(no subject)
Dec. 3rd, 2007 11:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rmI am infuriated.
Check out LJ's responses to my concerns about artistic freedom and hate speech definitions. Note how they don't answer my questions. Note how my rights will be "reviewed"
http://community.livejournal.com/lj_policy/876.html?thread=2156#t2156
Check out LJ's responses to my concerns about artistic freedom and hate speech definitions. Note how they don't answer my questions. Note how my rights will be "reviewed"
http://community.livejournal.com/lj_policy/876.html?thread=2156#t2156
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-03 04:57 pm (UTC)Livejournal is incorporated in California. Yet their anti-discrimination policy does not conform with California law.
Additionally, the content they are treating as child porn (which you'll note was not an issue I raised, but an issue they raised to deflect from my question) doesn't meet the legal definition there of. While they are welcome to regulate as much content as they'd like, as a private company, I'd like to know what the hell it is. I do, however, recognize, that if an answer is forthcoming on that it will take a while, and I okay with that as it is the nature of the beast.
However, Rachel explicitly side-stepped the question on whether it was acceptable to advocate harm against specific or general individuals based on gender or sexual orientation here on LJ. And that's just crass.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-03 05:31 pm (UTC)Yes, and a change that will bring them in line to meet California's anti-discrimination requirements is obviously first on their policy to-do list, to avoid any possible future lawsuits. But until the current policy is reworked, it's unwise for a staffer to answer your question with anything more than "We're reviewing this" or "Please give us your opinion so we can understand and address your concerns."
We all want reassurance that the company will come out against hate speech, immediately, considering their piss-poor track record on the subject. But a blanket statement that doesn't conform very precisely to both Federal and California law would be a First Amendment minefield. If one vents about how they hate any group in their journal, that does not break Federal or California law. If one threatens harm, that does. The ACLU has won case after case for neo-Nazis based on their First Amendment rights. Any sort of detailed response to you other than what she gave would have to be very carefully stated and vetted by their legal dept.
By the way... the content I personally assumed you were referring to was the infamous snape/harry drawing. Since that drawing was not flagged as offensive due to its homosexual content, (despite uproar that claimed it was,) but rather because the character of Harry Potter is/was underage, I assumed that's why she responded the way she did.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-03 08:31 pm (UTC)I don't see that anywhere, nor do I agree with your assertion that this is "obviously" first on their policy list. I expect that a newly acquired company will be busy with other priorities.
The infamous drawing was, on its publication, clearly labeled as a depiction of an older, of-legal-age version of the underage character. And there's always the question of artistic merit, which has not been properly addressed.
More annoying still, LJ's abuse policies have consistently failed to function in a sane and usable fashion. After the image in question - and the entire Strikeout debacle - users had a right to expect some sort of clarification as to what was and was not "acceptable" content per the LJ TOS.
As a former employee of the abuse department of a large Internet service provider, I'm fairly familiar with these issues, and LJ has consistently failed to handle them well (and far worse with 6A took over). At this point, the users are justifiably confused - and a legal case could be made that the existing policies do not match with their implementation in the least.
THis incompetence is at the heart of my objections to the Abuse issues at LJ.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-03 09:14 pm (UTC)Neither do I.
I work with legal departments at corporations across a wide range of industries on a daily basis. In most,
I'm not giving them a free pass on the subject. But I'm also not champing at the bit to vilify the new company until we know where they really stand. I believe
... nor do I agree with your assertion that this is "obviously" first on their policy list.
She says they're making it a priority. "First" seems like a logical assumption, but feel free to disagree. It behooves the company to make changes which could prove legally dangerous.
The infamous drawing was, on its publication, clearly labeled as a depiction of an older, of-legal-age version of the underage character.
6A's stated criteria for censoring the drawing at the time was that it was offensive due to a depiction of an underage minor performing a sex act on an adult. They made a judgement call, which I believe was eventually reversed? The point I was making was that the censorship was not for the homosexual nature of the act depicted and if
Artistic merit aside, a question which was raised at the time as to whether a drawing depicting such an act would even violate California state and Federal child pornography laws. Was this question ever resolved?
I didn't say that 6A handled the abuse issues well. Nor did I say that there wasn't cause for concern. But the site has new owners now, and I'm hopeful that they'll fix some of the confusion caused by 6A's unbelievably stupid mismanagement decisions and public relations stupidities.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 01:16 am (UTC)What legal department?! Last I knew, SA was just a small group of individuals. I don't think any of them even *has* a legal background!
To be honest, if I were a big company, I'd say that if any drawing contains characters/people (fiction or non-fiction) in any form of situation that can look remotely sexual (dirty dancing, dry humping, groping chest/groin, reaching towards groin, finger/hand inching toward groin, etc) who look younger than 21 (because I think it's easier to determine a 21 y.o. than it is to determine an 18 y.o.) is considered child porn.
Yes, someone that's 18 is no longer a child, but for aesthetic purposes, I'd go with 21, because it's easier to say that they're in college and thus an adult. If you're 18, you can still be in High School, and a lot of the "real" world associates High School with minors (considering that most people are minors in High School for 3 of the 4 years or so).
no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 03:25 am (UTC)They're a corporation. They have offices in three countries. They have to at least one person who helps them navigate legal issues.
Their site says their CFO "...is responsible for managing all aspects of the company's financial and administrative functions, including finance, human resources and legal departments."
no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 03:34 am (UTC)I'd be curious to see if such a policy would place a privately-held company on the winning or losing side of First Amendment lawsuits.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-03 09:26 pm (UTC)This is really the heart of the problem, as far as I'm concerned. What good is having a TOS if the rules are only enforced arbitrarily?The company needs clear guidelines, yes. But they also need to be consistent about enforcing them. (And by that, I don't mean that they should consistently do nothing in response to complaints, as they seem to have done until now.)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 01:11 am (UTC)1) Exactly. It's a simple law. What's to discuss?! You just say "Well, that's the law, so that's our policy." Voila. 2 second discussion, OVER!
2) As soon as it moves servers, LJ will be under Russian law. God help us all then.
3) They couldn't have gotten anyone better to buy LJ? Not even Google or Yahoo or Zoomer/ZoHo/whoever those guys are? Seriously?! Not even some of the more famous people that use LJ? Pfft. Get real!