The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> User Tisane, this could end badly
Abd
post Wed 29th August 2012, 4:36pm
Post #41


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 29th August 2012, 9:17am) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 28th August 2012, 11:03pm) *
The image on Commons that Tisane removed the "child" category from would be, if those were minors, child pornography, because sexual activity is portrayed.

Tisane's removal of the category was proper. There is no reason to think that the models were children, or that the portrayal was intended to be of children.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&action=history

You're missing the point of that link. I feel that it's unlikely that Tisane arrived at that image randomly. He must've searched Commons's image or categories for certain keywords. He was searching, and Commons is an enabler for people who want to make such searches.
Michael, once you think that Tisane is a pedophile, you then interpret his actions to see if they fit that story. You are inferring motive here, that he is someone who would "want to make such searches."

You imagine that only a pedophile would make such a search. But Tisane was researching pedophilia, and the public response to it. That's utterly obvious.

Some people who would search that category would be pedophiles, perhaps. Others might be children themselves. Others would be researching this or that. Others would be just curious. Maybe they saw a reference to the category somewhere (like here).

But Tisane had a very obvious purpose.

The scariest thing here is not Tisane, it is that people will conclude that someone is a pedophile because they read a page, and, on a wiki, correct an error. I'd imagine that Tisane looked at every image linked from that category. Now, are we going to run a witch hunt on everyone who edited any page in that category?

This is all a demonstration of Tisane's point. Once people have an idea about things, they become -- all too often -- unable to see contradiction to it. When I saw these pages, at first I saw quite what everyone else saw. But I had a much larger body of evidence to compare with. He has a poem hosted, and when I saw it, I thought, OMG, there is the smoking gun. So I asked him. And then confirmed his answer. No, he was, again, just collecting evidence on the topic of research, child-adult sex.

Contrary to what was claimed on RationalWiki, he did not write that poem.

It's actually a very important topic, and one of the things that badly cripples society's response to the problem is the extremity of response. This actually helps maintain harm to children..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 29th August 2012, 5:05pm
Post #42


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 29th August 2012, 10:00am) *
Hey Michael, I think you missed the real point of Abd's comments - he revealed that he spent enough time and has enough knowledge to analyze the photos and determine if they were child porn or not. Abd has been a long term defender of the guy, and I think we discovered something very, very creepy.
I happen to have been somewhat familiar with the issues, because of substantial history, which I'll explain. However, I did not, until after I saw Tisane's "Pedophilia" page, know the precise legal difference between "child erotica" and "child pornography."

I did have a general sense. I.e., I could tell the difference between a provocative pose by a girl in a fashion shot, for example, and pornography. Or between a photo of children nude -- even if genitals are shown -- and pornography.

I remember, in fact, my first end-of-Ramadan feast, which was before the fundamentalists hit Islam in the U.S., and this was being put on by, mostly, students at the University of Arizona, most of them older, with children. The sub-teen girls got up on the tables and belly-danced. It was "child erotica," live, in person. That would never have been permitted for these girls after they reached puberty. Basically, sexuality is normal, and the girls were being allowed to explore their own attractiveness, to play with it, with everyone cheering. American culture is utterly insane on this.

(Protect the children, until they are eighteen, then anything goes. Anything. But, of course, those kids, nowadays, see youtube music videos, which might have been considered pornographic when I was young, except that I think the distinction was legally maintained even back then. Erotic, not pornographic.)

Creepy? Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Ah, my history. I have counselled and heard the personal stories of quite a number of pedophiles. I know how pedophiles think. Tisane is not a pedophile. Of course, I also have seven children, four of them are girls, so I've spent a lot of time with small girls, seeing them without clothing, seeing them develop, etc. Nudity is not sexual. I know the difference.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 29th August 2012, 5:15pm
Post #43


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I mentioned that Commons seems to be holding some child pornography.

The policy.,

The images are pornographic, but fall under an implied exception:
QUOTE
and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Those images, it must be asserted -- or they'd be immediately deleted -- have such value.

