Forum: Author Hangout

I respect the principle you stated. I'd be content if Lazeez made a judgement call in this case.
I see an author who has supported the spirit of the site guidelines. I think their case is valid, but fear what others may attempt if it set a precedent.

I respect the principle you stated. I'd be content if Lazeez made a judgement call in this case.
I see an author who has supported the spirit of the site guidelines. I think their case is valid, but fear what others may attempt if it set a precedent.

My problem is the character exists. She writes herself, I have very little say in it. She has her own motivations and her own drives. Trying to reel her in seems unnatural.

My problem is the character exists. She writes herself, I have very little say in it. She has her own motivations and her own drives. Trying to reel her in seems unnatural.

I think that we completely agree.
I think these cirumstances should be allowed, but I won't argue if Lazeez says no.

I would add that I don't want to think of him being arrested and the site being shut down by some legal agency. Hopefully what ever decision is made will take those risk factors into consideration. Where would we find another site which is half as good for readers or writers?

Child porn laws (most certainly international treaties to combat it) stop when there is no real child involved.

Trouble here is that if you are accused, you are automatically considered guilty and instead of the police and prosecutors having to prove you are guilty. You have to prove you are innocent instead. Talk about a big difference.

Trouble here is that if you are accused, you are automatically considered guilty and instead of the police and prosecutors having to prove you are guilty. You have to prove you are innocent instead. Talk about a big difference.

You guys help me out here. There was a case in the last five years or so. The author was arrested in Michigan I believe. Extradited to Georgia. Tried and aquitted in Macon.

Set a pretty good precedent.

Pornography, in the US, is left to "local standards". If that guy was aquitted in Macon, GA ...

Pornography, in the US, is left to "local standards". If that guy was aquitted in Macon, GA

It's left to local obscenity laws. Which does basically turn it into "local standards." However, the 1st Amendment would still be in play, so while they may be able to convict under that law, the law itself may fall to a legal challenge for its "chilling effect on freedom of speech."

But for an author to even hope for that defense to work, they're going to have to ensure the story has some kind of "culturally significant or redeeming value" so if the story/stories are nothing but sexual kink, you're probably screwed, even in the U.S.

If I remember correctly even drawings or other non-photographic depictions of a fictional underage child in sexual situations are considered pornographic under U.S. law.

Nope. Back in the early 2000s, Congress tried to expand child pornography laws in the US to include such "virtual" child porn.

However, SCOTUS (supreme court of the United States) only allowed a first amendment exception for real child porn because of the harm done to the real children used to make it. SCOTUS ruled the "virtual" child porn ban was unconstitutional only a
couple of years after it was originally passed.

There have still been people successfully convicted on state obscenity laws for possessing drawn depictions since that SCOTUS ruling.

True, there have also been some obscenity convictions for child sex stories.

However, those state obscenity laws carry much lower penalties than a Federal child porn conviction.

I've look at a few of those cases. Most of the cases I looked at, both stories and art, were not simple depictions of underage nudity or sex. The materials in question in nearly all of the cases I have looked into are described as depicting the violent rape and / or torture of prepubescent children. We aren't talking about high school freshmen, but kids as young as 5.

(think 18-year-old high-school freshmen and you've read one).

I remember there being a 21 year old freshman when I was in HS. This was back before the 'move them along - everybody passes' mentality. It does stretch SOB but it did happen.

I thoguht that that Laz may be in Canada though, where they have passed significantly stronger laws in this area than exist in the US.

...And the canadian law, IIRC from earlier discussions on it in here and elsewhere, includes "fictional portrayals" (specifically targeting CG porn, as photoshop and other tools had already reached the point that only a detailed analysis would be able to tell the difference) and doesn't distinguish between text and images. Even going so far as to technically extend all the way up to 18 if I heard right, although enforcement beyond the 13/14 YO point highly is unlikely on the text-only side.

