Strikethrough '07 update
May. 30th, 2007 06:49 pmI'm actually just going to go ahead and post all this, because I have other, non-controversial things to discuss and the Strikethrough thing is eating up my post, y'all.
Strikethrough '07 hits Firefox news. And Digg. And Boing Boing. And CNET. (An interesting point on that last one: "For its part, LiveJournal's abuse staff has defended pulling the plug on the communities by saying: 'Material which can be interpreted as expressing interest in, soliciting or encouraging illegal activity places LiveJournal at considerable legal risk.' That led one user,
femmequixotic, to reply: 'I list "gay marriage" among my interests--that is illegal in my state. With this wording my journal could be deleted, without warning, for the fact that I support equal rights of marriage for all.' "
Did Livejournal have a choice, given possible legal ramifications? On the other hand, why are they speaking to major media outlets before they're explaining their actions to their own customers? And did LJ ignore complaints about an actual pedophile/incest community and a convicted pedophile because advertisers were not, at the time, threatened?
"So we pay their bills but aren't good enough to sit at their table?"
Instigator "Warriors for Innocence"--or rather, the woman running the blog--supports the "Redneck Mafia," neo-Confederates, and dominionist militia groups? (Yes, I had to look up "dominionism" myself. It seems to be the basic idea that "society [should be] self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian." You can imagine how they feel about GLBT issues.)
Warren Ellis weighs in. "All that said: if you listed 'rape' as an interest on your LiveJournal user profile, you must have known that someday someone was coming to see you about that." (ETA: Ellis decides to pull blog content from LJ.)
Here's the thing about that, and the reason this whole thing isn't so easy: No, a lot of people aren't going to sympathize with fanfic writers posting stories about (fictional) incest or whatever who got booted. I would be inclined to warn them to take the content down before I suspended anyone entirely, but as people are (somewhat derisively) pointing out, if you're breaking the terms of service, you are not necessarily guaranteed or owed a warning. And no, Livejournal is not required to "protect the First Amendment"; it is a private company, not a government institution.
But here's the important thing: what about rape and incest survivors who listed that as one of their "interests" so that other survivors could find them? Here we're talking about "interests" in the sense of "key words designating things I write about frequently"? And I do know for a fact that at least one such survivor was, in fact, suspended. And then there's the issue that people writing about rape, incest or child abuse, even fictionally, might be writing about it in a thoughtful, non-promoting way. Example: A Spanish-language community devoted to discussing--wait for it--Lolita was suspended as well. So do we then go through and boot only the writers of incest/rape/abuse fiction, fan or otherwise, that isn't good? I mean, Lolita is literature; it can stay, right? So who decides whether it's good or not?
I can understand targeting the LJ equivalent of NAMBLA, a journal or community that advocates (at best) inappropriate relationships or (at worst) criminal behavior in real life. But as for fiction, I personally feel that if controversial fictional material is posted under a friends-lock in a community that's invitation-only--that is, protected from the eyes of minors--it ought to stand, however. A lot of people will write things that disgust you, and a lot of people won't even write those things well, but I defy you to find a single thing on the internet that does not offend someone. I mean, if you don't believe me, go to
baaaaabyanimals and look for any of the entries with babies in addition to fluffy kittens and watch people bitch about having their day ruined by human spawn. Maybe this is just a writer's perspective, but I feel like the issue is putting up barriers between minors and legal, controversial material, not removing the material entirely. And communities that did put up those barriers are still being punished.
Anyway. If you're going to complain about the situation, I suggest you play up the literary/Lolita angle and the survivor angle. The last thing fandom and fanfiction need right now is the spotlight of the mainstream media.
Weirdly related: Fun With Pedophiles: NBC Willing To Do Pretty Much Whatever It Takes To Catch A Predator. I cannot deny that it really is "voyeuristic humilitainment," and that the methods they've been using may be sketchy, and that it really is wrong to torment suspects with rubber chickens (no, seriously, click the link), but I reckon that the time that a guy walked in and said, "I brought some vodka," and Chris Hansen strolled out and said, "Did you bring enough for me?" was one of the most awesome things I have seen on television ever. But then: To Catch a Predator's partner, Perverted Justice, interested in going after LJ?

