First of all, may I say I am with you on the comparisons of anything with the Holocaust? Twelve million people were killed. Stop comparing every little slight to it, people! (A hugh pet peeve of mine
( ... )
I agree that it's not being handled well. Certainly I don't find LJ any great paragon of appropriate behavior. As I've said elsewhere, though, I think they're scared and trying to cover their asses, and everybody's confused from users on up to owners. A bad situation with bad choices. Not a holocaust
( ... )
Just playing devil's advocate here, because I like the discussion:
Hi, we found images depicting minors in sexual situations on your blog.The problem I have is that it's not clear that that is the situation here
( ... )
iirc it was on a comm where that could rationally be assumed.
(a non-existent human being)
In an age where nude statues are getting covered up or edited out of films, this doesn't protect anything.
the younger man could easily be 18
And could just as easily not be 18.
It portrays a clearly consensual situation.
Irrelevant when it comes to statutory rape.
If the younger man did not resemble the 18 yo actor Daniel Radcliffe, would the LJ have been deleted without warning?
Probably not. Like I said in my other comment, I'd have assumed if it depicted Harry that it was underage Harry.
I question the wisdom of their actions, including from a profit-making standpoint. I would bet that fandom affilliated LJs have a profoundly higher rate of paid LJs than non-fandom LJs.I suspect that when LJ is weighing the cost of losing paid members vs. the cost of losing sponsors or being investigated by Dateline or the feds, losing membership is the cheaper
( ... )
I question the wisdom of their actions, including from a profit-making standpoint. I would bet that fandom affilliated LJs have a profoundly higher rate of paid LJs than non-fandom LJs.
I suspect that when LJ is weighing the cost of losing paid members vs. the cost of losing sponsors or being investigated by Dateline or the feds, losing membership is the cheaper option.
Reply
Reply
Hi, we found images depicting minors in sexual situations on your blog.The problem I have is that it's not clear that that is the situation here ( ... )
Reply
Why assume that is Harry Potter
iirc it was on a comm where that could rationally be assumed.
(a non-existent human being)
In an age where nude statues are getting covered up or edited out of films, this doesn't protect anything.
the younger man could easily be 18
And could just as easily not be 18.
It portrays a clearly consensual situation.
Irrelevant when it comes to statutory rape.
If the younger man did not resemble the 18 yo actor Daniel Radcliffe, would the LJ have been deleted without warning?
Probably not. Like I said in my other comment, I'd have assumed if it depicted Harry that it was underage Harry.
I question the wisdom of their actions, including from a profit-making standpoint. I would bet that fandom affilliated LJs have a profoundly higher rate of paid LJs than non-fandom LJs.I suspect that when LJ is weighing the cost of losing paid members vs. the cost of losing sponsors or being investigated by Dateline or the feds, losing membership is the cheaper ( ... )
Reply
I suspect that when LJ is weighing the cost of losing paid members vs. the cost of losing sponsors or being investigated by Dateline or the feds, losing membership is the cheaper option.
And this, I believe, is the crux of the matter.
Reply
Leave a comment