However, if they float a couple cases through the court first, firmly establishing the law, then they might continue testing the waters, just to see what they can get away with. So far, as much as I'm aware of anyway, there haven't been any test cases—which hints that the politicians and District Attorneys (do they use those in Canadian law?) aren't confident the law will hold up in the courts.

I'm generally agreed on that, just based on what I've read regarding top-freedom in Ontario specifically, and a few other aspects of the Canadian courts. When the law itself comes under challenge, evidently they'll often evaluate it on a "harm basis" which is how the top-freedom case was won in Ontario. The Crown's Prosecution office failed to demonstrate who(if anyone) was being harmed by the sight a woman's bared breasts, so thus the law was struck down.

So on that precedent alone, trying to prosecute someone for possession of material that can easily be determined to be fictional in nature is going to set the bar pretty high for the Prosecutor to try to clear it. They're going to need to have someone who is particularly blatant in all of the right wrong ways in order to even hope to get a viable test case past that hurdle in order to establish a precedent.

Which basically means that law exists as I previously outlined, it's a tool they can use to establish "cause" for investigating the activities of a specific individual more closely. In other words, IF they get prosecuted for something, it will probably be something other than that law specifically. Although that law may be cited as part of the chain of evidence that led to whatever else they uncovered.

I've taken dozens of real life anecdotes and woven them in with the fiction. In the scene I'm currently writing I'm taking the story of John Roberts Sr (father of the Chief Justice) as the backstory of the father of one of my characters. The two baseball players caught by their coach making a sandwich of some girl in the hotel? Actually happened. Giving a 14 year old a ride home from the beer party and having the host warn me not to try anything in the car? That too. But it would be near impossible to prove anything as all the characters are mixed and jumbled, as are the anecdotes with the fiction.

I thoguht that that Laz may be in Canada though, where they have passed significantly stronger laws in this area than exist in the US.

As far as I know Laz is Canadian. I have no idea where the servers are located. At one point they were in Virginia, but that may no longer be the case.

It wouldn't be the first time someone got arrested on a trip. They might be safe where they lived but when traveling or visiting another place it was an entirely different story. So its a matter of self defense or in this case defending something we all enjoy.

I escaped, and kept my stuff, but when crossing into Canada on one occasion they flagged me for "special attention" and went through all of my stuff. Which included a laptop that I'd forgotten had a small collection of hentai on it(prior to learning of the inspection), as well as some other porn on it. I was up front about there being porn on the thing, and that some of the hentai might push the boundaries a bit.

Sure enough, the customs officer took exception to a handful of the hentai images and forwarded them on to the RCMP and some of the local prosecutor's office for review, but I was only warned and then cut lose after 2 hours. Haven't heard back from them since, and the border people haven'y hassled me much since then either. But that did trigger a new "clean" computer being obtained for border crossings, and left me slightly twitchy for the next year every time I crossed.

(They didn't tell me which ones they found objectionable, but after reviewing the content that was there, I think it was a couple pages in a larger downloaded collection that had some 200 pages in it--so obviously it was not the focus, that and "the really underaged" involved in that specific case were the aggressors and kept their clothes on?)

But yeah. Not much fun to be had there, in a certain parts of Canada they probably have a file on me as a potential pedophile suspect. Which they may or may not have shared back across the border via Interpol. At least I haven't been prosecuted, yet. But then, such investigations can take years, so while I don't think I've done anything to warrant prosecution, for all I know I might cross 4 years from now and discover they suddenly have an arrest warrant pending for me.

But based on my understanding of Canadian jurisprudence, I highly doubt they'd want to risk a prosecution, as it could likely result in the law being overturned as they'd have to demonstrate how enforcing the law in that way would protect the population from some kind of harm.

As it is, it makes a good lever for them to use in order to get to the actually harmful stuff(by catching/flagging people), which is what they should be going after, even if it does create a bunch of "false positives" as well in the process. Just so long as they realize that's something that is going to happen with that method.

