Emi Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 What is your opinion about this? http://bookshop.livejournal.com/823790.html Basically, it can be summarized by saying legal issues oppressing incestuous communities on LiveJournal.com... some of which has been suspended and deleted. Also, there were things regarding to Fanlib lately. ;x Anyone heard about that as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy_lovechild Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 *sighs* I'm gonna sound like such a fucking prick for saying this but here goes: Now I'm going to straight up say that I'm not too fond of incest and under-age sex has become a bit of a squick of mine. Now I understand the concept of free spech but I also understand that this is a hot button right now. If lj dosn't want to host that sort of thing, then they don't fucking have to. Simple as that. And anyway, it's not like it really matters in the end. Once this little snit has blown over, new journals and comms devoted to such things will pop up and folks will be able to find their jollies once more. I don't know, for some reason that entry just seemed a bit absurd to me. Although, it should be noted that lj was pressured to do so and that no one seemed to give a flying rat's ass before whatever the fuck went down at fanlib. I'll be checking out more about fanlib too. From the sounds of it fanfic writers need to warned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Agaib Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 I agree with Iggy regarding the rights of the website, as long as they didn't take this action because of legal pressure they should be allowed to host what they want. However, I really don't agree with their philosophy. Part of the problem is the fact that people automatically connect incest with underage sex and pedophilia. Incest tends to suffer from "guilt by association" and social taboos. In any case, no one should be allowed to force LJ to host certain groups in the same way that no one should be allowed to force LJ to stop hosting groups. It's that company's decision. People and companies have the right to freedom of speech as well as freedom not to speak. EDIT: I didn't read the actual Live Journal discussion on the topic. If someone is forcing the company to destroy the groups because of legal threats, then something is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yhitzak Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 Regardless of the website, it is entirely the hosts of the site who are obliged to decide what or what not to allow onto their site. Whether or not anyone agrees to it is rather insignificant, as Iggy pointed out, it's only a matter of time before these things start popping up in other places. Because I can't keep quiet about this, a quick word on the 1st Ammendment: the first ammendment protects the freedom of speech, but it does not protect *harmful* speech. Harmful is, indeed, a term up for much debate. For the most part, I think that websites that eliminate certain subject matters are doing so as a preventative measure; they don't want to come under fire for their content, later. And as much as I hate to say it, the majority of incest-based fictions also include elements of minor-sex and dubious consent. I'm not looking to make a blanket statement like, "All incest fics are bad and gross and are about underage rape!" because I don't believe that to be true. It is entirely within a person's personal realm of choice and responsibility to write and post whatever they do, but no one should be surprised when subjects of questionable legality are eliminated from a fiction-based, user-based website. Especially at a place like LiveJournal or MySpace, both of which are all-ages sites. The link to the journal is grossly uninformative. I followed several links from the page and still couldn't figure out *exactly* what the complaint was. In fact, if not for the posts on this thread, I'd have no idea what the issue was. Emi, you may want to find another link with some more info. Please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy_lovechild Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 Wow. I feel all informative today. This is what began the purge: Comments from Warriors for Innocence I don't really know what to make of it except it sounds like lj fucked up a little in trying to placate these folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Agaib Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 I don't really think that dirty stories involving underage sex really constitute harmful speech. Anyone that is willing to harm someone because they read a story that warmed their nethers is either mentally ill or someone who was willing to hurt another person anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adara Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 I don't really think that dirty stories involving underage sex really constitute harmful speech. Anyone that is willing to harm someone because they read a story that warmed their nethers is either mentally ill or someone who was willing to hurt another person anyway. I agree. I think it falls under the same lines as, "I killed them because Marilyn Manson's music said so." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonhart29 Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 I can understand (a little) why LJ did what they did. Can you imagine the hours it would take to visit each journal to see if they were supporting pedophilia? I personally think they should have taken the time. The damage they did to the journals that help and the people who used it as a sort of therapy is horrible. I also see a few law suits in the future - it is the American Dream after all - become wealthy through a law suit. I'm being a bit sarcastic - but I still see it happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy_lovechild Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 *wearily* Due to the shitstorm this has created, what with the deletion of "innocent journals" (fiction journals, fandom related material, and a couple major fuck-ups in the form of support/surviver journals), the powers that be at lj is unsuspending some journals and comms. They're looking at content now, rather than just randomly deleting shit. Actually, from what I understand the main purge was done by the higher-ups at lj and the Abuse Team has been doing the clean up job, I guess. Anyway, the mess is being cleaned up and hopefully the hysteria will die down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost_Soul Posted January 27, 2008 Report Share Posted January 27, 2008 *sighs*I'm gonna sound like such a fucking prick for saying this but here goes: Now I'm going to straight up say that I'm not too fond of incest and under-age sex has become a bit of a squick of mine. Now I understand the concept of free spech but I also understand that this is a hot button right now. If lj dosn't want to host that sort of thing, then they don't fucking have to. Simple as that. And anyway, it's not like it really matters in the end. Once this little snit has blown over, new journals and comms