Again, Tisane could possibly host actual child pornography, if for such value (his concern is, in fact, political), and it would still be legal. He has not gone that far. None of his images were pornographic, legally.

(the classification of those images as erotica, those which portray, explicitly, sexual conduct with children, is possibly misleading -- except that this is a broader usage of "erotica" than the legal usage.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Thu 30th August 2012, 8:24pm
Post #44


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Wikiprudery (NSFW)

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Boylove (NSFW)

http://en.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sp...r%3ALeucosticte (NSFW)

Edit: Adding warnings per the requests below.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Fri 31st August 2012, 11:46am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Fri 31st August 2012, 1:11am
Post #45


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 30th August 2012, 4:24pm) *


Image

Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?

(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! sick.gif wtf.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 31st August 2012, 1:22am
Post #46


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 30th August 2012, 3:24pm) *
That's a cogent response to what happened on RationalWiki and on commentary here.
QUOTE
Not surprising, he's not likely to stop because of the hissy fits. Nothing there, really.
QUOTE
Nothing. Perhaps there was something there, transiently, that we can't read.

WR seems pretty dead. I can see what has happened, as to ultimate effect, but not how or why. Took me some time to figure out where everyone went.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Fri 31st August 2012, 2:12am
Post #47


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 30th August 2012, 9:11pm) *


Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?

(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! sick.gif wtf.gif)


Agreed.

Michael, at least not hyperlink them and please warn people. Blarg!

It is really sad that people like that guy exist, and Abd's approach to this subject just confirms in my mind ever possible negative feeling that I've ever had towards him.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 31st August 2012, 2:21am
Post #48


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 30th August 2012, 8:11pm) *
Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?
He claimed to have done so, through a reporting link. I referred to that above. In order to make the report he had to misrepresent the facts. Since it wasn't made directly to the FBI, it might not be illegal, that false report, but it still is scuzzy, because it wastes the time of an organization dedicated to protecting children.
QUOTE
(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! sick.gif wtf.gif)
Well, no. His point and my point. (the smilies show a common response to some kinds of pornography: simultaneous attraction and repulsion) (the two pages are different, the first has no pornography, the second has pornographic text. A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

The Wikiprudery essay has one small photo with it. It shows a young woman, playing the piano, nude. How I'd respond, as your boss, to your viewing that page would have little to do with the photo, though maybe I might feel differently depending on what you were doing when I walked into your office. I'd be more concerned that you were reading something that has nothing to do with work. The same as without the photo.

The photo itself is not pornography, nor even erotic, necessarily. The woman might or might not be a child, but it does not matter legally, because this is not child porn.

The Boylove commentary has no photos. It has an excerpt from The Lolita Method. If you fear that a piece of erotic text will flip you into illegal or harmful behavior, indeed, I don't recommend reading this. I.e., if you are a pedophile trying to stay legal.

However, there is a blatant contradiction here. A knee-jerk response to the Boylove page might be that he's a "Boylover." Yet he obviously is not, and that contradicts the impression one might get from the "Lolita Method" excerpt, that he could be a pedophile preferring girls. In fact, he is neither. Nothing about these pages would lead to a diagnosis of pedophilia of any kind.

Except for people who are completely clueless and who react strongly to mild stimuli. These people, in fact, could be far more worrisome if and when they are in contact with children, than Tisane.

Tisane is doing exactly what he says he's doing, big surprise, plus he's doing something else.

What he says he's doing is researching the issue of child/adults sex, as a political issue, that is his "interest," and what else he is doing is very effectively trolling for outraged response. He's good at it, obviously.

Wikiprudery, indeed.

Are you going to report this to the FBI? It's more deserving of it. Now, there's an image that is NSFW. Hosted on Wikimedia Commons. (Child pornography!)

