As I'm sure many of you already know,
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
pornish_pixies was permanently deleted today by Livejournal.com, along with a number of other communities with "incest" as an interest, an incomplete list of which is here.Straight up, people. What are our options as a fandom to fight this? What are all our options to fight this, and how can we as a fandom collectively work to deal with Six Apart in this issue?
Please respond, because I really, really want to get started on the part where the fandom rallies together to make our voices heard by Six Apart.
Thanks.
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
May 30 2007, 00:54:04 UTC 5 years ago
May 30 2007, 01:06:25 UTC 5 years ago
I don't think that there are any copyright or fair use issues or anything involved here, or even child pornography (because there aren't any criminal sanctions being brought against the owners of the communities, simply denial of service). But I'm just a law student, and those are just my initial thoughts.
I personally think that the only way to fight this would be with sheer numbers. A list of PAID MEMBERS (which I know there are many, many fandomers who pay quite a bit of LJ) sending a petition to Livejournal stating that they will cancel their accounts if there isn't some compromise reached MAY do something... but it would take a great deal of organization and a LOT of people. And even then, that might just be a drop in the bucket. :-\
May 30 2007, 03:58:31 UTC 5 years ago
Exact quote:
...we have been advised that listing an interest in an illegal activity must be viewed as using LiveJournal to solicit that illegal activity....
They're claiming a legal reason, not "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," for shutting down journals. We need lawyers to tell them that listing an interest for discussion purposes doesn't indicate support of the activity under discussion.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
Anonymous
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 01:14:07 UTC 5 years ago
The ToU in effect when the deletions occurred said:
That would imply that things like the FAQ and Privacy Policy aren't part of the Terms of Service for the site, but the ToU also says:
And in including that sentence, the ToU inherently incorporates the FAQ into the Terms of Use for one specific purpose - and it's a purpose regarding violations of the ToS. Since the ToS also says, "However, this provision does not apply to Content (as defined herein), or to personal information that is subject to our Privacy Policy...." it's also possible to argue that the ToS inherently incorporates the Privacy Policy as well as the FAQ.
Why is this relevant?
Because the FAQ gives certain specific reasons for suspension of an LJ:
LJ has some leeway because of their use of the words "generally" and "including but not limited to", but I'm not sure that "inclusion of non-banned interests" would be deemed the equivalent of the listed reasons. In other words, I'm not claiming it's a foolproof argument, but it is a possible argument to make.
May 30 2007, 02:03:34 UTC 5 years ago
How "possible" is possible, I wonder? Not saying you're wrong, because I'm still on the non-lawyer side of this whole thing (bar exam studier), but it seems to me that LJ could hide mountains in the space it gave itself with that language, you know?
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 01:25:11 UTC 5 years ago
It's been suggested by several people to me that as one of the individuals affected I submit a lawyer-approved petition/complaint to SixApart requesting reinstatement of the comm based on the FAQ. Is that possible? Is it even a good idea?
May 30 2007, 01:30:39 UTC 5 years ago
Screened comment
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 03:11:37 UTC 5 years ago
What I'm wondering is, will posting a disclaimer conforming to LJ Abuse's stipulations (stating that the comm doesn't endorse or approve of any illegal activity and that posting creative content or textual discussion of such things should not be held as endorsement, etc.) to the community offer any protection in the event the community is targeted? My fear is the argument offered by LJ Abuse that they had to delete those accounts without review or warning and that's the end of it. If a complaint is sent in about the community would the disclaimer act as a prophylactic the complaint?
Deleted comment
May 30 2007, 04:38:59 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 04:05:10 UTC 5 years ago
Another Approach?
Considering that the root cause of these deletions seems to be this vigilante group (via norefer.com), who isn't working with any law enforcement agency or any of the legitimate organizations working to catch sexual predators online, I wonder whether an alternative approach would be more productive.Perhaps instead of trying to deal with this issue through LJ, it would be worth exploring whether they're breaking any laws, whether it's possible to report their actions to the authorities, or take some form of legal action against them. I bring this up because it's not just that fandom got caught in the crossfire, but that looking at these people's site, I find the things they do (and encourage others to do) to be highly disturbing, and I believe they're doing actual harm to the legitimate efforts to catch sex offenders.
