censorship rambles (pertaining to "pro-ship/fiction")

this blog will be my addition to the recent pro-shipper conversation that's been circling around spacehey, as i am incapable of not giving my opinion on everything. this will also act as my version of 'shooting a gun within my neighborhood to keep rent down'. if i wasn't blogging too close to the sun before, i sure am now!

this will be spoke less from the context of fandom/shipping, but more in legality, as well as diving a bit into the psychological impacts.

please disregard all the dashes i will be using in this blog.... 

what is the definition of pro-ship/pro-fiction?

"ship and let ship" is the jist of it. pro-ship is the belief that anyone should be allowed to ship whatever they want without harassment. this includes disliking whatever ship they want without harassment. people often mistake this for dark/com-shipping, which is a type of shipper who ships relationships that would be deemed toxic or illegal if occurring in real life. dark-shippers tend to always be pro-ship, but not all pro-shippers are dark-shippers.

pro-fiction is the belief that anything should be allowed to exist within the realm of fiction, no matter how taboo. the term "pro-fiction" is a type of anti-fascist label. 

can fictional content be illegal?

depends on where you are, really. many people have quoted the PROTECT act of 2003, which more specifically targets the sexual depiction of minors as against united states law, including fictional depictions -- using that as an argument that fiction can be illegal. however, people don't seem to know that in 2008 the PROTECT act was updated to no longer include depictions made via artistic means, as stated under U.S.C title 18, section 2256.

"The term "indistinguishable" used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults." (U.S.C title 18 § 2256 via law.cornell.edu)

i'm only bringing this specific law up because i've seen it used in argument against pro-fiction many times. in many other countries, it is still illegal. however, i do believe that legality should not be a defining factor in someone's moral compass (that sounds terrible both in and out of context, but bear with me.)

i don't really think people use legality as a guide for morality, but it does seem like many are using it as an excuse to back their own beliefs up. so regardless of legality, most social media users would condemn dark-fiction that isn't portrayed in a negative manner.

let's talk about other countries for a second. in china, 2024, over 50 haitang BL authors were arrested by anhui province police for "creating and disseminating obscene content to make a profit." at this time, the targeted people were people who were making money off of their art. (haitang literature city is a website made for chinese writers to publish their, kind of similar to ao3)

this then happened again in 2025, where over 300 authors were arrested, many of which were not making money off of their art, and were mostly university students with scarce finances. these arrests were made by lanzhou police. 

(i may not translate these excerpts with full accuracy, as i haven't practiced my chinese language skills in a while... but it should still get the point across. feel free to correct any mistakes.)

"2024年夏，安徽绩溪警方以“制作、传播淫秽物品牟利”为由，将执法矛头指向海棠文学城的创作者。这场行动的核心争议，在于法律对 “淫秽物品”的界定与文学创作边界的激烈碰撞。" TL: "In the summer of 2024, police in Jixi county, Anhui province, targeted creators on Haitang Literature City, with the reason of "creating and disseminating obscene content to make a profit". The core controversy of this action lies in the intense collision between the legal definition of 'obscene content' and the boundaries of creative literature."

"而与绩溪的办案标准不同，此次卷入兰州案的海棠作者，存在涉案金额偏低，甚至无个人经济获利的情形。" TL: "Unlike the case handling standards in Jixi, the authors involved in the Lanzhou case had relatively low sums of money involved, some even having no personal financial gain." (兰州警方，跨省抓了一批耽美作者…… via 163.com)

other related articles:                                                                                                              

>兰州警方跨省抓捕女性网络小说作者 法律与文学自由边界引发热议 (about the lanzhou arrests)

> Repost: Haitang Authors Arrested: Where Is The Way Out For Danmei Works Frequently Involved In Criminal Charges? (about the anhui arrests)  

no western articles have been used, as western articles tend to exaggerate or fabricate issues happening in non-western countries.

