Deletions are an altogether separate issue. Basically, deletions = "won't-anyone-think-of-the-children.org throws a republican shitfit and demands that a bunch of things be deleted; a lot of others delete things as well, out of fear or solidarity or both", while Fanlib = "we're-a-bunch-of-male-venture-capitalists-who-think-we-know -better-than-you.com pretend that fan culture is ours to define (and deliver to corporate partners in undisclosed and weirdly sanitized ways).

Sadly, f_w is down,

I know? What timing!!1!

Gah. Just got into it on my own LJ with someone who's convinced the LJ deletions are a First Amendment issue. Because clearly acting on fear of government action is the same as actually having government action.

Private entity, private forum: no First Amendment issue.

Just got into it on my own LJ with someone who's convinced the LJ deletions are a First Amendment issue.

Dude, weren't you just explaining that, like, last week? In very small words?

I think she needs a picture book with primary colored illustrations for some people.

Well, she's not using the legal terminology, so it's hard to parse. I think maybe her claim is that the underlying federal law that puts LJ at risk (I forget what it's called) is what triggers the First Amendment issue.

However that may be, LJ is acting freely with regards to their own customers, and fear of legal liability is not the same as being directed to act by a governmental entity.

Of course, I'm still wiped out from the weekend so I could well be reading this wrong.

I have to say, if fandom was gonna pick something to get all self-righteous about, the ability to network with other people interested in pedophilia, incest, rape, and murder wouldn't have been my first choice.

Well, but if you cast all fiction that deals with murder or rape as something that should be shunned, there go Sam Spade and half the Harlequin Romance catalog.

You have memories from back when you were 2? **blinks in awed and envious amazement**

Brief memories of specific events. Things don't really cohere into a day-to-day picture until age 4 when I started spending days at my Aunt's.

Additionally, it's clear that an awful lot of fiction that doesn't involve rape or pedophilia or incest got caught up in the mix.

In addition to the Lolita reading group, which @@

The thing is, this is absolutely NOT about the content of the journals -- LJ Abuse has made this very clear in writing to people who have had journals deleted. The fundies found something that LJ hadn't considered, which is the way the interests function serves as a networking tool, and made a reasonable case that by allowing people to have interests listed -- and again, this has ONLY been about the interests people list, NOT the content of their journals -- which are illegal, LJ can be said to be facilitating illegal activities. In particular, allowing people with an expressed interest in the sexual exploitation of children to collude with one another could leave LJ open to RICO prosecution. To maintain its safe-harbor status under current US law, LiveJournal had to act. Should they implement an appeals process? Possibly. Did they do the right thing under the circumstances? Absolutely.

Myself, I would RATHER have my service provider take a hands-off, no-grey-areas approach than feel obligated to look over my shoulder with my every post, which is LJ's only other option under the current extremely restrictive laws.

And what's more, WTF with listing "pedophilia" and "rape" as interest in a tool specifically designed to help other people on the site find you? Are you looking for every creepy molester in town to come hang out at your LJ? Yes, there are evil moralists out there, but people need to have a little internet savvy too.

I don't know what the search criteria is, but I do know there are or were comms of rape survivors and incest survivors--both, obviously, attempting to deal with the results. Those terms were listed in interests, as a way for the victims to network.

Would the search and delete be selective enough to recognise the difference between a journal that lists "rape crisis counseling" and one that lists "rape" in its interests?