One bit of glaring idiocy I found on their site, on a page dedicated to encouraging and instructing people on how to pose as children online in order to "prevent the perverts from interacting with real kids" is this gem, explaining the last part of this charade, "the reveal" intended to scare pedophiles straight (or, outside La-La Land, likely make them more cautious):
"Revealing means that you reveal that you are not a child and you scare this guy so badly that he hopefully will stop doing this in the future. You tell him that you are going to contact LE- even though you are not going to." (here, via norefer)
Considering how incredibly stupid these people are, I'm wondering whether everything they're doing is actually legal, as well as whether any legal action can be taken against them to protect both fandom and the legitimate organizations that do actual work in this area.
May 30 2007, 04:33:52 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Another Approach?
This is actually a very good idea. Based on what I've read about them so far, they seem to be a fishy, crackpot group of people...."organization" my arse. Vigilante's cause nothing but trouble for the people that are doing any real good....what they're doing is harmful towards the people who are professionals and the fact that they can't even name which LE group they "work with" is something that should be raising eyebrows. Also...in her response to"As I've said in previous posts, a lot of what I do never makes it onto a web page. I do a lot of work behind the scenes. Seeing infants and toddlers being raped and tortured is ugly and difficult work, but finding it and turning it in does make a difference."
Doesn't that sound like she actually seeks these people out, lets them do these horrible things to children, and then takes action? That's what it came across as to me. I am not a legal expert, nor am I a CPS worker, but I am taking a class on Abuse and Neglect in the Family right now, and if there's one thing I have learned, it is to stop the abuse before it happens. It sounds to me like this woman is doing exactly the opposite of that, and I'm sure advocates and professionals would definitely be appalled at that statement, especially coming from someone who is so determined to get "these monsters" off of the internet.
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 04:06:59 UTC 5 years ago
May 30 2007, 04:26:35 UTC 5 years ago
As I said in my own LJ, maybe something can be done in terms of trespass to chattel--it's one thing for a host to say "Get out of here and take your filth with you!" and another thing to make deletions without warning, resulting in loss of content WHICH BELONGS TO SOMEBODY. OK, very possibly to someone who isn't eager to step up to the plate and say "I want my porn back!" but nevertheless to somebody.
In the short run, I don't think it would be a bad idea for controversial comms to switch to MLs or even APAs.
May 30 2007, 05:04:26 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 04:42:39 UTC 5 years ago
I was just wondering if this link would be helpful at all?
www dot warriorsforinnocence dot org/2007/04/livejournal-pedophile-sympat
WFI quotes several of LJ's previous responses to their requests of deleting communities and journals. According to the quotes, LJ says that
For instance -- as disgusting as it might be -- we can't suspend a journal because it's talking about pedophilia in a theoretical manner, or is discussing it hypothetically, fictionally, or sociologically. We also can't suspend a journal just because someone expresses an interest in children in a sexual manner. We're limited to taking action on things that specifically break the law or encourage others to do so.
Also,
In order for us to take any action against this user, the content would need to be blatantly instructional material clearly designed to facilitate the promotion of and engagement in illegal activities. We have not been made aware of any links in this user's journal which are clearly instructional and promotional in nature. While we recognize that many individuals find this journal offensive, and that many people feel that the user should be removed, it does not qualify as advocating or instructing illegal activity.
While the material is distasteful, we cannot take any action. The content falls within the realm of material protected by free speech. LiveJournal attempts to preserve as much free speech as possible for its users, as long as that speech does not cross the line into invading another's privacy, violating local or federal law, or directly inciting violence or hatred against any specific, identifiable group regardless of whether that group is explicitly named in our Terms of Service. The content of this journal does not meet that criteria at this time.
We understand that many individuals are upset about this matter and we understand that even if individuals can understand the reasoning behind our policies, it is difficult to accept emotionally. We apologize that we are unable to assist you further. We strongly suggest, with the greatest respect, that you should avoid reading the community if you are offended by the premise or contents of the journal.
Regards,
EllaLive
Journal Abuse Team
It's not hard evidence, but, it could maybe help to show how unreasonable LJ suddenly became.
