Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Lain (lain7) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2003-07-27 14:21:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Inspired by the Kobe Bryant case...
The Great RPF Debate, round #453978: (Edit: The post is unlocked now.)

There's a few different defenses. "I'm not hurting anyone!" You don't think you're hurting anybody, but this is an adversarial situation. It's impossible, given the NC-17 content of so much RP fic, not to draw analogies to rape. Where do I begin? RP ficcers essentially claim that their rights trump other peoples' rights. This is similar, frankly, to sexual offenders, who seem to think that being denied sex is a privation that trumps a woman's right to not be forced into it. RP ficcers often express the belief that they have the right to gratify their urge to write this stuff. The rights of their subjects obviously do not enter into the discussion.


Edit: The entire wank goes back to this post. Thanks to [info]embitca for the link.



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]amatia
2003-07-27 09:44 pm UTC (link)
All right, getting called a sex offender YET again! My life just isn't complete without that accusation every six months or so.

I'm sure there's some sort of witty comment to be made about how the hell someone gets from Kobe Bryant to RPF writers in one line of thought, but I'm so very un-witty.

What next, we're like O.J.? I will find that person who wrote the RPF, because it wasn't me! What are you talking about, that's not my pseudonym... uhm, well it is. Blah blah blah,

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]katemonkey, 2003-07-27 10:33 pm UTC

[info]katemonkey
2003-07-27 09:51 pm UTC (link)
I have to mention Holocaust Denial here. I know that's a bit much, but it's a prime example of a false dichotomy. There's only one side to the Holocaust issue. That's all there is to it. The Nazis murdered millions of Jews, not a few here and there. Nevertheless, the moral equivalency people have successfully promoted the ludicrous concept that there are two sides to every issue, when in fact there might be ten or twenty---or only one. It's interesting that they only promote the idea of two, isn't it? When confronted with a really simple concept, they still think they have to look for an opposing viewpoint, even though they give legitmacy to, well, illegitimate sources.

Ding ding! Godwin's Law!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]parlance, 2003-07-27 10:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]diamonde, 2003-07-28 09:51 am UTC

[info]fxh
2003-07-27 10:13 pm UTC (link)
Heh. I especially like this line:

It's a massive generalization and one that I'm perfectly entitled to make, as long as RP writers continue to protest that their privacy is being invaded, and then turn around and invade some celebrity's life.

As far as I know, don't RP people just take their info from publicly available interviews that the celebs themselves do? It's not like RP ficcers are stalkers and go digging in the celeb's trash trying to make their fics more authentic. *rolls eyes*

I especially like how this person says "You're not keeping up," "You don't understand", etc. everytime there's an argument she can't counter.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]chash, 2003-07-27 10:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]embitca, 2003-07-27 11:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katemonkey, 2003-07-27 11:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]embitca, 2003-07-27 11:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aruru, 2003-07-27 11:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rann, 2003-07-27 11:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 12:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]musicdiamond, 2003-07-28 12:31 am UTC

[info]raisedbyhyenas
2003-07-27 10:18 pm UTC (link)
Yeeeeeah, I used to think RPS was squicky. But then I, y'know, bothered to FIND OUT ABOUT IT and talk to people who do it. Let's face it: some of the creepiest psychos in fandom DO reside in the RPS zone. BUT. Bad apples exist in every fandom. There are lots of great people there too who think the crazies need to be shot just as much as we do, and RPS itself is just FICTION. So...I have no problem with it anymore. Just with the crazies in particular. :)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]parlance, 2003-07-27 10:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 02:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]parlance, 2003-07-28 02:54 am UTC
Damn... - [info]aruru, 2003-07-28 05:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]technobadger, 2003-07-28 01:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]munchkinott, 2003-07-28 04:53 am UTC
(no subject) - snowball, 2003-07-28 05:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]raisedbyhyenas, 2003-07-28 10:22 pm UTC

[info]ingrid
2003-07-27 10:40 pm UTC (link)
In fact, there's a similarity between the bashing of a rape victim, the bashing of a woman in history, and the cavalier attitude to rights in fictionalizing a RP's sexuality.

Of course, she fails to mention that most RPS is written about men.

But that would take away the ghastly mark of OMG!MISOGYNY!!!! from the entire incoherent argument.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-27 10:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ingrid, 2003-07-27 10:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-27 10:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ingrid, 2003-07-27 10:51 pm UTC
My eyes!!! - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-27 10:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]feenix, 2003-07-28 05:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rubywisp, 2003-07-27 11:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dexwebster, 2003-07-27 10:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-27 11:05 pm UTC
Re: - [info]dexwebster, 2003-07-27 11:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]renjenri, 2003-07-28 06:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]amandatwop, 2003-07-28 03:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]iczer6, 2003-07-28 07:18 am UTC
I don't like RPS but what the shit...?
[info]moonjaguar
2003-07-27 10:41 pm UTC (link)
Oh what the living hell... I've heard Real Person content called a symptom of the downfall of civilization and thought that was over the top. I've found a one-liner stating that people had "no right" to write about "Dom and Lijah fucking even if they were." Then again, one could say people don't have a right to write character fiction because they are using someone else's characters without permission.

