I saw the picture that was reported to be the one that was banned. Contexturally, I think it's a stretch to come up with more than 18 given HP canon. When approached from a fanfictional viewpoint, where canon is mostly irrelevant, someone could come up a scenario where he's greater than 18. I think it unlikely, however, that LJ would be swayed by a fandom-centric reasoning. And, from what I read of the TOS, they stated that for artistic depictions would be assessed within the general context (I don't remember the precise wording). At any rate, it seemed to boil down to if everyone recognizes the source material and that the source material more or less leads one to the conclusion that the characters are younger than the age of consent, they'll go with with that interpreation. At least, that's the way that I read what they wrote.
Still, true, that Snarry picture associated with the banning isn't as jaw dropping as one involving an 11 year old.
I do wonder, though, if in efforts to state the artworks legality, people are overlooking that terms of service with a private corporation are not limited by legality but by whatever Terms of Service they state which people agree to when they use the service.
It seems to me that fandom's most solid argument is in arguing that LJ is changing its terms of service on people who already possess accounts under previous terms. That would then argue that LJ is breaching an agreed upon contract. Arguing the legality of the art doesn't make much difference when LJ isn't limited by whether or not the art is technically legal.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-10 04:11 am (UTC)Still, true, that Snarry picture associated with the banning isn't as jaw dropping as one involving an 11 year old.
I do wonder, though, if in efforts to state the artworks legality, people are overlooking that terms of service with a private corporation are not limited by legality but by whatever Terms of Service they state which people agree to when they use the service.
It seems to me that fandom's most solid argument is in arguing that LJ is changing its terms of service on people who already possess accounts under previous terms. That would then argue that LJ is breaching an agreed upon contract. Arguing the legality of the art doesn't make much difference when LJ isn't limited by whether or not the art is technically legal.