May 30 2007, 08:31:45 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 05:03:17 UTC 5 years ago
being that this is a fandom_lawyers journal, has any lawyers here researched the LEGITIMACY of this Warriors for/of the Innocent watchdog group? Is this an ACTUAL non-for-profit 501(c) group or a paid watchdog group or is just a group of over-excited, bored-out-of-their-minds mothers sitting around a laptop in their dining room, trolling through LiveJournal and scaring the hell out of innocent fan writers/artists?
From what I understand they have a vague mission statement and absolutely nothing concrete to hold up the authenticity of their 'organization'. In fact, from what I've seen around livejournal, their actions have done nothing but cause mass hysteria and a re-enactment of the Salem Witch Hunts. Are we all in for 'false persecution' for being a part of fandom or just a select few for the topics we write about?
(sorry for delete/repost 2x, had to fix typos)
May 30 2007, 05:31:40 UTC 5 years ago
Nevertheless, the IRS charity search engine has no entry for them - at least not under any name combination I tried. Someone less exhausted (and with less general fear of them) than I could presumably call the IRS' toll free number (1-877-829-5500) and ask, I guess. But I don't think WFI actually claimed to be a non-profit, did they?
I am totally not a lawyer. I do, however, work for a nonprofit, and I've had rather a lot of (dreadfully boring) experience attempting to track down the tax-free status of random organizations. FWIW.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 05:47:38 UTC 5 years ago
Unfairness never wins out in the end...
Honestly, I go into a fandom recognizing straight away that I need to place warnings and disclaimers on anything that isn't creatively mine straight up. I agree withPeople who do not enjoy such things have a right to voice their opinions sure, but they also have the right and a brain, so they can walk away from it if they so choose.
Secondly, it is unfair to writers out there who come to LiveJournal to share there work and now have to F-lock everything they wish to share. I know I personally just went through and had to lock and delete things that were apparently 'against' whatever they're trying to crack up as rules.
If copy writes are noted in the disclaimers, than that takes care of that right there. If people do not try to claim characters that aren't there’s, then I don't see where there is an issue there. Using a personal example, I know for a FACT that Eric Kripke, the creator of Supernatural, reads fanfiction, and is aware of such things as Wincest and J2. While he may not support it, he doesn't come after us writers with lawsuits now does he? No.
Honestly, I think the way that they are going about this is ridiculous. I’m sure that there are PLENTY of other ways that they can handle this. Such as, oh I don’t know, emailing and giving them ___ number of days to fix and or delete the offensive materials?
These are just my opinions, so yeah. I’m sure a lot of the stuff I’ve said has already been voiced, but it’s just my stand point and my two cents being thrown into the pile.
May 30 2007, 16:21:12 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Unfairness never wins out in the end...
it is unfair to writers out there who come to LiveJournal to share there work and now have to F-lock everything they wish to share.Except it looks like that's not going to be enough for this round. It sounds like they're not going any further than the Info Page and the Interests.
(The additional stupidity here is that many of these tags I'm seeing are not technically illegal. 'Violence'? Not inherently illegal. Just watch an American football game and see how many of those strapping lads are arrested for assault.)
5 years ago
4 years ago
May 30 2007, 06:02:53 UTC 5 years ago
Action Items
I used to work for a company that put stuff into plain English. My boss wasn't a lawyer, but he WAS an egomaniac so nobody ever had the nerve to tell him to stop promising to give clients "actionable strategies". ("Actionable" is lawyerese for "something you can get sued for.")My inclination is to put together a legal defense committee (it would be possible, but, I think, overkill to apply for not-for-profit status--that application is a BEAR) and work up a report that could be used as the basis of negotiation with Six Apart and other hosts. The report would contain the kind of stuff that goes into an appellate brief. I think the report structure would be good because then we could say that X number of people and organizations have signed on to agree with the report, and then there's a minority report saying slightly different things that Y number of people and organizations have agreed to...
Short version:
* What are we going to do?
* Who, exactly, is "we"?
* Who's responsible for which tasks?
* Who's in charge of herding the cats?
* Who's pinch-hitting for those who can't/don't finish their assignments?
