theljstaff
in
lj_biz
Illegal and Harmful Content Policy Clarifications
We are sorry it has taken so long to address the concerned community members. From reading the recent comments there's a lot of misinformation regarding the two users who were permanently suspended on Friday. In this post we're going to try and condense and reiterate all of our recent policy clarifications as well as address the most frequent
( Read more... )
Reply
Reply
Secondly! Those of you who recently purchased anything from lj... lodge a complaint with your credit card company. Specify that the merchant is not delivering on what they promised. It's likely that if the transaction was made within the last couple of months, you'll get a refund. (Sorry, this doesn't help older accounts purchased. But it's a start.)
Hit 'em in the pocketbook, right where it hurts most.
Also, I'm going to be keeping a close watch on this comment, just to make sure it doesn't get deleted. If it does, I'm just going to keep re-posting it.
Reply
http://digg.com/business_finance/LiveJournal_supports_pro_anorexia_groups
Reply
Reply
Now that I'm not 12 anymore...
1. The first problem I'll address is your communication. Your silence went on for six days before we heard anything. E-mails sent to feedback@livejournal.com were automatically queued into LiveJournal Support, and it seemed that you were picking and choosing which users to send a generic response to. Phone calls were not answered; many customers were sent straight to your answering machine, even on Monday and Tuesday - business days.
Solution: I believe you need someone on your staff whose sole job or main job is to communicate with your customers - otherwise known as "public relations." If we even had a small post saying that our concerns were being heard and attended to while you worked on this post, I don't believe the outrage at your non-communication would be as extreme ( ... )
Reply
I think that's the distinction between something being determined illegal on the basis of child pornography and illegal on the basis of it being determined obscene. A drawing can be determined to be obscene, legally speaking, if it meets all three of the following criteria...
1- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2- Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law;
3- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.
(From the Department of Justice's websiteWhich is where a significant portion of the problem prior to this post came in, given that it fell to the LJ staff to determine the artistic value of the works in question, and it seems they did a piss poor job ( ... )
Reply
This is something I'd like a response too, as well.
A lot of the outrage came from Six Apart first being unclear about how their rules applied to actual content on livejournal - despite being asked multiple times to clarify this: and then, without warning, giving two journallers in the exact area where people had been asking for clarification, a lifetime ban with no warning. This is just not good behaviour.
Reply
You are reading it wrong.
The definition of indistinguishable doesn't apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults not the definition of child pornography.
Reply
Which brings us back to the definition of "obscenity," since the minor has to be engaged in sexual explicit conduct that is also obscene.
However, this law has not been taken to the Supreme Court. If it was, and the Court in session did their job properly, I'm of the opinion that it would have to be thrown out - the reason that child pornography is illegal (as has been made abundantly clear by previous courts) is because of the harm done to the child, not any theoretical future harm it might 'cause' the viewer to do. By which logic, depictions that do not harm children should be legal.
But that's really neither here nor there; the law is on the books for the time being, and again, we simply return to whether something is obscene or not.
(For the record, I'm on the fans' side of this debate.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Does this mean talking about ALL illegal activity will be considered banned? Users under the age of 21 won't be allowed to speak about how they were drinking the night before? No one can talk about smoking marijuana? Both of these happen in television shows and movies.
In other words, are there limitations to this?
5. And because I have to find the funny in everything:
threats against the President and successors to the Presidency is now outlawed. Not that I can remember personally threatening our current leader, but I sure have thought about it...
You just made the upcoming 2008 election a lot less fun. I've often said that no one gets sarcasm over the internet... but I can't even threaten sarcastically? :(
Reply
There is very little content that is covered by this; the two most frequently mentioned are child porn and threats to the current President or those who might succeed him in the event of him being unfit to serve (e.g the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, etc.). Talking about marijuana doesn't fall into this category; possessing marijuana does but I believe it is impossible to email marijuana to anyone. :-P
Not that I can remember personally threatening our current leader, but I sure have thought about it...
This has been true for a very long time; I would bet, though, that the threat has to be considered "credible" to set an investigation in motion. I would guess that those responsible can indeed get sarcasm but I still don't think specifically saying you're going to kill someone like that is a good idea.
Reply
Reply
During those six weeks, you said that no more journals would be deleted without warning. You said that the Miller test would be used, implying that all three of its subsections would have to be met, i.e. that someone at SixApart (even if at that time it was only your lawyer) understood that those subsections are not to be applied on a 'one strike you're out' basis.
During those six weeks you held a 'Permanent Account' sale.
How many of those US$150 permanent accounts did you sell? How many paid journal users renewed their paid status or other enhancements, including extra icons? How much of our money did you pull in on the basis of what you have, with this post, just conceded was false advertising?
Falsely representing a product or service for sale is fraud, Barak. It's 'bait-and-switch.' Maybe your lawyer didn't mention this part? ( ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment