The website scotlandonsunday is quoting Time Warner reps as saying that they have been behind the "crackdown on Harry Potter homosexual porn." Link is here. Thanks to logovo1 for the reference.
You know what? I don't think there *is* any new crackdown on HP porn. I've asked around and done google news checks and there's just...nothing. What it looks like to me is that this is a badly researched story which is alluding to the "crackdowns" from four or five years ago.
The LJ stuff? Fall-out from the crackdown on pedophiles on myspace. It was big news, and the journaling/networking sites have been running scared.
even given the good news on the main front, this article was interesting for the part on HP and the Chinese Empire- I hadn't heard about that one. So thank you!
*hates on the tiny right-hand shift key on HDGF's computer, which constantly causes me to "arrow up" instead of shifting*
Wot bethbethbeth said. Srsly. I mean, do you KNOW anybody who got a recent C&D? I'm not in Potter fandom, but I bet I would have heard if there were new C&Ds.
I certainly can't blame anyone for not wanting to be a test case, but even if there were umpty-ump new C&Ds, that wouldn't mean that they were enforceable either in legal or practical terms.
Yeah, what Beth said. *g* There's also the fact that a year after the RS.org C&D, Rowling gave Immeritus her first fansite of the month award, and that site did and does host NC-17 slash fic; that's as clear an indication as anything that she's totally not interested in pursuing fanfic writers who aren't trying to sell stuff, and WB will, if it goes after anything, have a hard time explaining that.
I tend to agree. I'm also curious of their use of "publish", since given the prior article context that would seem to indicate some sort of monetary gain. If they're referring to a slash site making money off HP characters then they're well within their rights to shut it down.
Yep. I was wrong. I love how many smart people hopped on this so quickly, too: yay for collaborative learning! And everyone was so sweet about it - nobody called me a dope even once, even though I was, in fact, being a dope.
Heh, I've done the same thing so many times that I'm not about to be mean about it to anyone else. The worst was when that photoshopped pic of President Bush fishing in the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina made the rounds and I saw it around midnight and thought it was real. I forwarded it to a bunch of my friends with a message about how it was good that he wasn't near me at the moment since I would be giving him a piece of my mind. Woke up in the morning and felt like a right fool.
I have no new news of any kind, but this gives me a bit of a chuckle right on the heels of Daniel Radcliffe announcing in an interview that he wants to bang as many groupies as humanly possible. How's that for the public image of HP, eh TimeWarnerAOL?
There's an interesting discussion about the article in emmagrant01's LJ at the moment. It seems the author of that article mixed up several facts, mostly WB's attempts to make FictionAlley lock their slash fics in 2002 (which correlated with the 5-years remark in the article) and the recent events of striketrough. No one has heard anything about WB going after slash sites recently; ever since 2002, they've kept quiet on the subject. Plus, that quote about children as the main audience? Doesn't quite fit together with the fact that they're now sexing up the HP actors like crazy and the latest movie was PG-13, so I'd say it's an old quote.
Not to mention that the last couple of books (especially DH) are going to be very tough to film in such a way as to get a PG-13. The slashing of Draco in HBP and the Nagini/Bathilda Bagshot thing in DH alone make it very, very clear that these aren't kiddie books anymore.
Btw, someone on journalfen dug up this article, which sounds like it was the source for the article above, and it's from 2003. It seems WB's stance has changed quite a bit since then ;)
I don't think you were wrong - in the current climate, there was certainly reason to worry. Let's be glad that fandom, as a community, has a long memory ;)
I hope that's the case - someone on emmagrant01's LJ pointed out that some of the language is similar to the circa 2003 Noxon article (which of course is similar to his 2001 article) in which case it's that same six year old battle, rekindled again. Bleh.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:20 am (UTC)The LJ stuff? Fall-out from the crackdown on pedophiles on myspace. It was big news, and the journaling/networking sites have been running scared.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:22 pm (UTC)Seriously, thanks for being both right and reassuring. And for not once using the word "dumbass" while doing so.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 06:35 pm (UTC)*hates on the tiny right-hand shift key on HDGF's computer, which constantly causes me to "arrow up" instead of shifting*
no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:57 pm (UTC)Thank you kindly for sharing that anecdote.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:41 am (UTC)I certainly can't blame anyone for not wanting to be a test case, but even if there were umpty-ump new C&Ds, that wouldn't mean that they were enforceable either in legal or practical terms.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 05:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 04:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 04:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 05:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:59 pm (UTC)But if he can objectify me, I can return the favour with interest.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 06:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 01:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 07:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 11:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 11:25 am (UTC)Btw, someone on journalfen dug up this article, which sounds like it was the source for the article above, and it's from 2003. It seems WB's stance has changed quite a bit since then ;)
no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 10:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-20 03:49 pm (UTC)