Just for the record ...

[percival]

I am not fandom_scruples, nor do I know him or her. I do not have children. In fact, I am very likely to be infertile.

I think that censorship is wrong.

I also think that blacklisting fics is not the right way to go about protecting teenagers from influences that their parents consider to be potentially harmful.

I have two reasons for this view:

1) Whether a person is impressionable or whether s/he can be damaged, hurt, offended, or plain squicked out by reading certain fics depends less on her age than on his or her personality, history, experiences, preferences, dislikes, and personal traumata. As far as I know, this holds for people 13+.

Therefore, out of courtesy to ALL readers, no matter what age, writers might do well to flag content that some people might not want to read.
This protects the right to free speech, while showing respect for other people's feelings. A win-win situation, really.

2) The internet is only one of the potential influences on teenagers. RL peers, books, TV, newspapers, magazines are just as influential. As far as I can see, if parents want to counteract certain of these influences, the best strategy might be for them to keep in touch with their child, and to live the values that they want their child to adopt, so that their child can do as they do AND as they say.

Has this cleared up some of the confusion caused by the fact that I was friended by a LJ that I did not know of until people started posting about it on their own LJs?

As always, feel free to agree or disagree. I welcome discussion.

Comments

[moeyknight.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say thank you for being a rational, patient, well thought out, and calming voice through all of this.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

thank you! :)

[angua9.livejournal.com]

Just for the record, you might want to mention that you also didn't kill Nicole Simpson or send anthrax-laced mail.

Of COURSE you aren't Fandom Scruples. Where do people get these insane ideas?

(sorry -- am just disgusted)

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

She didn't?

How do you explain the glove then?

[alphabet26.livejournal.com]

Oh, and clear up that you didn't kill Jon Benet Ramsey, either. (Sorry, a joke from back in the days when the Littleton police kept saying, "We haven't taken anyone off our list of suspects." My family decided we'd go down there and, at least, get ourselves taken off. ~_^)

[perceval.livejournal.com]

from thinking what other people tell them to think?

[hildigunnur.livejournal.com]

Some people are just insane and jump to conclusions based on less than nothing. Still, you got nerve and I mean that in the bestest way :)

You ROX!

[perceval.livejournal.com]

:D

[themorningstarr.livejournal.com]

I <3 you.

But I'm a little disappointed that you weren't behind the anthrax...

[perceval.livejournal.com]

thanks! :)

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

For the record, I'm 46 years old and the mother of a 14-year-old daughter, with a B.A. in Education and three decades worth of experience working with children of all ages. I agree with everything you've said here.

Attempts to censor teenagers' reading-materials inevitably backfires, because the censored material takes on the allure of "forbidden fruit". It is impossible to stop a teenager who wants to read porn from doing so - and it's not just "these days", or "the Internet" either. The Victorians, too, made a determined effort to keep sexually-explicit material out of the hands of young people, and failed.

It IS possible - in fact it's very easy - to make a young person feel guilty, fearful and ashamed about sex, and believe that this is the normal way to feel about it. It's easy to cause a young person to shut down channels of communication because he or she doesn't dar bring up the Forbidden Subject or admit to having indulged in Forbidden Acts. It's easy for a kid who's gotten used to hiding, sneaking and lying about one activity to move on to other activities. It's easy for a kid who's figured out that there really isn't any harm in pornography to assume that drugs, alcohol, casual sex and other dangerous indulgences are equally harmless.

Those are the real dangers of the sort of censorship fandom_scruples is trying to foster. Fortunately, most people in fandom immediately recognize drama-queening for what it is. fandom_scruples will stir up a little tempest-in-a-teapot for a few days, possibly weeks, then fade into oblivion again. Most writers will not make their fic password-protected because they know that doing so cuts out a great many of their adult readers who are not willing to mail their personal ID to strangers online. Those on the Blacklist have no reason to care what fandom_scruples or her tiny band of followers think of them. The whole idea is ridiculous.

The only real effect this misguided person will have is that of providing minors looking for thrills with the handy Blacklist (http://www.livejournal.com/users/fandom_scruples/1110.html#cutid1) which tells where to find them.. As a result, as the list gets passed around the teen communities, readership of the writers on the Blacklist will increase. They should probably thank her for the free publicity.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

And ironically, this person has hurt the very cause that she wanted to promote: protecting people from fics that have content which they may not want to read. I'm firmly in favour of writers labelling their output with respect to categories such as slash, violence, sex, ... so that their readers can make an informed choice. But any person pleading with writers to clearly label what they produce, especially if it contains content that might unsettle quite a few readers, will now be tarred with the fandom_scruples brush of censorship.

