[ you must chill ]

[winterlive]

everybody knows i love freedom of expression.

this ain't it. (link is nsfw and also pretty despicable, imho.)

maybe we'll all pick up and wander off or whatever. maybe fandom will decide to go all haywire and make their own space on the web, maybe we'll all have to uproot ourselves and exodus from the reign of stinky stinky six apart. but let's not make martyrs out of molehills, okay?


eta: in case i was somehow unclear, the following two things are true:
1. i find that image repulsive. personally, ethically, ugh. i also find rapefic, bestiality and torture to be by and large repulsive.
2. i cannot fault lj for banning it because it's illegal. i do not support the banning of any user over the perceived offensiveness of their material, only its legality.

eta II, much after the fact: i see that people are still keen to talk this one over. good for you. it's good to keep informed. but just so you know, a lot of information came out between the time this was posted and the three days later that some of this conversation is happening in. we know more things now, things have been confirmed, proven false, proven different. i therefore stand by two things i said in the original post: 1. sixapart stinks, and 2. you must, MUST chill. i stand by all things said in the first ETA.

Comments

[idyll.livejournal.com]

I can't actually look at that drawing again.

*draws hearts around you* because, yes.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

rrrrrrr. rr.

i can't speak for the other people, but, yeah, no.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

*hides with both of you*

I admit, the second deletion has no obvious 'ew' attached to it, and hers I am more upset about, but this one?

Ew. EW. I know in theory anything should be allowed, but.

[altyronsmaker.livejournal.com]

Okay. I thought maybe I was UNDER reacting when I saw the first piece, but this one shows, yeah. Maybe not so much. Yuck.

Glad I'm not the only one who DOESN'T think this deserves to be defended.

*shakes head*

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

i don't claim to know what the other folks got suspended for, but i think it's at least worth investigating before we go all crazeh.

[wrenlet.livejournal.com]

If THAT was the pic she was banned for, I would concede the point and gladly... but it's not. And elaboration produces no underage art at ALL.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

i don't think 6A SAID which piece she got banned for. i know there's some coincidence with the timing and some newer piece, but at this point i'm really just not prepared to defend her.

that other girl, i don't know what she was banned for. i'm willing to get mad about it, but i would want to know what it was, y'know? i mean, given the givens, i want some solid information before we commence world-changing events. :)

[cormallen.livejournal.com]

That's not the piece that got her banned, alas. If it was, it would be a completely different issue, I think :(

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

i don't think we know that for a certainty. i understand there was some confluence of timing with one of her latest pieces, but there's no word from 6A on what got her suspended, i think. nothing official.

i would like to know what the others got suspended for. i'm told they do no underage at all, so that actually is a little more worrisome to me. but i do want the info before i decide to get mad, y'know?

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Okay, yeah, THAT one's bad. GYAH. *scrubs eyes with bleach*

See, if they had pointed at that one as the offending image, they wouldn't have this problem. Instead they point at one where Harry appears to be an adult, and now there's wank. No, you dumbasses, pick the obviously creepy one.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

i don't think they pointed at anything specific. i'm pretty sure it's just the one that was up at the time they suspended her.

[marguerite-26.livejournal.com]

not sure what nsfw is, but I'm with you on the despicable.

I assume this has to do with the recent LJ deletions... Funny how one example throws a nice cold shower on my LJ frustrations.

::shivers::

Once again I am reminded to get to know the facts before jumping to any conclusions. thanks. now i must go scrub my brain.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

nsfw -- not safe for work. variations of this pop up everywhere, like ws - work safe, or sfw - safe for work.

[balefully.livejournal.com]

Hmm.

While I don't have any strong feelings about that particular picture in any way, I'm a little concerned about the fact that everyone is so quick to condemn it and say that if THAT were the picture in question, the suspension would be deserved. I don't think we can just arbitrarily draw the line where WE become uncomfortable. That is, after all, what LJ/6A/etc. are doing right now. It's just that their line is in a different place than most of ours.

The point here should be that FICTIONAL CHARACTERS are not real people, ART is not real, posed photographic pornography, and the line that should be drawn is one between reality and figments of our collective imagination. In which case art and fic with incest, chan, bestiality, non-con, etc. should all be treated equally as COMPLETELY MADE-UP and therefore it doesn't matter how despicable certain parties find it. Its legality shouldn't be questionable.

[bunnymcfoo.livejournal.com]

while you're certainly entitled to feel that way, 6A does have the law on their side this time. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.

[violethamster.livejournal.com]

Ew. So much ew.