A while back I started restoring a 'Shelby', I drove it a couple of times once it was rebuilt but now I've got it upholstered and road legal, trouble is since I started work on it, they lowered the speed limit in my town. But it's a Shelby, and it's really fast, do you think it'd be ok to speed through my town, ignoring the new speed limit, because hey, it's a Shelby...

You never followed those speed limits and you know it! :p

I would think its a matter of perception. To be on the safe side in the example you gave either go with the age or the description and write the story accordingly. Anything which might give the impression of a child would be definitely bad depending on the readers. A few might have an open mind, but the odds are extremely slim that would be the dominant viewpoint in a trial.

Literally, why fuck it up for him?

I think a better question would be: Why fuck it up for everyone?

Diane Lane was 13 when she made her first movie, "A Little Romance" which also starred Laurence Olivier. Her dad was working in Paris where she meets this young scoundrel and they fall for each other. He sneaks her and his guy friend into a porno theater were they watch from the projectionist's booth, and she is quite shocked even if he thought it was very funny.

Portman was 13 then. Pretty flat in the movie, but she still is. Now 5-3, when standing next to 6-2 Jean Reno was below his shoulder, so probably about 5-0, and hips weren't very wide. Clearly pre-pubescent, despite being nearly 14.

"Californication" - pilot episode. David Duchovny age 46, Madeline Zima age 21 but playing a 16 year old who at 17 minutes in (free on Amazon Prime) is riding him hard, her big tits swaying (and for most of us, had only previously remembered her at the cute grade school girl on "The Nanny". Now that I've looked this up (and reqatched the Zima clip) I'm reminded that Madeleine Martin, then 14, played his 12 year old daughter who to me looked much more like 10 (not full height, flat) but as far as I know she doesn't have sex in the show (but I've only seen season 1)

I grew up and still live in an area of the country that very few people have moved in to in the last 150 years. The original settlers where British of German in the 1700's, then from central & eastern Europe in the 1800's.

We are a smaller people. We hit puberty earlier. It's like I just saw a commercial on TV and there's this woman standing next to her 14 year old self to give advice, and the 14 year old is only up to the adult self's shoulder. I'm thinking "WTF? That girl looks 10" because 99% of the 14 year olds I know around here are full grown. I got to my current height at 13 years and 10 months. Girls are a little sooner, and look to be full grown between 12 1/2 & 13 1/2. We also tend to be shorter by an inch or two on average. I'm 5-9 and there's more guys shorter than me than taller. Women average around 5-3.

That said, I totally understand legal prohibitions against adults having sex with teens, even if the teens are physically mature. However, I can personally quibble with politicians artificially setting a line at say the 18th birthday as if that magically confers emotional maturity & decision making on someone. We can see if someone is physically mature, but the emotional part is hidden. Someone may be mature at 13, others may still not be at 25. But we like everything in black and white even in a grey world.

On the other hand, we all know that teenagers have sex with each other all the time, even if there are laws, such as in California, that make any sex outside of marriage for people under 18 illegal.

While my story follows the age 14 limit for this site, it explores some of these issues. When I was that age there was little to no distinction between kids in high school and kids in college. We were kids, because we lived at home, were going to school, and some of us had part time jobs. A lot more in common than different. My MC is over 18, in college, but has no experience with girls. His love interest is 14, in 9th grade, who may be of similar emotional maturity but lacks experience in things like drinking & sex that she ends up being exposed to.

One summer I had just turned 21 and was dating a girl who was a few weeks shy of turning 16. I brought her home for dinner with my dad. He never said anything about her calendar age, but that he thought she was immature. Around that time he recommended a girl down the street whom he had taught the year before in 9th grade, as he thought she was quite mature & intelligent.

So yes I have sex in my story, but it's also a vehicle to explore our social attitudes.