The Holocaust and rape analogies takes the cake. Sheesh. I'm repetitive in saying that I don't read, write or like RPF/RPS involving living persons. I'd imagine I'm correct in assuming that whether one is writing about Dumbledore/Gandalf or Richard Harris/Sir Ian McKellen, that they are both the products of fantasy and not intended to "hurt" anyone. That the vast majority of writers and readers know this and can separate reality from fantasy. While there are people who are nuttier than a Payday factory and I don't have to mention who I'm referring to who seem to have difficulty making that distinction between fact and fantasy, I don't think it poses a potential threat to the real persons nor invades their privacy because it's pretend, right?

[info]raisedbyhyenas mentioned the amount of nuts in RPS and the fact that nuts exist in all fandoms. It's a case of people are going to notice the few people dancing around naked and raving about the End Is Near or the Evil PR Machine.

(I wonder how many times I'm going to be defending RPS this summer).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: I don't like RPS but what the shit...? - [info]darkrose, 2003-07-28 01:18 am UTC
MMm. Kentucky Fried Lij! - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 01:27 am UTC
Re: MMm. Kentucky Fried Lij! - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 02:56 am UTC
Re: I don't like RPS but what the shit...? - [info]raisedbyhyenas, 2003-07-28 10:27 pm UTC
Re: I don't like RPS but what the shit...? - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 01:56 am UTC
Re: I don't like RPS but what the shit...? - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 03:01 am UTC
... - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 03:43 am UTC

[info]andraste101
2003-07-27 11:17 pm UTC (link)
Firstly, if I wrote a story about Sir Ian and his lover, or Rupert Everett and his, would that be okay or would I be maligning their public personas by writing about them?

Secondly, Ginmar sites The Onion and the stories they write about famous people, but comparing The Onion to a site that houses RPF is just silly. For one thing the readers of The Onion are a totally different beast from the readers (and writers) of RPF (although I'm sure the readership overlaps). The fools that take The Onion articles seriously already have reality problems, but you know, I've never, *ever* heard of an RPF story quoted by the moms of boyband fans in order to sway opinion away from Lance or JC, or any of the others.

Thirdly, Ginmar says that writing RPF is like rape. Um, not that I really want to know or anything, but has she been raped? Has she asked women who have been raped if they're as offended by RPF as she obviously is? It's awfully presumptious of someone to speak for an entire group of people, especially if she isn't a member of the group in the first place. I know someone who was raped that is a huge fan of boyband slash. I totally can't understand the appeal of it myself, but hey, if she's not going to whine about it, where do I get off judging her? Not to mention the fact that I'd be grossly insulting her by comparing what she went through to something that is completely *ficticious*.

(Reply to this)


[info]embitca
2003-07-27 11:23 pm UTC (link)
Hey Lain, if you want to update links in this post, apparently the entire argument started over here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/luvsbitch/49378.html

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]rubywisp, 2003-07-27 11:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - lain7, 2003-07-27 11:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 12:20 am UTC

[info]morganya
2003-07-27 11:24 pm UTC (link)
I have the same reaction to this as I do to anti-drinking commercials, except instead of wanting to go out and pound margaritas I want to go write dirty, dirty porn. With lots of misspellings.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-27 11:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganya, 2003-07-27 11:44 pm UTC
Re: - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-27 11:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganya, 2003-07-28 12:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 01:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 03:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 03:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tempslut, 2003-07-28 03:10 am UTC

[info]deslea
2003-07-27 11:50 pm UTC (link)
I think a big part of the problem here is that the participants are using different frames of reference. The "It's like rape" argument is a Platonic argument - it pertains specifically to the form of thought in the abstract, and in that sense, the analogy is valid. Whereas the "Are you nuts? It's a story!" counter is an argument about matter - a fairly utilitarian-consequentialist one. And in that sense, the analogy is nonsensical. They're talking in completely different languages and that's why they're coming to blows.

Of course, the fact that I can even put it into those terms kind of proves my its wankiness, yo.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - tintin, 2003-07-28 12:31 am UTC

tintin
2003-07-28 12:08 am UTC (link)
Now RPF writers are liars, too.