i do have a point to all of this, i swear. the above situation is an example of how legality and morality don't always go hand-in-hand. this case is one in a country where sexuality is seen as an immoral thing, even more harshly towards same-sex relations, even through the medium of fictional literature.

let's talk about censorship, and how the "pro-ship" debate ties into it.

only a few months ago, an australian-based anti-porn group named Collective Shout pushed payment providers to stop providing services to steam and itch.io, with the claim that they were hosting hundreds of adult games that included sexual taboo themes. this resulted in itch.io removing all NSFW content, rather than just the content mentioned in collective shout's claims. 

there's also ID verification stuff happening in the UK. forcing users to provide personal documents to be able to view adult content -- this has not only applied to adult/NSFW content, however. there have been reports of informative/educational sites that have been ID blocked.

in australia, many social media apps have took themselves off the australian app stores, or are now demanding ID verification/face scanning due to the new 16+ social media law. i've been told that this will potentially soon be happening in america, and other EU countries.

all of these are huge invasions of privacy from governments and corporations. taking away the right to individual choice

censorship is a bad thing, and i know that most people would agree with that especially now in recent years with all of these restrictions being put in place. but to be anti-censorship, people will also have to acknowledge that this also applies to fictional media. 

censorship will not stop at taboo fictional content. it is impossible to give governments or companies the green light to get rid of art that depicts topics like non-con, incest, etc. without also opening the door to even more extreme restrictions. eventually getting rid of art that depicts these themes even in a negative light, to getting rid of art depicting queer themes, to getting rid of art made by people of colour, and onwards. calling for any kind of censorship or laws against fiction will only provide as a gateway into fascism. 

sites like ao3 and the internet archive (and piracy in general, honestly), which were made for the sake of media preservation and creation without censorship, are actually very important sites when it comes to the battle against fascism. not saying that ao3 doesn't have it's own major issues, like moderation of RPF (real-person fiction, which generally does not fall under the pro-fiction umbrella, as it involves a real and existing/existed person), and the anti-gaza bullshit they've feeding.

what are the psychological impacts of dark-media consumption?

this section will be kind of a response to other blogs that i've seen that are related to the topic of pro-ship. in a few of those blogs, many of the arguments made were either talking about behaviours that affect real, living creatures, or the consumption of media where real people are being harmed. 

creating/consuming dark media is actually known as a healthy coping mechanism in the psychological world, as it is a type of art therapy. it might not be helpful for everyone, and it may even worsen symptoms, but that does not change the fact that it is an actual, helpful coping mechanism for most -- especially for victims themselves. 

at most, fictional media may exemplify pre-existing aggressive tendencies, especially in kids, but it will never outright cause the behaviour, as already debunked from the 'video games cause violence' debacle. the fault should not be placed onto creators and artists, it should be a parents responsibility to make sure their kids aren't engaging with content that isn't meant for their age. there is also a stigma against people who suffer from paraphilic attraction/intrusive thoughts, leading them to being unable to get the mental health support that they need. 

quotes and sources relating to this topic:

> "Take comfort in knowing that watching incest porn does not necessarily mean you secretly want an incestuous sexual experience. Imagining a violent sexual encounter doesn’t necessarily mean you want to enact that experience. Fantasy does not automatically equal desire to act." (What Do Your Taboo Sexual Fantasies Say About You? content warning: contains suggestive imagery)

> "There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent. And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship." (Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment)

> Prolonged Exposure Therapy (this article talks about a CBT tactic that is very similar to how survivors use fiction to cope)

> If i like lolicon, does it mean i'm a pedophile? A therapist's view

well, if it wasn't already obvious, i am pro-fiction. this will be my last blog under the news and politics subject, I SWEAR. i am currently running on two redbulls and a dream, so i'm sorry for any spelling or grammar mistakes.

please feel free to provide your own thoughts in the comments. i'd appreciate more actual discussion, rather than insult throwing, but i can't stop you.

if you've read this far, thank you so much!