![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
potboyvia https://ift.tt/2qfXLjd
star-anise:
There’s a reason for that, though.
Child porn is illegal and wrong because it’s a record of child abuse. To create it, you have to start a camera rolling, and sexually abuse a child. Its very existence demands the sexual abuse of children. There is a real person walking around whose abuse is documented in those images. And every time it’s viewed, that person’s abuse is shared without their consent.
“Virtual child porn”—artistic representations—doesn’t involve sexual abuse in the making. No children were harmed in its creation.
That kind of art can be any one of a variety of things—stories about teenagers falling in love, semi-autobiographical accounts of abuse, explorations of what makes a relationship healthy or not. Antis tend to target purely based on ship, not on the actual content of fanworks.
The article rather meticulously goes into questions like “Is this kind of artwork inherently dangerous to consume?” (No) and “Are people who consume this kind of artwork any more likely to be dangerous to children?” (No) and “Can actively talking about and comparing different artworks of this kind help children recognize and avoid abuse?” (Yes)
So if it doesn’t protect children to censor this kind of work, and this work doesn’t victimize anyone… why should they condemn it?
thelesbianbee:
yeah they lost me when they didn’t condemn virtual child pornography so….
star-anise:
What purity policing fans get wrong about censorship - Prostasia Foundation
A child sexual abuse prevention agency with some delicious fucking research-based information about whether fannish purity police help or harm victims of child sexual assault.
star-anise:
There’s a reason for that, though.
Child porn is illegal and wrong because it’s a record of child abuse. To create it, you have to start a camera rolling, and sexually abuse a child. Its very existence demands the sexual abuse of children. There is a real person walking around whose abuse is documented in those images. And every time it’s viewed, that person’s abuse is shared without their consent.
“Virtual child porn”—artistic representations—doesn’t involve sexual abuse in the making. No children were harmed in its creation.
That kind of art can be any one of a variety of things—stories about teenagers falling in love, semi-autobiographical accounts of abuse, explorations of what makes a relationship healthy or not. Antis tend to target purely based on ship, not on the actual content of fanworks.
The article rather meticulously goes into questions like “Is this kind of artwork inherently dangerous to consume?” (No) and “Are people who consume this kind of artwork any more likely to be dangerous to children?” (No) and “Can actively talking about and comparing different artworks of this kind help children recognize and avoid abuse?” (Yes)
So if it doesn’t protect children to censor this kind of work, and this work doesn’t victimize anyone… why should they condemn it?
thelesbianbee:
yeah they lost me when they didn’t condemn virtual child pornography so….
star-anise:
What purity policing fans get wrong about censorship - Prostasia Foundation
A child sexual abuse prevention agency with some delicious fucking research-based information about whether fannish purity police help or harm victims of child sexual assault.