Will someone please reassure me that LJ/6A are not the thought police?

[andrewducker]

Because there are now three people in my flist talking about journals and communities being deleted in a purge of anything even tangentially related to paedophilia, including a community discussing Lolita. And one claim that they are deleting journals that have "illegal interests".

Now, I'd like to think that this is all being blown out of proportion, a few people may have done a couple of rash things, but it's all being sorted out. But can anyone point me at anything reassuring?

Alternatively, can anyone point me at an official statement?

If you're interested in what's going on, then you can find more info over at innocence_jihad, this article and this list of suspended users/communities.

Comments

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

It looks like ONE journal for survivors was deleted and my first instinct is that it was a result of too-broad a net being cast in the first wave. If the owner chooses not to raise the issue with livejournal, I tend to believe it will get lost in the shuffle and I won't blame lj for it. Particularly since the TOS specifically mentions support communities.

I find all of this outcry about thought police and censorship to be pretty ridiculous, actually. Because no one is saying you cannot participate in the solicitation of, you know, child rape. They are just saying you cannot do it via livejournal. Journal suspension and deletion for illegal content has always been a clearly spelled out consequence in the TOS.

[andrewducker]

"illegal content"

Writing about rape/incest is now illegal?

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

This is from a response on LJ Abuse:

Journals, on the other hand, may express or imply interest in illegal activity or express or imply a desire to meet and/or interact with others with similar interests, but only if the journal clearly (1) is in opposition to or condemnation of the illegal activity, (2) does not encourage the illegal activity and (3) is not used in furtherance of any illegal activity.

So, writing about rape/incest isn't illegal. Writing in a way that encourages it is in violation of the TOS. When I said illegal content, I should have been more specific and said content that violates the TOS.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I agree entirely.

My take is here
http://community.livejournal.com/fandom_lawyers/38186.html?view=209194#t209194 .

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

I think some of my irritation from this comes from reading comments where a person's journal was mistakenly deleted and, rather than emailing lj about it, they are just going to sit back, bitch, and complain and how fascist lj is being. So lj gets painted as the villian when people are not taking steps to protect themselves, even though they agreed to the damn TOS in the first place.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Great minds think alike:-)

Check out the thread here - this is my last response and see the one or two before it -
http://surliminal.livejournal.com/252245.html?replyto=2383957

(seh said ungrammatically).

Why are people so invested in seeing a site which was set up by hippies, and only reluctantly now makes far less money than it could, as a villainous scheming overlord? i sometimes think another part of the geek phenotype is paranoia..

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

Communication, what a NOVEL idea!

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. And as the "powers that be" have clamped down without any statement as to what they're clamping down on, what the limits of the clampdown are, etc. I'm somewhat concerned. I have discussed illegal things I've done on LJ before, should I be worried that they're going to clamp down on me?

If LJ had put up a post saying "We're getting rid of anything with a hint of child molestation. If we get you by accident then apply at this URL to be reinstated." then people would be a lot happier...

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

Yeah, LJ is absolutely prone to acting before they say anything to anyone and it's a shitty policy. In fact, it is the biggest and most important complaint in this whole situation, I think. However, because we've been through all of this action-before-discussion stuff with them before, I hesitate to leap to worst-case-scenario conclusions, you know? I'm certainly not going to say that LJ handles everything in the best possible way, but I DO think giving them the benefit of the doubt and then handling things like rational human beings (rather than assuming the worst) is a lot more useful than most of what I've seen on my friendslist today.

[andrewducker]

Oh, absolutely. Which is why the title of this post is what it is. And also why it isn't an attack on LJ.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

*nod* I understand. I've known you in this forum for some while now and I'd like to think I know that you aren't for histrionics and whatnot. *grin*

[andrewducker]

Well not about this.

When it comes to people not liking pirate movies _then_ I get histrionic.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

Yes, well, THAT IS SERIOUS BIZNESS!

[marrog.livejournal.com]

*Eek* @ www.ethicalminefield.com

*Ducks and covers*

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

This one too

Note my lack of surprise that a "some of the stuff that uses these words might be okay, but better ban all of it (for now) to be on the safe side" situation has occurred.

It reminds me of the (alleged) banning of any films with the word "chainsaw" in the title.

If the protestations of the innocent (no unpleasant pun intended) are true, then to me it would seem like LJ are a bit stuck - if they're wanting to remove certain kinds of content (whether due to actually enforcing their TOS, or bowing to advertiser pressure, as-yet-undisclosed legal threats or a moral position they wish to profess) LJ is big enough that actually going through and checking it all is going to be a pretty big job. If they're motivated to do it fast, then they're kind of stuck with doing it this way, then perhaps looking at specific cases after the fact.

I don't necessarily agree with acting in such a way, but it does appear to be a fairly common way of doing things, out in the world.

If they deleted all the journals where the people had illegal interests (while admittedly, some work both ways - lolita could refer to the book rather than Emma Bunton or sites I never want to visit) that'd hardly be a great loss. If your interests are "rape, taking illegal drugs, murdering ethnic minorities" then you deserve the kind of trouble that people wearing pro-drugs t-shirts can get whilst wearing them on the street. Sure, maybe you just meant that you like them in an ironic way, or in a play way behind closed bedroom doors - it doesn't say that on your interest though, does it?

LiveJournal and its designates shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remove any content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable

The bold part is I presume the important bit.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

The catch is some of the things being deleted have rape, incest, and such in their interest lists because they're places for the survivors of above to discuss their experiences. Not many of those, but some have been caught in the whirlpool.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

Mmm. It's that wonderful position of disliking the content, but also disliking the censoring of such content.

[andrewducker]

Yup. I love it here.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Now, I'd like to think that this is all being blown out of proportion, a few people may have done a couple of rash things, but it's all being sorted out.

Depends on your point of view. A huge number of users/communities who post fanfiction dealing with controversial topics (pornography, homosexuality, rape, incest, etc) have been deleted. The deletions are going to stay permanent. Whether this is LJ's fault or the fault of the person who reported the users/communities as being "suspicious" is being hotly debated. There's also talk of libel suits from people who are incredibly insulted at the implication that writing (for example) an erotic scene between a twelve-year-old and adult means run out and rape children every chance they get.

Me with being not so keen on the censorship. But it is true that when you get right down to it, LJ is a privately owned business and they can censor things as they like. It's also true though that some of these accounts were permanent/paid for, so the question of where the breach of contract lies is in play too.

In short: One Big Mess. If you want more info, this is one of the big blips on the radar currently. There are others.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

(that was my reasonable response. My not so reasonable response is ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH DAMNED POLITICALLY CORRECT FUCKWITS ARGH ARGH ARGH)

[amberite.livejournal.com]

They have banned at least one rape survivor's journal. And they haven't made an official statement yet. One phone call to a PR person suggests they will make one within about an hour and a half from now. In the meantime, we're spamming the news journal. I'm seeing red.