Re: obedientgirl

[andrew_day]

I filed a report with LJ Abuse, and this is the response I got from LJ:

Dear LiveJournal user andrew_day

Comments

[wolf_nd_shadows]

After the clusterf#@K last spring, I think LJ may have lost its nerve when it comes to banning

[buggery]

Um... they haven't stopped with the bannings. The BS in May was just their opening salvo.

[mresundance]

Surprise!

LJ bans people in fandom for queer slash stories and art.

But it's peachy keen to promote hate speech and violence against queers.

I think I see how things have panned out here.

[spokenonlyonce]

I received a response from Megan with LJ abuse that said: "As long as the content does not explicitly encourage violence or physical harm against a particular social minority, it is not considered hate speech."

I replied to Megan, saying:

Thank you for your reply.

The images contained in obedientgirl's many posts to the genderqueer community also included two images depicting violence towards women. Both involved women being kicked in the groin area, and one of them said, "punt a cunt" and had a subtitle calling for a daily kick to the groin in order to prevent infections (bizarre as it sounds). The posts have since been removed by the moderator of that community. However, I am interested to know if I had mentioned those specific images of explicit violence against women, would the actions of the abuse team be any different?

Thanks again,
Katie

Will comment again when she replies.

[mresundance]

Kudos to you for pursuing this matter further! :D

[red_trillium]

Good luck with this. If she still comes back with a "not abuse" you can try to point her to the Terms of Service parts I've starred below. They might not consider it hate speech, but surely it was "abusive, harrassing, vulgar, obscene" at the very least. Surely the violent images though are enough to make them get off their bumms. Although you would think the following terms: "or otherwise objectionable" in their own TOS would be enough

[elfwreck]

Copyright complaints have to come from the owner of copyright, or his/her authorized agent. (There's reasons for that which are much bigger than LJ--you can't be certain that the poster doesn't have permission to use the copyrighted images, nor that the copyright owner minds them being posted in other places.)

They've been remarkably unwilling to clarify what they consider abusive, harassing, vulgar or obscene. But yes, it's worth pointing out that a reasonable person would consider the post to have those traits.

[red_trillium]

Haven't had a chance to read all the entries yet, but one thought I had about the troll was this: does Genderqueer have "underage" members? If so, said troll posted porn. That mean they supplied children/minors with porn wouldn't it??? If so then that is illegal under US law and not just an oppinion. I think that if the complaints were based not just about the religious beliefs but the (1) porn aspect and (2) hate speech aspect then LJ Abuse should have to do something about it as it would violate the TOS.

[red_trillium]

Sorry, finally had a chance to read what LJ terms 'hate speech'. Pretty bogus.

Between the original "strike through", the recent "clarification" of the TOS and now something like that shows me that it really is a bad idea to do a paid account. I'll stay on the free one thanks.

[kat_chan]

What's interesting to me is that race, ethnicity and religion are grounds for "hate speech", but a pic that advocates a "punt in the cunt", and on a daily basis at that, isn't. I guess violence against women isn't enough to get you booted, either.

[rkt]

none of the others are enough to get you booted, either. ljabuse has never been efficient in handling these types of complaints.