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.
Why assume that is Harry Potter (a non-existent human being) in that artwork? It's just a drawing of two men; no names are attached. One appears to be older than the other, but the younger man could easily be 18. It portrays a clearly consensual situation.
If the younger man did not resemble the 18 yo actor Daniel Radcliffe, would the LJ have been deleted without warning?
Is there a difference between drawings and photographs? If I posted a Robert Mapplethorpe photo in my LJ, would it be deleted?
I completely agree that LJ was within their rights to do what they did, but 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 think people are most upset about the lack of due process more than anything else.
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 option.
I think people are most upset about the lack of due process more than anything else.
I agree with you. And I'm very fond of due process. But LJ isn't the cops and doesn't have to provide due process if it doesn't want to, unfortunately.
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.
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.
Why assume that is Harry Potter (a non-existent human being) in that artwork? It's just a drawing of two men; no names are attached. One appears to be older than the other, but the younger man could easily be 18. It portrays a clearly consensual situation.
If the younger man did not resemble the 18 yo actor Daniel Radcliffe, would the LJ have been deleted without warning?
Is there a difference between drawings and photographs? If I posted a Robert Mapplethorpe photo in my LJ, would it be deleted?
I completely agree that LJ was within their rights to do what they did, but 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 think people are most upset about the lack of due process more than anything else.
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 option.
I think people are most upset about the lack of due process more than anything else.
I agree with you. And I'm very fond of due process. But LJ isn't the cops and doesn't have to provide due process if it doesn't want to, unfortunately.
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