?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Huh?

So I'm reading posts and comments about LJ Drama and people considering leaving LJ over some issue, but so far, I haven't seen any mention of the actual issue.

Does someone want to clue me in?

Comments

( 18 comments — Leave a comment )
ericcoleman
Aug. 9th, 2007 03:52 pm (UTC)
filkertom has quite a bit about it in his LJ. Personally I think it is your basic "the people who run the service we pay for won't let us say whatever we want" net-ish nonsense.
(Deleted comment)
ericcoleman
Aug. 9th, 2007 04:28 pm (UTC)
2 people were booted. 2

The pro ana stuff is repulsive, but not illegal. Kids getting having sex with grownups IS illegal.
katyhh
Aug. 9th, 2007 04:34 pm (UTC)
Yeah, but it was *fiction* and *drawn* figures, not real ones, and never intended to be real ones. Granted, I'm not a slash fan at *all* but to conclude that someone who is into HP slash equals a pedophile is imo not correct.
ericcoleman
Aug. 9th, 2007 04:37 pm (UTC)
it doesn't matter, kiddy porn is illegal
patoadam
Aug. 9th, 2007 11:17 pm (UTC)
LJ's explanations are inconsistent and confusing (which is part of the problem), but is my impression that LJ is not claiming that the banned artwork violates child pornography laws. They appear to be claiming that the artwork (a) violates obscenity laws that apply regardless of the ages of the persons portrayed and (b) portrays minors. Based on what I know about the drawing catalana describes below, I would say that both claims are plausible but debatable.
patoadam
Aug. 9th, 2007 11:42 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry, my comment may not have been entirely accurate. Change (a) to read:

"meets the legal definition of obscenity, that applies regardless of the ages of the persons portrayed".

The question of under what circumstances obscenity is illegal in the U.S. seems to be complicated, and seems to vary from state to state.
vixyish
Aug. 10th, 2007 12:52 am (UTC)
In addition to what patoadam said: the US Supreme Court has already struck down the law that included drawings/paintings in the definition of child pornography. So, while child pornography is illegal, what was deleted isn't child pornography, in the eyes of the law.

That said, LJ/sixapart can ban whatever content they want on their site. They are perfectly within their rights to do that; it doesn't have to be illegal to be against their rules.

While some people disagree with the idea that the content is objectionable, what most people are actually angry about is not the content, but the fact that the users weren't asked to remove the content, or even, at first, told which of their works were considered objectionable. SixApart has wording in their user agreement stating that users will get a warning, so people got mad about that.

In addition, users had repeatedly asked SixApart to set out a clear guideline, in writing, of what type of content was allowed on their site and what wasn't-- and they repeatedly refused to do so. So, people didn't know what the rules were. So they got mad about that, too.

So, people got deleted without any warning, for failure to abide by rules that weren't specified, and without being given any opportunity to stop what they were doing and abide by said rules.

That's pretty much it.
patoadam
Aug. 10th, 2007 08:52 am (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent comment!
katyhh
Aug. 9th, 2007 04:27 pm (UTC)
Sorry guys (Scott and ericcoleman). I deleted the posts cuz my English is ... errr ... strange today *g* ... sometimes, not being a native speaker in the language you want to explain something in, sucks *g*
ericcoleman
Aug. 9th, 2007 04:29 pm (UTC)
I got the response in email, and it made perfect sense to me. I responded above.
katyhh
Aug. 9th, 2007 04:35 pm (UTC)
I know. I just didn't want to leave the confused (to me *g*) stuff on the web ;-)
sistercoyote
Aug. 9th, 2007 04:08 pm (UTC)
Basically, a couple of people were banninated for having "underage" Harry Potter pornish drawings (seriously NSFW so I'm not going to link).

Essentially, it's not likely to have an effect on you unless you've become a rabid fanboy when I wasn't looking. ;)
(Deleted comment)
pafuts
Aug. 9th, 2007 05:32 pm (UTC)
Melissa, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to stand up and scream over some stuff that might be considered kiddy porn. I'd much rather err on the side of caution there.

And I think it's in horrible taste for ANYONE to be likening LIVEJOURNAL to the Holocaust.

spiritdance
Aug. 9th, 2007 05:39 pm (UTC)
Amanda, my apologies for offending you. It was not intentional, by any means; however, this subject has obviously hit a sore point for me.

I have deleted the comment.
pafuts
Aug. 9th, 2007 08:00 pm (UTC)
I sent you an email! The only addy I have is the gmai account. :)
catalana
Aug. 9th, 2007 05:31 pm (UTC)
One of the drawings was a Snape/Harry drawing in which Harry is not clearly underage. (I haven't seen the other one, so I have no comment on it.) Because this drawing seemed to be borderline, there is a lot of disgust that the user was permanently banned with no warning.

Part of the problem is that when the last bunch of fan fiction/picture stuff went down, LJ said that they would issue warnings or delete the offensive material, but not ban the user right away without warning. This is not what they did. So a lot of people are annoyed for them seeming to contradict themselves.

It's an interesting problem, philosophically. Legally, yes, the laws are written so that if it features a minor having sex it is child pornography *if it has no artistic merit.* However, that leaves a very subjective element in - how do we determine what has artistic merit? And, for that matter from a philosophical standpoint, what is wrong with it if it involves only fictional beings?

It's easy to make an argument against any kind of pornography that involves actual children or anyone else who cannot consent (unconscious people, animals, people with mental deficiencies.) However, it's less clear who is being harmed in the case of fiction or drawings. (This is a problem for people arguing against adult pornography, too. If you want to argue that, for instance, porno movies degrade the actresses in them (who are actually real human beings), you can certainly make that claim. But if you're looking at, say, an erotic cartoon, you have to make a much more abstract claim about the effect of such things on society etc. I find this fascinating, because I love to watch my class try to explain what (objectionable) pornography is without making all museums off-limits.)
spiritdance
Aug. 9th, 2007 05:43 pm (UTC)
Thank you for saying some of what I was trying to say without stepping on toes.
catalana
Aug. 9th, 2007 06:29 pm (UTC)
Heh. That's my job. *grin* In one of my classes we talk about racial communities, national communities, religious communities...I get a *lot* of practice at putting things in a neutral way.
( 18 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2010
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow