Chinese erotic writer jailed for more than 10 years over gay sex scenes in novel
scmp.com
scmp.com
Apologies for not having a link handy from my cell phone, I'd appreciate if someone could look it up and respond with links.
There are "safer" places in the world to be queer, but the threat of danger and violence never goes away, even in gayborhoods like here in parts of Seattle.
100% true. And the risk is multiplied for those of us who are both queer and not-white.
Yes, sometimes there are ways to mitigate that risk, but most of the time, it's just there - nothing we can do except hope that we're lucky.
All over the world, sex-negative laws are disproportionately enforced against queer people (and specifically queer people of color). Sure, the statue here applies to all pornography/erotica, but that doesn't negate OP's point that it is not safe to be queer (or to produce content targeted at a queer audience).
Nor did I say that it did. In fact I said the opposite, in the very first words of my comment..."What you're saying may well be true...".
> but it has no bearing on the case in this article
Except it very much does have bearing on this case.
That's your assumption, but without hard data about how many people have been sentenced for distributing gay pornography books vs. straight pornography books, it is exactly that...an assumption.
Given other accounts about things like the lax pollution enforcement until it causes a loss of face and how corruption charges were used more for solidifying President for Life status than actually reducing corruption cynical motivations are consistent.
Modern corporate "pride" parades blow chunks in comparison, just a scam by large companies to create a new holiday to profit on while garnering community goodwill.
To the downvoters of OP, where is safe from harassment and attacks? Here in Seattle, the queer haters literally roll in and beat us up for fun, even enclaves like Fire Island aren't going to be able to avoid this threat.
Not to take anything away from your point, but if you mean white males, then why not say so? And what do I (a white male) have to do with any of this? Should I feel guilty now?
Nothing to do with white or male.
That's not to say that homosexuality can be compared to fetish porn, but people should be aware that in some countries without constitutional protection for free speech (or those with one but with an "obscenity" exception, looking at you Canada) censorship of harmless porn is par for the course.
(Would someone mind explaining why this is being downvoted? In my experience, few people are familiar with such laws in Western countries, and of course I condemn China's laws more; is this comment off topic? Please tell me if I can improve.)
The UK is hardly a touchstone of freedom of erotica. It's not just simulated rape - if you look at the full list of things censored under Cameron, it includes a lot of things that would be considered rather dry by American standards (such as most pornography filmed outdoors).
But yeah, there's very little room for disagreement here, England is known for its ingrained doctrines of legal moralism and legal paternalism.
Or just what is meant by 'damage'? Discourse here is unlikely to be a friendly academic discussion on the meaning of words, but instead another instance of the eternal question "Who? Whom?"
I presume you have some justification for asserting that LGBTQ+ campaigners had issues with that part of the Act because that's a pretty provocative assertion. My recollection (and the only evidence I can find from searching) is some concern from graphic novelists and their publishers that's proved baseless.
Yes, I am sure. Several researchers have noted also there is very little, if any, rational justification for that censorship. On what grounds do you say the concerns of the artists was baseless? My comment on LGBT campaigners was in reference to Cameron's 2015 law on simulated rape pornography.
As a side note, although there were no graphic novelists to speak for me, other regulation on fiction in the UK has had its own effects on my own online activity. The only way you'd know is if you had a keen enough eye to spot my activity cease when I was made aware of the hideous laws in England.
The 20 probably refers to the CPS’s VAWG report in 2012. As I’m sure you’re aware that was 20 cases that had magistrates’ hearings covered by section 62. Not convictions and not just cartoons (I don’t believe there were any cartoons but I could be mistaken). It was somewhat more the following year but still very low, <200.
If that has helped reduce the amount of child porn entering the UK from abroad then that’s great. I doubt it though.
No idea what this has to do with Google.
TBH if your work actually flouts section 62 then I’m 100% ok with you stopping. I see no particular need to support someone’s freedom to express depictions of child sex. Freedom of expression has far more important battles to fight than that.
Do you see the particular need to support someone's freedom to make metal music, regular pornography, films with drug use, online roleplayers, teenagers writing fanfiction, etc? What if a few MPs decided they saw no particular need to support your right to comment on HN?
The fact that there are more important battles does not mean this one should be ignored. Matters of justice have little to do with whether you would support the activity, and much more to do with whether you would support the principle. The question I am asking you is whether people should be punished by the state for possession or creation of these drawings, and if so, why? People's lives are literally at risk over these drawings of fictional characters. Going to prison, potentially being put on the register, etc. is no small deal. Suspended sentences are still on your criminal record.
The numbers I was referring to were specifically on drawn fictional non-photorealistic depictions. As such, that included cartoons (like Japanese hentai). Maybe I read the stats incorrectly, though.
[0] https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publica... (page 71, A50)