Strikethrough 07

[kyanited]

Just for the record, I'm siding with LJ and WFI.

http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html

Sure, LJ may have jumped the gun, but they admitted mistakes, and since they only suspended and not deleted the journals, the few truly "innocent" journals can be restored.

I wonder how many people jumped the bash-WFI-bandwagon without even reading their statement:
http://www.warriorsforinnocence.org

Apparently it was LJ's decision to extend the criteria/action.

But I also think people read and agreed to LJ's rules and regulations when they subscribed, plus LJ is no lawless space, everyone shold be aware of that, and should be aware that if they create profiles that potentially indicate illegal content or content that does not keep with the rules, they'll be picked up. Just like I may be picked up when I'm walking the street alone at night with a crowbar and a flashlight, even if I'm just coming from [perfectly legal] work.
[And I already have been picked up by the police just for walking along the highway with a hammer, a compass and a helmet in daylight. But I was aware what kind of impression I might give to some people and was neither surprised nor unprepared.]

People need to take some responsibility for their own actions, too, namely naming their journals, creating profiles, describing their communities. I don't think anyone is really 'innocent' here. (Except maybe the children whose nude pictures were posted in years-old LJ communities.)

Comments

[lishesque.livejournal.com]

I think most people don't have a problem with their intent - cracking down on the promotion of paedophillia. It's the way LJ handled it (suspension without warning, and altering their Terms Of Service retroactively), and the way in which it basically reacted in a knee-jerk fashion to pressures from a militant ultra-conservative xenophobic group.

And then there's the fact that LJ didn't even release a statement to its users (and paying customers) until today, long after it had made statements to third party groups.

Finally, although many will disagree with me I'm sure, I personally don't have a problem with depictions of incest/rape/child molestation in literature. It's like with murder... writing about it isn't a crime - acting on it is. Paedophillia is a psychological condition, acting on it is a crime. LJ's clause about "illegal interests" is flawed. Lots of things are illegal in various places, but people list them as interests all the same (gay marriage, for example). Which is why I have a problem with what's happened. Paedophillia and incest is taboo in our society, but homosexuality was too, once. And in lots of places around the world (and in our own past too), girls get married at very young ages to much older men. Where do you draw the line? I don't know. But I don't believe that censorship is the answer.

Anyway, just my two cents. :)

[muffin-song.livejournal.com]

I think this is well said. LJ may have been able to legally do this, but it didn't get them many points from me as my journal service provider in regards to the way this was handled.

Personally I'm a little reluctant of quickly jumping on band wagons of things that are this impassioned on either side, but I am interested in seeing what the outcome is here.

[kyanited.livejournal.com]

Well, like stated below, I want to look at their intentions. And there has been some collateral damage people started to confuse with the actual target.

What bothers me also is that e.g. 'suspension' suddenly turned into 'deletion', which just isn't true. Or that WFI is to blame for the unjust suspensions, which also isn't true. From their statement on their website I gather *they* did evaluate the journals and communities they reported, and they reported specific journals and communities, not just a list of interests.

LJ admitted that part of what they did, resp. how they did it, was wrong, but I still say fighting child porn is more important than protecting inconsiderate adults who have a choice to be here, who choose to describe their community this or that way, and who, obviously, can fight for themselves.

Afaik, fandom, fanfiction, fanart, LGBT or BDSM have not been the target, just some LJ's from these areas have been unluckily caught in LJ's over-eagerness to act.

The statement, if I read that right, also says that mentioning rape or child porn or incest in literature and fanfiction was not the TARGET, but given the circumtstances *some* of it got caught in the net. From what I've read they were targeting comms and journals that *encourage* illegal activities and [sexually] exploit innocents/minors/children.

And if LJ retroactively changed its rules and regulations, then the respective journal owners should take legal action (because it's a contract between two parties) and not activate a mob, where the last people to join only get a bizarre distortion of what actually happened.

I think people are overreacting, and at least partly [dis]missing the original intention.


And lastly, afaik freedom of speech only has to be granted and protected by the government and only applies to government-owned, public places and areas. On private property, in private media, on private webspace, the host/owner is free to implement further restrictions or, well, censorship. So, LJ is free to make certain censorship part of their rules, and everybody is free to decide whether or not they agree to these rules.

