LJ is doing the most impressive job of digging themselves into a hole that I've seen since...the last time they dug themselves into a hole.

[link]

Edit: I haven't read the whole thread, but someone has brought up the possibility that some asshole might comment to the whole thing with HP7 spoilers. Tread carefully.

LJ is doing the most impressive job of digging themselves into a hole that I've seen since...the last time they dug themselves into a hole.

I am clutching my head and wondering if they, like, make these decisions during Happy Hour and then celebrate their genius with more drinks, and make the announcement the next day when they're too hungover to remember that perhaps they should run things by an actual lawyer.

Oh fer ... Were they just beat too hard with the stupid stick?

This person seems to have the right of it:

I'll say something more cogent and less plain ol's snarky later, but I simply must point out the hilarity of the following, just to make sure I've got a thorough grasp of the situation:

a) a not particularly clear or precise clarficiation (I understand an entirely clear or precise one is probably impossible both in general and certainly from LJ at this point)
b) that's of very direct concern to fandom as a whole
c) less than 36 hours before Potterdammerung

and

d) you think the Internet isn't about to explode all over you?

WOW.

For the win. Really.

No spoilers that I've seen in the first couple of pages.

I like LJ a lot, but the folks who run it are occasionally delusional.

I'm confused. I just saw a bunch of legalese. What am I missing?

too hungover to remember that perhaps they should run things by an actual lawyer.

That's part of the hilarity! One of the staff members is making legal pronouncements that don't seem to be backed up very well, and there are a couple of other posts that are supposedly *by* their legal counsel. Do they not realize that other lawyers are on the internet?

Connie, in brief, the issue is LJ's policy regarding what kind of material is grounds for suspension, generally of concern to the fanfic community.

They are saying you can depict underage people in sexual situations, Romeo and Juliet is okay, teens talking about sex is okay, but writing smut about underage kids is not.

Several people have pointed out that Juliet was underage.

Several people have pointed out that Juliet was underage

They do know that Juliet's fictional, right? Good lord, are they going to apply the current age of consent/underage rules to all of history?? God help the person writing fiction about historical people.

I see the fuss, now.

oh, crap. My story "Nessuno" specifically says Alexander is 17. Jeez, in Renaissance Italy, he could likely be a dad by then!

Here's the money quote:

This includes...child pornography (photos or videos), or other material -- including drawings and text -- that explicitly depicts minors under the age of 18 (real or not) in a graphic sexual context. Or, in other words: Romeo and Juliet is okay. Teens talking about their experiences with sex is okay. Smut focused on a twelve year old is not okay.

Frankly, the way I read that, I don't see that teens talking about their experience are okay at all, if they're at all frank. And Romeo and Juliet may be fine, but half of freaking Judy Blume's oeuvre could be right out.