Let's be clear about illegal underage art ...

************************* WARNING *************************

THIS JOURNAL CONTAINS INFORMATION ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED OFFENSIVE TO SENSITIVE PEOPLE OR UNDERAGE INDIVIDUALS. 

ONLY PROCEED IF YOU HAVE THE MENTAL CLARITY OF AN INTELLIGENT PERSON, ARE AN ADULT, OR WON'T BE OFFENDED BY THE DISCUSSION OF ART WITH UNDERAGE CHARACTERS IN LESS THAN FULL ATTIRE.

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED NOT TO CONTINUE UNLESS YOU'RE MATURE ENOUGH TO READ ADULT SUBJECT MATTER THAT IS LEGAL, FACTUAL, AND CONTEXTUALLY INOFFENSIVE.

NONE OF THE CONTENTS HEREIN ARE THE OPINION OF DEVIANT ART, ITS MANAGEMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, NOR ANYONE EMPLOYED BY OR FOR THAT ORGANIZATION.  OTHER THAN THE LISTED REFERENCES THE VIEWS STATED ARE MINE, AND I'M SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS POSTED HERE EXCEPT FOR THE NATIONAL LAWS REFERRED TO WITHIN.

************************* WARNING *************************
Many DA members have expressed their displeasure with what they believe is child pornography being posted on this site.

It's time to be very clear about what people think they know, and what is fact and U.S. Federal law.

As of  April 14, 2020, according to The United States Department of Justice, and specifically the U.S. Federal Law On Child Pornography, here are two verbatim quotes from their page, as in www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/…: (summarized)

• Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age).
• Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity.  A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.

  Anyone who believes an image of an undressed or under-dressed fictional character is child pornography, their argument will fail the most basic tenets of U.S. Federal law if an image is a representation of a fictional character, that character is not involved in any sexual activity, and the image is not sexually suggestive ... regardless of the character's age.  The normal conclusion would be ... by Federal law that image should *NOT* be considered child pornography. 

However, although that image may not conflict with Federal law it might cross some magic line in DA's TOS.  This site is, after all, owned and controlled by people, and those people will dictate policy and maintain their perception of order.  So, the DA Admin's have the final say on what's posted on this site, since they or someone in their chain of command will interpret that National law to fit Company policies, and will ultimately be held accountable for site contents.  If an image treads too close to what the Admin's or Management feels is supported by the law and statutes above, or is deemed offensive, they'll act accordingly.

So what happens when the Admin's choose NOT to remove an image a DA member believes is considered offensive?  Most of the time ... nothing, other than a series of ongoing negative and hateful comments by DA members who feel it's their right to dictate policy or espouse their views, repeatedly, and vociferously.  Even though the laws have been listed and referenced, and the DA Admin's have chosen to leave a particular image active, that won't be enough, will it?  Most of the time ... NO!

Even if someone doesn't agree with the facts as they've been provided, and chooses not to acknowledge the details in the referenced legal statutes, I would implore them to *PLEASE* leave the artists on DA alone unless that artist is clearly breaking DA TOS or U.S Federal law *AND* you've spent the time to obtain a VERY clear understanding of both sets of legal definitions 

If you can defend your positions with legal precedent and verifiable references ... as I have, then we can have a meaningful discussion or even a lively debate.  However, if you choose to maintain your views based solely on religious dogma, historically inaccurate beliefs, or personal crusades you wish to scream at the top of your lungs, then please move on, because you'll be wasting your time here.

Now ... everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I would sacrifice my life in order to defend their right to it.  However, I would respectfully ask that once an opinion has been shared there's no need to reiterate that point repeatedly to attempt to convince anyone to agree.  The proof in the pudding will be legal references that support a specific viewpoint rather than an opinion, even by someone I might know and respect. 

The solution here is simple:  If you don't like something, then don't look at it.  But if you choose to wander through the mud and you happen to get your feet dirty, then don't impart rude comments, make insinuations about a person's personal preferences or lifestyle, or bugger up every image, photograph, 3D render, or drawing you don't think agrees with your version of an altered reality, because simply put ... YOU were the one who clicked on the image. 

If the "Mature" filter is properly utilized, then DA members who have chosen to restrict what they see shouldn't be exposed to art that could be considered offensive.  If, however, an artist fails to abide by the restrictions set forth in the DA TOS and posts their art without the "Mature" tag when it should have been, then a polite reminder to that artist in the comments section is in order.  If the artist chooses not to act after being asked to properly tag their work, then a factually accurate note should be penned to the Admin's.  If the Admin's agree, either the image will be removed, or the artist 'convinced' to add the "Mature" filter.  If the Admin's don't agree, then again ... nothing will happen.  If a DA member chooses to view mature art, and then complain about being offended, then simply put ... they're hypocrites.  Some might find that offensive, but the simple truth is, if someone doesn't want to be exposed to mature art, then turn that option off, and voila!  No more mature art! 

WOW!  Amazing and easy, huh?

I've provided very specific legal precedent and where to locate such, so anyone who still holds the view any image of a fictional character in less than full attire is child pornography needs to either grow up and accept what the U.S. Federal government has decided as national law, or go away and quit bothering artists who provide a form of art to a large and otherwise inoffensive community of fans.

To be honest I doubt the haters and flag-wavers will stop, but it was worth a try to use the truth and facts to quell the maddening throng.

<heavy sigh> ... I tried.

Anyone may contact me privately or comment on this journal entry if they want to conduct an intelligent and fact-based debate about what they *THINK* child pornography is or is not, and what has clearly been represented by the included link(s) above as National law.  If, however, someone chooses to flame, rant, curse, cast aspersions, or insult me or anyone else, then their comments will be deleted and they will summarily be blocked.  TBH ... I'm not a lawyer, represent one on TV, nor slept in a certain hotel chain last night, so as I've typed before ... your mileage will vary.  Be reasonable, folks, and use common sense.

For the record I'm not afraid of a different opinion.  Seeing or hearing new information ... fact-based information ... is how I learn.  New, accurate, and verifiable information is only a single facet of the many tools I use to improve upon my life.  There are other tools I use, but none of them are foreign to most educated and computer-literate citizens of the world.

With respect for everyone who reads this ................. may the rants and flames commence.

Eliston (as Rewdius)