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 31st August 2012, 2:34am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 31st August 2012, 2:28am
Post #49


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 30th August 2012, 9:12pm) *
It is really sad that people like that guy exist,
It is really sad that people like Ottava exist, and there are so many people worse than Ottava it isn't funny. Ottava is only mildly vicious, by comparison. Tisane is not vicious at all.
QUOTE
and Abd's approach to this subject just confirms in my mind ever possible negative feeling that I've ever had towards him.
These kinds of responses are Tisane's point.

For people like Ottava, facts are totally irrelevant. All that matters to him is his own horror, which he imagines is real out in the world. Now, I'm out of here. No more time for this.

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 31st August 2012, 2:30am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Fri 31st August 2012, 2:47am
Post #50


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 30th August 2012, 10:21pm) *

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)




It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Fri 31st August 2012, 11:27am
Post #51


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 31st August 2012, 3:47am) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 30th August 2012, 10:21pm) *

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

Surely the claims here are that it is not illegal and that it is famous. It is not asserted that it is legal because it is famous, or that it is famous because it is legal. As to whether it is indeed illegal I express no comment. No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Fri 31st August 2012, 11:05pm
Post #52


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Fusion @ Fri 31st August 2012, 7:27am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 31st August 2012, 3:47am) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 30th August 2012, 10:21pm) *

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

Surely the claims here are that it is not illegal and that it is famous. It is not asserted that it is legal because it is famous, or that it is famous because it is legal. As to whether it is indeed illegal I express no comment. No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.


Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Sat 1st September 2012, 12:26pm
Post #53


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 1st September 2012, 12:05am) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Fri 31st August 2012, 7:27am) *

No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

Dear me, you do ask ridiculously easy questions. Because if he's not notable, he won't have an article on Wikipedia so we won't know if he's gay or whatever.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Mon 3rd September 2012, 10:44am
Post #54


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 1st September 2012, 12:05am) *

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

I am sorry if my wording is unclear, English being far from my first language. I mean that the lawyer is well known within the legal profession as an expert in the subject.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Mon 3rd September 2012, 4:44pm
Post #55


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Detective @ Sat 1st September 2012, 8:26am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 1st September 2012, 12:05am) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Fri 31st August 2012, 7:27am) *

No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

Dear me, you do ask ridiculously easy questions. Because if he's not notable, he won't have an article on Wikipedia so we won't know if he's gay or whatever.



Haha, nice.



Fusion

QUOTE
I mean that the lawyer is well known within the legal profession as an expert in the subject.


No lawyer is an expert on the subject. Lawyers fight on a side. They are not the judges. Even judges aren't the ultimate deciders as there are always appeals that can overrule.

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

This post has been edited by Ottava: Mon 3rd September 2012, 4:46pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eppur si muove
post Tue 4th September 2012, 7:57pm
Post #56


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri 28th Nov 2008, 10:50pm
Member No.: 9,171



QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 29th August 2012, 4:03am) *

Pornography has a specific legal definition. His own wiki page does not meet that definition.

It has several definitions as different legislatures will have their own versions. Would this be legal everywhere that people might access the relevant pages?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 4th September 2012, 8:49pm
Post #57


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 3rd September 2012, 11:44am) *
There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).
Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

The Wikipedia article, Child pornography claims, in the lede:
QUOTE
Child pornography refers to images or films (also known as child abuse images[1][2][3]) and, in some cases, writings[3][4][5] depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child.
When references are in the lede, that's a sign of major controversy. Supposedly, the lede should be totally uncontroversial, with what is in the lede being established, with references, in the text.

Ref 3 is a book, the reference has "Akdeniz, Yaman (2008). Internet child pornography and the law: national and international responses. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. p. 11. ISBN 0-7546-2297-5." Note that "international responses" could include places where extreme views (as held by the rest of the world) are enforced.

