Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I am addressing this very seriously to EVERY lawyer with legal expertise in copyright infringement and fair use, and I'm also addressing this to any lawyer well-versed in the legal statutes on internet child pornography.

As I'm sure many of you already know, 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.



May. 30th, 2007 01:20 pm (UTC)
Technically, incest is illegal in California - CPC Section 285 (I looked it up), but the definition is limited to fornication or adultery within the degrees of consanguinity that would bar marriage.

But the issue, as you've said, isn't whether incest is illegal or not - the issue is whether the discussion of it is illegal or not, and I think everyone would agree that it is perfectly legal to discuss it or to write about it. Bigamy is also illegal in California, but I don't see LJ going after communities focused on Big Love - and I don't see many people complaining that said show should be banned because it's premised on illegal activity. Or look at The Riches. If only there were LJ communities for *those* shows (instead of myspace pages) - I'd wonder what they have in their Interests sections.

I believe that LJ's complaint that they are at serious risk because of the listing of certain interests is insincere and not legally tenable under California law. I believe that LJ may in fact be at risk because of the content of some journals and communities, but their response of deleting said journals and communities violates their own Terms of Use, which incorporates the FAQ and Privacy Policy by reference.

I think that the best thing would be for femmequixotic, as an injured party, to go to ChillingEffects and/or Harvard's cyberlaw clinic, and/or Henry Jenkins, and see if they can help. They have processes and structures in place to deal with this sort of thing. The risk, of course, is that the eyes of the public might turn to fandom, and I know a lot of people don't like that as a matter of principle, and I understand why they don't. And it's not a "first amendment" issue - but there are contracts between users and LJ, and I worry that LJ's gotten some bad legal advice (which sometimes happens over holiday weekends). And there's nothing that's happened yet that can't be fixed, if LJ decides to be reasonable about the law in this situation. At present, they're not.
This Community should be used for informative and educational purposes only or to give the public a general understanding of the law.
Nothing in this community, its posts or the comments thereto should be considered as specific advice. Your access to and use of this Community means that you understand and acknowledge that no attorney-client relationship exists between you and any poster or commenter hereto, and that the Community should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney/counselor/solicitor in your jurisdiction.


Fandom Lawyers

Page Summary

Latest Month

April 2015
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Jared MacPherson