WTF, LJ?

[lavendertook]

Here's the low down on BOLDTHROUGH'07 from metafandom and the purging of fan lj's.

Why this is a bigger deal to me than Strikethrough'07:

Not only is the art work of one of the purged LJ users very questionably (he looks anywhere from 16-25) depicting an underage fictional character, but this is exactly the kind of sexually explicit depiction burr86 said LJ would not go after--borderline teen/adult.

The other LJ user, who not only had a permanent account purged without prior notice, reports that the artwork in question was flocked and so she did do the courtesy of not putting it on display for wandering underage members of the public to encounter.

What makes this worse is that both LJ users were members of a fan community who had asked and welcomed LJ to review their community to help them devise guidelines that would suit LJ. To purge journals of their members after this request was made is low down dirty dealing.

Adding to the low down dirty dealings, LJ has changed the format of suspended usernames so the suspensions couldn't be immediately recognized by strikethrough's.

I do not see any reason why LJ, as a courtesy, couldn't inform users before such a purge to give them a chance to back up other writings and artwork that has importance to them, especially when what LJ is considering a violation here is on very shaky definitional grounds even within the laws of the US.

If this is the courtesy LJ is affording its users, after wasting our time with totally useless clarifications, then I'm seriously looking into other journal options now.

I do not think the depiction of fictional underage characters in artwork, that is not using photographs of real persons, and text should fall under any legal definitions of underage pornography. From the way they are handling this, I think it's a matter of time before LJ goes after fictional "of age" sexually explicit material.

Ah, a response from LJ; basically, the standards were "they didn't like the picture." Great.

My greatestjournal account is also lavendertook and I'll start transitioning over there when I figure out the open source code thing. I'm in the process of backing up and moving all my dear LotR and MESPT inspired sockpuppet accounts there as well.

I still have some things I want to say about the HP: D_D discussion on racism, and thoughts on DH, and more pic posts about my habitat, so not gone yet, but serious consideration of journal migration has begun for me because LJ's choices here are all very disappointing and disturbing.

ETA Some further thoughts I had on BoldThrough"07 here--are we dealing with sexism? Since all women are supposed to look like they are 16-25, is LJ's problem here with the depiction of a male as subject of a female gaze, and charges of underaged depiction being used to cover this, because adult male desire of 15-18 year old appearing females is regarded as normal, and even mandatory, not deviant in western culture?

Comments

[supergee.livejournal.com]

I think LJ reacts to pressure, and right now the pressure is aimed at same-sex "pedophilia." If we start getting pressure against the filthy perverted stuff that shows 17-year-old women (as opposed to the healthy legal stuff that shows 18-year-old women, which is completely different), LJ will crack down on that. In other words, I don't think LJ is opposed to the female gaze, but it's perhaps being manipulated by people who are.

This would almost make sense if we had a definition of pedophilia/child porn based on puberty, rather than on trying to figure out the exact age when a sexually mature person becomes officially capable of voluntary sex, but the warriors for innocence would probably like to keep raising the age of consent until one is eligible for Social Security.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Heee, they probably would.(-:

I'm just thinking that charges of pedophilia above puberty are really about protecting masculinity (teenage girls are excluded from this protection/policing) and LJ's actions are reflecting this. First and foremost, they are bending to the pressure from Perverted Justice and their ilk that have set up shop so centrally in the US.

But these pressure groups are not dictating the way LJ is punishing their customers here--without any kind of notice or courtesy whatsoever. This aggressive--and I think abusive--steamrolling is coming from more than the pressure groups and their conceptions of pedophilia.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

I've seen a lot of efforts to smash teenage-girl porn. (There was an actress who turned out to be underage though quite sexually mature, and a big fuss was made about that.)

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

But both porn industries and the fundies are in the business of promoting women as things to be controlled, so I don't see this as significant.

As long as female teen bodies are the standard for the acceptance of women in public, neither of those lobbies is going to get the upper hand on this particular phenomena.

And I do support a ban on photographic porn of children and teens up to 17-18, as an issue of underaged monetary exploitation and personal autonomy, not a problem with child sexuality.

I do think that squelching woman produced and consumed porn serves both the patriarchal fundies and porn industry and makes it particularly vulnerable.