Yet another post about why Six Apart sucks

[rusty_halo]

If you haven't seen it, check out bubble_blunder's open letter to Six Apart (and, y'know, sign if you agree).

Lots of interesting stuff in metafandom today.

I'm too busy reading to post any coherent thoughts, but I will say that one of the things that really gets to me is the underlying sexism and homophobia going on here. Both users were suspended due to homoerotic art. Would we have seen the same response to a piece that depicted a heterosexual couple? The younger party was clearly post-pubescent--he could've been anywhere between 16-24. If that had been a young woman instead of a young man, would Six Apart still be screaming kiddie porn? The idealized woman in our youth-obsessed culture is 16-24, so I have a hard time believing there'd have been a similar outcry.

I think that part of SixApart's underlying discomfort with this type of art is that it reverses the male gaze. The (male-dominated) company is worried about upsetting its (male-dominated) advertisers who are worried about a offending a (male-dominated) culture. Sexualize young women, fine, we'll look the other way. But sexualize young men and now we have a problem. They're getting a taste of the same discomfort that women have to put up with every day, and they don't like it--so they're banning us and trying to make us feel like dirty perverts.

It makes me really sad, because this community has been such a wonderful place for women to explore their sexuality in creative ways--and a refuge from a culture that objectifies us and stigmatizes our desires. Now the real world is intruding on our safe haven, and it totally sucks.

[I'm cross posting this to my InsaneJournal, which feels totally scary!]

Comments

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The poster who did the Snape/Harry picture also had a picture of a bound Hermione being raped and from what I read there was a time period where no one was really sure which picture she was TOSed for.

And the issue with the Harry/Snape picture to me is that while someone might argue that if you squint and try Harry can be interpreted as being older than 18, it's really difficult to say that this would be the general assumption given the context which frames these pictures. The context being series which is a young adult/child series where Harry is in fact a minor throughout the near entirity of the series. And by the time he graduates and is 18, Snape is dead. So while within the context of fandom, I can see someone approaching it from a fanfictional point of view and perhaps restaging the event into some nebulous point in the future where Harry is legal and Snape isn't dead, I think it's a bit of a jump to think that the reasonable assumption of people uninvolved with the fandom would be that Harry is under aged. Frankly, it's somewhat difficult for me to buy too whole heartedly into the interpretation that Harry is past the age of consent and that it isn't statutory rape. Harry certainly looked adolescent-like to me.

Anyway, if LJ is after slash on the basis of slash, I'll be as upset and willing to protest as loudly as anyone. But, these particular pictures, which are most easily interpreted and would reasonably be assumed to be graphic depictions of sex with minors aren't the test case that I'd prefer to hang my hat on if I could have my "I'd rathers".

I understand and empathize with being suspicious and vigilant about this, and perhaps LJ is acting out of homophobia. But I don't know that that can be determined with these cases, which I think most people uninitiated with fandom would tend to assume as portraying kids, not adults.

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

But how can you want to risk your content--your journal, your writings, your friendships, all these things that are so important to our lives--to a company that has made it very clear that it 1) will arbitrarily delete paid users without any warning or recourse (or refund) and 2) will mock and ridicule those who complain?

There's so many serious issues here about what art is or isn't "acceptable" and to whom. Not to mention the issue of what explanations, clarifications, or review processes a company owes its paying users. Instead they are laughing at our serious questions and mocking us behind our backs.

Sure, they are only targeting Harry Potter fan artists now, but (in this, and the breastfeeding debacle, and even the original deletion of fandom wank) they've made it very clear that they will target anything that threatens their revenue or randomly annoys them. If some crazy conservative group DOES target slash (or something else that affects us directly), LJ sure as hell isn't going to stand up for us.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

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.