We are a smaller people. We hit puberty earlier. It's like I just saw a commercial on TV and there's this woman standing next to her 14 year old self to give advice, and the 14 year old is only up to the adult self's shoulder. I'm thinking "WTF? That girl looks 10" because 99% of the 14 year olds I know around here are full grown.

While it doesn't describe my community in general, it closely tracks my own family history. Only we got to be taller. I don't know exactly when I hit my final height, but I'm pretty sure it was in Junior High. I do remember my shirt size remained unchanged from Sixth Grade up into my early 20's though. Pants were another matter.

Although my family gets to enjoy another perk. We seem to physically mature earlier than most, but we also seem to almost paradoxically age slower than most as well. So while I(and my extended family) may have appeared to hit my 20's while in my teens. I still looked to be in my 20's after getting well into the 30's. My dad had (newer) co-workers that routinely mis-judged his age to the point of insisting he must be in his thirties while he was in his forties, and ultimately, that he must have been in his 40's while actually being in his 60's. I'm pretty sure it had become a running gag out there for them to not tell the newbies/transfers how old he was and see what age they'd eventually come up with for him before his ranking in the seniority list/length of employment started drawing attention.

Although I was speaking of a region of the state that likely includes more than a million people - basically the people I saw growing up. Every single day that I'm at WalMart or the grocery store or somewhere, I see multiple women under 5 foot. The 7th grade girls look 16. Once I became an adult and had contact with the outside world I learned this isn't the norm everywhere.

There's a married woman at church who's 21 or 22. Her husband's over 6 foot but she is 4-9 or 4-10. Not much boobs, but nice ass and face. From a distance I always confuse her with the 10 and 11 year olds. She is quite attractive and I wonder how he fits it in her.

Although I was speaking of a region of the state that likely includes more than a million people - basically the people I saw growing up. Every single day that I'm at WalMart or the grocery store or somewhere, I see multiple women under 5 foot. The 7th grade girls look 16. Once I became an adult and had contact with the outside world I learned this isn't the norm everywhere.

I grew up further west, and in the Mormon Colonization footprint, so a lot of (genetic) ethnic variety to be had even if the underlying culture didn't survive. And as most of the area was only starting to be settled in the late 19th Century, and many of the locals to where I lived having a more recent arrival to the area, not enough time for homogenization of the population to have happened there. So I can remember others hitting puberty about the same time, or even earlier than me(so before leaving grade school) while others took as long as after their entry into High School for it to finally kick in.

But as seems to be case where cross-ethnic/cross-racial pairings happen, "average appearance" for that area evidently would be considered anything but in many other parts of the country/world.

I did not say that they don't mature physically or mentally. I said when they are 20 they look like they are 10.

The Canadian Law is pretty explicit on that front, even the portrayal of their being underage is grounds for prosecution, IIRC. That said, a clever author could probably work around that, but I'm not going to get into that.

No, they would not be portraying an underage person. They would be 20 or 22 doing what others of that age do. Other people "would think they are underage" causing various problems such as being on a topless beach would bring every cop in the area along with the Child Protection people.

No, they would not be portraying an underage person. They would be 20 or 22 doing what others of that age do. Other people "would think they are underage" causing various problems such as being on a topless beach would bring every cop in the area along with the Child Protection people.

No, that gets into an entirely different situation. As Ernest Bywater has complained about previously in some forms. In his case in the land of Oz(and also here in the United States, Canada, and numerous other places), there are things that a person in certain age brackets is more than legally capable of doing. Their participation in such activities with each other, and (certain) others is perfectly legal. Such as wandering around completely starkers at a nude beach.

But if you(or they) happen to end up with pictures or video of them engaging in said acts, you(or they) have broken the law by committing it "to film."

In the case of some Australian Provinces and Canada, just writing (to any kind of descriptive detail) about them engaging in perfectly legal activities is an illegal act according to the letter of the law.

