5 ms·

From the OP who said: > "I've read a few of Cooper's books and the short answer is yes, pedophilia is a common theme in his writing (as is incest and necrophil

From the OP who said: > "I've read a few of Cooper's books and the short answer is yes, pedophilia is a common theme in his writing (as is incest and necrophilia)." Because of the words 'book' and 'writing', I have the impression that everything there is written text and no certainly no pictures. This puts it in a nebulous position, at least in the USA. Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897), ended up ruling that text-only content can be deemed obscene and being text-only is not a reason to get total 1st amendment protection. However later cases, decided there was a division between erotica and obscene material, which is essentially decided on a case-by-case basis subjectively. When it comes to things such as obscenity, its not really enough to go by our 'feelings' and intuition on the matter. For instance, would you believe the US is a fully functioning, 1st world democracy, where sex toys are illegal (Alabama, upheld by State Supreme court and enforced as recently as 2009)? To me, personally, anything that comes entirely from someones fanciful imagination, no matter how distasteful, should not be considered illegal unless it directly results in the harm of another individual.

djsumdog 10y ago
So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out. This doesn't hold true for ... most of the rest of the planet. In the UK a man was put in jail for Simpsons porn, something that's legal in the US (although potentially a trademark violation; unless you can argue it's satire). In Cooper's home country of France, fictional depictions are actually illegal (books like Lolita are banned). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornograp... But as already stated, even if legality wasn't the issue, yes they are still a private company and can do what they want. The article mentions this and there really needs to be an effort to educate people that they need multiple backups, not just on-line, but on their own media.
- true_religion 10y ago
  > So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out. Actually, visual incest pornography exists in the US. I am not sure why (I am within the industry, but I don't actually keep tabs on legalities that I'm not involved in), but it seems that 2 years ago VISA decided it was okay for it to take credit card payments for incest-fantasy sites, and since then there's been an explosion of mainstream studios supporting said material. Cynically speaking, it seems to me that the adult industry is more scared of how their merchant banks will react to their content, than any chance of being taken down by the US government.
- programLyrique 10y ago
  No, Lolita by Nabokov is not banned in France. I saw this book myself in a French library a few years ago. And according to French wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Les_traductions_fran.C3.A7aises https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Les_traductions_fran.C3...), a new French translation was published in 2001.
  - mistersquid 10y ago
    It's been a while since I've read _Lolita_. If my memory serves me correctly, the novel contains no depictions of sex or sexual intimacy. Amazing work of literature, by the way.
    - exolymph 10y ago
      That's incorrect. For example, the scene where HH climaxes with Dolly on his lap. (I don't think Lolita should be banned anywhere. It's not a pro-pedophilia artwork.)
Jarwain 10y ago
According to the article linked, Cooper is mainly a visual artist. > Cooper used the blog to post his fiction, research, and visual art, and as Artforum explains, it was also “a platform through which he engaged almost daily with a community of followers and fellow artists.” His latest GIF novel (as the term suggests, a novel constructed with animated GIFs) was also mostly saved to the blog.
794CD01 10y ago
"Directly resulting in their harm" is an unenforceable standard, unless you are referring to hitting someone with a printed copy, which I suspect you are not.
- true_religion 10y ago
  An example of direct harm, would be an totally imaginary article that aims to humiliate or defame someone. It's not true; it's not real, but its directly aimed at destroying a persons reputation anyways. This is something that current day harassment laws (and in some countries slander laws) already cover.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    It works poorly. A true article that destroys someone's reputation is equally harmful, but (in the US), completely protected.
rsync 10y ago
Meanwhile, on google.com, I can read excerpts of Lolita, by Nabokov: https://books.google.com/books/about/Lolita.html?id=TOQxAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books/about/Lolita.html?id=TOQxAgAA...
- madmax96 10y ago
  To be fair, it would be very unreasonable for anyone to make the claim that Lolita is erotica. The Supreme Court define obscenity as being a work that was reasonably lude by the standards of the day, and lacked "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Lolita doesn't really fit this description due to its literary and artistic value. I haven't read the blog in question, but obviously issues like this are trickier to decide with contemporary artists that are unestablished. Google certainly doesn't want to be labeled as being a distributor of child pornography, and you can't really compare some guy's blog to a book like Lolita.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    Actually erotica is not automatically obscene. Lolita need not be non-erotic, to be non-obscene.

djsumdog 10y ago

So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out. This doesn't hold true for ... most of the rest of the planet. In the UK a man was put in jail for Simpsons porn, something that's legal in the US (although potentially a trademark violation; unless you can argue it's satire). In Cooper's home country of France, fictional depictions are actually illegal (books like Lolita are banned). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornograp... But as already stated, even if legality wasn't the issue, yes they are still a private company and can do what they want. The article mentions this and there really needs to be an effort to educate people that they need multiple backups, not just on-line, but on their own media.

true_religion 10y ago
> So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out. Actually, visual incest pornography exists in the US. I am not sure why (I am within the industry, but I don't actually keep tabs on legalities that I'm not involved in), but it seems that 2 years ago VISA decided it was okay for it to take credit card payments for incest-fantasy sites, and since then there's been an explosion of mainstream studios supporting said material. Cynically speaking, it seems to me that the adult industry is more scared of how their merchant banks will react to their content, than any chance of being taken down by the US government.
programLyrique 10y ago
No, Lolita by Nabokov is not banned in France. I saw this book myself in a French library a few years ago. And according to French wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Les_traductions_fran.C3.A7aises https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Les_traductions_fran.C3...), a new French translation was published in 2001.
- mistersquid 10y ago
  It's been a while since I've read _Lolita_. If my memory serves me correctly, the novel contains no depictions of sex or sexual intimacy. Amazing work of literature, by the way.
  - exolymph 10y ago
    That's incorrect. For example, the scene where HH climaxes with Dolly on his lap. (I don't think Lolita should be banned anywhere. It's not a pro-pedophilia artwork.)

Jarwain 10y ago

According to the article linked, Cooper is mainly a visual artist. > Cooper used the blog to post his fiction, research, and visual art, and as Artforum explains, it was also “a platform through which he engaged almost daily with a community of followers and fellow artists.” His latest GIF novel (as the term suggests, a novel constructed with animated GIFs) was also mostly saved to the blog.

794CD01 10y ago

"Directly resulting in their harm" is an unenforceable standard, unless you are referring to hitting someone with a printed copy, which I suspect you are not.

true_religion 10y ago
An example of direct harm, would be an totally imaginary article that aims to humiliate or defame someone. It's not true; it's not real, but its directly aimed at destroying a persons reputation anyways. This is something that current day harassment laws (and in some countries slander laws) already cover.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  It works poorly. A true article that destroys someone's reputation is equally harmful, but (in the US), completely protected.

rsync 10y ago

Meanwhile, on google.com, I can read excerpts of Lolita, by Nabokov: https://books.google.com/books/about/Lolita.html?id=TOQxAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books/about/Lolita.html?id=TOQxAgAA...

madmax96 10y ago
To be fair, it would be very unreasonable for anyone to make the claim that Lolita is erotica. The Supreme Court define obscenity as being a work that was reasonably lude by the standards of the day, and lacked "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Lolita doesn't really fit this description due to its literary and artistic value. I haven't read the blog in question, but obviously issues like this are trickier to decide with contemporary artists that are unestablished. Google certainly doesn't want to be labeled as being a distributor of child pornography, and you can't really compare some guy's blog to a book like Lolita.
- true_religion 10y ago
  Actually erotica is not automatically obscene. Lolita need not be non-erotic, to be non-obscene.