I'm as wary of LJ as anyone, because I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and for fanfic writers to start getting bahleeted because LJ doesn't want to deal with possible copyright issues. And I'm willing to defend underage stuff to a point, because there's a lot of valid literature and mainstream TV (17 year old Buffy in season 2, anyone?) and movies that deal with the same stuff. But that's beyond the pale, right there.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

i'm just saying we need more info before we start jumping to conclusions. that's all. the whole world is all AIGH WE MUST MOVE AIGH I'M ON GREATESTJOURNAL and i'm like.

dude. y'all must chill. :)

[killerweasel.livejournal.com]

....

That's actually worse than the other one I saw.

*shudders*

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

yes.

[http://users.livejournal.com/lady_alatariel_/]

Yeah that one is really just...NO. Even the one that she linked to over at GJ was little much if you asked me.

I think its pretty shitty of LJ/SA to just send her and others an e-mail that says "Hi You're suspended, kbye!" with no real explanation or warning. But you're right, after what happened not so long ago, I suppose people should have been more careful about what they post.

I feel bad for the other girl, since everyone is saying that hers isn't underage. Though, I haven't seen the art that she supposedly got suspended for

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

we need more info, man! i mean, i'm not gonna cry over ponderosa being suspended, because, well, see above. there's one other guy that also had warnings and ignored them, so screw him too.

but the others. i would like to know.

6A are just jerks. it's been proven. we'll see it happen again, guaranteed. so i'm not even opposed to the exodus, exactly, i just. mrr.

[fodian.livejournal.com]

I've read the story that I believe is associated with that picture (I'm uncertain which came first), and I remember enjoying it very much. The fic is very explicit and the underaged nature of Harry in the story is indesputible. I have, in fact, several underaged!Harry in detention stories saved to my del.ico.us account. I don't believe these stories should be deleted or banned, nor do I believe it to be despicable to enjoy them and I don't believe the art associated with them should be, either.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

underage is one thing. i've written underage myself, and it's been just fine.

in the picture linked above... that kid can't be more than ten years old, fod. i just can't find it in me to say that's okay.

[kali1967.livejournal.com]

I have to say I'm totally torn about this. I tend to love ponderosa's art (see icon) but I have to agree that this one crosses a very big line. So... I dunno. If she drew just this, then yeah, the ban would be justified, but what about her other art that features adults and that far outnumbers the kiddie stuff? I can't help but think that maybe some sort of probation or something might have been more appropriate?

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

the post she made was on pornish_pixies, the comm that got deleted in the big dust-up last time. was that not a warning?

i've recced ponderosa's stuff, man. it's tough to take, i won't say otherwise. but, like. the link above, just. no.

[jamesinboots.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't see how one could possibly find a defense for that fanart. To each their own, I guess, but ... I think LJ/6A made it pretty clear somewhat clear art was something they were really going to be going after, anyway (and fictional porn between characters that was basically "too descriptive" and without anything other than the porn - basically, work that had nothing else than graphic porn involving a minor). One can argue artistic merit for any drawing/painting/etc. ever, right up to and including porn ... obviously that line is drawn at kiddie porn. Along the same vein, should that line be drawn at fictional kiddie porn* on the fictional side of things**? I think so. Though I think LJ did a piss poor job of explaining why the line is being drawn here, and how the law relates to it, it's still their right to do so. Anyway, point is, it's against the ToS and if this is the art she was banned for, I can't say I'm surprised.

[*When I say "kiddie porn", my own opinions kind of cloud my judgment, maybe - I'm squeamish about so much as reading sex involving characters who are younger than 15, particularly if one partner is more than 2-4 years older. Sometimes I can find redeeming stuff in fic, but it's really hard to in art.]

[**Of course, one can easily argue that no lines should be drawn at all in fictional writing, but art is a lot more tricky - there's less difference between a drawing and a photo than there is between a story and a video. Tricky issue.]

The actual picture she got banned for can be found at the bottom of this post (NSFW like woah). Supposedly, anyway. LJ/6A told her it was a specific post that got her suspended (link in the link above), and chronologically the link relates to this image ... supposedly, anyway. If this is the image ... Harry could pass for 18 there, but I don't know what context the art was posted in. Someone on pornish_pixies suggested that disclaimers may be in order - a simple "Harry is 18" could have prevented that.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

6A are being assholes about this, but thanks to independent research, i can't contest what they've done. HOW, yes. WHY, no.

in essence, i completely agree with you.

[cityphonelines.livejournal.com]

Winter? I walked away to bake cupcakes and I came back and everyone's freaking out and saying they're moving to IJ for good and I'm not sure what's going on, but I'm wearing my confused face at the moment. 'Splain?

