I don't know that I see LJ as being particularly different from other services. And there are many services out there that are alternatives.
I remember back in the old days when there was a lot of AOL posting going on, that AOL was fairly swift with the TOSes (and AOL accounts were paid in those days). TWOP is quick with the TOS. Fandom_wank is quick with bannation, and none of these have anything to do with legality. It's basically a company owned thing that sets their own paramaters of what content they will accept on their servers. We then make our own decisions accordingly, based on whether we find those terms to be acceptable. We can argue about it and become outraged with the company, and that's 100% within our rights. But they have the right to set what legal liability that they're willing to accept and what terms they want to set on their service. LJ is it's own entity and we are free to go or stay. Because of that, it's not really a matter for freedom of speech.
While I do believe that 6A has handled this terribly. There really should be a warning system and a way for users to argue their own cases. And, if banned, LJ should refund the paid account. Beyond that, it seems to be a situation not particularly different than other services on the web.
And, if a group does target slash (and it's entirely possible. I'm not claiming that it's an unfounded fear) there will be a hell of a backlash. However, I do think that slash has a far more firm footing in being legal than sexual depictions of minors. It's perfectly legal to buy gay pornography and other types of pornography, but pornography involving minors is illegal, so while I can easily agree that vigilance about LJ pursuing slash is worthwile and while I think wariness is a perfectly reasonable reaction, I think that slash has a far easier argument that it doesn't pose the same kind of legal liability for LJ that pornography involving minors does. I don't think that LJ as a corporation (as opposed to jackass employees) approaches this on as an emotional question as much as "can they sue us and possibly win" question.
I can support caution, wariness, and suspicion with regard to LJ's actions, but as of this bannation, they've abided by the TOS parameters they've previously set.
If they were to target slash and I were to get all worked up and angry about it, I can't help but feel that at least then my righteous indigantion would be truly heartfelt. As it is, I can't totally shake the feeling that I may possibly be defending the glorification of the abuse of minors and that tends to tamp down my sense of indignation just a little.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-08 03:01 am (UTC)I remember back in the old days when there was a lot of AOL posting going on, that AOL was fairly swift with the TOSes (and AOL accounts were paid in those days). TWOP is quick with the TOS. Fandom_wank is quick with bannation, and none of these have anything to do with legality. It's basically a company owned thing that sets their own paramaters of what content they will accept on their servers. We then make our own decisions accordingly, based on whether we find those terms to be acceptable. We can argue about it and become outraged with the company, and that's 100% within our rights. But they have the right to set what legal liability that they're willing to accept and what terms they want to set on their service. LJ is it's own entity and we are free to go or stay. Because of that, it's not really a matter for freedom of speech.
While I do believe that 6A has handled this terribly. There really should be a warning system and a way for users to argue their own cases. And, if banned, LJ should refund the paid account. Beyond that, it seems to be a situation not particularly different than other services on the web.
And, if a group does target slash (and it's entirely possible. I'm not claiming that it's an unfounded fear) there will be a hell of a backlash. However, I do think that slash has a far more firm footing in being legal than sexual depictions of minors. It's perfectly legal to buy gay pornography and other types of pornography, but pornography involving minors is illegal, so while I can easily agree that vigilance about LJ pursuing slash is worthwile and while I think wariness is a perfectly reasonable reaction, I think that slash has a far easier argument that it doesn't pose the same kind of legal liability for LJ that pornography involving minors does. I don't think that LJ as a corporation (as opposed to jackass employees) approaches this on as an emotional question as much as "can they sue us and possibly win" question.
I can support caution, wariness, and suspicion with regard to LJ's actions, but as of this bannation, they've abided by the TOS parameters they've previously set.
If they were to target slash and I were to get all worked up and angry about it, I can't help but feel that at least then my righteous indigantion would be truly heartfelt. As it is, I can't totally shake the feeling that I may possibly be defending the glorification of the abuse of minors and that tends to tamp down my sense of indignation just a little.