[taotheannoying1.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting that Fandom_Scruples has conveniently disabled the comment section on their site. Even more interesting they don't have the balls to actually debate the issue.

Instead, they just want to take the "nazi" approach and label everything they don't like.

Personally, I don't read NC-17 fics, and I don't care much for slash. However, I think the approach fandom_scruples is taking kind of reminds me of Orwell's 1984.

Not to mention the fact that nothing can stop a determined kid from looking up pornographic material on the internet...they'll always find a way, not matter how many blocks you put up in front of them.

[tartanboxers.livejournal.com]

Thanks for being a voice of calm rationality in a sea of insanity.

[sarka.livejournal.com]

I meant to comment on your previous entries before, but I've had a pretty hectic time of this, as well.

I agree with nearly everything you've said. I think your opinions are well thought out and well stated. I admire your calm rationality in the face of overwhelming adversity.

*hugs*

What they've put you through is just not right.

Miss Pince.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

You are *still* so kind to people, even when they don't deserve it.

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

perceval, I love you. I wish I were a few timezones closer, because then I could bring you tea and a warm blanket and a long-lost Wodehouse novel. And then you could have a nice cosy read and a break from all of the undeserved (and incredibly bizarre) vitriol.

Re: You are *still* so kind to people, even when they don't deserve it.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

well, what helped considerably was that
a) there was some very good discussion going on, too
b) I got so much great support from my online friends.

But I think b) was really the key,because for a moment I thought I'd lost my marbles.

[wahlee-98.livejournal.com]

I don't know you very well, but I know who you are, of course. I just want to say:

Word.

And, we're behind you all the way.

*mumbles about the idiots in this fandom*

[perceval.livejournal.com]

thank you!

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you don't know me, but I'm on awelkin's FL, and have been spattered by the same, er, vortex. I'm just adding my support and good wishes. Your posts are those of a calm, reasonable and thoughtful person and I am hard-pressed to think of anything you said that could be even remotely construed as offensive or advocating "censorship."

[perceval.livejournal.com]

Actually, I heard about your LJ from Yolanda, who friended you BAX when I was in Dallas, visiting her :)

*friends*

[chrysantza.livejournal.com]

Yes! You are the one who massaged her! And you are friended back. :)

[murasaki99.livejournal.com]

This too shall pass. Kind'a like kidney stones. ^_^

Time to trot out that pseudo-Latin phrase, "illegitimati non carborundum" - 'Don't let the bastards grind you down.' Hang in there, we all think you're totally cool.

M99 - Off to write a hot scene or two with Gobardon. :-D Not exactly Zen perhaps, but it has its only peculiar harmony.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

thanks :D

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

I applaud your sensible and responsible statement of your position. From the moment I discovered the fandom_scruples community my initial response was to feel much sorrier for the people on the "gold" list than on the "black" list, simply because it is far better (and gets a great deal more public sympathy) to be seen as the victim of an unjust and ill-thought out personal attack than have your own moral viewpoint (whatever it may be) co-opted against your will by people who do not (whatever they may think) share it, but who by appropriating your name and on-line goodwill hope to make a shabby cause slightly less shabby.

It is particularly disgraceful that in one case where someone was unjustifiably gold-listed without their consent it took 3 emails for them to be removed, yet another had no response at all to their request until they posted material(taken from a published work available freely to teenagers through the public library system, incidently)of the type that fandom_scruples opposes, on their live journal.

For the record, my own response to the list was that given what I knew about those on it whom I knew anything about, that the only principled position I could take was to send a note to the list, with supporting evidence, to the effect that on their rules their only option was to black-list me too. The "evidence" was that I had recommended a fic by a third party (who was not on the list and still isn't)with a warning that it was NC-17, and indirectly supplied a link to it, via a link to the author's live journal which cites the URL and which also gives a warning as to the content of the fic, and an NC-17 rating to it.

fandom_scruples accepted this evidence and promptly blacklisted me, telling me that I would only be removed if my own fics (which I usually rate R on the cautious side, for bad language and violence, mainly though any sexual content is PG-13 at most) were only presented in future under password protection.

So, my hearty sympathies at being tarred with their brush.

