![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, I'm still having trouble seeing the part where 6A/LJ has been acting illegaly. I re-read the TOS, marked as last updated April 18, 2006 (does anyone have an older copy?), and the language is specifically vague enough to cover their asses. From what I understand they can remove, delete or suspend whomever the want, when they want, and with no notification, but they're under no obligation to do so. They're not obligated to monitor or otherwise edit the content of LiveJournal, but they can if they want. I haven't taken a close look at IJ's TOS, but I assume that the language is the same or very similar.
Although, LJ's sudden and conservative enforcement of its TOS is inconvenient it isn't technically illegal. At least that I can determine on my own and via a few of the discussions on US obscenity laws and the legal jargon in the TOS. The definition of obscenity is the problem. It's rather indefinable, social and moral compasses are too varied, and that makes everyone, me included, nervous. Whatever criteria they decide to use to determine the "artistic merit" of art and text is going to be flawed. It always is. And let’s not get into “artistic merit”. Some things aren’t meant to be artistic. Some things are just for fun.
I am not happy with the way that LJ/6A handled the entire situation. A bunch of better asshats would be hard to locate right about now. They've turned this into a royal mess and managed to alienate a nice chunk of their core business. I don't feel confident that deletions will end with sexual content depicting minors; LJ/6A are focusing our attentions there because that is the location of the initial debate, but the TOS can and applied across the boards. I have no desire to f-lock adult content. While I am definitely interested in protecting the children, I am also not interested in being penalized for you having children and not monitoring their activity. It's a slippery slope and a difficult line to draw, but there it is.
My decision to mostly suspend activity on LJ, again, has to do with their customer service. The TOS is what it is and we all agreed to it when we opened our LJ's. It's a business to them first and foremost, whatever it may be to us, the users. That's not to say that I agree with the deletions. I can see their point, but I also don't believe that they should just delete journals without warning. Apparantly, that has changed, and that's a good thing, but it also may be a case of too little, too late.
The debate has been an interesting one, with highlights being here and here.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
elke_tanzer's list of links has proven to be indispensable to helping me to get a better hold of the argument.
I am definitely interested in finding out how and where 6A/LJ is behaving illegally. If anyone can point me to a link or explain it, I'd appreciate it.
Although, LJ's sudden and conservative enforcement of its TOS is inconvenient it isn't technically illegal. At least that I can determine on my own and via a few of the discussions on US obscenity laws and the legal jargon in the TOS. The definition of obscenity is the problem. It's rather indefinable, social and moral compasses are too varied, and that makes everyone, me included, nervous. Whatever criteria they decide to use to determine the "artistic merit" of art and text is going to be flawed. It always is. And let’s not get into “artistic merit”. Some things aren’t meant to be artistic. Some things are just for fun.
I am not happy with the way that LJ/6A handled the entire situation. A bunch of better asshats would be hard to locate right about now. They've turned this into a royal mess and managed to alienate a nice chunk of their core business. I don't feel confident that deletions will end with sexual content depicting minors; LJ/6A are focusing our attentions there because that is the location of the initial debate, but the TOS can and applied across the boards. I have no desire to f-lock adult content. While I am definitely interested in protecting the children, I am also not interested in being penalized for you having children and not monitoring their activity. It's a slippery slope and a difficult line to draw, but there it is.
My decision to mostly suspend activity on LJ, again, has to do with their customer service. The TOS is what it is and we all agreed to it when we opened our LJ's. It's a business to them first and foremost, whatever it may be to us, the users. That's not to say that I agree with the deletions. I can see their point, but I also don't believe that they should just delete journals without warning. Apparantly, that has changed, and that's a good thing, but it also may be a case of too little, too late.
The debate has been an interesting one, with highlights being here and here.
elke_tanzer's list of links has proven to be indispensable to helping me to get a better hold of the argument.I am definitely interested in finding out how and where 6A/LJ is behaving illegally. If anyone can point me to a link or explain it, I'd appreciate it.
