Oh, dear. Not again.

[mamadeb]

If you have a paid account, keep paying it. Or don't use non-payment as a reaction. Use it as a weapon. "If you continue with this, I will cease paying." Using it as a reaction doesn't help anything. Let the LJ PTB know that you're unhappy.

As for those moving - why? Do you really think that the other social interactive sites are immune? Do you really think that Warner Brothers/Scholastic won't contact GJ or IJ or whoever with the same demands? Do you really think those sites won't fold under threat of lawsuit, too? Because, seriously? That doesn't make sense.

(As for those who are saying, "Another weekend when the HP fen are distracted by a convention!" Find me a weekend this summer when that's not true. Oh, yeah. July 21. :) )

HP fen are being targeted because that's the most visible fandom in the world right now.

Do I support this? NOT AT ALL. Do I agree with their options? NOT AT ALL. Does what I have to say mean anything? Sadly, no. My permanent account has earned out.

I have backed up my fic journal. If LJ folds, mamadeb or mamadeb1963 will find where most people have gone and follow. But I've built up a network I love here, and I don't think I'll get it someplace else.

ETA: Thank you to the people who know the law and responded here.

Comments

[mrn613.livejournal.com]

I'm new to this discussion, but I don't agree that child porn should be allowed on LiveJournal even if it is fictional. Child porn, fictional or not, is not protected by the First Amendment. Take for example, magazines such as Barely Legal. The magazine is published because the are representing the characters as of legal age. However, if they took obvious older individuals (say, 40 years old off the top of my head), dressed them up as Harry Potter lookalikes, and posed them, that would be illegal to publish.

Anyway, by allowing child porn or 'child pornographers' on its site, LJ risks being shut down entirely, even if it is friends-protected. When I signed up, I don't recall being asked to verify I was over 18.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

That's a perfectly valid position,and I'd have no problems if LJ stated that right up front. For that matter, my own more adult stuff is filtered away from non-adult eyes. I do think that fictional is fictional - if no child is harmed, no child is harmed, but I can see where you are coming from.

If you make a change in policy, or start enforcing a policy, you have to say so in sufficient time for people to make changes, and if changes are not made in a reasonable time (say, a week), then you have to give due warning. Only after the warning is not heeded should the offending accounts be removed.

[mrn613.livejournal.com]

The federal government says fictional child porn = child porn = illegal.

I haven't read them recently, but I'd be will to bet more than a dollar that the LJ TOS prohibit use of the account for illegal activities.

I just read over the terms of service

[mrn613.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understand why the banned parties are upset, since they agreed to the terms. What am I missing?

From the TOS ---

You agree to NOT use the Service to:

Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive to another's privacy (up to, but not excluding any address, email, phone number, or any other contact information without the written consent of the owner of such information), hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; .
.
.
.


If LiveJournal determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that any user is in violation of the TOS, LiveJournal retains the right to terminate such user's account at any time without prior notice.

[cyprinella]

No, it's actually that fictional child porn falls under obscenity guidelines. There was actually a large court case about it not too long ago. As someone else put it: "Right, art can be obscene. The error in the post is saying that all art depicting underage sex is as illegal as all photos of actual underage sex. The latter is illegal, full stop, regardless of its merit and of whether it violates contemporary community standards. The former is protected unless it is obscene, which is a much smaller category." Then, with obscenity laws you get into the Miller test and it all goes complicated.

And the real sticking point with a lot of fans is when this came up a month ago, the really confusing answers from LJ staff *seemed* to say that they weren't going to be deleting fanworks because they were obviously not real. However, this has just been shown to not be the case. A lot of people are just pissed about being lied to.

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

You're wrong. Child pornography that does not actually harm any children and is not obscene is protected by the first amendment. I quote from the brilliant smadaf:

In fact, in Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al., vs. Free Speech Coalition, et al., the Supreme Court did not say that child pornography depicting nonexistent minors was "[stricken] from the definition of child pornography". In fact, the Court held that such things were Constitutionally protected child pornography. Yes, that's right: stuff that is legally classed as child pornography is still Constitutional if (1) it isn't made of actual children and (2) it isn't obscene. There is a legal distinction between pornography and obscenity. Child pornography made of nonexistent children can be both child pornography AND legal.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Child porn, fictional or not, is not protected by the First Amendment.

You're wrong about that. At least until the Supreme Court changes its mind, anything that does not feature actual living children, and that is merely indecent as opposed to obscene, is protected. (The line between indecency and obscenity is unclear, and subject to community standards; that's Justice Potter's famous statement that "I know it when I see it".)

[kelly-holden.livejournal.com]

However, if they took obvious older individuals (say, 40 years old off the top of my head), dressed them up as Harry Potter lookalikes, and posed them, that would be illegal to publish.
Huh? Pornography featuring an obviously older adult dressed to resemble a fictional character, who is best known as a teen, but not exclusively portrayed as one in canon, is 'child porn'? Many of those 'barely legal' porn intentionally choose young-looking 'models' (came across one once who I swear could have passed as 13) and a setting associated with childhood, such as a school, give the male 'models' authority figure roles such as teachers or coaches, and the only reason to think they're adults is the little writing at the bottom of the page that says 'all models 18 or over'. If that's legal, then a young-looking but really over-18 twink dressed as Harry is legal (except for the copyright infringement that professional publication would be), let alone an older man in that costume.

I've seen the art, and unless it was drawn for a fic I haven't heard about there's no reason to assume Harry's still a minor when the scene is set (no school uniform, for example), and he doesn't look like a child or young teen. Should we have to disclaim all art the way professionals disclaimer photos of real people? Would putting "Harry is intended to be over 18 in this piece" at the bottom of the post in little writing have saved Ponderosa from banning?