm not going to address here, but I do want to point to the most important part:
You have to realize, we aren't talking about something like Marge showing a boob and looking flirty, like you might see in fanart. We're talking fairly crude cartoons of things like Lisa performing oral sex on Homer. Many of the Bart-Lisa cartoons I see have Bart 'aged up' to look like a teenager to go with the older person-little kid image that the pedophile wants to impress upon the child.
These pictures are carefully tailored for their appeal. They use familiar characters in situations that give the idea that adults and children have sex all the time and it's no big deal. Some of it goes even farther. Once you've seen Rescue Ranger characters in bondage gear and ball gags and the picture has obviously been made to appeal to children rather than adults, you lose the "oh it's just harmless fun" reaction.
This is horrifying and worthy of condemnation, contempt, pretty much everything. This is bad. If we use the old chestnut "guns don't kill people, people kill people," then what we are specifically talking about here is a gun made for shooting children. So, yes, these SPECIFIC cartoons ARE used to hurt people, and I think the people who say otherwise and invoking Orwellian thoughtcrime are deadly misguided.
(Not that D'Orazio really gets that either, clearly her "Child Porn Comix" are already happening. Luckily the Big Two don't need to publish them because First Amendment doesn't mean private companies need to give every dickweed a platform.)
That being said ...
2.) Criticism =/= Censorship, and there is NOT a conflict with criticizing/holding in a contempt/condemning a work and yet being against a big government body knocking down the gavel and outright banning it.
i.e., When it comes to these Simpsons cartoons, I would be perfectly fine with them being probable cause if there's a suspicion the person may be a pedophile already. But when it comes to censoring them and prosecuting people just for having porn of underage characters STEP OFF.
Artists and geeks, for better or worse, have no trust when it comes to the government/judges understanding art/fandom. That was what the letter writer specifically said he was worried about to Neil Gaiman. It's not, "OMG! They're taking away my right to see Lisa suck off Homer!" It's "WTF? What does that say for my Lost Girls collection/my slash fanfic/my memoir comic depicting child sexuality?" (All of which I own, BTW. The last one is from this anthology.) This was really the reason people are pissed off. This is why Gaiman said what he did about the law being a hammer and being a scalpel. If the law could scalpel out these specific Simpsons cartoons, I would be happier than a pig in shit, but they probably won't. Grey areas are easy when it comes to these things, as Paul Reubens found out. (Read that article, BTW. It's fascinating.)
Possibly D'Orazio doesn't care about this. Possibly she thinks that they're all equivalent and fictional depictions of those 17 and younger having sex wrong across the board, authorial intent be damned. (Although I don't know why she keeps bringing up the "You only defend Lost Girls because it's so-called high brow art" nonsense again with this, given that these Simpsons cartoons that she's pissed people are defending are most likely the kind of work that's so low that it's not associated with brows. I'm starting to wonder when Alan Moore took a meat cleaver to her dog's head and threw it through her window.) Anyway, people can be hurt and LINES must be drawn so this is the place we can draw it. Possibly she thinks that. I don't know. I don't mean to strawman, but that really seems like what's coming across.
And I'm more than a little offended if that's so. Because it seems like she's lumping in slash fics of consenting teenagers having sex with each other or someone's memoir of child abuse with this creepy father-daughter incest indoctrination porn. I get that she has personal lines. I get that she finds some porn horrifying. Hell, I find some porn horrifying. But it's clear that the types of porn we find horrifying may not always intersect. I'd rather read someone's graphic fictionalization of their own rape as a child than look at a picture of a naked, airbrushed woman posing in Playboy. In fact, I would argue that the latter is more "dangerous" than the former, because the latter implies packaging unrealistic standards and a view of women as silly sex dolls (I mean, have you read Hef's description of the ideal Playboy bunny? Blech.) and the former is about truth telling and owning what society would rather sweep under the rug.
Although maybe I'm off-base. Maybe there are instances where she thinks these depictions can be appropriate. But if that's so, she's making a distinction. And many don't have faith the law would do the same thing.
ETA: Oh, hey, timeliness. Granted, this guy convicted (like the Australian guy) is clearly an asshole, but .. yikes.
http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/12/simpsons-porn-case-follow-up.html
http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/12/forgot-to-get-memo.html
http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/12/mary-marvel-cooch-cover-benefit-dinner.html
[groan] I don't even know why I'm writing this. It probably won't fucking convince anyone of anything, but I'll just say it now. I'll break it down into tiny points so maybe people can get it.
1.) I think it is very likely that these SPECIFIC Simpsons porn cartoons ARE dangerous.
No, really, I do. This doesn't mean that I think looking at them automatically makes you a pedophile but I think it is very possible the porn in the Australia case was for-pedos-by-pedos-for-best-results-in-abusing-children.