[hilarityallen.livejournal.com]

Quite agree with you there - the blacklist has the same effect as the banning of Lady Chatterley's Lover had. Everyone wants to read...
If some authors want to password-protect their fics, I'm OK with that. But what I really want is some kind of indication about content. For instance, I don't want to read Chanslash, and I can get quite upset when it turns out that I am reading chan, because there wasn't an adequate warning. This does happen quite rarely, I admit. Warnings on fic are a sharing of responsibility between writer and reader - they've told us what's in their fic, so we can choose not to read BDSM or whatever.

[rochefort.livejournal.com]

As far as I read it, everything you've said in this post has been consistent with your stated opinions throughout this whole kerfuffle.

However, various posters' attempts to patronise and belittle both your views and you in the name of toleration and freedom of speech, simply because you dared to post an opinion in your own lj which is not in tune with theirs, have not just been ironic; they've been sickening. As an lj friend said to me recently in reference to another kerfuffle, mobs are an ugly thing.

You've displayed patience and toleration throughout this whole thing and I can't imagine it's been easy. It's certainly been admirable.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

thank you, Roche!

[jiminyc.livejournal.com]

(Another person you don't know chiming in!)

I'm a mom of three teenagers - they appreciate that I have always taken the time to inform & educate them to make good decisions rather than just make all the decisions for them. We feel that this will help them continue to make well-informed decisions on their own when they're not under my wing anymore. I totally support your stance on this issue and hope you're hanging in there...I'm sure this has all been really crummy for you.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

it's ok, actually; your message of support really helps

Hello

[ravensnape.livejournal.com]

Hello Perceval. Let me start by telling you there is no need to reply to this. I'm a LJ friend of Corgi and life friend of Wahlee98 which is where I got drawn into this debate. I thought you would like a copy of what I posted on my LJ before I even traced back this far where the whole 'black list' started. Actually i'm still followin the trail but...in your defence and First Amendment rights:

My goodness, I'm away from here for a few days and a black list pops up. LOL. The irony of the whole thing is the fact that I have been busy with my government finals, etc. I gave my students a 115 question final, with a fair portion dedicated to the Bill of Rights.

I quote the First: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I'm not looking at my book, so I hope that is accurate. In other words, in regards to materials both in print and on the web, 'Prior Restraint' can not be imposed upon the people. The government cannot block something from publication just because they disagree with it. Only in specific cases can materials be stop from distribution to the masses---CIA classified, words of Seditious Intent and materials deemed dangerous in content sent to secure Federal facilities...in other words you can't mail a prisoner information on how to make a bomb out of soap).

So where does this leave us? I know for a fact that I will be upon that black list shortly. I've said all along that there will come a point in my story where the Quill will be unable to post AP in full, and my Yahoo site, therefore, will post the full un-edited content.

I've labeled it over 18 and am uncomfortable with 'youngsters' reading these portions. Realistically, though, I don't think that this over 18 block works. It doesn't. I can tell you for a fact that high school students get around the web better than we give them credit for. I've watched them do it. You don't take 60 Political Science students to the computer lab and have them NOT get into things they're not suppose to. I HAVE TO WATCH THEM. THAT’S MY JOB.

One of my students has found the Quill and my yahoo site without me telling her anything about it. She is 16 and very mature for her age. Should she have the right to read what's out there? The constitution gives her that right. Can I stop her? No. Can her parents? YES. THAT’S THEIR JOB. But in my opinion they have done a fine job of bring her up and she will do fine when the time comes for me to post the R/NC-17 portions.

Locks and passwords are not parents. If her parents have a problem with the materials she reads, then it is for them to deal with the issue of what she views. There are many in my class who could not deal with what will happen to my main character and should not be reading it. I will post warnings and rely on my SQ beta to draw the line as to what is acceptable for them.

cont...on next post. Word limits

Cont......from above

[ravensnape.livejournal.com]

As for ratings mentioned by these black listers, the idea of R or NC-17 comes from the movie industry. The movie industry is blanketed under the First Amendment. The rating system is strictly voluntary, and carries no force of law. Ratings are so subjective these days that what is R for some may be X for others. Then there is the whole NC-17 issue:

No One 17 and Under Admitted. This signifies that the rating board believes that most American parents would feel that the film is patently adult and that children age 17 and under should not be admitted to it. The film may contain explicit sex scenes, an accumulation of sexually-oriented language, or scenes of excessive violence. The NC-17 designation does not, however, signify that the rated film is obscene or pornographic

But who makes these choices with regards to rating? Parents give the movies their ratings-men and women just like you. They are part of a specially designed committee called the film rating board of the Classification and Rating Administration. As a group they view each film and, after a group discussion, vote on its rating, making an educated estimate as to which rating most American parents would consider the most appropriate.

