FA+
Shop
Fictional Pornography Conflicts With The Law (In Most Cases)
14 years ago
I find it confusing that fictional pornography (those dealing with entirely fictional characters on a variety of mediums) is filtered by government laws and codes as if they're connected to real pornography. They're two completely-different sides, yet they're given the same treatment. This especially comes in full effect whenever a legal case is brought up against people who possess these pornographic materials of fiction.
I've always thought that we have already established a sense of suspended disbelief whenever we encounter fiction of any kind: that we know it could be based of, but never the actual reality. We've had fictional books, films and stories containing murder, political corruption and the likes, and they're judged solely from their fictional aspect. And yet whenever we talk about pornography, we put each and every single material that appeals to the sensual side of the mind in one huge umbrella. I know their purposes are the same, but that does not mean they must be subjected to the same kind of rules that must be followed.
I do understand that in most countries, fictional pornography containing widely-accepted sexual norms is allowed. However, while this caters to the majority of the population, this seems to create a huge rift between them and the minority, simply because those who think otherwise are subjected to rude judgment and, at worst, legal cases. All because they are shown to be infatuated towards objects created by the fragments of the mind.
I am also aware of the fact that people connect these into real-life crimes; that they are motivations for criminals to do their bidding. While I will admit that there have been real cases such as this (rapists who admitted that they 'learned' their way are not uncommon), just removing that possibility does not really, in any way, stop those criminals. It's feeble and immature to conclude that this kind of filtering will prevent them from getting encouraged. Personally, I believe this is more on the part of those in authority to educate these people. We keep confusing the innocent term "imagination" with the politically-degraded term "motivation", and instead use the media as a "scapegoat" for the incompetence of those in authority to educate.
Fiction comes from millions of alternate worlds; several are based from the real world, but nonetheless all are woven by the nigh-limitless boundaries of imagination. Yet as of today, there is one overlooked aspect of it that is still subjected to worldly laws and rules. We may have already abolished the stoning and persecution of so-called "witches", but here we are, doing the same thing to people who imagine too much.
---
EDIT (10-02-11): It's sad to see that some of those who support censoring pornography in general goes on to say "pornography is bad". I honestly think that this is not an issue of morality, but that of expression. If we let our morality go into the way of expression, we are surrendering our will to decide. Are we that dumb enough that we need someone else to interfere with our decisions?
Censorship in general does little to solve the moral issues that are supposedly tied with the lack of it, anyway. Those who do not follow the medium being censored are simply unaffected (or in a negative connotation, uneducated by its contents). Those who do follow it are simply informed of their contents; it is up to them to decide whether to act according to it or not. It is a slippery slope argument to say that the medium will certainly shape us into what they represent; it is simply based on "assumptions" that we hide behind so-called "morals". People do not do stuff because they are told or informed about it; they do so because they decided to. Influence does not equal reason.
I'd like to leave this topic with a quote from a professor in Ohio: ""I remember a news story in central Ohio from more than 30 years ago. A middle-aged man was arrested for having adult pornography in his home. He killed himself. Isn't it time we stop tormenting people for what they do in private and which harms no one?"
I've always thought that we have already established a sense of suspended disbelief whenever we encounter fiction of any kind: that we know it could be based of, but never the actual reality. We've had fictional books, films and stories containing murder, political corruption and the likes, and they're judged solely from their fictional aspect. And yet whenever we talk about pornography, we put each and every single material that appeals to the sensual side of the mind in one huge umbrella. I know their purposes are the same, but that does not mean they must be subjected to the same kind of rules that must be followed.
I do understand that in most countries, fictional pornography containing widely-accepted sexual norms is allowed. However, while this caters to the majority of the population, this seems to create a huge rift between them and the minority, simply because those who think otherwise are subjected to rude judgment and, at worst, legal cases. All because they are shown to be infatuated towards objects created by the fragments of the mind.
I am also aware of the fact that people connect these into real-life crimes; that they are motivations for criminals to do their bidding. While I will admit that there have been real cases such as this (rapists who admitted that they 'learned' their way are not uncommon), just removing that possibility does not really, in any way, stop those criminals. It's feeble and immature to conclude that this kind of filtering will prevent them from getting encouraged. Personally, I believe this is more on the part of those in authority to educate these people. We keep confusing the innocent term "imagination" with the politically-degraded term "motivation", and instead use the media as a "scapegoat" for the incompetence of those in authority to educate.