May 30 2007, 06:41:21 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Action Items
The report would contain the kind of stuff that goes into an appellate brief.As someone with no legal background whatsoever, I'm hoping you could elaborate on what exactly goes into an appellate brief.
What are we going to do?
I think that's still being debated, though you seem to have some idea of what we should do.
Who, exactly, is "we"?
That depends on whether you're talking about the people actually handling whatever tasks are involved, about the people who've been directly affected by the recent deletions, or about the people in fandom who've heard about this, think it's a travesty, and wish they could do something about it.
IMO, who "we" is depends entirely on what we do, which in turn depends on what we're trying to achieve, which I think should be the first question. Do we want all affected accounts restored? Do we want to make sure they're compensated for any remaining paid account time? Do we want to renegotiate the ToS or come to an agreement on how to deal with ToS disputes in the future? Do we want to get a clear and/or binding response to this unreasonable situation from either Six Apart or LJ? Do we want to deal with SA directly or keep it inside LJ? Again, I'm on the verge of brain death here, so I'm sure I'm not covering all the bases, but even so, these questions haven't been answered yet, and I'm sure there's more I left out.
Personally, I doubt we'll get anything, but I still think it's important to know what you want to achieve before forming an action plan.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
Deleted comment
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 06:05:01 UTC 5 years ago
i even went to compare the ToS of FanLib with LJ, pointing out there similarities, which, if not verbatim, still held the same spirit. i was told that wasn't the case.
S/he even makes the comment about knowing how LJ would handle things. Okay, I'm not one to argue.
She (sorry, I gender-assume to 'she' -- left over from DnD manuals) even points out:
There is a key difference between LJ's ToS and FanLib's, and it lies in the bits I've bolded above: LiveJournal may call upon you to retract, modify, or protect; FanLib may remove such Submissions and/or terminate a Member's access for uploading such material.
oh, the irony. but i digress.
so, i didn't understand how this could be. why is it that LJ would be so possibly nonchalant over these issues of possible IP infringement cases (that was the discussion we were on: passing the buck from angry copyright holder to LJ and finally to the author).
She said, in this comment, that basically, LJ is protected by the CDA
Okay, so basically LJ was supposed to be protected (like AOL and the like are) from being made liable due to the actions of its end-users. This was my understanding from her subsequent comment here.
So... some people objected to the clause in FanLib's ToS under the premise that LJ wouldn't do that. But it's happened. accounts were deleted/suspended/whatever.
is there a distinction between SixApart and LJ, meaning that one is protected by safe harbor and the other (SixApart) is not?
so, then, LJ's ToS means whit for naught if SixApart's ToS is far less forgiving, right?
was my understanding of this 'safe harbor' stuff not correct?
was the LJ protection under 'safe harbor' not correct?
i mean, if LJ and SixApart ARE protected from being liable of the end-user's actions, then i can only see these deletions being one of two things:
1) a massive purging based on moral opinion or principle beliefs held by SixApart themselves...
or
2) SixApart simply saying "this isn't a fight we're going to fight; sorry fanficcers" and cow-towing to a perceived economic or law enforcement backlash (ie. they fell for the Warriors of Wackness' bravado)...?
Or, since they acted on the attempt to 'purge illegal activities' does that now make it their obligation? hence, the reason why they can't unsuspend accounts to have comms change their interest?
May 30 2007, 06:09:22 UTC 5 years ago
i think knowing what their legal protections are would help determine their intentions...
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 06:47:35 UTC 5 years ago
one a fashion community "oz_lolita" a soft target purely on the name, whe egl/lolita has NOTHING to do with the book of the same name other lolita fashion communities have been alerted since some people do have lolicon as keywords and to add the word 'FASHION' after the word lolita.
and a role play archive where only 2 memebers me, and my friend (both legal adults) role play)
In my RP community there are NO incrimminating keywords "eg slash, ect" so I hope it's Safe *shifty eyes* for now
My lj and my communities are near and dear to me. The community in question: wonkaslash did have chan and shota in the key words but there was a strict policy of NO NON CON / RAPE and anything overly suspect was deleated and all trolls where swiftly given the boot my my stealthy comods.
