(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

[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.