Fiction comes from millions of alternate worlds; several are based from the real world, but nonetheless all are woven by the nigh-limitless boundaries of imagination. Yet as of today, there is one overlooked aspect of it that is still subjected to worldly laws and rules. We may have already abolished the stoning and persecution of so-called "witches", but here we are, doing the same thing to people who imagine too much.
---
EDIT (10-02-11): It's sad to see that some of those who support censoring pornography in general goes on to say "pornography is bad". I honestly think that this is not an issue of morality, but that of expression. If we let our morality go into the way of expression, we are surrendering our will to decide. Are we that dumb enough that we need someone else to interfere with our decisions?
Censorship in general does little to solve the moral issues that are supposedly tied with the lack of it, anyway. Those who do not follow the medium being censored are simply unaffected (or in a negative connotation, uneducated by its contents). Those who do follow it are simply informed of their contents; it is up to them to decide whether to act according to it or not. It is a slippery slope argument to say that the medium will certainly shape us into what they represent; it is simply based on "assumptions" that we hide behind so-called "morals". People do not do stuff because they are told or informed about it; they do so because they decided to. Influence does not equal reason.
I'd like to leave this topic with a quote from a professor in Ohio: ""I remember a news story in central Ohio from more than 30 years ago. A middle-aged man was arrested for having adult pornography in his home. He killed himself. Isn't it time we stop tormenting people for what they do in private and which harms no one?"
Everything written here is true, that's the best I can tell.
But I do thank you for taking the time to read this.
I don't have much left to say.
By the way, notice that I'm French, so I didn't understand every single word, making what I think more difficult to explain.
But that's a very interesting journal, it got my attention.
Seriously it shouldn't happen, I think I remember a story about this guy who had been arrested for having something like this in his laptop while crossing to some country (canada maybe? I don't remember) and it simply isn't fair.
As a matter of fact last time I checked even real pornographic content is legal to some extent, and I can't understand why some little fictional writings/pictures/etc would make the big difference.
They don't seem to realize though that stuff like this is usually kept to whoever owns them. I don't see any legal issues that might hold up against possessing materials of fiction, even if they have questionable content.
Personally, this seems like a perversion of the law's aim to "protect people". This kind of law inhibits the person's freedom of expression, mainly because this kind of subject has not been dealt with appropriately and in all seriousness. Kind of like when a parent simply forbids a child from doing something without really explaining why.
In any case I'm glad places like furaffinity exist, where we can express our ideas and thoughts without the fear of getting thrown into jail for no damn reason whatsoever.
btw, if I may know, what made you post this journal in the first place? Just curious xD
Being curious as I am, I started my research into how my country actually handles this kind of case, as well as fictional pornography in general. The results are surprising and quite sad.
In any case it's just unfair, guess next time I order anything I will be checking the laws in my country too :/
History has spawned lots of scenarios about the government regulating and prohibiting certain materials, and almost all these cases found an intense fear of societal degradation. When one thinks of censorship, they think of "blocking out stuff that is potentially bad". Censorship is said to be a reminder of what the society needs to be thinking about; that it is a simple drawing of a line between freedom of expression and anarchic immorality. But is it enough that we leave it all to regulation and censorship to believe that we are "safe"?
Censorship has been around since the start of society. It is a necessary step to control what people think, via directly interfering with the materials present. Because if those in authority lets out every material present, the people they control will have different views and ideas. To censor materials is to basically force people to follow a certain path full of ideas that you allow them to touch on.
Censorship by itself is not morally bad. It is when it goes as far as to censor anything remotely-related to what it disallows that creates friction between its purpose and its effect. That, and it simply does not work on today's society, where information from different sources can be obtained so easily. Censorship has gone off to create a perverted form of conformity in society; those who question why certain materials are censored are pointed out as advocates of immorality. In a way, it has created a standard for determining who "thinks like the society" and who "does not think like the society".
I leave you all with a series of short questions that continue to haunt my mind: Does censorship do more good than harm, or otherwise? Is it a clear-cut solution to creating a healthy, functioning member of society out of a normal citizen? Are we supposed to be content with what censorship implies about things?
And the last of all: do we really need censorship?