[info]simons_flower in [info]07refugees

LJ's latest

*headdesk*

First, the policy entry for comment.
Second, the draft proposal for review.

Select portions:
Bandwidth Theft
Last updated: 6 March 2008

Summary

A user is remote-loading content from a third party website without the website owner’s permission.

Action
The offender will be required to cease remotely loading the material. This follows the Standard Compliance Timeline.

Note
Does not apply to simply linking to content. Offender is permitted to continue use of the material if they choose to remotely load it from webspace under their own control.

Explanation
Though we acknowledge that it is the webmaster's responsibility to prevent the unauthorized remote loading of images from their site to LiveJournal, this is not always possible. Likewise, a user may wish for their images to be free from unauthorized reproduction by other LiveJournal users, but still use their website to store content such as background images for their own LiveJournal account. Because the unauthorized remote loading of images can incur a high bandwidth bill, we will require users who are remotely loading images without authorization to cease doing so.

See Also
Copyright Violation
This one I don't get at all. They even admit that it's "the webmaster's responsibility to prevent unauthorized remote loading of images" so why are they getting involved?

Then there's this one, which we all know exactly what this stems from:
Non-Photographic images of minors
Last updated: March 6th, 2008

Summary

Non-photographic images (cartoons, drawings, etc.) of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct are present on LiveJournal.

Action
Users who have posted non-photographic images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct will be required to remove the material, following the Standard Compliance Timeline.

Note
We are not making any determination on the legality of non-photographic images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This is simply a type of content LiveJournal has decided not to host.

Explanation
LiveJournal attempts to grant users the ability to express themselves in as many ways as possible. In the case of this content, however, LiveJournal has chosen not to host it due to its highly controversial nature.
Fuckheads. It wasn't controversial until you pulled accounts without warning for it.

They do, however, finally have a provision about Self Harm (specifically, "Material posted which encourages or instructs others on how to engage in destructive behavior such as, self-injury, self-mutilation, anorexia, drug or alcohol overdose, or suicide.") so that's something. I know one of the primary complaints during the brouhaha last spring was that LJ did nothing about the anorexia and self-harm communities that promoted the behavior, only pulled down artwork about fictional characters nominally under the fictional age of consent.

But then, further on, there's a provision about Unwanted Friending. This is a problem people have reported? Are they insane? How can you stop someone from friending you without banning them? Complete idiots.

Cross-posted from my journal.

Comments

I questioned whether they could go after fiction in the copyright section, but was told by an LJer only if they get a cease and desist letter.

Also, the adult content section is confusing to me. They consider adult content as: graphic and explicit in nature (for example, an image which contains nudity, sexuality, or violence). But later state: If the content is not graphic in nature, but is intended for a mature or adult audience, no action is required. Users are encouraged, but not required, to flag such content as containing "Adult concepts".

So are they stating only imagery can be adult content, not words? And if there are words, only if they describe sex and use swear words? I don't understand.
I think it's because speech is specifically protected by the Supreme Court, yet graphical representations fall in a gray area.

As for the flags, flagging ones journal is currently optional. Yet, if there are too many complaints, they will administratively flag the journal without recourse.

Gah.
Wow...by the time I read through all of that crapola to make sure I'm not breaking a rule...my need to post will have passed.

But they did do it up all pretty like.
I don't think the person who told you that works for LJ.
"So are they stating only imagery can be adult content, not words?" In practice (which is really all that matters, because they are free to ignore their own guidelines), that seems to be the case. So far, they have been ignoring most text, even if it is that ultimate crime, minors engaging in sex. For instance, they passed a story about an 18 year old boy and a 14 year old boy engaged in explicit sex.

What do you want to bet that non-photographic images of minors (that includes 17 year olds) will be banned if they are so much as kissing while fully clothed?
Yeah, I sent them a fic to review with a basically adult Cedric and a.... 16 year old Zacharias? Fuck, I can't even remember now. He might have been 15. But not only did they say it was okay, they gave me feedback on the story itself. :P Fanart for that story though? Man, I'd be banned so fast.
I believe that's because speech is an explicitly protected right under the U.S. Constitution (and fanfic falls under some legislation or Supreme Court ruling I can't recall right now).

Fanart, on the other hand, seems to fall in some gray area that LJ has interpreted to mean is equal to child abuse.

Morons.