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

[madripoor-rose.livejournal.com]

I remember this from the yahoo email list days. Random unexplained purges. Fandom's still here.

[winemedineme.livejournal.com]

Did I miss something?

[brak666.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking of getting a journalfen account just because most people I know have them and they'll be pretty easy to find should LJ not be the place for fandom anymore. But yeah, I'm pretty happy where I am. I'll go wherever fandom goes, but let's not jump the gun.

[gingicat]

I'm not leaving. Speaking out, yes.

[beck-liz.livejournal.com]

I got a permanent account several years ago, so I can't even use that as a weapon. Even if I deleted my account, they wouldn't be losing money, I would. However, at this point I have no plans to flee LJ, since I have plenty of unaffected friends who will likely remain here. And I agree that neither GJ nor IJ is any safer than LJ. But this does stink to the utmost. Blech.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Livejournal/6Apart permanently deleted the accounts of fan artists who posted explicit HP art featuring underage characters - and has forbidden them to make new accounts.

People are, not surprisingly, Not Happy.

(Yes, the combination of copyrighted material and underage is playing with fire. But that calls for a warning to remove the material, not a permanent deletion.)

[cara-chapel.livejournal.com]

I think they would like the adult elements of this community to go. Quietly, little by little, they would like to pressure us to leave without incurring another PR nightmare like the first one.

In my opinion, we're a small enough faction that it would be a relief to the company to have most of the potential embarrassments removed so they could rearrange things according to their liking.

I have always thought that while we seemed to win the first battle, it was more a case of an expedient surrender that actually meant they would be regrouping and changing their tactics to something that would work better next time-- but with the same goals in mind.

[winemedineme.livejournal.com]

Meep. I'd agree with you on that. Oy.

[ratcreature]

I have no problem if they'd just reacted to get those pictures removed by the users expediently, say a temporary account suspension of just the account used for posting it until the picture is removed, and further measures only if it is a repeat TOS-violation or infringement or whatever the particular offense is said to be. I don't think a copyright holder can ask for more. I also don't think anyone perceived what to me looked more like a manga-influenced adult Harry in a porn picture with Snape (I haven't seen the Fred/George art) as distributing "childporn" in the legal US sense, or I'd expect they'd be obligated to do more than merely suspending the user (IMO the huge potential for unpleasant ramnifications of posting porn art with visibly underaged characters in the middle of the current climate of moral panic *anywhere* on the internet is far more deterrent than any LJ policies on that matter anyway), so it has to be that they merely think it inappropriate for their service/TOS, which I don't find that problematic either, but they can't be all fuzzy with their rules about when porn crosses into too "icky" for them, but draconian in their reactions. That doesn't go together well.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

See, I can post my stories *anywhere*. I can go back to posting them on my own website if I want. I can follow links to stories (they're not going to censor links. That's just too much trouble.)

I'm here for the people. And my interaction with the people won't change if I can't post my stories here. I'd rather continue to do so, but I have 300+ people on my flist and a large number aren't reading or writing fanfiction. 99% of them are adults. I doubt they're going anywhere.

[prezzey.livejournal.com]

Do you have links? It hasn't hit my friends page yet, you are the first.

[cara-chapel.livejournal.com]

I think to some extent that would satisfy their desire to have us "go" since charges would then be pressed against another server. "Take it off our machines and if you go with it all the better" is probably their secret attitude here.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Far too many, and all rather confused.

roundup. (http://elke-tanzer.livejournal.com/791662.html)
Legal Clarification (http://synecdochic.livejournal.com/147625.html).

HP fandom is NOT having a good week.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

oops

http://mamadeb.livejournal.com/736355.html?thread=3880291#t3880291

[prezzey.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the heads-up! I'm not in HP fandom in particular, so this is all new to me.

[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.

Here from MF

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

I am leaving, and it's not for GJ/JF. I will be paying for my own webspace and using open-source blogging software.

Also, at least one fan-managed blogging site is in the works, and their TOS will specifically permit drawings and fiction about minors in sexual situations.

[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".)

Re: Here from MF

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

I'm not leaving - while many people of my friendslist are part of the fanfiction community, many are not, and have no need to go elsewhere. I enjoy all of my social network - if much of fandom leaves, I'll find them, but I'm not leaving LJ. (Also, of course, permanent account, so...)

I support the fans trying to make their own sites with their own rules.

And now that I'm looking at things - it happened at a community where the moderator (singular) was away and therefore couldn't respond to the warnings, but she did get them. Suddenly, it's looking like a comedy of errors. And note - it was two people. That's two too many, but it's still not wholesale.

[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?

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

The latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine has a great write-up on the new American witch-hunt against child pornography (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15723886/to_catch_a_predator_is_nbcs_primetime_dragnet_the_new_american_witch_hunt/5).