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

a few people got permanent suspensions for posting fanart that lj determined was against the TOS. one of them had received a bunch of C&Ds and warnings and ignored them, whatever, see ya.

one of them (ponderosa121) posted SOME stuff that is unquestionably kiddie porn, but what lj actually QUOTED as the post that got her suspended displayed a picture wherein the younger party could easily be construed to be of age.

some others are said to have posted nothing underage at all, yet: banninated.

lj is asploding.

[backinblack.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'm not so much offended or disgusted by the picture. It's a fictional depiction of fictional characters. I think I would be really upset if the picture involved a real minor, however.

Which is why it's so hard to draw the line. We can't be like IT DOESN'T COUNT IF IT'S FANFIC/ART!!!!11 because the main argument behind that is that it's fictional, and I'm pretty sure a lot of pedophiles write fictional smut as well (argh that is a touchy thing to say, I'm not comparing us to pedophiles, I'm just saying there's a "fictional" issue there too). Unfortunately we fall on the side where we're going to be deleted. You can't police every single instance.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

we do fall on the delete side. it's unquestionable. this is exactly what i am saying, is that it's well and good to be upset but perhaps we are jumping the gun a little to go as spastic as we are going.

[kitsune13.livejournal.com]

It might be squicky. But it's *not* illegal, either under US law or under 6A's vague and wrongheaded understanding of same -- even if someone wanted to bring it to trial, it would almost certainly pass the Miller test, because even though it's squicky, it's well-drawn and doesn't involve a real child. 6A invoked not just the Miller test -- which is deliberately broad -- and also, what's stocked by major bookstore chains. I have a copy of Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie's Lost Girls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Girls), which I ordered through Amazon, and is also available through Borders. This work contains drawings of adults and children having sex, and children having sex with each other, that are *more* graphic and explicit than the drawing linked above.

Lost Girls got a huge public launch, and there was controversy, but it was not, and almost certainly will never be, declared illegal, whether on grounds of "child pornography" (they're drawings) or "obscenity" (it's a good work of art). It's illegal to distribute child pornography and to send obscene material through the mail, and yet Amazon very happily shipped it to me: ergo, not child porn or obscene. Neither Moore nor Gebbie seems especially worried about getting busted (by US or UK authorities), and again, the work is widely known and available.

People have the total right to be squicked by anything at all. But when squicked people start demanding removal of certain material and basing it on concepts like "Miller test" and "chain bookstore stock" -- like 6A is doing -- then the existence of comparable material in the US through major outlets like Amazon and Borders *needs* to be taken into account. Otherwise all claims to reasonable objectivity -- like the Miller and bookstore tests -- ring incredibly hollow, and it just becomes "This squicks me, get it off."

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

y'know, i'm not a lawyer. i can't really argue this.

synecdochic is, though, and she seems to have this well in hand. her post is here (http://synecdochic.livejournal.com/147625.html).

[axis2cluster-b.livejournal.com]

I think that what I'm having a hard time with - and, I'll admit, I haven't read everything related to this, because it makes my eyes cross - is my perception that people seem to expect the 6A folks to go to bat for their right to post the above NSFW image.

The issue of art or not is sort of moot to me, at this point, and lost in the idea of it being the obligation of this company at large to support and allow any material that they find objectionable. This seems to be being turned into a personal matter, and I don't understand that. 6A is a money-making business, and hosting an image like that could - art or not - get them into trouble, of the 'lose a lot of money' variety. It's not a vendetta, it's a business decision, and probably a wise one. IMHO, of course, as that seems to be the order of the day.

For what it's worth, I don't appreciate the artistic value, either.

[bexone.livejournal.com]

hosting an image like that could - art or not - get them into trouble, of the 'lose a lot of money' variety.

Or even the "shut down, pending court cases" variety, yes. I think a lot of fandom doesn't realize that the default US law enforcement reaction to legally grey things that hit the Protect The Childruns! button is to shoot first and ask questions later. I also don't think that they realize that that same reaction will occur, whether the content is hosted on a fan-run server or a business-run one (and the fan-run server is a lot less likely to have lawyers on tap!)

I'm a little wary of what'll happen, for example, when the cops show up on the doorstep of the guy running IJ, and tell him he's got (possibly) illegal content on his servers. Is he going to stand his ground and probably get harrassed or arrested, or is he going to delete what they tell him to and hand over whatever identifying information he has on those users? Do we really want to lay our money down that it'll be the former?

...I have typed and deleted literally dozens of this comment over the last however-many hours, because I'm pretty sure that the people who need to hear it aren't capable right now.

