bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
I figure I'm safe since I'm already corrupt and depraved. Reading isn't likely to make me more so.
Banned on Literotica
- Thread starter Shale
- Start date
hiddenself
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2002
- Posts
- 452
Are you sure?
Earl, I don't pretend to be an expert. I have been doing some research in the past year or so, but it has mostly been focused on the US. On the other hand, I am not sure what your evidence is for making the strong comments you made in your post.
First of all, police or any dum-ass prosecutor can arrest anyone, anytime, for any reason (real or imagined). Obtaining a conviction, however, is another matter.
The UK law you cite that prohibits "material that has the potential to corrupt or deprave" is the Obscene Publication Act of 1959 (amended in 1964). It is very broad and is mostly applied to general pornography cases. It could apply equally to incest, rape, BDSM, or just about any type of sexual depiction.
The Protection of Children Act (1978) and the Criminal Justice Act (1988) cover child pornography issues in the UK. Sections were amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) to cover technological advances and the Internet. These laws are almost entirely applied to cases of IMAGES depicting children. That includes both images of real children and pseudo-images (e.g., computer generated or altered photographs) -- both illegal. As far as I know, the laws have not been successfully applied to a case involving entirely non-visual depictions (stories or other written material).
Now, in the US, legal standards are a little higher. Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. It defines "child pornography" as "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, ..." Note the explicit reference to VISUAL DEPICTION. In addition, the laws have so far required depiction of actual or real children (defined as younger than 18 in the US).
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 and the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002 both tried to amend the definition by including cases where a participant "appear(s) to be a minor" or images advertised in a way that "conveys the impression" that a minor was involved in its creation. Pseudo-photographs, such as computer-generated images would also be covered (in contrast to the UK and Canada, they are legal in the US), as would simulated sexual acts. Such a broad ban would have made it a crime to depict a sex scene like those in the recent movies Traffic or Lolita. Both of these laws have been struck down by the US courts as violating the first amendment (free speech) -- most recently in April 2002.
None of these laws would apply directly to non-visual material. Other general pornography statutes may be relevant, but case law shows that written material enjoys much more leeway in terms of being defined as pornographic than photographs or films.
Example... A guy named Baker had fantasies about torturing, raping, and murdering a female student at the University of Michigan. He sent his story to an internet story site giving the name of a classmate. He was arrested and held without bail. In 1995, a US District Court Judge dismissed the case against Baker ruling that he was protected by the First Amendment. Baker's case was argued as a free speech issue and although he had sick fantasies they did not involve immediate danger or any criminal activity.
Almost all legal opinion that I have obtained here agrees that it would be virtually impossible to successfully prosecute an author for writing a sex story with an underage fictional character, particularly stories of the kind that appear on Lit. I suspect the same would hold for the UK. So, unless you have some legal research to back up your position, I will put down your statement that you'd be jailed for writing a story with an underage character as a literary exaggeration.
Even if there's a law in Britain that makes it illegal for you to visit Lit if it has stories with under-16 characters, that's no reason to make Lit conform to the lowest common denominator. Country X (I won't name names) considers the portrayal of extramarital sex a serious crime. Would you argue that Lit stories should only depict sex between married partners because readers who are citizens of country X could be prosecuted otherwise?
My point is this: Lit is based in the US, and according to US law it has no direct obligation to adhere to a minimum age limit.
Since all this has been a long-time interest of mine, if you (or anyone else) can provide additional material or point me to additional directions, I'd be grateful.
hs
TheEarl said:
Earl, I don't pretend to be an expert. I have been doing some research in the past year or so, but it has mostly been focused on the US. On the other hand, I am not sure what your evidence is for making the strong comments you made in your post.
First of all, police or any dum-ass prosecutor can arrest anyone, anytime, for any reason (real or imagined). Obtaining a conviction, however, is another matter.
The UK law you cite that prohibits "material that has the potential to corrupt or deprave" is the Obscene Publication Act of 1959 (amended in 1964). It is very broad and is mostly applied to general pornography cases. It could apply equally to incest, rape, BDSM, or just about any type of sexual depiction.
The Protection of Children Act (1978) and the Criminal Justice Act (1988) cover child pornography issues in the UK. Sections were amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) to cover technological advances and the Internet. These laws are almost entirely applied to cases of IMAGES depicting children. That includes both images of real children and pseudo-images (e.g., computer generated or altered photographs) -- both illegal. As far as I know, the laws have not been successfully applied to a case involving entirely non-visual depictions (stories or other written material).