Well. That's... interesting.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]amatia, 2003-07-28 12:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ingrid, 2003-07-28 12:21 am UTC
(no subject) - tintin, 2003-07-28 12:32 am UTC
Uh oh, old schoolyard flashback coming up! - [info]singe, 2003-07-28 02:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 01:59 am UTC
I have a groovy new nickname now.
[info]moonjaguar
2003-07-28 12:10 am UTC (link)
Okay, I was a bad kitty (or panda) and I didn't stop myself despite my writing 500 times "I will not comment in other people's journals in this fashion".

*wanks*

Okay, all done. Now to start planning accessories and outfits for the Little Miss Drive-By dollies.

(Reply to this)


[info]cimorene111
2003-07-28 12:11 am UTC (link)
my favorite bits:


but it seems to boil down to the old chestnut that, hey, it's not real. No harm, no foul. Really, if you can't discuss the theoretical, you've got no place in this debate.

You mischaractarized and mistated my argument.

Copyright violation comes into play with fanfiction only if the writer attempts to pass off these characters as their own and make money off them.

Uh, duh? Outside of carefully-drawn paremeters, putting real people into a story makes it non-fiction.


oh, man. this chick is a blast.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 12:45 am UTC
Re: - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 12:52 am UTC
Re: - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 12:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 01:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ingrid, 2003-07-28 12:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fxh, 2003-07-28 01:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganya, 2003-07-28 01:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fxh, 2003-07-28 01:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pradaloz, 2003-07-28 04:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]darkrose, 2003-07-28 02:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 02:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 03:08 am UTC
Re: - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 05:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2003-07-28 01:09 am UTC
Re: - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 01:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2003-07-28 01:18 am UTC
Re: - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 01:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2003-07-28 02:04 am UTC
Re: - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 02:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]senor_pinata, 2003-07-28 04:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nekoneko, 2003-07-28 04:34 am UTC
Re: - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 04:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2003-07-28 05:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 05:33 am UTC
Re: - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 05:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 03:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mireille, 2003-07-28 02:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]darkrose, 2003-07-28 02:16 am UTC
Re: - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 02:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]darkrose, 2003-07-28 03:32 am UTC
Re: - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 03:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]darkrose, 2003-07-28 04:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 04:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 04:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]iczer6, 2003-07-28 07:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dontmindme, 2003-07-28 04:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chash, 2003-07-28 05:29 am UTC
Re: - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 05:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chash, 2003-07-28 06:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 05:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chash, 2003-07-28 06:12 am UTC

[info]shoiryu
2003-07-28 12:15 am UTC (link)
Personally, RPS creeps me right the hell out and I won't touch it with a ten-foot-pole. But you know what, I don't have to right to criticize it. Everybody's got their fetish...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]rhi_silverflame, 2003-07-28 12:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2003-07-28 01:12 am UTC
Hmm... - [info]aruru, 2003-07-28 01:21 am UTC
Re: Hmm... - [info]darkrose, 2003-07-28 02:17 am UTC
Re: Hmm... - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 03:37 am UTC
Re: Hmm... - [info]kristenk2, 2003-07-28 04:20 am UTC
Re: Hmm... - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 04:28 am UTC
Re: Hmm... - [info]pradaloz, 2003-07-28 04:22 pm UTC
Re: Hmm... - [info]mydarkstar, 2003-07-29 04:43 pm UTC
PS: - [info]aruru, 2003-07-28 01:36 am UTC
Re: PS: - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 03:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]iczer6, 2003-07-28 04:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shoiryu, 2003-07-28 04:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2003-07-28 04:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]raisedbyhyenas, 2003-07-28 10:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2003-07-29 01:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 05:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]diamonde, 2003-07-28 10:26 am UTC

[info]moonjaguar
2003-07-28 01:21 am UTC (link)
I think it's time to lock Ginmar and MsA in a room together, give them the topic Ginmar started and see whose logic defies logic the most.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sagralisse, 2003-07-28 01:25 am UTC
Re: - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 01:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]musicdiamond, 2003-07-28 01:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 02:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]raisedbyhyenas, 2003-07-28 10:37 pm UTC
Re: - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 10:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]thea, 2003-08-02 02:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 04:16 am UTC

[info]aruru
2003-07-28 01:27 am UTC (link)
Wait... "ginmar?"

Woah, I remember that name.

*ponders if she'll be making an appearance here to share her side of the debate*

(Reply to this)


[info]ingrid
2003-07-28 01:34 am UTC (link)
Oh ma goodness!

Everyone! See the beauty of popfantastic delivering the hee-larious slapdown.

