strikethrough 2007 round two?

Okay, checking something.

ponderosa121

Okay, this is new.

ETA:

Quickly reorganizing the links.

One

This can't end well.

Quoted from the post:

Has there been more Strikethrough nonsense going on or something, and I've somehow missed the wank? Because it is very odd, she's not strkethrough'ed, just... de-LJ'd (ponderosa121), but she's very definitely suspended.

Dude. Are we malfunctioning?

[edit] Oh, evil twin. She was blissfully unaware, and her response to the deleted? "Huh."

OI.

OKAY. THE LOWDOWN.

Apparently, she's been suspended over a drawing posted on pornish_pixies cited to contain "minors in explicit sexual situations." Probably some Snape/Harry. And since there's no appeal system... well. In a show of evil twin solidarity, I'm most likely jumping ship to GreatestJournal. We're both over there, under the exact same names.

Read the post, including thoughts on creating a new community for fanpeople.

Two:

Also read here, Fandomtossed

Three:

Aja on the latest suspensions.

We have latest suspensions. Should I be ready for Memorial Day weekend?

*****

1.) Er. So we can no longer see a strikethrough. You know what? That is beyond a bad sign.

2.) I--er, I have nothing.

I am wondering if I need to check my userinfo now every day. Maybe do a print out just in case.

*****

svmadelyn found it.

Lj Releases

Among others:

* Un-linking user tags for deleted/suspended users
* Hiding deleted/suspended journals from profiles (unless you're looking at your own, or looking at the full profile view)

*slow blinking*

What? Why?

(that's really a rhetorical question at this point, isn't it?)

ETA 2:

ponderosa121 just posted to her GJ here on the situation.

People are asking about the situation on news here (looks like it's starting on page six).

Comments

[beck-liz.livejournal.com]

I wonder if it doesn't actually matter what Harry looked like in the picture, simply that his character in the books is a child.

[ratcreature]

Could be. I'm actually not all that outraged that they'd ask to remove a porn picture, but that they responded with a rather draconian measure of suspending all accounts of those artists (even RL and RPG accounts that weren't used to post art) without warning right away. For all their "clarifications" they never came out and set a no-explicit-porn rule (say all pictures that shows genitals of people involved in sexual activity or something), nor did they say to my knowledge that all explicit content with fictional older teenagers or characters that could just be perceived as under-18 is taboo, but remained rather vague of what they think is already "childporn" and what they see as "obscene", which is their prerogative of course and maybe they just want some maneuvering room to make the best of the situations when they do have to respond to pressure while overlooking other things that didn't get complaints, but if they are all fuzzy about what is allowed and what not, it's just not right to sanction a user this severely right away, IMO. A take down notice or even a temporary suspension of a specific account until the user has removed the TOS-violating content I can see on a first offense, but this seems OTT for the material in question, which is after all with fictional characters (rather than explicit photos of a real teenager) and not even obviously chan either, but looked to me just like a slightly manga-influenced drawing of an adult Harry.

[beck-liz.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they've been handling this whole situation very unprofessionally and foolishly. It doesn't make any sense to just delete accounts without warning.

[snowwhiteliar.livejournal.com]

Problem there is - in the UK, age of consent is 16. So Harry's not a child through all the books, ergo, there's actually no illegal activity in the pic unless it was directly stated that he's younger than that...? (Haven't been to look - not my thing anyway.)

[beck-liz.livejournal.com]

Point, but thing is, the age of consent in the US isn't 16, or at least it isn't always 16 (depending on the state you're in). And LJ's servers are based in the US.

I haven't seen the picture either, but I'm told the author intended for Harry to be 18. However, while some have looked at it and don't think he looks underage, others aren't seeing it that way. A matter of interpretation, I suppose. *shrug*

[snowwhiteliar.livejournal.com]

Having gone and read, very carefully, the TOS - particularly the sections labelled "Journal Content" and "Member Conduct" nowhere does it say that members must abide by any particular US laws - but "local and international laws" instead.

Unfortunately there we run into trouble - HP is a British fandom, therefore British laws should apply to fanfic/fanart etc. Ponderosa, however, is based in the US. The conflict of the two is what bothers me.

(And if she intended for Harry to be 18, then they really don't have any grounds for banning her for that picture. That's not breaking any rules.)

It just makes me wish that LJ would stop and do as its TOS suggests:

Should any Content that you have authored be reported to LiveJournal as being offensive or inappropriate, LiveJournal might call upon you to retract, modify, or protect (by means of private and friends only settings) the Content in question within a reasonable amount of time, as determined by the LiveJournal staff. Should you fail to meet such a request from LiveJournal staff, LiveJournal may terminate your account.

Where was the polite request to remove a single post, rather than banning a user?

Maybe I'm getting too annoyed by this, but I missed the whole "strikethrough" explosion, so I'm trying to keep up with new events and make sure I know what's going on.