[info]diachrony in [info]07refugees

finally, the post we've been waiting for in lj_biz

Illegal and Harmful Content Policy Clarifications posted in lj_biz by a new LJ username: "theljstaff."
Tags: ,

Posted on Aug. 7th, 2007 at 07:52 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Comments

[info]ex_zc478

"threats against the President"

That's it then, I'm going to be banned in no time.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 03:05 am (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]diachrony

It's actually a serious concern.

Some few years back, an LJ user made scathing, satirical, inventive (and quite clearly FAUX ~ it was similar to an abrasive standup comedy routine on cable TV) pseudo-threats against the current Prez. Not even so much "threats" as what she "wished" would happen to him.

Someone reported her post to the FBI.

THE FBI SHOWED UP ON HER DOORSTEP.

I kid you not. And they said Sorry, you're clearly not a threat, but anyone who's reported, we have to visit and investigate, and YOU WILL HAVE AN FBI RECORD FOREVER ... sorry again.

Such is life in our current repressive theocracy.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 03:11 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]0vary

i thought that turned out to not be true :o
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 03:29 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]diachrony

I was around at the time, along with a lot of other people ~ it came up again recently ~ and I've never heard it was untrue or a hoax. We sort of ran in the same LJ circles back then, so I'd assume I would have heard something ... but of course I can't be certain.

I just googled the thing, but I could not find anything regarding the truth or falsehood of her story other than a skeptical rant by another blogger.

::shrugs::

Who knows? I'd err on the side of caution, anyway. If not the FBI, then possible bannination awaits those who get a mite carried away.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 03:45 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]0vary

my mother and i used to always say things against the president, including bombs and such, sarcastically, whenever we would talk on the phone

for some reason of being rebellious or something

my mother is a terrible influence on me
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 04:05 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]red_sunflower

I was around too and I did read the story in her own journal. As far as I know the event was real.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 03:39 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]poleva

I posted this in my own journal, but I figured I'd ask over here: does this mean that the suspended users were also reported to law enforcement?

coffeechica quite conveniently fails to elaborate on her response and with LJ's failure to clarify whether the art was suspended because it was deemed to be child pornography (first they so then they seem to imply that it was) I fear that ponderosa121 and elaboration might have been reported to the authorities and that worries me quite a bit.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 05:35 am (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]diachrony

It will take me my natural lifetime to read every comment there ... okay, so that's a slight exaggeration ... but, I'm actually working my way through the comments right now (though I need to stop & go to bed).

I just read the comments at your link. I have this to say: the art depicted WAS NOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Period.

Even if it had been clearly a six-year-old instead of a friggin' EIGHTEEN year old. It's a drawing of fictional characters; that is not considered child pornography in the United States.

However. Something that is not "child porn" may still be considered to meet the definition of "obscene" which would make it illegal.

But that requires a court determining whether or not it's obscene, I believe.

And what I took from the lj_biz post was that they're choosing to err very much on the side of caution and remove things that aren't child porn but that *just might* be considered legally "obscene" for depicting minors having sex acts ... just in case they might get in trouble for having it on their site ... not because it's clearly illegal, but because the question might arise and they don't want to have to deal with the ensuing hot legal water.

So, I actually don't think they would have reported these users to the authorities. I don't believe there is enough to warrant such a report.

Consider: Yaoi is available in any Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore you can walk into! With that in mind, ponderosa121 and elaboration probably would have more to worry about when it comes to copyright ~ the fact that their characters looked like certain living actors and represented JKR's characters might cause them trouble if the right people noticed. But I've not heard anyone mention this aspect.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 05:51 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]poleva

Those were pretty much my thoughts as well. I certainly don't think it was child porn in any way shape or form but there seems to be a bit of waffling now on LJs part as to just why they deleted it. Originally they claimed it was due to a lack of artistic merit although in this post they have denied that. I don't think they would have reported it but I don't have very much faith in any of them right now.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 06:19 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]featheredwolf

Well gee that was worth waiting for. They admit now that some things are banned *even if they're not against the law and are protected by the first amendment* but then keep saying that they have to comply with the law. And they judge character ages in art based on 1 - stated ages by the artist, 2 - outside information and then if they can't do that 3 - subjectively looking at the picture. So why was ponderosa banned? She didn't state the ages so 1 is out. 2 - it was for a story where Harry is 22 so they obviously didn't use that as information. 3 - looking at the pic... you'd be hard pressed to claim he was any younger than 17 and I didn't think he looked like a minor but ok someone may have thought so... so that's why they banned her? Based on someone's subjective opinion?

