(11-06-2014, 09:46 PM)allgivenover Wrote: Doubtless, fetishizing is happening and shouldn't be, but this is something that really has nothing to do with RP at all. It's just a problem imported from the outside world.
My two points of disagreement is the idea that consenting adults could get in trouble for written portrayal, and that if there's any possibility that sexually charged RP can happen that you should age your character to whatever age your local government has deemed acceptable. That's needless and ridiculous.
That's understandable but still dangerous ground to tread.Â
Written portrayals of underage children ARE illegal in some countries, such as Canada (SOURCE). Even within the USA the use of underage erotica has been prosecuted in the past, and is currently a hot issue regarding the definition of obscenity laws (SOURCE) and the first amendment, with both sides rallying to make an example of cases. In the past a labeled sex offender was convicted solely on the possession of graphic erotica involving children (SOURCE). While I don't like to deal in over-extended 'what-if's, combine that with a charge of sexual conduct with a minor (who lied to you about their age) and no, it is not harmless material.Â
This is very much an issue in its infancy with little precedent to define what is or is not legal to the the legal system. What little precedent there is is either poorly enforced or changed completely.
The wording in the laws on both a state and federal level is vague, often referring to child pornography as "any child pornography or depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" (SOURCE : pg 1, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A. (a) (1)–(3)). Cited policy even differentiates between said "depictions" and "any visual depiction of child pornography" (SOURCE : pg 1, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A. (a) (5)–(6)). That is on a federal level.
On a state level, things get even messier. Let me give just a few examples.
CALIFORNIA: "California Penal Code § 311.11. Possession of obscene matterial depicting someone known to be younger than 18 years of age engaging in or simulating sexual conduct is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to one year,Â
ore a fine of not more thatn $2,500.00, or both. " (SOURCE: pg 6, California Penal Code § 311.11)
Well that's rather vague, let's look at the code itself. Just how do we define "obscene material?"Â
"(a) "Obscene matter" means matter, taken as a whole, that to the
average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to
the prurient interest, that, taken as a whole, depicts or describes
sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and that, taken as a
whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value." (SOURCE: CA Penal Codes 311 (a))
(b) "Matter" means any book, magazine, newspaper, or other printed
or written material, or any picture, drawing, photograph, motion
picture, or other pictorial representation, or any statue or other
figure, or any recording, transcription, or mechanical, chemical, or
electrical reproduction, or any other article, equipment, machine, or
material. "Matter" also means live or recorded telephone messages if
transmitted, disseminated, or distributed as part of a commercial
transaction. (SOURCE: CA Penal Codes 311 (b))
But of course, then we have the gloriously vague "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (SOURCE: CA Penal Codes 311 (a)) - Under which those aforementioned books containing depictions of minors were legalized. So at what point does rp "lack seriously literary value"? And then the code contradicts itself:
  (h) The Legislature expresses its approval of the holding of
People v. Cantrell, 7 Cal. App. 4th 523, that, for the purposes of
this chapter, matter that "depicts a person under the age of 18 years
personally engaging in or personally simulating sexual conduct" is
limited to visual works that depict that conduct."
This post is getting lengthy So just one more example, For Pensylvania:
18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6312. © Selling, distributing,Â
disseminating, or displaying any book,Â
photograph, film, or computer depiction of aÂ
child less than 18 years old in a prohibitedÂ
sexual act or simulation is a third degree felony.Â
18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6312. (d) Possession of anyÂ
book, picture, magazine, photograph, film,Â
computer depiction, or any other materialÂ
containing a child younger than 18 years old inÂ
a prohibited sexual act or simulation, is a thirdÂ
degree felony.Â
(SOURCE: 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6312. ©-(d))
My point here is not to prove the content legal or illegal in certain places in USA but to show what a royal clusterfuck the current laws concerning the material are, and contradictions not just within the codes themselves but in the actions of the courts. I don't like over-exaggerated 'what ifs' like I said, so chances are this will never be relevant to you. But to say that there is absolutely no risk just isn't true either. I'm sure I could go through the codes of every state, every province, and find these same inconsistencies and exploitable loopholes. Combine that with the risk of rping with a minor unknowingly and you could very well end up the poster-child for future policies regarding the issue.Â
Well, to say 'you', isn't right. These issues are going to be roused not by those privately and prudently engaging in roleplay of genuine literary value. But those people will still be affected and held to the same policies triggered by, for lack of a better word, idiots like those harassing underage characters in game. Not even starting on the fact that laws change- And ARE changing.Â
But at the end of the day that was not the point of this thread. The problem is that this is a theme that makes many people EXTREMELY uncomfortable, and as a community it is being normalized to the point that people playing underage characters are being regularly exposed to unwanted, unsolicited explicit advances.