Strikethrough '07 hits Firefox news. And Digg. And Boing Boing. And CNET. (An interesting point on that last one: "For its part, LiveJournal's abuse staff has defended pulling the plug on the communities by saying: 'Material which can be interpreted as expressing interest in, soliciting or encouraging illegal activity places LiveJournal at considerable legal risk.' That led one user,
Did Livejournal have a choice, given possible legal ramifications? On the other hand, why are they speaking to major media outlets before they're explaining their actions to their own customers? And did LJ ignore complaints about an actual pedophile/incest community and a convicted pedophile because advertisers were not, at the time, threatened?
"So we pay their bills but aren't good enough to sit at their table?"
Instigator "Warriors for Innocence"--or rather, the woman running the blog--supports the "Redneck Mafia," neo-Confederates, and dominionist militia groups? (Yes, I had to look up "dominionism" myself. It seems to be the basic idea that "society [should be] self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian." You can imagine how they feel about GLBT issues.)
Warren Ellis weighs in. "All that said: if you listed 'rape' as an interest on your LiveJournal user profile, you must have known that someday someone was coming to see you about that." (ETA: Ellis decides to pull blog content from LJ.)
Here's the thing about that, and the reason this whole thing isn't so easy: No, a lot of people aren't going to sympathize with fanfic writers posting stories about (fictional) incest or whatever who got booted. I would be inclined to warn them to take the content down before I suspended anyone entirely, but as people are (somewhat derisively) pointing out, if you're breaking the terms of service, you are not necessarily guaranteed or owed a warning. And no, Livejournal is not required to "protect the First Amendment"; it is a private company, not a government institution.
But here's the important thing: what about rape and incest survivors who listed that as one of their "interests" so that other survivors could find them? Here we're talking about "interests" in the sense of "key words designating things I write about frequently"? And I do know for a fact that at least one such survivor was, in fact, suspended. And then there's the issue that people writing about rape, incest or child abuse, even fictionally, might be writing about it in a thoughtful, non-promoting way. Example: A Spanish-language community devoted to discussing--wait for it--Lolita was suspended as well. So do we then go through and boot only the writers of incest/rape/abuse fiction, fan or otherwise, that isn't good? I mean, Lolita is literature; it can stay, right? So who decides whether it's good or not?
I can understand targeting the LJ equivalent of NAMBLA, a journal or community that advocates (at best) inappropriate relationships or (at worst) criminal behavior in real life. But as for fiction, I personally feel that if controversial fictional material is posted under a friends-lock in a community that's invitation-only--that is, protected from the eyes of minors--it ought to stand, however. A lot of people will write things that disgust you, and a lot of people won't even write those things well, but I defy you to find a single thing on the internet that does not offend someone. I mean, if you don't believe me, go to
Anyway. If you're going to complain about the situation, I suggest you play up the literary/Lolita angle and the survivor angle. The last thing fandom and fanfiction need right now is the spotlight of the mainstream media.
Weirdly related: Fun With Pedophiles: NBC Willing To Do Pretty Much Whatever It Takes To Catch A Predator. I cannot deny that it really is "voyeuristic humilitainment," and that the methods they've been using may be sketchy, and that it really is wrong to torment suspects with rubber chickens (no, seriously, click the link), but I reckon that the time that a guy walked in and said, "I brought some vodka," and Chris Hansen strolled out and said, "Did you bring enough for me?" was one of the most awesome things I have seen on television ever. But then: To Catch a Predator's partner, Perverted Justice, interested in going after LJ?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 12:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:00 am (UTC)I'm moving this weekend, but if things haven't smoothed by the time I'm back up, I may be bailing LJ. Like it matters, but I'd feel better.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:02 am (UTC)But.
I deleted all my Interests because next time it could be someone complaining to LJ/SA about people interested in "Oscar Wilde".
