Wow, I go offline for 8 hours and all hell breaks loose! Apparently there was a post on
lj_biz* that implied that content depicting underage fictional characters having sex was no longer going to be allowed on LJ, because they seem to think it violates US law (where the servers are located). But that isn't true AFAIK. Once again, it looks like the people who run LJ are talking out of their asses and not thinking before pressing post.
There is a post about the case law here. I'm not a lawyer, but the gist of the ruling was that works depicting fictional children in sexual situations (i.e. animation, young-looking adults playing children) are not illegal, since (a) no crime was committed in the production of the material (i.e. it's not a record of actual abuse), and (b) there is no evidence that such material causes children to be victimized by pedophiles. As far as I know, that ruling was about visual depictions and doesn't necessarily cover written fiction. But AFAIK, written fiction doesn't count as pornography and as such isn't illegal. Edit: I forgot about the Red Rose Stories (Wiki link), so that's not completely true, though it's still exceedingly rare.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think LJ has a legal reason to ban any of our fanfic or art; i.e. they aren't violating any US laws by allowing that content to be hosted on their servers, which seems to be the argument they're making. (Photomanips are another issue, and I think there probably are legal grounds for banning explicit ones featuring underaged actors.) I know they can do whatever they want, but I'm not particularly worried. Yet.
*There are apparently DH spoilers in the comments of that post, but the post itself contains no spoilers.
Edit: Oh, and I'm emmagrant01 on JF, IF, and GJ as well.
tarie is putting together a directory of everyone's alternate journals. Ever on top of things, she also has hilarious icons about this debacle ready for the downloading. ;-)
Son of Edit: They've just made another post on
lj_biz that actually concerns me a bit more. :-/
There is a post about the case law here. I'm not a lawyer, but the gist of the ruling was that works depicting fictional children in sexual situations (i.e. animation, young-looking adults playing children) are not illegal, since (a) no crime was committed in the production of the material (i.e. it's not a record of actual abuse), and (b) there is no evidence that such material causes children to be victimized by pedophiles. As far as I know, that ruling was about visual depictions and doesn't necessarily cover written fiction. But AFAIK, written fiction doesn't count as pornography and as such isn't illegal. Edit: I forgot about the Red Rose Stories (Wiki link), so that's not completely true, though it's still exceedingly rare.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think LJ has a legal reason to ban any of our fanfic or art; i.e. they aren't violating any US laws by allowing that content to be hosted on their servers, which seems to be the argument they're making. (Photomanips are another issue, and I think there probably are legal grounds for banning explicit ones featuring underaged actors.) I know they can do whatever they want, but I'm not particularly worried. Yet.
*There are apparently DH spoilers in the comments of that post, but the post itself contains no spoilers.
Edit: Oh, and I'm emmagrant01 on JF, IF, and GJ as well.
Son of Edit: They've just made another post on
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:48 am (UTC)And really, they had to have planned the release of this shit. It's ridiculous.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 02:59 am (UTC)They're just determined to drive away fandom, aren't they?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:02 am (UTC)But yeah, they sure are determined. If we all got up and left in one go and ended up at the same location, I'd honestly be cool with it. I do like LJ's features, but I'm in fandom for the people, not LJ.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:09 am (UTC)I'm still not locking my fic.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:09 am (UTC)I can totally understand people being paranoid, but...ya know what I mean? Does LJ intend to go after fiction, or is it more a CYA situation with regard to genuine pedophiles, etc?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:21 am (UTC)In their last post:
An example of some of the questions we'll ask in order to determine if material falls into this category are: is this writing intended to eroticize the sexual abuse of children? Is the fact that someone's underage, a critical element of the work, or is it incidental? Is the language excessively graphic instead of suggestive? Is there context beyond the sexual situation, or is the material designed just to focus on the sexualization of minors and nothing more? Does the work have an overall message, or is it written only to appeal to an adult's potential sexual fascination with children? These are only some of the questions we'll ask, and we have to consider everything that's reported to us in context and as a whole.
Over the years, we've looked at thousands of reported journals and communities, and we rarely have come across a case of creative fiction or fanfic text that warrants review. If the content is similar in tone, context, feel, and level of explicitness to something that could be found on the shelves of a national chain bookstores, we'll take that into consideration as well.
That sounds like they aren't ruling out banning fanfic comms that get reported to them.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:43 am (UTC)This is really not good. Especially since the vast majority of people who aren't fans don't really get fanfic in general and underage or sexually explicit fanfic in particular, and it's those people who are going to be making the determinations.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 04:01 am (UTC)I understand how fan folks are interpreting it that way, but I just don't see that as their intent.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 04:12 am (UTC):/
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 04:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 04:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 04:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 05:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 10:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 12:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 12:59 pm (UTC)We shall see how this goes.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:14 pm (UTC)The stupid thing is, there are a lot of fandom people on LJ - not just from HP that could be affected. And all it takes is the banning of a BNF, or huge comm, and then all hell breaks loose. Again.
It just seems like LJ is shooting themselves in the foot right now, because they've convinced themselves it's the right thing to do.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:40 pm (UTC)Finally I get a good night sleep and when I wake up - THIS.
Shit happens over night. And now when I finally opened my 'slashy' LJ with fics and all...blah.
I wish if could all fandom just transfer to FJ or GJ...
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:48 pm (UTC)I think though that they should really make a difference between stories between teenagers (are they going to ban One Tree Hill as well?) and stories between adults and teenagers. But if they will, there might be some heavy problems for HP/SS shippers though. That pairing always made me uneasy but I hardly think that those who like it are dangerous in any way.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-21 05:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 03:34 am (UTC)