I do hate to dabble in the stupidity that has become Livejournal’s policies, but when my head threatens to explode, something must be said. I just read one of LJ’s posts clarifying their policies, from which I pulled this quote:

How do these policies apply to images of minors who are not real?

To ensure that we are compliant with child pornography laws, we have decided to treat any content which contains a graphic visual depiction of a minor (anyone under the age of 18, as defined by Federal and California state law) engaged in sexually explicit conduct as a violation of our policy regarding illegal content (see this link for definitions of graphic, visual depiction, and sexually explicit conduct). We feel this approach creates the clearest guidelines possible for users to follow and for the Abuse Prevention Team to enforce, and minimizes the risk of an incorrect evaluation of material. In short, we want to eliminate child porn from being hosted on LiveJournal.

Interesting. The link they provide for their definition of what is to be considered illegal child pornography is 18 U.S.C. § 2256 … also known as U.S. Code : Title 18 : Chapter 110 : Section 2256. Why is it interesting they are using that particular bit if law to determine their definitions? Because that exact bit of law was argued by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the subsections relating to defining computer generated or drawn depictions of minors engaged in sexual behavior as child pornography (and thus illegal) were, in fact, struck down as unconstitutional.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(D). Thus, §2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called “virtual child pornography,” that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography. Fearing that the CPPA threatened their activities, respondents, an adult-entertainment trade association and others, filed this suit alleging that the “appears to be” and “conveys the impression” provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling production of works protected by the First Amendment. The District Court disagreed and granted the Government summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Generally, pornography can be banned only if it is obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, but pornography depicting actual children can be proscribed whether or not the images are obscene because of the State’s interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 758, and in prosecuting those who promote such sexual exploitation, id., at 761. The Ninth Circuit held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in Ferber.

You can read the rest of the Supreme Court case information. I haven’t finished reading all of it yet, but will later. I also don’t know if this was ever over-turned at a later date, but I would think I’d have heard about it. As an artist and a writer, I try to keep up on what the government says is and is not allowed. I’ll look into it more later, if I get the chance. I just thought I would toss this out there for anyone over at LJ looking to further their argument that the Livejournal staff is on crack. It’s a good starting place for further research into whether or not drawn or computer-generated depictions of non-existent teenagers in adult situations is porn or not.

I have more to say about obscenity, art and porn, but I have to go poke at my bread dough now. Trying a new recipe. I think it’s going to turn out grand. :)