Extreme section

[Pookie]

I posted this back in May in the Story Feedback forum during a similar discussion ...


Just to clear up something, fictional stories about people under 18 years of age having sex are not illegal in the USA. However, child pornography is illegal. But "stories" are not child pornography in the eyes of the Courts.

Child Pornography: material that visually depicts children (real children as well as computer-generated depictions of children) under the age of eighteen engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity, including lewd exhibition of the genitals. Child pornography laws were recently amended to include computerized images or altered (morphed) pictures of children, and counterfeit or synthetic images generated by computer that appear to be of real minors or that were marketed or represented to be real child pornography
Source: http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/porndefinitions.htm

Legal Definition of Child Pornography: An unprotected visual depiction of a minor child (federal age is under eighteen) engaged in actual or simulated sexual conduct, including a lewd or lascivious exhibition of the genitals. See New York v Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), Osborne v Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), U.S. v X-Citement Video, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 464 (1994). See also U.S. v Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 856 (1987), U.S. v Knox, 32 F.3d 733 (3rd Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 897 (1995). Note: In 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A was enacted and § 2256 was amended to include "child pornography" that consists of a visual depiction that "is or appears to be" of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. See Free Speech Coalition v Reno, No. C-97-0281 SC, judgment for defendants, Aug. 12, 1997, unpublished, 1997 WL 487758 (N.D.Cal 1997).
Source: http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/pornlegaldefinitions.htm#childporn

Clearly, fictional stories are not visual depictions. Laurel has chosen to not post stories involving characters under eighteen for personal reasons, not legal. It's her website and she can do as she pleases. If someone doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere to post their stories.


Laurel has stated her opinion on this issue at least once:
Source: https://forum.literotica.com/showth...&perpage=25&highlight=child porn&pagenumber=3

Laurel,

Then the obvious question must be asked, why not? Is it for fear of incitement to action (my original point)? How is that vastly different than "Lot Lizard?"

I'm playing devil's advocate, I'm on neither side of the argument as it pertains to Lit. I have written scenes that involved an element of non-consent myself. Governmental censorship regarding speech is patently wrong and everyone here probably agrees on that point.

But regarding murder fiction, you must answer your own question, why is fictionalized murder fiction and fictionalized adult felony rape OK but not fictionalized child felony sodomy?

It's all fantasy, or is it?

Why draw the line unless there is a thought, no matter how obscure, that it will be a cause to a specific action?

Not so fast, buster. I asked YOU first.

It has nothing to do with incitement to action. It has to do with personal tastes. I don't want to read stories involving young children. They offend me - not because I think they're harmful, but because I think they're distasteful. It being a privately run site, we can make up whatever rules we deem fit. We also don't allow stories under 750 words. (Not for the same reasons, of course. )

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Extreme section

In two words:


John Ashcroft.




Welcome to "free" America.

Is this honestly and serioulsy the reason? Can i find out more about this?

 

[sweetnpetite]

This is actually a question of interest - are you serious that writing a work of fiction about paedophilia is not illegal even if published? (Since that's what we're talking about, having a public forum to display these kinds of literal fantasies). I thought ANY kind of child porn was restricted- or is it just that which involves children in the production?

This is absolutly true. If writing about underage sex where made illegal, then it would be illegal to report on it. IF describing it where illegal, books like Sybill would be illegal too, in which we find out that she was sexually abuses by her mother and it is described. Also, medical and legal reports would be illegal and books containing information about medical and legal stuff regarding underaged sex abuse would be illegal as well. If they tried to make an exception for medical and legal material, then that obvioulsy would create a legal mess in regards to judging intent. In a free country we have to put up with a lot of things that we don't like. Not everything that is *wrong* can be made illegal. Its wrong to make fun of retarted children, but it's not illegal. Laws are here to protect us from harm, not to protect us from being insulted, disgusted or disagreed with. ON the one hand it dosn't seem right, but on the other, crimnalizing the written word would not be right either. (nor would it be write-bad pun)

 

[KillerMuffin]

Re: Re: Re: Extreme section

Is this honestly and serioulsy the reason? Can i find out more about this?

Sure.

http://www.nationallawcenter.org/Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft.htm
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/documents/03134927.asp
http://www.extremeassociates.com/mainpage.html
http://www.theposition.com/takingpositions/provocateur/01/03/05/porn/default.shtm
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/01/05/ashcroft/print.html


Just go to google, type in John Ashcroft and pornography. It's not all that difficult.

 

[Pure]

Thanks for the links, Killer Muffin!

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the Ashcroft speech is clear in referring to 'obscenity'; that includes written matter.

That is why Pookie is right, that 'pornography' is something you look at; but what's quoted in NOT the applicable part of the law here. I.e, porn related laws are not what's at issue.

J.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Extreme section

Methinks that the majority was none too intrigued by paranormal blowjobs and alien butt rape.

yeah but that would make for a great movie don't ya think?

 

[MWG]

Re: Re: Re: Extreme section

yeah but that would make for a great movie don't ya think?

"Scary Movie" sucked.