(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

[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.