(no subject)

[rm]

I 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

Comments

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

IT would be trivially easy to say "We intend to bring our policies into line with Federal and California State law on these matters as soon as possible", and entirely legally safe to do so.

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.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

I don't see that anywhere,

Neither do I.

I work with legal departments at corporations across a wide range of industries on a daily basis. In most, rachel would not be allowed to make such a declaration to their customer base without first having such a statement vetted by the new company's legal department. This may be the only answer we can expect to receive for a little while.

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 rachel's statements aren't a declaration of policy, just intent.

... 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 rachel thought rm was referring to this incident, it seems likely to me that this was why she responded the way she did. She also mentioned the pro-ana controversy, which rm hadn't mentioned.

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.

[ithinkitisayit.livejournal.com]

"In most, rachel would not be allowed to make such a declaration to their customer base without first having such a statement vetted by the new company's legal department."
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).

[zarq.livejournal.com]

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!

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."

[zarq.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

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 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.)