The only other possibility is by outside information they said that canonically they couldn't have had sex after Harry turned 18 therefore he must be a minor which shows they have no grasp at all of what their users are doing since when has canon ever been an obstacle to a determined fan artist/writer?

Their policy still isn't terribly clear since they admit it is subjective, they refuse to add it to the TOS so people can easily find it, and they ban rather than suspend.

Oh and they admit the idiot, whatever his name is, offended a lot of people but hey he needed to 'blow of steam' and it was just 'bad judgement' so they're not going to do anything to it.

Ponderosa showed bad judgement by posting a picture of two adults and expecting it not to be against the rules and she gets permanently banned. Whatshisname shows bad judgement by insulting a group of their customers and he gets a free pass.

Their priorities are pretty clear - advertisers, then staff, then maybe customers if they have time.

Well at least it makes it easier to decide not to renew my paid account.

Now does anyone know a way I can upload 3000 icons to photobucket (or some such place) so I can post them here without having to upload each one individually? Because that's going to take me till my account runs out in November otherwise.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 05:39 am (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]keieeeye

I use Flock to upload things to my bucket. It's basically a browser that has an image uploader integrated into it, so you select the files you want off your hard drive and drag-and-drop them into the uploader window.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 06:12 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]featheredwolf

Thank you I'll look that up. I have web photos pro for uploading to my scrapbook but I couldn't find something for photobucket. That sounds just the kind of thing I'm looking for.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 03:18 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]clare_dragonfly

I very much agree with the majority of your comment, but wanted to clarify one tiny point--"it was for a story where Harry is 22". Actually, Ponderosa has said that the image was not an illustration for any particular story, though it was done for someone whose stories she's illustrated before, in which Harry was an adult. Unfortunately I don't have the link to that post, but I believe it was posted in this community within the last few days.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 04:39 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]featheredwolf

Oh ok, that's what I read from a lot of people in the comments there, doesn't really make much difference because he didn't look underage. But either way they either banned her for lack of artistic merit like they said in the email, which means they didn't think it was underage (because all underage portrayals in adult art are against their rules) but they were judging it based on the obscenity thing, or they banned her based on a subjective opinion of what was in the image.

If it was the 'artistic merit' case I can't see how any adult images of any kind are allowed.

It's bad enough we have volunteers trying to interpret the law on the abuse team without any legal experience, now they're art critics too?
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 05:26 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]lilithilien

And did you see this "official clarification" by coffeechica?
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 05:51 am (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]diachrony

I'm in the middle of the pro-ana kerfuffle on the thread right now. Boggling. I don't know if I should puke or snarf down popcorn.

Or snarf down popcorn, and then puke.

BAD BAD BAD JOKE. SO SORRY.

::slaps own hand::
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 05:58 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]diachrony

(Clarification: by "in the middle" I mean "reading" not "contributing".)
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 05:59 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]lilithilien

oh I must be really tired right now because that made me giggle much more than it should.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 06:02 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]featheredwolf

With all the way they're panicking over needing to protect themselves legally I would find it highly amusing if a parent of someone on a pro-ana comm sued them.

And yet again they're sounding unprofessional - I know that it's an internet community but when 'speaking for LJ' as she says she is does she really have to use *smilies*? If I did that in some kind of professional email I'd at the very least get warned.

But hey pro-ana isn't about self harm ... so now as well as them acting as lawyers without any qualifications and apparently art critics, they're Dr ElJay as well.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 03:23 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]nerami_siela

No smilies??? *horrified look* But that would totally make her comments almost insulting!

*snort* ...sorry
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 03:34 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]nerami_siela

*insert a long bout of sarcastic laughter*

All in all... I haven't read comments yet because, quite frankly, the amount of them makes me dizzy... but the post itself made me cringe my nose and go wash the bad taste from my mouth.

If I wanted to be persecuted for my tastes in literature and art, I'd have moved from the democratic part of the world long time ago.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 03:30 pm (UTC) | | Reply

[info]funsize

That post keeps freezing up my IJ everytime I try to read it....
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 06:14 pm (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]diachrony

The LJ post has a huge number of comments (I don't know, but they may have already hit the 5000 comment limit) and I'm not surprised it's loading slowly or freezing, what with all the traffic!
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 06:21 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply