[info]emilie_burns in [info]07refugees

A bit of confusion

I'm not sure if I wound up coming to this conclusion due to the part about membership in adult-oriented communities, or if I've read something on the matter somewhere else. I honestly cannot remember.

http://www.insanejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=132

Is it, or is it not, more or less mandatory on IJ to flock explicit material? If it's not, I want to be able to correct my errors on the matter, because I've advised a few people that it is. I'm sure I remembered reading something on that, but it's not in that faq where I thought it was, so now I'm wondering if I'm just going crazy.

I'd ask in Support or somewhere like that, and I will if no one's certain at the moment, but with the new server move and the OpenID errors, it's really something that can wait until things settle down. In the meantime I figured I'd ask in here, since the boundary lines are a part of why we all came here from LJ.
Tags: ,

Comments

I've been wondering for a week or so whether it's worthwhile to suggest to [info]squeaky that this particular FAQ be clarified, and this suggests to me that the answer is yes. (Once the stuff with the server is taken care of, anyway.)

One of the things that makes it ambiguous is that it refers both to "indecent" material and to the Miller test when talking about what's permissible where. The reason this is problematic is that the Miller standard is the test for whether material is *obscene*, which is something very different from whether material is indecent. Obscenity has no First Amendment protection, but indecency does, and material can be indecent without running afoul of the Miller standard.

This being the case, I've been assuming that what the FAQ meant was that obscenity was restricted -- otherwise, there's no reason to mention Miller at all. But it does make sense that IJ might want certain indecent material to be locked and/or kept in adult communities -- that is, the FAQ might not refer only to obscene material. The document is ambiguous enough, I now think, that it's worth asking for a review once the current technical difficulties have been dealt with.