I post her for her sake since I bequeth that community under her tight control a few years ago after I stopped caring about that particular fandom.
i am so confused and dissapointed.
I might also point out that I'm an Australian resident and I'm not sure how American laws for American built sites affect me (i should have paid more attention in leagal studies...)
May 30 2007, 08:01:20 UTC 5 years ago
May 30 2007, 07:13:13 UTC 5 years ago
May 30 2007, 08:34:11 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 07:23:23 UTC 5 years ago
May 30 2007, 23:07:21 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 07:58:23 UTC 5 years ago
They are where the real problem lies. Everywhere else i can see, in spite of LJ's final relent, they had been trying to get out of the issue with these people and support the users here. Even WfI's site says this.
May 30 2007, 08:07:26 UTC 5 years ago
May 30 2007, 08:30:35 UTC 5 years ago
This is absolutely insane. I always thought one of the things about LJ Abuse was that any claims made would be thoroughly checked out. Someone's gotten trigger happy here.
It's reminding me of the massive deletes on Deviantart for naughty and explicit underage fanart drawings/illustrations of fictional characters, even though the porn law states that fictional characters don't count because they aren't real children. That didn't stop them from deleting a massive amount of arts, though.
May 30 2007, 08:36:07 UTC 5 years ago
Assuming that any of the deleted / suspended accounts were paid ones, do those individuals have any legal recourse? I'm not sure any were, and I'm merely a bystander, but perhaps it's something to consider as well.
May 30 2007, 10:19:19 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 30 2007, 09:26:48 UTC 5 years ago
Information on WFI
Might this be the proof that these people aren't a legitimate organization?
From suesviews2 . blogspot . com/2007_03_01_archive.html (no actual link in order to discourage them trolling us)
"Many of you already know about my 'other site', Warriors For Innocence. For those of you who don't, go on over and take a look. I started it to make a difference. I started it to have an outlet to fight the evil monsters of the world who prey on our children.
Feel free to take a look around. We have many articles on how predators groom the parents and their victims. We have a Parent's Guide and Internet Safety Page that we are in the process of expanding. We also started a Missing Children Page.
You see, I intend to stop child predators in their tracks. I do this by hunting them down in their own sick world, but I also strive to educate the public. Knowledge really is power. Knowing how these monsters operate gives us all the power to see them and stop them before they can harm a child.
If you are affiliated with a school or parent's organization, or if you'd just like more information on how to keep kids safe, please contact me. I am in the process of putting together a seminar/teaching session to present to schools and groups." (Dated March 11, 2007)
And from here: suesviews2 . blogspot . com/2006_10_01_archive.html
"Sorry for the lack of posting latey, but I've been pretty busy lately and now I can show you why. As some of you know, I've been actively involved in fighting pedophiles. Now, along with my brother, I have a new site dedicated to fighting monsters on the web.
so come on over and take a look at Warriors For Innocence We've got some great plans in the works over there." (Dated October 10, 2006)
This definitely sounds like someone with a personal vendetta, NOT a legitimate organization.
Link: http://www.journalfen.net/community/fan
I hope this helps in researching the legal status of WfI...
May 30 2007, 09:29:01 UTC 5 years ago
"Further, we regard the description of an illegal activity, an interest in an illegal activity, fantasizing about illegal activity, or even admitting to an illegal activity as something other than the commission of that activity. That is to say: writing a LiveJournal entry about having sexual attraction to minors is different than using LiveJournal to solicit a minor for sexual contact. The first is something on which we are unable to take any action; the second is something that we would consider actionable. In this case the story to which you have linked is disturbing. However, as the user describes it as "just a story," absent any accompanying imagery or incitement, there is no action we can take."
May 30 2007, 10:29:04 UTC 5 years ago
May 30 2007, 10:18:21 UTC 5 years ago
http://femmequixotic.livejournal.com/29
May 30 2007, 10:32:49 UTC 5 years ago
I have serious privacy issues with this crowd.
I take serious issue with this crowd (Warriorofinnocience) trawling for pictures of children and "evaluating" the context of that post and the persons commenting.I've asked LJ to Bar their IP address on these grounds.
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →