(no subject)

*laughs in delight*

From the marvelous dual_avi here:

See, the thing is no one's been very clear about this post. You've cited the Miller Test, but that in itself is vague, and no matter how many times the question is asked, no one seems to have a clear answer. So, really, just two questions to ask:

1) If a fanfiction is written about two fictional, underage characters, and it is explicit - fly-on-the-wall explicit - will it be removed? Yes or No.

And

2) You say that it's only considered 'wrong' if it has no artistic, etc. value. So does that mean that an explicit story about underage fictional characters that is written badly (i.e. poor grammar, awful characterization) may be deleted, but an explicit story about underage fictional characters that is written wonderfully will not be. Again, Yes or No. I'd rather not have any beating around the bush. Just two straight-forward answers, if you'd be so kind.

Bolding is mine.

Hmm. Somewhere there are cookies. I shall make them.

What I'm not sure of--how serious is this in a practical sense? I'm all about the theoretical and slippery-slope--but are we looking at Strikethrough 2007 II: The Return of the Horizontal Bar?

Spoilers apparently on page seven. I skipped seven when someone posted the warning. - apparently spoilers deleted.

You know, this might be a good time to wonder exactly what would be required to make our own journaling site. I mean, besides money, experts, and robust servers.

ETA: It's probably wrong I really just want to try and see just how many comments I can post there, isn't it? Very wrong. And probably a bannable offense. I'm sure that being obscenely active falls far outside the safety of Miller.

Comments

[amireal.livejournal.com]

The spoilers were deleted, at least two of them are watching closely for that sort of thing.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

Oh good.

[claire.livejournal.com]

LiveJournal would be stupid to answer those questions. I mean OK, fandom is concerned, but see synecodochic's latest post. However there exists a much larger group than you would assume that troll every single thing posted by every single staff member of 6A and then try and skirt as close to the line as possible before getting suspended. Or searching out possible violations and submitting them to the Abuse team.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

Why would it be stupid? While yes, I can see the point, I think, in this case, setting rules that perhaps might cause a large population of the memberbase to be de facto labeled as child pornographers is--well. I'm severely uncomfortable with that, and not just becuase I'm in that particular part of the memberbase. Though it helps.

[claire.livejournal.com]

Because as soon as LJ says Yes or No, the idiots who are out to fuck LJ in the ass will be all over the site either looking for loopholes, writing stuff that skirts as close to the line as they can just for the LULZ, harassing other people, harassing the Abuse Team, trolling for journals to report or all of the above. It's just dumb to say Yes or No when you can't possibly forsee every single situation.

So instead they say that it could be a violation of the ToS to write fic that is two twelve year olds fucking. Whether or not it will be is not absolute.

[amireal.livejournal.com]

And unfortunately they can't just SAY that, or even approach saying that and no one is going to happy with "It's up to the abuse team".

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I do understand that. But that's *not* acceptable to set as a rule; a rule we have no guidelines for, no test case to use, and Miller's is *funny* because for the purposes of using it, I'm not even sure what lj thinks my community is. What *has* been said will cause these things anyway, and alienate the userbase as well.

I can't quite see why this was actually necessary, to be honest.

[claire.livejournal.com]

There are guidelines. It's the ToS which is the same ToS that it's been for ages. The guidelines are in the lj_biz post. These guidelines may not be what people want, but they are there. The ToS has always said it's a violation to post stuff that could be obscene. LJ has always determined that text may be obscene (ie, it's not restricted to pictures or images). And not just LJ, I have heard that from more than one California-based lawyer. So nothing has changed really, except we are saying these things might happen.

Personally I'm thinking that part was aimed the actual kiddiefuckers who write elaborate scenarios about how they'd fuck their son or daughter or next door neighbours 8 month old baby and describe in graphic detail all the jizz and blood and tears and then at the end go "LOL fiction". I don't know if that's the actual aim of the statement, but we certainly get a few of those on LJ. Sickening too.

[buggery.livejournal.com]

Actually, the TOS has been changed many times, including just this year.

If my community agreed that the comment I'm responding to right now is obscene by its standards, then you would be guilty of violating the TOS and should be banned. Actually, by your logic, you should be banned anyway, because your comment "could be obscene." [emphasis mine]

It's exactly this kind of infinitely over-broad phrasing, coming from LJ/6A's official representatives, that has people so upset.

[buggery.livejournal.com]

The problem with this approach is that, in concert with the at times horrifically uneven decisions made by LJ Abuse (or if, as happened during Strikethrough, the Abuse team has its hands tied by people higher up at 6A and are again ordered to suspend or delete journals that they know perfectly well aren't violating either the TOS or the law) it means that we're going to see a lot of journals banned based on one LJ employee's opinion that it meets one of the three prongs of the obscenity standard. And when this happens -- this is not an 'if' situation -- the fact that the user never posted any illegal, obscene or TOS-violating content won't be of any help to them in getting their journal unsuspended.

That said, LJ quite frankly deserves people setting out to fuck with them by going as close to the line as they can. THEY are fucking with US. And we're (some of us at least) paying for the privilege.

[claire.livejournal.com]

also the fanfic thing is obscenity, not child pornography, so far as I can tell. The difference? I dunno, but it's there.

[kkpixie.livejournal.com]

All we'd need is a server, really.

*rummages through closet*

[justascream.livejournal.com]

Also: Juliet was 13 or 14 or so. Nyeh.

[deadlychameleon.livejournal.com]

I hear it's actually pretty easy to make your own blog. Some of the features are a little more complex than others, but I think a lot of it is just the sort of javascript I already know how to do, combined with some php I don't. The "nice" thing about lj is that it's centralized and organized.

[anjak-j.livejournal.com]

I mean, besides money, experts, and robust servers.

Because LJ sure has those...

[anjak-j.livejournal.com]

And huh, LJ ate my */sarcasm*

[deadlychameleon.livejournal.com]

Ok, here's the thing, Miller went around with a jacket that said "Fuck the draft" on it, right?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/1st/032057.html

But, if individuals are quietly hosting content that may be considered "obscene" but f-locked or even lj-cut, so the general community *can't* see it unless they specifically ask to, isn't that private speech?

[deadlychameleon.livejournal.com]

Wait a gosh-darned tooting minute.
How many Teen Girl porn sites are out there that deliberately try and make porn stars look underage? How many school girl fantasy Animes are there?

An you think a little text on a page is more obscene than that?

[anashi.livejournal.com]

LOL I must have drama fatigue. I can't even summon up enough energy to post a cat macro.

[buggery.livejournal.com]

It's probably wrong I really just want to try and see just how many comments I can post there, isn't it? Very wrong. And probably a bannable offense. I'm sure that being obscenely active falls far outside the safety of Miller.

Don't you dare stop commenting! Think of it as being like those charity walks and runs, where other people let you do all the hard work of making a difference to little boys with menopause or whatever, but knowing that you're out there going the distance makes the rest of us feel almost as good as if we were venting there ourselves.

Also, re: making our own site... baby, if you build it, I will come.

[wrenlet.livejournal.com]

So does that mean that an explicit story about underage fictional characters that is written badly (i.e. poor grammar, awful characterization) may be deleted, but an explicit story about underage fictional characters that is written wonderfully will not be.

I had THAT EXACT SAME THOUGHT when people were going on about "responsible" writing, because it seemed to me some of the sorts of things getting pegged as "irresponsible" just looked like badfic.

*bitter bitter laugh* I wondered why everybody got so chatty in the one day since I was last online. Goddammit, SixApart.