I'm moderator in a public forum on private webspace that restricts all content to PG-13 and bans people who don't adhere to the rules [because of where the webserver is, we're even backed by the law and can report people to their ISP's]. Sure we have had our share of discussions on censorship and freedom of speech, but it's the host's decision [within the limits of the laws] what they allow and what not. You can also say it's a form of censorship that a techsupport forum doesn't allow discussion of movies or cooking recipes.

And if LJ doesn't want offensive content of their own definition, that's their choice.

What I indeed don't agree with is if they really changed their rules w/o announcement. But I haven't seen any proof of this, so I can just say IF they did it, it's not right, and maybe illegal, but that also depends on what their rules stated initially. If they stated from the beginning that rules can be changed without notice and actions can be taken based on these new rules without notice, then people agreed to that, too, and basically have been warned.

[And I strongly, and admittedly very emotionally, disagree with putting incest and paedophilia, which are punishable because *really* innocents get hurt (babies from incestuous relationships do have a higher probability of disabilities and deformation) on the same level as homosexuality, in the definition of a [sexual] relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex.]

[lishesque.livejournal.com]

Hmm, you're right. I shouldn't have confused the issues of paedophilia and incest with homosexuality. I agree that paedophilia and incest are crimes that have real victims whereas homosexuality isn't (although I'm sure there are a lot of right-wing groups who would argue otherwise). What I should have clarified was that homosexuality was once (and still is) considered to be on the same level as incest and paedophilia in literature and fictional representations. In many countries there's still mass public hysteria when a gay couple is depicted in an ad, or on a TV show... which is why I always look at these calls for censhorship with a jaundiced eye.

I'm not placing any stock in what WFI claims though. I tend to be a little skeptical with anyone or any group connected to someone who has graphics that say, "Redneck Mafia" (on a Confederate flag), "America - Saving Europe's ass since 1917", and "Reject the U.N.". Sounds a tad extremist to me.

In any case, contacting LJ to delete any child pornography/paedophile groups is a stupid move. In doing so, they've simply driven the real criminals underground. With all the hysteria going on, the actual people who were breaking the law will be keeping a low profile from now on, making it all the harder for the real authorities to catch and prosecute them.

[kyanited.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't agree with "let's make it easy for criminals..." I will lock my door, even if that means burglars or other criminals go elsewhere where it's harder for the police to find them.

And, at least where I live, providers of webspace, owners of message boards and forums and blogs could be held responsible for the content, even if it's written by someone else. So even if LJ would tolerate criminals using their webspace, real authorities might not. They might eventually just shut down LJ and there would be no option for protest.

And I thought that suspending the accounts (vs. deleting them) might (among others) have two reasons a) the option to restore accounts that were unjustly suspended [which happened now] and b) to secure evidence in cases where not just LJ's rules are violated, but also the law.

I think it's right that something was done, if nothing else, going against paedophilia is setting a sign. Just because in some countries it's legal to marry children, doesn't mean we have to accept and adopt that practice. LJ IS bound by US law, because it IS a US-based provider. No arab law, no european law no african law applies, even though LJ can be viewed/used from there. Or not. See Thai King and Youtube.

The TOS carry the note: "Last Revision April 2006". I don't think they secretly changed them or that it would be legal to do so.

"ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
LiveJournal, Inc., dba LiveJournal.com, ("LiveJournal") provides the following service to you, subject to these Terms of Service ("TOS"), which may be updated periodically without prior notice. You can review the current version of the TOS at: http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml. Failure to comply with these TOS may result in account revocation.

Should Content be found or reported to be in violation with, but not limited to, the following terms, it will be LiveJournal's sole discretion as to what action should be taken.