Ah, I love this. People don't read sources. This book is available on Google Books. Page 11 says the opposite of what the lede says.
QUOTE
Written materials were deliberately left out of the EU definition as there was no support or agreement for the inclusion of textual or written material in the definition of child pornography.
ref 4 is interesting. Primary source, violating RS guidelines. It's the Canadian criminal code
QUOTE
(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.
Yes, that does mean that some written material might violate the law, but this is where one relies on expert interpretation, that's why the usage of primary sources is deprecated. The Canadian law came up in the discussion on RationalWiki, and I researched it. It's not important enough for me to dredge that up, if someone is interested it can be found on the archived Chicken Coop discussion. Bottom line, though, none of Tisane's material fits this.

Note that if a description of sex with a child were, ipso facto, child pornography, under this definition, Lolita would surely be child porn. However, a description of a murder, in fiction, does not "advocate or counsel" murder.

The Canadian law specifically excepts, from prohibition, material that "has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose."

Ref 5 is a report of a legal outcome, the prosecution, in Canada, of a man for alleged possession of written child pornography. He was found not guilty of that charge.
QUOTE
"These writings simply describe morally repugnant acts," the judge said, but the stories "do not actively advocate or counsel the reader to engage in the acts described." Therefore, they are not illegal.

Shaw also said the stories had artistic merit, based on testimony from two out of three experts. Artistic merit is a defence, "irrespective of whether the work is considered pornographic," he wrote.
The man was found guilty, however, of possessing pornographic pictures of children [teenage boys], which he had admitted.

The decision cited above followed a Canadian Supreme Court review, R._v._Sharpe]. In the Wikipedia article, it is explained that Canadian law is stricter than U.S. law in certain respects, but simple graphic written portrayal does not create an offense even under Canadian law.

In any case, the Wikipedia article lede is technically correct but misleading, and is poorly supported -- or even contradicted -- by the sources cited.

What is really prohibited in Canada is advocacy or counselling toward certain illegal activities, using written or visual materials.

Ottava classically terms anyone who points out fact in this area as being a pedophile or "pedophile-lover," and morally odious. In fact, I'd be more worried about my children being in the care of someone like Ottava than of someone like Tisane. My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay, so I wouldn't be able to test this without Major Trouble. Tisane is outrageous, no question about it. But "pedophile," no.

While there may be some countries where that depiction is illegal, it seems to be far from "most," and, for the purposes of Wikipedia and Tisane's web site, both hosted in the U.S., this isn't child porn and is not illegal. Not even in Canada. And apparently not in the E.U. So where?

Saudi Arabia?


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 4th September 2012, 9:25pm
Post #58


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Tue 4th September 2012, 2:57pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 29th August 2012, 4:03am) *
Pornography has a specific legal definition. His own wiki page does not meet that definition.
It has several definitions as different legislatures will have their own versions. Would this be legal everywhere that people might access the relevant pages?
No guarantee. In the U.S., almost certainly legal, and he's in the U.S., so that was my context. YMMV, because people get hysterical about this stuff. That, by the way, is in a Wikipedia article.
QUOTE
There have been incidents in which snapshots taken by parents of their infant or toddler children bathing or otherwise naked were destroyed or turned over to law enforcement as child pornography.[10] Such incidents may be examples of false allegation of child sexual abuse and the overzealous prosecution of such cases has been described in terms of a moral panic surrounding child sexual abuse and child pornography.[11]
In Canada, the same. In the E.U. apparently legal. But the world is a big place.

Note that Wikipedia Commons hosts some images that are clearly "child pornography," as defined in the U.S. and Canada, but that are apparently legal because of artistic significance. Possessing these images could theoretically expose one to prosecution, but the defense of artistic merit would be readily available.

Wait, I forget. It may make a difference if they are not photos. Depends, then, on jurisdiction.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 5th September 2012, 2:32am
Post #59


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 4th September 2012, 4:49pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 3rd September 2012, 11:44am) *
There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).
Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.



Actually, it is primarily US law. Lolita is not even close to being "graphic" in the sense that the fanfiction crap you are trying to defend is.

