It's Different Because They're *People*!

[neadods]

I joined metafandom because it posts interesting links to fannish happenings around LJ, and hey - if fanthropology is good, than more of the same must be better.

We'll see how long I last now that my first post has led me to Sprat's commentary on Real Person Slash: "I know this is a sensitive area in fandom, and I know there are a lot of people for whom this is, like, A Really Major Deal--not just a personal squick, but an actual ethical issue having to do with the right to privacy of the actors in question. And the thing is, I honestly do not understand why."

Because they're people, that's why!

I commented in the thread, and I tried to keep my tone reasonable, but I am one of those folk with "an actual ethical issue" about this, and it's very simple to explain why - whether the actors in question know it or not, whether they read it or not, whether they care or not, real person fiction demotes a human being to the same level as a fictional character.

There are levels of this, some not all that offensive. For instance, obligatory disclosure, I once wrote a real person fic. I put a fictional character on a Julia Childe cooking show, which necessitated having Julia Childe in the story. But I don't feel that I denigrated her because I showed her doing her doing her job. And I've read plenty of fanfics where the actor gets sucked into the character's world, or vice versa. When the real person is written in a situation dealing with their job, and written in a manner that fits their character as known, then - well, you can argue that a line is crossed, but it's harder to argue that a person has been damaged or insulted.

But when you start talking about private issues - love, sex, family - in a public fiction, then you start treating people not just as moderately fictional, but as dancing meatpuppets. Real person slash - particularly slash about het humans (I get the impression that Sprat is writing about Paul Gross, who is married) depersonalizes the subjects even farther into breathing sex toys. Sex toys that are getting their workout not in the confines of someone's skull, but right out there in public for the amusement of the masses.

How can you not see that as ethically creepy?

There appear to be two arguments in favor of RPS. First, that the actors are attractive and sell their sexuality in their work. But just because they're selling the sizzle, it doesn't mean they're signing away their rights to control the steak. Where is the ethical line between saying "if actors wanted privacy they wouldn't be actors" and "if women don't want to be raped, they shouldn't wear miniskirts"? Because from where I'm standing, I can't see that line at all. RPS may not be as violent or violating as an actual rape, but it springs from the same mindset - that anyone that attracts is responsible for slaking the sexual arousal - regardless of that person's opinion, interest, or even intent. The same can be said for stalking. It's a fine, fine line between just writing about fantasies with someone and making those fantasies real.

And y'know what? Even if you NEVER plan on making said fantasies real, if you publicly post something torrid about an actor and then go see them, what is it going to look like - to the actor, to the authorities, even to the rest of the fandom? Better pray nothing happens to that actor when you're around, because you've made yourself public suspect #1 without ever banging more than your keyboard.

Second, is the argument that "what they don't know won't hurt them." Well, yeah. The odds of someone finding a specific story about themselves are pretty low. BUT - that doesn't mean it won't happen, not with the global, lingering nature of the Internet. Plus, while the odds of a single person finding a single fic might be low, what about the widening pool of people associating with that person? Their spouse, their children, their friends, their parents - is it really safe to assume that none of these people will trip over the story? Equally important, is it safe to assume that because the story is not about them personally that they won't be hurt/shocked/upset/appalled? Do they deserve to be hurt just because you wanted to get your ya-yas off with a person instead of a character, and wanted to do so in a semi-public forum?

Not to mention that just because they don't say anything directly to you doesn't mean that they don't know. If you suspected someone of stalking you, would your first impulse be to talk to them, or to gather up your information and quietly talk to the authorities? Particularly if they might be going somewhere, say, a convention, where you might attend and they were worried about their safety? (I work conventions, I've been in fandom for decades. I am so not joking here. It only takes one stalker scare for a fan club to lose their star or for a previously wonderful guest to stop coming.)

Is it really all worth it just to be able to write a story about a real person? A person you don't know anyway? Trust me, no matter how friendly they are, how many interviews they give, you don't actually know them.

Think they're hot? Think they ought to be with someone of your choosing? For the love of sanity, write about their character and you can safely bang 'em like a gong. Fictional people doing fictional things is a victimless crime. But for heaven's sake, if you're attracted to an actual person then grant them the dignity of treating them like people!

And no, the golden rule doesn't apply if you wish people were writing torrid RPS about you. Get a sex life of your own!

Comments

[neadods.livejournal.com]

still I think it is not the Instrument of Evil that you describe.

The final step between fantasy and evil, to me, is the posting. Seriously. Some strange things have gone on in my head, and it stays there, and nobody has to know about it.

But to put it out in public is to open up a whole new can o' squick. That is the depersonalizing part to me, calling a whole new audience's attention to the person's involuntary involvement. Plus it makes it available to the people involved or their families or their friends or their fandom - and I have seen negative repercussions on whole fandoms when an actor gets squicked or frightened.