Look at the last page, third paragraph from the bottom. The founder of the well-known and fairly respected group Perverted Justice has targeted LJ. He's "mobilizing his thousands of followers to write letters to companies advertising on LiveJournal and YouTube, demanding they withdraw their support."

[buggery.livejournal.com]

Correct, except that the art in question *didn't* depict minors.

It's also worth noting that in both cases multiple accounts were deleted, not just the one account which was alleged to have been used to post inappropriate content: RP journals, non-fandom journals, RL journals. The criterion used to decide what went in the dragnet was apparently the email address associated with the accounts. Also one of the affected accounts had just gone from paid to permanent status in the wake of Strikethrough.

[buggery.livejournal.com]

You could, however, make the maximum number of voice posts available, stuff your scrapbook full of big images, make sure all your icon slots are full, maybe even post back-dated text-heavy posts ...all of which will add to their server strain, i.e., cost them more of your already-paid money.

Re: Here from MF

[buggery.livejournal.com]

Did the moderator of pornish_pixies say she'd gotten warnings *before* the two users were permanently banned (and grievously defamed)? And that they wouldn't have been treated so harshly if their mod had been around to answer? Because that's not at all what it sounded like to me.

[buggery.livejournal.com]

Do you really think the other social interactive sites are immune?

To being targeted by fringe groups like WfI (or even legitimate but confused groups)? Of course not.

To hysterically banning users in response to some complaints, while others of similar severity are told they don't need to change a thing? YES. Have a look at the Scribblit info over on twocorpses's LJ.

To deliberately and illegally cheating their users out of money (http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/240498.html?thread=11841906#t11841906) (yes, they *have* done that)? I don't want to do business with any company that employs bait-and-switch. I've *still* never done business with any of the telecoms that were the worst "slamming" offenders back before law enforcement cracked down on *that* abusive practice. Expecting a company I do business with not to commit fraud is not an unreasonable expectation.

And let's not forget, *we* were here first. SixApart knew what it was getting when they bought LJ. They had plenty of lead time, and they keep behaving like complete assholes anyway.

Re: Here from MF

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Still not defending LJ here - the account holders should have been warned and there should be an appeals process. This was done extremely badly.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Wait'll they get big enough to need huge servers and full time staff, and perhaps corporate help. Things will change.

I'm not defending what LJ did. But I'm not giving away my money, either - I paid for a permanent account.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Lovely.

[undomielregina]

I'm here from Metafandom.

I'd like to point out that if fandom really does scatter to the winds (which at this point is looking like it's primarily going to mean moving to four or five different journaling services) it will work in our favor. Moving to a single new site isn't going to work, but getting used to finding your flist in four or five different places will help because with that kind of decentralization, only a limited number of people will be affected next time, and there will already be an infrastructure available on other sites for them.

Re: Here from MF

[letmypidgeonsgo.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen a statement by femme that she got any advance warning, but it doesn't matter - what was posted on p_p did not result in the deletion of that comm, it resulted in the deletion of the personal journals of the artists in question. Which really...makes no sense whatsoever.

[letmypidgeonsgo.livejournal.com]

(here via mf)

If you have a paid account, keep paying it. Or don't use non-payment as a reaction. [...]

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.

1) i know you're obliged to stay, either b/c of your perm acct, or friends here, or whatever, but i don't understand your 'oh, just keep paying' advice
2) right now i don't think something like this potentially happening on GJ or IJ is the important - the point in leaving LJ for greener pastures is that users feel betrayed and want to get away from the service that wronged them as members of fandom, paying customers, etc
3) i haven't seen any evidence whatsoever to suggest that any company with copyright etc on HP was responsible for these deletions. even if they were, i can't imagine such an entity would demand the deletion of an entire journal, just the removal of the specific art

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Keep paying, or you'll lose your voice - LJ has no reason to listen to you if you don't feed them. They're a business - they want assets. People who don't pay are liabilities, and they will want you to go.

On the other hand, *threaten* to be a liability - "If you don't change this policy, I *will* stop paying" - and they will listen to you.

I wasn't being complacent. I was giving advice in how to stay in the fight.

I'm now leaning to the idea that it was an inside job, as per fanaddict's post (http://fanaddict.livejournal.com/10236.html), that was handled EXTREMELY BADLY by LJ/6A. I am NOT absolving LJ of any fault, but given that the artwork was a year old and in a friendslocked community, and that other, more explicit art in that and other fandoms has not been so treated, I think the evidence goes in that direction. That said, LJ/6A handled it in the worst possible way, and now they're panicking and we're panicking, and everything is being made worse.

And as I said in an earlier post, panic mode (for that matter, angry mode) is just not the time to make any permanent decisions.