Wikipedia summarizes it best: 'Samuel Schuman says that Nabokov "is a surrealist, linked to Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Kafka. Lolita is characterized by irony and sarcasm. It is not an erotic novel"'

You've obviously never read it, and you made this forum dumber in trying to respond.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 5th September 2012, 9:34pm
Post #60


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 4th September 2012, 9:32pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 4th September 2012, 4:49pm) *
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 3rd September 2012, 11:44am) *
There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).
Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.
Actually, it is primarily US law. Lolita is not even close to being "graphic" in the sense that the fanfiction crap you are trying to defend is.
Lolita portrays a situation, the mind fills in the details. I said that the "book" was more graphic. Ottava manages to turn agreement into disagreement, a long habit of his.

Ottava has provided no evidence that the graphic text in question violates U.S.. law. It is fairly easy to find similar text on the internet. Those web sites seem to manage to survive. True child pornography is difficult to find, perhaps impossible without paying and taking huge risks. The only place I've seen anything approaching it on the web has been Wikipedia Commons, if there.
QUOTE
Wikipedia summarizes it best: 'Samuel Schuman says that Nabokov "is a surrealist, linked to Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Kafka. Lolita is characterized by irony and sarcasm. It is not an erotic novel"'
It appears that many people disagreed. I'm not disagreeing, myself, but I will note that before writing what I wrote here I did read the entire Wikipedia article on Lolita.
QUOTE
You've obviously never read it, and you made this forum dumber in trying to respond.
Indeed, I haven't read it. I don't read pedophile trash.

(unless there is some specific reason, such as determining if something *is* pedophile trash, like a person is being accused of being a pedophile or promoting pedophilia. Then I'll read at least some of it. I don't know if Lolita is "pedophile trash." I do accept that it has literary merit, and portrayal of pedophilia is not necessarily "pedophile." The protagonist in Lolita is certainly not an advertisement for the wonderful time you'll have if you eff your step-daughter.)

I later found the entire "book" (the one Tisane excerpts and criticizes) on-line, in the Internet Archive. It's actually linked from Wikipedia. It's fascinating for the story around it. The author ridicules those who read it to try to put the "techniques" into action. The story is actually told on Wikipedia. Just not in mainspace.

Tisane put that up to show what, in his view, was "legal" to post in the U.S. He could be wrong, though he's probably right. He could be wrong as to Canadian law because the author actually does describe his own book as advice. That it is sarcastic advice might not be a defense I'd care to stand on were I in Canada, and being a parent of small children, I'd not keep a local copy of this book, simply because I could lose my kids being right about the law, not to mention being wrong.

Tisana says that he doubts the portrayals are realistic. That's very likely, i.e., they are fantasies, deliberately created to appeal to a certain readership. The author is very likely not a pedophile. Tisane's posting of it is not evidence of his being a pedophile either. He's a libertarian activist, has been as long as I've known him.

(Holding a copy of the book could be a piece of evidence in a case charging that a person was a danger to children. That is rebuttable, but all it takes is some hysterical caseworker and there you go. They sometimes take kids away and then ask questions later. It would ultimately fail in my case because there would not be other evidence, but I'm not willing to risk the welfare of my children over free speech defense. Tisane is willing to take the risk, since he doesn't have kids and probably won't, he thinks.)

Now, Ottava used an important word. "Defend." I've described. It's true that I've defended Tisane, against charges of being a pedophile and being a "baby rapist," the last claims made about him today on a blog. Because those are baseless and highly reprehensible charges to make without clear evidence, much less in flagrant contradiction to the evidence. I have not "defended" the erotic text of the "book." I have stated my opinion that it is not illegal in the United States, i.e., it does not meet the definitions of child pornography, which is highly illegal to possess in the U.S. That's an opinion about a legal situation. It has nothing to do with any defense of the text itself, which is fantasy, not fact, not truth, made-up, unreal.

If I found my baby-sitter reading it, I sure be concerned! However, context is everything.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th 8 17, 1:40am