That poor gal's a glutton for punishment, isn't she? I'm almost tempted to deliver some myself.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]aruru, 2003-07-28 01:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 02:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganya, 2003-07-28 01:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 03:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ingrid, 2003-07-28 03:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 03:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dexwebster, 2003-07-28 03:31 am UTC
holy poop on a stick
[info]mynxkittie
2003-07-28 02:09 am UTC (link)
Wank, thy name is ginmar.

(Reply to this)

Oh my socks and garters...
[info]moonjaguar
2003-07-28 02:34 am UTC (link)
I've been banned from ginmar's LJ. One feature I wish LJ had was a way to find out whose journals I've been banned from.

Then again I wasn't very nice....

Anyone else get the big "Road Closed" sign besides me?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Oh my socks and garters... - [info]rubywisp, 2003-07-28 02:54 am UTC
Forgot about my inbox!~ - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 03:22 am UTC
Re: Forgot about my inbox!~ - [info]rubywisp, 2003-07-28 04:10 am UTC
Re: Oh my socks and garters... - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 05:42 am UTC
Re: Oh my socks and garters... - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 06:03 am UTC
Oh rats and damn
[info]moonjaguar
2003-07-28 02:34 am UTC (link)
It's locked.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Oh rats and damn - [info]aruru, 2003-07-28 02:40 am UTC
Re: Oh rats and damn - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 05:50 am UTC
Re: Oh rats and damn - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 06:04 am UTC
Re: Oh rats and damn - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 10:16 am UTC

[info]dexwebster
2003-07-28 02:39 am UTC (link)
And, Houston, we have a friends-lock.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]torakka, 2003-07-28 03:00 am UTC
(no subject) - tintin, 2003-07-28 03:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 03:20 am UTC
(no subject) - tintin, 2003-07-28 03:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pet, 2003-07-28 03:59 am UTC
YEE-HAH!
[info]ingrid
2003-07-28 02:42 am UTC (link)
Sorry to post so much, but ...

Jenny-O weighs in on the Ginmar RPF Fallacy. She weighs in heavily. Hurtfully. Deliciously!

Most. Fun. Wank. In. Forever.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 02:45 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 03:12 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 03:22 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 04:46 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 04:54 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]sorchar, 2003-07-28 05:48 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-28 06:00 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]katemonkey, 2003-07-28 12:25 pm UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]telesilla, 2003-07-29 06:07 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]feenix, 2003-07-28 11:28 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]cimorene111, 2003-07-28 06:04 pm UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]iczer6, 2003-07-28 07:41 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]evilmissthing, 2003-07-28 09:08 am UTC
Re: YEE-HAH! - [info]pradaloz, 2003-07-28 05:05 pm UTC

[info]prettypinkkitty
2003-07-28 04:05 am UTC (link)
Dude, now ginmar and her posse (read - one friend) are just insulting everyone who comments in that post, whether seriously or sarcastically. How wanktacular!

*shakes head*

Sometimes, I think I hate people very much. And then I realize that I do.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ladycat, 2003-07-28 05:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]prettypinkkitty, 2003-07-28 05:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladycat, 2003-07-28 05:28 am UTC

[info]prettypinkkitty
2003-07-28 05:54 am UTC (link)
Locked wank, yes...but relocation is inevitable (as I wasn't clear in the earlier comment).

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. "Why do you write RPS?" asks ginmar. popfantastic replies sarcastically. ginmar replies angrily. brak666 answers truthfully. ginmar's friend harmony something or another starts bitching at everyone.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]moonjaguar, 2003-07-28 07:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]prettypinkkitty, 2003-07-28 02:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pradaloz, 2003-07-28 05:18 pm UTC
Dear popfantastic: - [info]feenix, 2003-07-28 11:38 am UTC
Head Exploding!!!
[info]sporky
2003-07-28 11:42 am UTC (link)
Okay...

1) It is okay to fantasize about real people, but not discuss or share these fantasies with others? How do you draw the line there?

2) RPF is wrong in and of itself because it invades the privacy of real people. By not invading their privacy, because it is known to be a fiction and thus false.

3) Isn't right to control one's image defamation/libel rather than a privacy concern?

4) She tosses around legal language like heck, but has a VERY bizarre reading of invasion of privacy. I find it suspicious that she doesn't discuss the lawsuit more, as this seems to be what this is really about.

5) Her real objection to RPF seems to be that a) it is about sex b) it is OCC and c) stupid people could think that the writer had in fact invaded star's privacy and refuse to believe that the fiction was a fiction. If she had come out and talked about c), she'd have a much better argument rather than sharing sexual fantasies with others=THOUGHTCRIME!!!

5) Okay, what happened to her is very bad, and is possibly an invasion of her privacy. If she had come out and said something about that, I think her argument would have more cogency.

(Reply to this)



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map