[HPFGU-Feedback] RE: ADMIN: Possible Threat to HPfGU lists

[Przemyslaw Plaskowicki]

On 12/10/2003 4:35 PM, IggyMcSnurd wrote :

>>Linnea:
>> 
>>If the group is in danger of being summarily deleted for references to
>>the seduction of a minor by an adult, then we need to pause and think
>>again about our need to read and write about it.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Iggy here:
>
>This comment made something click in my mind...  And this is also
>directed at those who say that the HPfGU has some great legal minds that
>have looked over the terms of use, in addition to being mainly aimed at
>those who comment that 16 is the UK age of consent.
>
>It doesn't matter if 16 is the age of consent in the UK.
>
>Yahoo is based in the US, and is bound by the laws of the US with regard
>to issues relating to sex with minors.  
>
>To give an example:  If a group of people who are 16 make a series of
>adult movies and sell them in the UK... well, that's ok there, since
>they're of the age of consent.  If someone from the US goes to the UK,
>buys copies of those tapes and takes them back to the US, they are in
>violation of laws regarding child pornography and can be charges with
>possession of such within the US.
>
>The best rule for any group on a service such as Yahoo is not to go by
>the laws of their own country, but by the laws of the country the server
>is housed at.  Those laws will be the ones that take precedence.
>
>Which is the main reason for concern about the topics and nature of some
>of the discussion... and also renders the argument that "Harry Potter is
>16, and in the UK that's the age of consent.  It's written in the UK,
>and he can do whatever he wants there..." invalid.  (I will also point
>out that the minute JKR ever decides to put in any scene of overt
>sexuality and/or depiction of an actual intimate intercourse, not only
>will the readership drop drastically for school kids and the complaints
>from outraged parents rise, but if the characters are under 18, then it
>risks not being picked up in the US at all.)
>
>
>Just my two centaurs worth...
>  
>
Hi,
As Heidi already pointed out "virtual child porn" is legal in the US -- 
decision in this case: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition is quite an 
interesting read: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html.

Some of the quotes:
"Both themesteenage sexual activity and the sexual abuse of 
childrenhave inspired countless literary works. William Shakespeare 
created the most famous pair of teenage lovers, one of whom is just 13 
years of age. See Romeo and Juliet, act I, sc. 2, l. 9 (She hath not 
seen the change of fourteen years). In the drama, Shakespeare portrays 
the relationship as something splendid and innocent, but not juvenile. 
The work has inspired no less than 40 motion pictures, some of which 
suggest that the teenagers consummated their relationship. /E.g./, Romeo 
and/ /Juliet (B. Luhrmann director, 1996). Shakespeare may not have 
written sexually explicit scenes for the Elizabethean audience, but were 
modern directors to adopt a less conventional approach, that fact alone 
would not compel the conclusion that the work was obscene."
[...]
"The year before, American Beauty won the Academy Award for Best 
Picture. See/ /American Beauty Tops the Oscars, N. Y. Times, Mar. 27, 
2000, p. E1./ /In the course of the movie, a teenage girl engages in 
sexual relations with her teenage boyfriend, and another yields herself 
to the gratification of a middle-aged man." (Opinion by J. Kennedy)

Naturally, what we have here is by no means a 'virtual child porn', but 
since law allow broader it also allow narrower.

Age of (sexual) consent in US vary through the States. See: 
http://www.ageofconsent.com -- in most states it is 16 years of age.

Please note: I am not a US lawyer.



-- 
Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki
Fear is that little darkroom where negatives are developed. (Michael Pritchard)