Let's talk about Harry Potter

[u/AMVilla86]

… and other problematic IP

Hi folks,

We need your input. The mods have been discussing for a bit now about crafts with complicated Intellectual Property creators. Occasionally a craft will receive reports due to the theme of the craft and not about crafting itself. While we try to be as open-minded as possible, and we follow sitewide rules (such as no hate speech targeting identity or vulnerability, etc), there is still some nuance with moderating these types of posts. These posts have raised many questions, but we realized we needed to ask the community what they thought. If the community is uncomfortable with something, we want to know and be sure to moderate appropriately.

Some of the ideas we had so far, and why they would be tough to implement:

- Ban specific IP→ Where do we draw the line of what is and isn’t allowed?

- Create specific flair for ‘problematic’ → again, where is the line drawn?

- When a post receives enough reports about the theme and not the craft, leave a high-level moderator comment explaining how to block a user and/or hide a post → might be ignoring a problem rather than solving the issue for the sub.

With that being said, there’s only so much we can police. We want crafters to feel welcome, but with all the moderating we do, it would be hard to add on a layer of “educate a crafter on why the creator of this IP is bad” on top of our normal roles. We also don’t want our subreddit to become a lightning rod for debate. Ultimately, we are a crafts subreddit. While a few comments about inspiration of a craft is allowed, and questioning of said inspiration is also welcome, once we're many comments deep in multiple comment threads with no mention of crafting, it is no longer an appropriate conversation for r/crafts. There are many other subreddits for discussion and debate where you can converse.

So, what do you all think we should do with these types of posts? If we receive a large variety of ideas, we'll put it together in a survey or poll to further gauge how the subreddit feels. Also, feel free to message the mods if you're uncomfortable commenting on the post.

[u/Lexilogical]

Gaiman, so far as I know, basically was outted for past bad behavior and the most he had done since then is sorta fade away from the public eye.

He isn't using his wealth to try and legalize the shit he did.

I think the argument here is that JKR is still actively harming people. Gaiman is not, unless you have information I don't.

[u/constantchaosclay → u/Lexilogical]

No, I completely agree with you. My argument with Gaiman would be that my buying or amplifying his work puts money in his pocket which he uses for lawyers to get out of repercussions for his behavior. I dont want to fund his defense and the faster he's too broke to avoid consequences, the better.

But JK is 1000% times worse because she actively uses the platform and funds to harm large amounts people - legally strip them of rights, culturally make them pariahs while helping make hate speech acceptable, and physically put their lives at risk.

People literally die with every penny she earns and it lasts as long as people keep sharing the IP and keeping her relevant.

The fact we even are having the discussion is frustrating. Imho, we shouldn't be platforming current and active fascists. Full stop.

[u/Lexilogical → u/constantchaosclay]

Alright, so long as we're on the same page! Cause yeah, I hate to defend Gaiman, but when people put him at the same level of awful as JKR.... It's like "Okay, one of these people fucked up the lives of a few people around him. The other one is trying to fuck up EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF A MINORITY and will take your money, claim that means you also hate that minority, and lobby a government for why we should be able to legally ostracise them."

Like "But these other people are bad!" sorta pales when one of those people is trying to give everyone a right to be bad on a scale of millions and is still actively doing so. Like, do we give Hitler's book a pass because we know Poe was also racist?

[u/Agreeable-Sun368 → u/Lexilogical]

Neil Gaiman is a rapist. He might not be funneling his money into harm (who knows; it was the wealth that he leveraged to rape his son's nanny and the wealth he's using to bankrupt his ex wife (no peach herself, tbh) in custody/divorce proceedings), but he is a rapist. That's more than bad behavior. JKR could wake up tomorrow realizing the error of her ways and funnel that money into pro trans groups. She won't. But she could. Neil Gaiman can never wake up not a rapist.

I'm not defending JKR or her bullshit but I think this is really minimizing the harm Gaiman did and the degree to which stuff related to his IP could be harmful to victims of sexual assault.

[u/Lexilogical → u/Agreeable-Sun368]

Gaiman raped one person. Maybe there was more people that didn't come forward, we can assume that more people were harmed tangentially from his shit, his son was harmed, the friends and family of the nanny harmed.... We are still numbering in tens of people. Also, Gaiman is not trying to say what he did was okay, he is saying he didn't do it

JKR is actively harming millions of trans people every day. If she woke up tomorrow and had a change of heart, it would take years for her to undo it, during which millions more of trans people would continue to be harmed, some in unrecoverable ways, thanks to her work. While she might not have personally harmed or killed a trans person, her words and actions have lead to trans people being attacked and killed.

Yeah, I'm definitely saying JKR has done far more harm. Gaiman is a shit person, but JKR has done harm on an exponentially worse degree

[u/obtusewisdom → u/Lexilogical]

This is precisely why Redditors shouldn’t be trying to parse who is “worse” like some villain Olympics, and why trying to mod it is insanity.