I know you're articulate, Shay, so I'll ask flat out - why isn't it enough to fic about the characters? Why does it have to be Paul and Callum and not Bennie and Ray?

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

The final step between fantasy and evil, to me, is the posting. Seriously. Some strange things have gone on in my head, and it stays there, and nobody has to know about it.

that is EXACTLY my "do not cross" line. Thank you. :-)

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

For me, it is enough - as I've said, I don't actually like most RPS and I don't write it. But far be it from me to tell someone else, "Stop writing that!" when all I have to do is click my mouse and it's gone from my screen.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

I'm actually going to partly agree with you here. One fan telling another what to write and what not to is really problematic, at best, and any blanket ban seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nor do I personally support one - if an artist says he thinks RPF/S was spiffy and fans should feel free to write loads of it, I have no objection to RPF/S of that artist, and I'll support it as any freedom of speech cause. (And, admitting to a more problematically subjective "art is in the eye of the beholder" judgment, I've seen one piece of RPS I thought was a really stunning piece of writing; in the face of objections to that piece, I would ignore my own arguments to defend its right to exist based on its literary merits alone - to my mind, it was RPF in the way "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern" was fanfic. I fully admit that's inconsistent, particularly as one of the two is still alive, but certainly I have no intention of running around telling people, oh no, they're not allowed to write RPF under any circumstances.)

However, I don't think that's the same as one fan saying that RPS is a Big Frelling Ethical Issue that deserves due consideration by fandom as a Big Frelling Ethical Issue. "Approve" and "ignore" aren't the only two options open to fans, although they're very useful ones in a lot of circumstances; "discuss ad nauseam", "censure", and "support" are also out there for use where there's an ethical belief involved. (I know someone who has moral objections to homosexuality and is running a ficathon where slash is banned; I can join in or I can ignore it, but I can also tell her that I won't be joining in because I have ethical issues with the terms of her ficathon, because the expression of ethical beliefs in a community is inherently valuable.)

The issue at heart here is actually very much related to your statement, though. With fanfic, the people directly involved are thee-and-me, and I can exercise my right not to be involved by simply clicking away. With RPF, the people involved are you, me, and the people being written about, and they don't have any option for declining involvement. They can only go to a lawyer, of course, but lawyers are the step demonstrating that the problem has already occured - they're there to redress the issue when things have gone too far already, not an opt-out mechanism before things get to that stage.

At its most basic, the question really seems to be, is there tacit permission to use someone's name-and-likeness until they opt to refuse that permission, or should the permission be obtained first. The law says the latter; regulations about release forms are pretty stringent. Ethically, I believe the latter. I can understand the former in circumstances that are unlikely to have significant legal or personal impact, or that fall under protected speech (attributing a false quote for humor value on a parody site, where parody is protected speech, for example), but I don't understand the former in a situation risking significant and warranted legal action based on damage to an individual. Your argument seems to me to be that there isn't significant or warranted legal recourse for RPF, and also that there is tacit permission. And I don't understand either of those viewpoints.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

the question really seems to be, is there tacit permission to use someone's name-and-likeness until they opt to refuse that permission, or should the permission be obtained first. The law says the latter; regulations about release forms are pretty stringent

And that's as it should be...when a profit is being made based on the person's name or likeness. Fanfic, of any stripe, is not as a rule written to to make money. It's written for sheer entertainment and is shared by likeminded people. The internet is the means by which this is shared.

Np, the internet is not secure. Yes, it is both a private and a public forum. I can google my name and find my address on line. Should that be so readily available, so that Crazy Stalker Guy who once met me can find me? No. And yes. It's not illegal that my name appear there, if I've done something to warrant it being there. I'm no celebrity, but I've done things that get my name into Google. I can't stop that - nor can Paul Gross or George Bush or the local parish priest. Nor should they. If they have ever had a public presence, they will be on the web, and it is my right to write anything about them I choose, whether it's "George Bush is an ass, and I imagine him blowing Cheney in the Oval Office" or "Paul Gross moved into Callum's space and licked his upper lip." Sorry; sweeping legal generalizations don't wash in this case.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

Releases to use name and likeness go beyond profit; they also cover not-for-profit artistic ventures, like free photography exhibits. When it comes to individuals, it isn't just about profit - intangibles like reputation are considered part of an individual's assets, as much as financial assets. And that's as it should be, too. Reputation based on what a person truly has done, be it Bush or the local parish priest or any of us, is a repuation we've given or taken from ourselves. When something fictional is written about a person, be it a story or a lie, that person may consider it damage to their reputation, and has the right, legal, ethical, moral, to do so.