The rating board uses the criteria you as a parent use when deciding what is suitable viewing for your child. Theme, language, violence, nudity, sex and drug use are among those content areas considered in the decision-making process. Also assessed is how each of these elements is employed in the context of each individual film. The rating board places no special emphasis on any of these elements; all are considered and examined before a rating is given.

Film directors do not have to be submit their works to this panel, nor do they have to abide by the panels recommendation. So where does that leave us, again? Back to being a responsible parent, with our own supervision of our own children.

In my not so humble opinion, the only thing a black list will serve to do is drive the very youth they are trying to keep out, right to the very stories they block. And they will unblock, unlock, and find them. Only OPEN discussion with our children about values, morals and, yes, even sex, will act as a rating system guideline for them to follow.

Elizabeth


********************************************
So Perceval feel free to use or deleate this as you wish. I hope things settle down for you. I know Wahlee and Corgi are both defending your good name.

Elizabeth aka Raven Snape from Suqarquill and FF.Net

Re: Cont......from above

[perceval.livejournal.com]

Hey Raven, contrary to what larissa_j assumed, I NEVER delete comments - except when they mention my full RL name, and that only happened once ;)

Just curious: on which forums are Wahlee and Corgi defending my name? Just to know how far this is spreading. If the kerfuffle isn't over yet, I'll leave this post on top of my public LJ for a while just to make sure that anybody looking to vent their anger at fandom_scruples knows it is not me and doesn't harass me on posts not related to that matter.

Re: Cont......from above

[ravensnape.livejournal.com]

We are mostly from Sugarquill and FF.Net. Corgi and I both chat on Weird Sisters (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Weird_Sisters/) , part of Jedi Boadicea's brillience, and Walhee (http://www.livejournal.com/users/wahlee_98/) is my Editor-in-Chief for my site Ancient Prophecy (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientprophecy/) . Both Groups are Yahoo sites and open to public over 18. I'll check and see if it has filtered on to Arabella's ATE group, but I don't believe so since I've seen nothing posted since we debated how many times Sirus' motor bike showed up in the story(things are slow there right now :D).

I do hope the links worked. I can quote the first 10 Bill of Rights, but computer 'stuff' stumps me.

[erised1810.livejournal.com]

the buggers caught you too? {{{hugs}} I wil not have it. no
more celebrety death matches and other negative-energetic
flamewars over things that relate to an un-real world.
I mean honestly some people apparentl ywant to do anything to keep form boredom. Heh. I found you through JK. It's godo to knwo there are stil lcalm and peaceful placesi nthis storm-ridden to ocrowded world. so her's a large amoutn of hugs for you,adn anyone who's had the same crap o their plate. I woudl defend any author who geds tripped overl iek that in the midst of their simply going through their daily life. It's low adn unneccesar yand so unbelievably silly. gah. [hugs}

[perceval.livejournal.com]

thanks, Yvonne. I still remember your habitual greeting from HPFGU: peace :)

[erised1810.livejournal.com]

you're kidding! that was liek three years ago? oh do refresh my mind, nwo I" mrealy curious. I simply foudn yo uon JK's pep-up post and when an lj itnerests me I bookmark it somewhere until I find myself comign back eveyr day and thin k'whatthe hack, it's eaiser to follow alogn in m yfriends apgge, right?"
THe world is small though, very small.

[hiddenhibiscus.livejournal.com]

Hey Perceval, you don't know me, but after chatting with cynthia_black, she pointed me over here. I've stayed on the periphery of the fray for numerous reasons but wanted to commend you for stating what you believe despite being 'gold-listed'. It appears this has really done a number on your lj readership as well! lol

Jen
*friends*

[perceval.livejournal.com]

I am GOLD LISTED? But I don't even write fan fiction!

*is v. confused*

[hiddenhibiscus.livejournal.com]

lol! Now you know what I mean about being on the periphery--I don't even have my facts straight! (Which is truly awful given I'm an attorney.)

No, I came over because cynthia_black said you were being 'hammered' by this whole debate, so I decided to read your journal, misinterpreted one of your comments above (about being gold-listed) and must have attributed it to you. Sorry! I must've given you quite the scare. LOL

I shall now go back to the land of lurking. ;)

Jen

[miraminx.livejournal.com]

I'm coming late to all this and you don't know me, but I just wanted to say that I agree with you and admire the rational, sane, adult way you've argued your case and responded to the attacks on you. Thank you.