You agree to NOT use the Service to:

1.) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive to another's privacy (up to, but not excluding any address, email, phone number, or any other contact information without the written consent of the owner of such information), hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

2.) Harm minors in any way;

10.) Intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law;

13.) Promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any governmental entity, group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals. This may include, but is not limited to, providing instructions on how to assemble bombs, grenades, and other weapons or incendiary devices;


REVISIONS
LiveJournal may at any time revise these Terms of Service by updating this posting. By using this Site, you agree to be bound by any such revisions and should therefore periodically visit this page to determine the then-current Terms of Service to which you are bound."

*shrug* They were right. And while fandom was not the primary or intended target *this* time, with their copyright and intellectual property clauses fanfiction and fanart *could* be the target, and everybody has been warned with these TOS.

So the actions they chose to take were unpopular and did some unintended damage. But if I look at the much cited pornish_pixies, I can't help but think that while they might not belong to the intended targets, they're not exactly 'innocent victims', either.

[mizuno-youko.livejournal.com]

But I also think people read and agreed to LJ's rules and regulations when they subscribed, plus LJ is no lawless space, everyone shold be aware of that, and should be aware that if they create profiles that potentially indicate illegal content or content that does not keep with the rules, they'll be picked up.

In that case, I suppose it wouldn't bother you to see some yuri and Takarazuka fandom journals and communities permanently suspended for violating copyright law (or for simply including something in their interest lists that happened to be illegal, like "incest" or "gay marriage")? After all, by your logic, they've got it coming.
Sure, people know that livejournal can delete any journal at any time for any reason. But it's because livejournal hasn't abused this part of their TOS that people continue to give them their business.

[kyanited.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, I think fanfiction and fanart live on borrowed time and lots of tolerance from the copyright holders. And people who put interests on their profile that indicate illeagal activity, yes, they have it coming. I know my LJ could be easily targeted just for having all the Takarazuka icons. I know it, and I'm taking the risk.

And incest and child pornography are illegal and can be prosecuted and punished, while gay marriage, afaik is not illegal in the sense of criminal law.

I'm looking at their intentions here. There has been some "collateral damage", but I have the impression people started to confuse that with the actual target.

[mizuno-youko.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, I think fanfiction and fanart live on borrowed time and lots of tolerance from the copyright holders. And people who put interests on their profile that indicate illeagal activity, yes, they have it coming. I know my LJ could be easily targeted just for having all the Takarazuka icons. I know it, and I'm taking the risk.

There's a big difference in my mind between "illegal" and "dangerous" or "harmful" (there are plenty of ridiculous laws out there that aren't even enforced these days!) Also between "fiction" and "reality." I don't think fandom should be targeted unless it's actually doing something harmful (I mean, come on, think priorities here--I'd rather see law enforcement and whoever else focusing on people who are actually dangerous), and I think it's reasonable for people to want to give their business to places where they won't be constantly afraid of losing their accounts.

And incest and child pornography are illegal and can be prosecuted and punished, while gay marriage, afaik is not illegal in the sense of criminal law.

Well, how about sodomy, then? That's still illegal in some US states, AFAIK.

I'm looking at their intentions here. There has been some "collateral damage", but I have the impression people started to confuse that with the actual target.

Even LiveJournal themselves have admitted that they didn't handle this as well as they could have: http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html

It's their poor execution of the situation, and the lumping in of fiction with reality (and non-pedophiles with pedophiles), that understandably freaked people out. It might seem like overkill after the fact, but I am glad to see that so many people are concerned with freedom of speech--I think that's something worth fighting for even when it's not something the company is obligated to give us.

Also, good intentions are important, but they're not everything. If we all just sat back and said, "Oh, they screwed some people over and made a big mess of their customer relations, but since they were trying to do the right thing, it's fine with us!" then they could walk all over us any time they wanted. They have to keep their users happy if they want their site to continue to be a success, and it's the responsibility of the users to speak out when livejournal does something they don't agree with.

[midoriseppen.livejournal.com]

I have mixed feelings about what has happened here. Everyone's pretty much said what I feel on it. The other issue that bothered me so much, coming from LJ handling this so poorly, is that they deleted the journals and communities of survivors and support groups for those survivors of such crimes. I think perhaps LJ shouldn't have rushed this decision and actually researched the journals/communities they were suspending and deleting. Sure, it would have been a lot of work, but something like this shouldn't be taken lightly.