I'm not sure what the security or privacy of the internet have to do with the situation. But I do know there's a flaw in that last paragraph - it's not your right to write anything you choose about George Bush. There are some very strict and well-enforced restrictions on that, for his safety, whether or not what you wrote had intent behind it or not (as someone on LJ recently found out the hard way). And other public figures, while the restrictions on what can be written about them are neither so reaching nor well-enforced, have similar rights regarding what can (legally) and should (ethically) be said about them.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

You are correct that not everything can be said, even about a public figure, such as threats.

RPF/RPS is not a threat. It is creative writing. It does not advocate violence. It does not post home addresses or names of people's children. It is fiction.

And by the way, that recent LJ story about someone being visited by the Secret Service for her post about Bush? That was fiction, too. The story was subsequently proved to be a hoax.

Let me reiterate: RPF is fiction.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

I'm well aware it's fiction. But threat or advocation of violence is often in the eyes of the beholder, as are reputation damage, career damage, any number of things the law equally restricts. Going too far in many cases, like the boy who wrote zombiefic about his high school being arrested for making a threat or plotting violence against the school? Sure, I'll agree to that. But I don't agree that an individual, simply by having a public presence, has given tacit permission to be represented doing things they haven't done, even fictionally, even not for profit. (And RPF can post names of people's children - I'm still amazed by ginmar's reference to LOTR fic where one of the actors was depicted as a rapist and murderer using his real family to demonstrate the case.)

I'm glad to learn her case wasn't a real investigation. Michael Ramirez (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/73880.php)'s case was real. Perceived threat or damage, from written fiction, from a fictional scenario in a pro-Bush cartoon editorial, has real consequences. It's not an instant way off the hook for the creator to say, well, it wasn't meant that way.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

Sorry - I'm too tired to engage any further in this debate. Suffice to say I do not, nor will I ever, subscribe to your point of view, so enjoy it, and I'll keep my trap shut about it.

Just stay out of mine, please.

You have failed to convince me of how any of these examples has anything to do with RPF or RPS, the fanfic about real people, the only kind of RPF I've ever seen or heard of. It's not written by crazy, obsessed people who want to hurt or spread rumors about actors. The writers are funny, smart, clearly sensible people who simply get a kick out of writing stories about the fake versions, or images of the real people who play roles they like. They celebrate these actors' sensuality, or their humor, or their reputations for pomposity or sexual hijinks, by writing about the heightened versions of the actor. It's still, in this country, at least, legal to do so.

I've never seen RPS that suggests an actor is a rapist. I've never read anything remotely threatening. But then again, maybe I restrict myself to fandoms, like Due South, where people seem to be on a more mature level. Whatever the reason, though I don't doubt your passion (who could?), I am not buying your POV, just as I know you don't buy mine.

So enjoy your point of view; RPS is not your bag. Fine. Enjoy your chocolate ice cream, and I'll take vanilla. It doesn't hurt us, does it, to let others have different opinions? And so far, I've seen no proof that it's hurting Paul Gross or Callum Keith Rennie that a bunch of people think they're so hot they can't keep their hands off each other.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

And, in a more pleasant vein, with no hard feelings, happy St. Patrick's Day.

[mei-x.livejournal.com]

I know this is off-topic, but...

that recent LJ story about someone being visited by the Secret Service for her post about Bush? That was fiction, too. The story was subsequently proved to be a hoax.

It was? LJ was thrown into an uproar and this was all fake?

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

Yes. There was a follow up to the original post telling everyone about the supposed "visit" from the government. Apparently it was all a made up story. I wish I could remember the name of the person who exposed it, but alas, it's faded from memory.

That doesn't mean that the net isn't monitored -- it just means that in that case, the story wasn't true.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Fascinating. I wonder what the purpose of the original story was for, then? Attention? To focus anger at the supposed narc?

If you ever find the link to the exposure or a snopes page or something, I'd be interested to see it.

[fishsanwitt]

Someone I know on LJ *did* have the Secret Service visit her b/c of remarks about Bush. I'm assuming you all are talking about yet another person.

[anniesj.livejournal.com]

Yes. There was a follow up to the original post telling everyone about the supposed "visit" from the government.

Excuse me, sorry to butt in, but I'd love to know where you're getting your information. Because if you're talking about *me* and my visit from the Secret Service, then you've got your information waaaaay wrong, buddy.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

I'm not your buddy, as I have no idea who you are. I believe the story was reported in resonant8's journal, but it was some time ago, and I have no idea who the case was about. Perhaps if you send a link to whatever you posted about the visit, I can see if this was the story referred to, because a story of this nature was, in fact, proven to be a hoax.

[esorlehcar.livejournal.com]

Unless there were two people supposedly visited by Secret Service for posts about Bush, no, it wasn't fake. I have no idea where shayheyred is getting her info, but anniesj certainly never admitted that she'd made the whole thing up.