Edit to add: In the US, a clear cut example would be two 17 year olds deciding to make a "sex tape" using a digital camera, be it a web cam, or the camera feature on their smart phone. In virtually every state in the US, it is legal for two 17 year olds to engage in sexual relations with one another. However, because they're under the age of 18, the video recording they made is illegal and can be made subject to prosecution under federal law, among other things, and shall always remain illegal until such time as the law changes. Whereas if they waited until they turned 18 to shoot that video, nobody in the Criminal Justice system would bother with it until/unless it became a "revenge porn" item.

Edit to add: Although in some respects these laws are starting to see some attention due to teen sexting going on. Kind of screwed up that it's possible for a 19YO to potentially be subjected to child pornography charges because they have naked sexually suggestive pictures of themselves that they'd forgotten about stashed away in a hard drive or memory card somewhere.

In the case of some Australian Provinces and Canada, just writing (to any kind of descriptive detail) about them engaging in perfectly legal activities is an illegal act according to the letter of the law.

That is true in Australia. Merely writing or possessing fictional accounts of some activities that are perfectly legal if done by real people is a criminal act - punishable with up to 15 years in prison! If prosecuted, the only way to escape conviction is by demonstrating to the court that the material would 'not be considered offensive by a reasonable person'.
That is in a federal law, but some States probably have similar laws too.
The law is written to cover every possibility. It covers both citizens and residents of Australia; anything stored on any electronic storage device; all devices someone may control; anywhere in the world; drawings and words as well as images of real people; people or characters actually, or appearing to be, under 18 years old; and descriptions of body parts as well as sexual acts.
The way the law is drafted is extreme, but fortunately the way it is applied is rational and restrained. In practice, no one is prosecuted unless they clearly intended to possess what most would call "kiddie porn".
In Australia, Public Prosecutors are independent - they don't lose their job if the government changes. Before starting any prosecutions, their office must assess them as both 'in the public interest' and likely to result in a conviction. The budget allocation the offices receive from the government is also limited. That means some valid charges laid by the police are not prosecuted simply because the office only has enough funds to proceed with higher priority cases.
Still, anyone planning a holiday in Australia might consider what Not_a_ID suggested above - getting a new "clean" computer for the border crossing. Australia's a great place for a holiday, but would you want to stay there for 15 years? ... with no access to SOL?

Ernest, I'm reasonably sure that if that happened in the US that the case would be dropped the moment that the girls age was known. That is the situation I was trying to get across.

In the U.S. Yes, but don't count on it in either Canada or Australia.

Although my own experience with Canada says that particular example is "probably" safe enough, don't count on it. I was caught out with material of commercial (Japanese) origin which was obviously drawn, and of such a nature as to be easily/reasonably believed as fictional in nature. A "real picture" that can be construed as being of someone underage may not receive such mercy from the Crown's Officers.

Edit to add: It's a difference in the laws as written/implemented in those nations. In the U.S. Actual age is the primary decider on the federal side, as such fictional scenarios largely get a pass(once established as such), although local obscenity laws may still get used.

In Canada and Australia, it is apparent age that is the decider, and fictional scenarios do not get an immediate pass.

Nope. There are specific laws, fairly recently passed, which specifically forbid literary fiction pieces depicting teenage sex acts, so no, fictional scenarios do NOT get a pass in Australia.

I just have the guidance of the LEO who went through the Hentai I had with me on that one crossing. The big thing they were looking for was "prepubescent looking" so at least for the Canadians.

While the law might stipulate 16, their customs people are likely to only take note of certain (obviously fictional things) in the 14+ range without too much fuss, pain, or suffering. Much as Laz has likewise placed the bar for stories at that level as well.

The letter of the law may allow them to act, but for whatever their reasons are, they(the Canadians) are not doing so. That said, testing them is likely to be a bad idea unless you want to become the legal test case on that matter.

That is the situation I was trying to get across. It could have a lot of crazy things like police arresting the husband and his 20 year old wife because she looked underage.

