Illegal and Harmful Content Policy Clarifications

[theljstaff]

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

Comments

[ladyjaida]

I'm concerned about the fact that you did not warn the members in question, giving them--as you promised you would in earlier posts--a chance to remove the offending content. Why was this?

[pheret1]

I think this is an important concern as well.

[pheret1]

Yet, as I read again it seems to be saying that will not be happening.

[ladyjaida]

Yeah, same here. :)

Also, maybe I'm just completely out of it, but...has ljstaff made posts before, either in lj_biz or elsewhere? Or is this a new journal made to handle things? Merely curious. I never pay attention to these things (and see where that gets me, huh!) :)

[lion]

It's a new journal. For anonymity's sake, I guess. It's probably a wise idea, after what happened with burr86!

[innerslytherin]

[screenedcontent]

Lol..you can send them a virtual gift!!

(Wonder if their virtual roses come in black - tragic romance)

[kikayume]

Near Halloween they had flaming bags of dog crap.... too bad it's not nearer to October. :P

[screenedcontent]

lmao! (They'd just (put on hip-waders and) STOMP on it??)

[lion]

Can a warning system be put into place regarding prohibited content, much the same way that there is a 3 strikes rule in place for copyright violation complaints instead of banning users on their first offense?

Content that meets this definition is likely to be illegal under child pornography laws so we cannot continue to host it after it has been reported to us and we have reviewed it.

I imagine that this is why. Not that I agree with the absence of a promised system, but I think that's probably the reasoning behind it.

[ladyjaida]

Reading it over a second time, I realize this is probably the reason why. I was still operating under the statements that had been issued earlier--that no one would be deleted/suspended without fair warning, which it was obvious from the artists' accounts they had not been given.

Hmm.... so I suppose my question should add, "If a member with offensive content should comply with the terms and remove the offensive content, will their journal be reinstated?" Mainly because all art is subjective, and it is hard, in this instance, to know whether or not one is crossing the line until his/her journal is deleted.

[lion]

Yes, I agree. I get the impression from the general tone of this post that once you've done this sort of thing once, that's it. You're just plain unwelcome around here. Probably because they're more interested in keeping things legal than in taking on the role of pursuing justice for people who want reinstated -- it's easier just to get rid of all the Bad Stuff altogether.

Might explain why the TOS isn't changing, either. We'd all have to re-sign it, as it were, and that'd open a whole new can of worms regarding paid/permanent accounts.

I thoroughly agree with you, though. All art is subjective, and this 'artistic merit' thing has never sat well with me.

[kalishra]

they aren't interested in legality. They just said so. They said that they don't care if it is legal, you are gone if they don't like you.

[cmdr_zoom]

Except the TOS are changing - we just don't get to see what they've been changed to.

[anotherdream]

The TOS is the written, public document provided here. While policies and the practical stuff may be changing, the Terms of Service has not, and it's not something LJ could legally be withholding from the users.

[averysmallthing]

Mainly because all art is subjective

The problem is that in the letters to the two artists, they said they passed the drawings around the office and decided they weren't art.