The comments by "silrana" in this post are extremely illuminating. You should really read all of the comments, especially as it may answer questions I'm not going to address here, but I do want to point to the most important part:
You have to realize, we aren't talking about something like Marge showing a boob and looking flirty, like you might see in fanart. We're talking fairly crude cartoons of things like Lisa performing oral sex on Homer. Many of the Bart-Lisa cartoons I see have Bart 'aged up' to look like a teenager to go with the older person-little kid image that the pedophile wants to impress upon the child.
These pictures are carefully tailored for their appeal. They use familiar characters in situations that give the idea that adults and children have sex all the time and it's no big deal. Some of it goes even farther. Once you've seen Rescue Ranger characters in bondage gear and ball gags and the picture has obviously been made to appeal to children rather than adults, you lose the "oh it's just harmless fun" reaction.
This is horrifying and worthy of condemnation, contempt, pretty much everything. This is bad. If we use the old chestnut "guns don't kill people, people kill people," then what we are specifically talking about here is a gun made for shooting children. So, yes, these SPECIFIC cartoons ARE used to hurt people, and I think the people who say otherwise and invoking Orwellian thoughtcrime are deadly misguided.
(Not that D'Orazio really gets that either, clearly her "Child Porn Comix" are already happening. Luckily the Big Two don't need to publish them because First Amendment doesn't mean private companies need to give every dickweed a platform.)
That being said ...
2.) Criticism =/= Censorship, and there is NOT a conflict with criticizing/holding in a contempt/condemning a work and yet being against a big government body knocking down the gavel and outright banning it.
i.e., When it comes to these Simpsons cartoons, I would be perfectly fine with them being probable cause if there's a suspicion the person may be a pedophile already. But when it comes to censoring them and prosecuting people just for having porn of underage characters STEP OFF.
Artists and geeks, for better or worse, have no trust when it comes to the government/judges understanding art/fandom. That was what the letter writer specifically said he was worried about to Neil Gaiman. It's not, "OMG! They're taking away my right to see Lisa suck off Homer!" It's "WTF? What does that say for my Lost Girls collection/my slash fanfic/my memoir comic depicting child sexuality?" (All of which I own, BTW. The last one is from this anthology.) This was really the reason people are pissed off. This is why Gaiman said what he did about the law being a hammer and being a scalpel. If the law could scalpel out these specific Simpsons cartoons, I would be happier than a pig in shit, but they probably won't. Grey areas are easy when it comes to these things, as Paul Reubens found out. (Read that article, BTW. It's fascinating.)
Possibly D'Orazio doesn't care about this. Possibly she thinks that they're all equivalent and fictional depictions of those 17 and younger having sex wrong across the board, authorial intent be damned. (Although I don't know why she keeps bringing up the "You only defend Lost Girls because it's so-called high brow art" nonsense again with this, given that these Simpsons cartoons that she's pissed people are defending are most likely the kind of work that's so low that it's not associated with brows. I'm starting to wonder when Alan Moore took a meat cleaver to her dog's head and threw it through her window.) Anyway, people can be hurt and LINES must be drawn so this is the place we can draw it. Possibly she thinks that. I don't know. I don't mean to strawman, but that really seems like what's coming across.
And I'm more than a little offended if that's so. Because it seems like she's lumping in slash fics of consenting teenagers having sex with each other or someone's memoir of child abuse with this creepy father-daughter incest indoctrination porn. I get that she has personal lines. I get that she finds some porn horrifying. Hell, I find some porn horrifying. But it's clear that the types of porn we find horrifying may not always intersect. I'd rather read someone's graphic fictionalization of their own rape as a child than look at a picture of a naked, airbrushed woman posing in Playboy. In fact, I would argue that the latter is more "dangerous" than the former, because the latter implies packaging unrealistic standards and a view of women as silly sex dolls (I mean, have you read Hef's description of the ideal Playboy bunny? Blech.) and the former is about truth telling and owning what society would rather sweep under the rug.
Although maybe I'm off-base. Maybe there are instances where she thinks these depictions can be appropriate. But if that's so, she's making a distinction. And many don't have faith the law would do the same thing.
ETA: Oh, hey, timeliness. Granted, this guy convicted (like the Australian guy) is clearly an asshole, but .. yikes.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Back to the topic, though. Interestingly, I think D.O. is trying to use the 'slippery slope' argument that a panty shot leads to child porn. (I disagree, of course.) It is the same sort of argument I see being used against gay marriage: if we allow gay marriage today, what awful things will be condoned tomorrow?
There's a lot more I could say on the subject, but you and I are on the same page. :]
From:
no subject