Now, in the US, legal standards are a little higher. Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. It defines "child pornography" as "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, ..." Note the explicit reference to VISUAL DEPICTION. In addition, the laws have so far required depiction of actual or real children (defined as younger than 18 in the US).
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 and the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002 both tried to amend the definition by including cases where a participant "appear(s) to be a minor" or images advertised in a way that "conveys the impression" that a minor was involved in its creation. Pseudo-photographs, such as computer-generated images would also be covered (in contrast to the UK and Canada, they are legal in the US), as would simulated sexual acts. Such a broad ban would have made it a crime to depict a sex scene like those in the recent movies Traffic or Lolita. Both of these laws have been struck down by the US courts as violating the first amendment (free speech) -- most recently in April 2002.
None of these laws would apply directly to non-visual material. Other general pornography statutes may be relevant, but case law shows that written material enjoys much more leeway in terms of being defined as pornographic than photographs or films.
Example... A guy named Baker had fantasies about torturing, raping, and murdering a female student at the University of Michigan. He sent his story to an internet story site giving the name of a classmate. He was arrested and held without bail. In 1995, a US District Court Judge dismissed the case against Baker ruling that he was protected by the First Amendment. Baker's case was argued as a free speech issue and although he had sick fantasies they did not involve immediate danger or any criminal activity.
Almost all legal opinion that I have obtained here agrees that it would be virtually impossible to successfully prosecute an author for writing a sex story with an underage fictional character, particularly stories of the kind that appear on Lit. I suspect the same would hold for the UK. So, unless you have some legal research to back up your position, I will put down your statement that you'd be jailed for writing a story with an underage character as a literary exaggeration.
Even if there's a law in Britain that makes it illegal for you to visit Lit if it has stories with under-16 characters, that's no reason to make Lit conform to the lowest common denominator. Country X (I won't name names) considers the portrayal of extramarital sex a serious crime. Would you argue that Lit stories should only depict sex between married partners because readers who are citizens of country X could be prosecuted otherwise?
My point is this: Lit is based in the US, and according to US law it has no direct obligation to adhere to a minimum age limit.
Since all this has been a long-time interest of mine, if you (or anyone else) can provide additional material or point me to additional directions, I'd be grateful.
hs
TheEarl
Occasional visitor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Posts
- 9,808
I cannot point you in the direction of any resources to back me up, but I have taken a legal opinion and if I went to a site that had a link to a site involving underage sex (real or imagined), then I would almost certainly be convicted if caught. In England laws are archaic and only change if people agree on a new one. Hence the Obscene publications act still being in force, despite being vague and very useless. Therefore the link, saved in my temp internet files, would count as taking an interest in child pornography. The police would paint this picture: A single man, who has links to child porn sites on his computer. He's written a porn story and has written a non-consent story. Although not conclusive evidence, without a good lawyer, I'd go to jail.
Due to the wonderful laws of England, I'm not allowed to write a rape story, or a celebrities story or write or read about underage sex. By English law, even if the entire thing is a fantasy, it is still 'accessing material with the potential to corrupt and deprave.' Under English law, Alysson Hannigan could sue me for defamation for my celebrity story, which I believe would be a free-speech issue in the USA.
Incidentally, although child pornography is under the child pornography act of 1986, internet porn is under the obscene publications act. So I'd still get copped by that wonderful phrase: to corrupt and deprave.
It's at times like this I really wish I was in a dictatorship. Preferably without Teflon Tony at the helm.
The Earl
Due to the wonderful laws of England, I'm not allowed to write a rape story, or a celebrities story or write or read about underage sex. By English law, even if the entire thing is a fantasy, it is still 'accessing material with the potential to corrupt and deprave.' Under English law, Alysson Hannigan could sue me for defamation for my celebrity story, which I believe would be a free-speech issue in the USA.
Incidentally, although child pornography is under the child pornography act of 1986, internet porn is under the obscene publications act. So I'd still get copped by that wonderful phrase: to corrupt and deprave.
It's at times like this I really wish I was in a dictatorship. Preferably without Teflon Tony at the helm.
The Earl
hiddenself
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2002
- Posts
- 452
TheEarl said:
Heh heh, I'd swap you for GW anytime! I'd even pay for the shipping charges.
Many thanks for the view from across the water.
hs