Meanwhile, I have a mirror journal at Greatest Journal, where I Friended your emergency-needs journal from one of the Great LJ Power-Outs.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:03 am (UTC)I'm sorry, but I think that's hysterically funny. Awww, poor child predators, faced with a rubber chicken!
Given that the men on these shows are actually going out of their way to drive/walk/bike/whatever to a location specifically to meet with an underage person, and given that Chris Hansen always is waving around IM transcripts and reading direct quotes from said transcripts back to the pedophiles/ebophiles on camera, all I can say is: cry more, emo kid. I think that article is failing to mention that local law enforcement agencies would likely not open themselves up to repeated risk of charges of entrapment if it were actually entrapment. I think they get most of these guys dead to rights on that show.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:06 am (UTC)An actual link-edit question
Date: 2007-05-31 01:08 am (UTC)I'm a proofer. Proofing's what I do. (And I don't yet know what I want to say about the situation...)
Re: An actual link-edit question
Date: 2007-05-31 04:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:18 am (UTC)Seriously, though? Who is going to make the distinctions between what is appropriate and what is not? Innocent people are being affected by all of this, and some guilty people are escaping all of this persecution. Child predators are terrible and sick, and need to be stopped, but this is clearly not the way it's going to happen. Frankly, I think it's a couple steps backward to go through and suspend these journals.
I feel terrible for the survivor communities and the members of such comms. As if they haven't had to go through enough, and now they're robbed of their outlets? I mean, come one.
On a lighter note, people are calling for Frank the Goat's Head (http://news.livejournal.com/98960.html?thread=45747344).
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:19 am (UTC)Anyway. If you're going to complain about the situation, I suggest you play up the literary/Lolita angle and the survivor angle.
That's really the only thing about this that bugs me. It just shows that LJ didn't put much research/thought into this before they did it; I get the sense that LJ has a history of doing that and it's going to come back and bite them in the ass at some point.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:47 am (UTC)P.S. I have always loved that icon.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:24 am (UTC)I know for a while SCA would turn up both the the medieval society and the satanists.
I know when I google too encompassing of a term I get plenty I wasn't looking for.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:44 am (UTC)But they do.
From:A bit more specific.
From:no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:42 am (UTC)Except possibly LJ users who don't like incest.
Not them, either.
Date: 2007-05-31 06:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 01:54 am (UTC)I just changed my interests down to "free speech". It's small, but maybe it will make an impact.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 03:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Two things
Date: 2007-05-31 02:04 am (UTC)2: I love how this whole thing is about the children (!!!1) when this sixteen year old wants to read about fictional brothers kissing.
Re: Two things
Date: 2007-05-31 03:03 am (UTC)Same here! This fifteen-year-old enjoys ageplay!fic, incest and paedophilia (but would never, NEVER consider going out with some crusty 25-year-old in real life - EWWWW!). But they have to consider what we really need, right?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 02:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 04:09 am (UTC)You're weird.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 02:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 02:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 10:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 03:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 02:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 03:03 am (UTC)Since then so many people have posted and voice-poisted the lyrics to that song onto that post that I lost count. People are iconning it. It's like... the strikethrough theme song. o_O
I am boggled and WTFing.... but I likes it.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 04:11 am (UTC)But this whole thing does boggle the mind. The idocracy of LJ, and the amazing feedback from the massive throng of folks who are protesting!
I find it amusing that we all may have our differences..but we unite for one cause...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 03:23 am (UTC)For Great Justice.Request to be allowed to be a posting member of m15m group
Date: 2007-05-31 03:56 am (UTC)Violin Goddess
Re: Request to be allowed to be a posting member of m15m group
Date: 2007-05-31 04:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 04:02 am (UTC)But I'm in agreement, at any rate, that this whole thing is very dumb on LJ's part, virusy websites aside. It's looking a lot like they were getting pressure from Loud People to do something and then just did something that really had little to do with what the Loud People wanted, and that's never a good way to do business.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 06:32 am (UTC)On a side note, why would WfI want to give possible supporters viruses? Wouldn't make you feel very charitable.
(no subject)
From: