...these are not the LJ interests you're looking for...

[tielan]

Those Warriors For Innocence are really not getting the hang of this whole "fictional" thing, are they?

Maybe every fan should stick a label on their journals:

"All works of fiction on this LJ are - quite surprisingly - fictional, and no real persons were harmed in their making. The fictional situations depicted in this work of fiction are in no way intended to be an endorsement of real life situations. The fictional relationships depicted in this work of fiction are - similarly, although surely to no-one's great astonishment - not representative of real life relationships, and that whole fictional thing would surely absolve me of any kind of intent to perform any of the acts otherwise described in these pages of fiction.

Take that and shove it up your (non-fictional) ass, Warriors For Innocence!"

*coughs*

For the record, I'm not affected by this witch-hunt, it just seems like a pretty short-sighted and rather stupidly insular thing to do.

ETA: A short summary and a few links for those who aren't aware of the kerfuffle.

LJs are being deleted solely based on their interest lists. This is traceable back to at least one group that seems to be taking a moral crusade perspective on the matter of people who list questionable interests on their LJ.

marag was my first notice of this happening and her post is here. She led me to this post on liz_marcs LJ. Over on JournalFen: there's a Fandom Wank post about it.

And I imagine that, sometime in the next few days, metafandom will catch up with all the posts that have been made (possibly) and have a humungous post with as many links as they can fit into a single post. Possibly.

Comments

[thelana.livejournal.com]

It just seems like an odd thing. I mean, I can understand why a child protection group might not know the difference between fannish and not fannish groups, but shouldn't livejournal know by now? Since I assume that fannish content makes up a sizable part of their traffic?

To me the approach in fandom is just different to me. Mostly because fandom deals with very specific attractions. We love *Shephard* and *Teyla* and *Dean* and *Sam* or *Harry* or *Snape*. If somebody wrote the very same story about different set of people the fans wouldn't be interested. Which to me says that it's not the act that turns them on but these particular fictional people. Remove the people and there's no interest in the act. And since you can't harm the fictional people on account of them, well, being fictional, the whole point of real people being hurt is moot to me. The fictional people in question can't be affected and no others will be affected because it's the fictional people that make the specific interest.

[tielan]

I think one reason the journals were deleted wasn't not LJ's inability to differentiate, but the fact that if it came down to the legalities of a lawsuit, then it's difficult to explain to a 'layperson' how the perception and depiction of "these characters" does not relate to the actual people or the actual acts being performed.

If somebody wrote the very same story about different set of people the fans wouldn't be interested.

Quite so. Which is part of the attraction of fanfiction - your own ready-made audience, preset characters, and all you need to do is provide the words!

[thelana.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but it still feels depressing. If the original group really is into this for a moral reason, shouldn't they care that there is a difference between having dirty thoughts about 15/16 year old girls and writing romantic stories about Buffy and Angel being in love back in season 1 when their relationship just started out [not even considering that the shows in question actually support people becoming shippers of these relationships]? Or Smallville where the characters were 14/15 in season 1? [not to mention that the *actors* who after all play a large reason why people fall for these underage characters often were anything but underage when they portrayed these characters]

Then again, I think one large difference comes from the fact that fandom is mostly female dominated. And female attraction just frequently runs along different lines than typical male attraction. So trying to apply the same standards will probably just lead to confusion.

It's not that I don't have sympathy with those type of watchgroups, I actually do (probably even more so than your typical livejournal users), it just strikes me as an area where typical standards don't work.

Of course, must of this case is still in the open. We don't know if this really will go any further and deeper into fandom circles or if this is as far as their interests go.

[tielan]

If they're a morality group, you would think so. *grimace*

You know, it never occurred to me that, technically, Buffy was underage when she and Angel fell in love. Possibly because, in Australia, she wouldn't have been. Age of consent for het sex is sixteen here. Or it was when I was sixteen.

[thelana.livejournal.com]

Yeah same for me. I think it's 15 over here and even 14 provided the partner is under 18. There are actually plenty of US states where age of consent is also 16ish. But I think in a "better safe than sorry" most people would still label something with under 18 sex underage just in case.

With something as nebulous as ages of consent (what about historical stories? Where marrying off 14 year olds was normal?) the whole "advocating or portraying an illegal act" thing grows really complicated. (though to the defense of watchgroups many of them acknownledge that things get tricky in the 15,16,17 year old area and focus on 12 or under; )

Thanks for linking the liz_marcs link, hadn't seen that one before. Very interesting)

[tielan]

From the responses of the WfI group, it really does sound like they've just decided to take up the crusade without really thinking it through. Kind of tilting at windmills and hoping something catches.

As I understand it, thanks to WfI an LJ discussion comm about Nabokov's Lolita got bahleeted for the matter of underage sex. As did several 'survivor groups' who've lived through the experiences listed and so provided somewhere for survivors to share their experiences, purge, and find people who could help them move beyond what happened.

...which is just stupid.

[thelana.livejournal.com]

Well, judging from their latest posting it seems that they are mostly a bunch of immature idiots.

"I love how everybody who has a decenting opinion than your own had not been allowed to make a comment on your previous post that can be seen. That just shows who you really are--people who completely disregard freedom of speech.

*First of all, it's OUR blog, not the commenters'. Differing opinions are one thing; excessive profanity, and childish whining are another."

And the whole "We are a blog, we don't need no stinkin explanation, but we are Warriors, yo!" doesn't really make them look more legit. Which is sad, because it is a serious issue. It's depressing to see it apparently being handled by idiots.

[tielan]

No, they're not being particularly mature about it. But then, the kind of person who announces that they're going on a crusade against evil, and then begins by slaughtering innocents sitting by the roadside as a sign of their power to crusade against evil, really doesn't have all chevrons locked.

[roguish-angel.livejournal.com]

*blinks*

What's been going on? Warriors? What?

[tielan]

A post that explains a lot.

And this post and this one may also provide some clarification.

[roguish-angel.livejournal.com]

this is all.... very disturbing!

now i feel the need to check all my memberships and interests in paranoia! though by their resoning I can see one of the comms i manage getting hit danemma. Which there is nothing wrong with but still...

[marag.livejournal.com]

Can I put that in my profile? Because it's *perfect*!

[tielan]

*snorts*

You're welcome to it, hon. :)

[live-brave.livejournal.com]

I'm a little weirded out by some of the things that go on in some LJ journals but, frankly, it's their prerogative. Especially seeing as, like you said, it's fictional. Fictional characters have this uncanny knack of recovering quite quickly from the things they are subjected to on account of them being, as previously mentioned, not real. :)

I think sometimes it's easier to go after what seems like the more obvious threat without actually investigating than to put a little effort into it and weed out the real danger. *shrugs* People.

[tielan]

I'm a little weirded out by some of the things that go on in some LJ journals but, frankly, it's their prerogative.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Not my cup of tea and don't expect me to participate, but I've written rape scenarios. Doesn't mean I imagine being the perpetrator or the receiver.

And, as various people have mentioned, the whole "we are the only thing that stands between good and evil" is just a little prideful. Uh, no. There are plenty of other communities and associations dedicated to making sure that evil doesn't prosper.

Some of them were lost in the Deletegate.

[fairestcat]

*links furiously for metafandom*

*collapses from exhaustion*

[tielan]

*pets*

Yes, I was thinking of you.

*hangs an I ATEN'T DED sign over fairestcat*