As Ernest already demonstrated, it isn't the act itself that is illegal and leading to law enforcement action. It is "the documentation" of said act which is illegal. Such as the guy who was convicted for having topless photos of his 19YO girlfriend that the Judge (law enforcement, and prosecution) decided "looked underaged."

Screwed up results ARE happening because of how some of the laws are written in even "1st World" Nations.

I find it interesting that 'under age' sex is such a magnesium hot topic, and seems to be the supreme crime.

It is worse than theft, extortion, arson, torture, murder, mass murder, genocide, terrorism, and all the many other violent and destructive crimes. It is clearly the very worst, no questions asked.

Because laws are written by politicians, and politicians cater to the whims of the voters. And one of the largest voting blocks out there can be identified as some variation of "parent" and parents in particular tend to have a hard time wrapping their head around the idea of their "little ones" going out and having sex.

This is further magnified by their own memories of what their youth was like, and many of them (in particular the men) not wanting things to be "like that" (for their daughters in particular), so thus we get stuck with "Think of the Children!" For the rationale for why things go completely insane within the legal system where sexuality and youth intersect.

Because well, most parents aren't exactly sane when it comes to sexuality and their children.

Since my neighbor can't control himself, we need laws to prevent people from writing about that type of sexual activity. If the stories aren't available, my neighbor and others can't do what is bad for them.

What you say in general describes the nanny state nicely. But the question remains about why 'under age' sex is SO much hotter than any other transgression. I'm not sure there is an answer other than runaway feedback. All the things mentioned in this thread are contributors, I'm sure. I just get the feeling it's a bit Emperor's New Clothes. I am not trying to lessen the seriousness of inappropriate sexual activity for children, I am just ignorant about why the rest of the nasties aren't up there with it. Humans are a strange lot.

What bother me is calling 17 years olds children. I was graduated from high school when I was still 17. Before puberty they are physically immature children and shouldn't be having sex. After that it's a matter of emotional maturity, and that's a sliding scale - perhaps 1% at 13, 99% at 21, and who knows in-between until you actually know the young person.

mens rea to actually understand their actions

This is another touch point for me.

The idea that one needs to understand that one is committing a crime, and the consequences of it, before it is actually a crime, and not just an accident.

What happened to ignorance of the law being no excuse?

If a minor commits murder and pleas ignorance, do the parents/guardians need prison time?

At what point did incarceration stop being punishment and start being therapy?

putting a lobster in a plastic bag instead of a box

That is about as absurd as it gets alright. Unfortunately, the test for 'reasonable' assumes there can be a measure for 'a reasonably prudent person'. Not a skerrick of evidence for that there…

Still, they broke the law. Sadly, on the surface of it, it is the law enforcers that are the asses, not the law, and not the perpetrators. Are we sure there was no Capone corollary operating?

Right, what's wrong with hebephilia?

I confess my personal tastes are to either end, those that are unusual in their quality. From "She looks like that and she's only 13?" to Ming-na Wen being past 50 and still looking like that. Those in between are a dime a dozen.

On the young end, I of course know that touching is strictly forbidden (and enforced) but I'll only gaze at someone who looks like a mature adult in spite of their age.

Although...knowing that's off-limits has recently given rise to a related attraction (mentioned here) of those who are past the legal age of 18, look adult, but in many ways can still pass for someone past puberty but not old enough to drive. That's a fantasy that it would be legal to be with her but easy to imagine she's younger.

When I was thinking of actors to play the roles in my story, I chose Kaitlyn Dever of "Last Man Standing" for the love interest Hannah. Dever's 20 and Hannah is 14, but Dever has not changed a bit in her appearance since she started on the show at age 13. Ambiguous.

Those ceremonies might be where the Catholic 'First Communion Ceremony' and fancy dress probably started from. However, now they can go as low as 7 y/o.

Apparently the older ones could run faster than their priests.