[phaballa.livejournal.com]

No one here seems to have mentioned this, so I'd just like to chime in that I remember when that piece of art was posted. It was posted for a fantasy fest on pornish_pixies, and it was posted as an illustration of a fic by the same name. I don't think you can look at the art in a vacuum without reading the fic. The artist and writer had specific intentions with those pieces, and having read the fic, I don't think titillation and advocating child abuse were ever a part of them.

This leads me to beg the question, if this is so despicable, shouldn't we be banning all the underaged Sam/Dean porn out there? Shouldn't we find THAT equally as abhorrent, particularly when those fics and art are hardly ever trying to say something other than "baby Sam and Dean fucking is really hot."

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

if lj kicked somebody off their server for displaying art (it's the good qualifier, fic is harder to prove) of grown up dean and little sam, i couldn't condemn them, no. it's illegal.

at the same time, i would never report them if i ran across them. we're in fandom, we protect our own. even if i find somebody else's kink abhorrent, i wouldn't ever turn 'em in unless they were, like, planning something illegal in the real world, maybe i'd consider then. but it would be a hard decision.

[this is ponderosa]

[(Anonymous)]

Hello winterlive, I sincerely hope none of this sends any wank your way, but as I mentioned in the comment above, I've responded personally in a public space over at ponderosa121.greatestjournal.com

I want to make sure that it's clear to you, as well as everyone, that the image you linked to was not the one that LJ cited in their sole email to me as having been the one reported and found objectionable. The artwork reported and found objectionable and entirely upon which my account suspension was based was recent artwork of Snape and Harry in a consenting, romantic sexual act and in which well within reason, Harry could be considered an adult.

Thank you.

-Ponderosa
pond@ponderosa121.com

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

for the record, the question of whether or not it was the image you'd been quoted as being banned for was always (to me) debatable. i don't trust that LJ abuse viewed this single post in a vacuum and made its choice on that post alone - hell, pornish_pixies was shut down in strikethrough-gate, and you're a poster in that comm too. so i imagine you've been on the radar for a while now.

however, what IS news to me is the idea that you were reported. i'll come on over to your GJ so we don't have to bother with anonyposting and read what i can.

[quiet000001.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I think the whole issue is more complex than it needs to be because people are piling a whole bunch of stuff into one basket and then stirring it up. If you seperate the issues out, it becomes a lot easier to be sensible.

For me, Issue A is the social and legal climate in which we live, which is where all the "is it legal" stuff comes in. It really has very little to do with lj- lj are not making the laws. (They may be interpreting them in ways which are disputable, but that will bring us to Issue B.) The LJ crap is just making people consciously aware of what's going on outside the happy fandom bubble. This is a real issue and one I think everyone in fandom needs to consider- and do something other than bitching on lj about if they have problems with it. (I promise elected officals making laws and so on are not reading lj and taking random wank seriously when it comes to making policy.) So ACLU, EFF, whatever.

Issue B is lj itself. As a privately owned company, LJ has the right to say whatever they want about what can and cannot be on their servers. (Now, what they say is not without repercussionss in their customer base, but that doesn't mean they can't say it.) There is, for example, nothing illegal about them saying they don't want images of sheep on lj. They don't even have to have a reason! They can just be "we don't want sheep." And then people who do want to post sheep have the choice to stay and not post sheep, or move to someplace that allows sheepage.

*HOWEVER* where LJ have failed, for me and for other people, is in the customer service angle of having decided they don't want sheep. They have not made clear statements about what is and is not allowed, they have made CONTRADICTORY statements about not only what is and is not allowed, but what the process is for determining that and cancelling an account, and the icing on the cake for me is one of the people who has been speaking for the company going and using the SAME LJ to post to a community basically making fun of everyone who is upset about the issue. (Yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants to, but not having a personal "hat" and a business "hat" and using them appropriately so people know when he is and is not speaking on behalf of the company is a pretty big PR faux pas.)

So basically Issue B for many people boils down to "LJ are not operating under good business practices, and I want more than that from someone I am giving my money to." (The question most people have to ask themselves on this one is simply "how much effort do I want to put into convincing lj to be the company I want them to be, before I take my money and jump ship?")

That's how I see it, anyway. I don't think fandom is really doing itself a lot of favors by mixing the issues all up together.

tramadol 180ct what is tramadol hydrochloride

[(Anonymous)]

tramadol and blood pressure cod overnight tramadol
taking tramadol before surgery tramadol and animals tramadol dog adverse reactions tramadol 50 mg tab mutual tramadol cheap easy tramadol c o d buy cheap tramadol online generic tramadol or ultram tramadol vs darvon tramadol veterinarians