devoted to such things will pop up and folks will be able to find their jollies once more. I don't know, for some reason that entry just seemed a bit absurd to me. Although, it should be noted that lj was pressured to do so and that no one seemed to give a flying rat's ass before whatever the fuck went down at fanlib. I'll be checking out more about fanlib too. From the sounds of it fanfic writers need to warned. I agree with Iggy regarding the rights of the website, as long as they didn't take this action because of legal pressure they should be allowed to host what they want. However, I really don't agree with their philosophy.Part of the problem is the fact that people automatically connect incest with underage sex and pedophilia. Incest tends to suffer from "guilt by association" and social taboos. In any case, no one should be allowed to force LJ to host certain groups in the same way that no one should be allowed to force LJ to stop hosting groups. It's that company's decision. People and companies have the right to freedom of speech as well as freedom not to speak. EDIT: I didn't read the actual Live Journal discussion on the topic. If someone is forcing the company to destroy the groups because of legal threats, then something is wrong. I agree with you both on this matter. I am the same, and don't go for the incest and such that ties with it, it just gives people (and kids) ideas when it comes to sex and thinks its ok and usually end up doing it; but whatever floats your boat, I can't judge you, I just disagree with it. And the whole legal issue, well, that's going to be tough. I don't know how it will end, and as Iggy mentioned, it will blow over and people will open other journals and such to it that won't cause drama like this. No offense, but I think this is ridiculous and stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinigamiinochi Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 lj has the right to delete whoever they want, but what pissed me off is that incest support groups that got deleted as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 Sorry if this comes off as a rant, but this kind of thing infuriates me to absolutely no end. As far as I'm concerned if you're of age, not harming anyone and it's consensual then you should be allowed to be in whatever kind of relationship you want. Now I understand that incest is a "major" taboo in some parts of the world, but excuse me for being Southern and having had to live with all kinds of incest jokes - sorry to say, in some cases, they are stereotypes for a reason. And believe me, if I'd known LJ had those kinds of groups I would've taken a friend's advice and joined LJ long ago. However, I can understand to a degree about people not wanting stories that involve underage sex or seeming as though they support those who write about causing harm, especially sexually, to children. But at the same time hasn't anyone heard of Freedom of Speech? Though again I understand how that's often being taken away from us, more every day it seems, but at the same time those users should've at least been warned ahead of time and given information as to what was happening as opposed to having their work just deleted - seemingly for no reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 (edited) LJ reacted to the pressure put on them by a group with the intention of removing material like that from the web. They would look at it and ask one question, "How does this affect the bottom line?" LJ and their parent company are not in the business of protecting your rights. They are in the business of turning a profit for their shareholders. If a decision of theirs affects your right to free speech, that's not important, because they can persuade themselves that they've stomped on that right for the 'Public Good'. WFI is doing what they've set themselves up to do. I don't agree with it, but that's my opinion.They believe that if somebody reads something about incest, or sex with minors, they're going to jump up from their computers, run outside, and molest the first child they see. Yes it's a stupid knee jerk reaction, but it's their way of protecting their children and making themselves feel good. They don't care about you or your rights. Their ideas and thoughts are more important than anybody else's. Just ask them. Ask them what they've done to help minors in the underage sex trade. Minors involved in prostitution because they've fallen through the cracks in the social welfare system. Have they offered to adopt any of them? Have they supported shelters and programs to turn their lives around? Have they volunteered their time to help any of these kids. What have they done to eradicate the cause of this problem? Oh wait, that's right, because they forced LJ to remove anything from the website that had to do with minors and sex, they've cured the problem. Now they can pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for a job well done, without actually having to get involved in any of the real reasons behind a lot of this. Edited February 25, 2008 by crash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwizard Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 This reminds me a lot of something yahoo did a few years back. They used to have a chat feature where users could create their own chatroms that were open to the public. But some of their advertisers found out that that feature was being used to create rooms where perverts and underage girls alike would go to meet and silicit sex. The advertisers threatened to pull their buisness if yahoo didn't fix the problem. It's all about image. The companies that advertise with yahoo didn't want to get the reputation of not caring if they advertised to perverts and child molestors. If you ask me, it's all a bunch of superficial bullshit. Perverts go buy stuff in stores just like anyone else. Money is money no matter where it comes from. But somehow, some brain damaged moron came up with the conclusion that if their adds are in one of those chatrooms, it made it look like they were condoning sex predators. I've said it once and I'll say it again; people scare me. It looks to me like this is the very same thing. It's all about the squeaky clean image. Sex is still considered dirty, even though everyone does it. Though the people doing this shit probably don't get laid enough.... Yeah, a world wide orgy should solve everything... lol. But anyway, it all comes down to public image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 It's called 'Brand Management' and they teach courses in it in University. It's about the perceived image of the company. I.E. Nike and that little sweat shop issue. Anything that may have a negative effect on the company's bottom line is a no-no, whether it's real or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitBlackmage Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Not that I agree with going against freedom of speech, but I wouldn't want to be associated with that stuff. But if I were to run a public site like that, I guess I would have to eat my cake and like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.