Astrid ([info]astridaria) wrote,
@ 2007-05-31 02:54:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
one of many good points made in the last 24 hours
From the c/net article on the "lj revolt"

For its part, LiveJournal's abuse staff has defended pulling the plug on the communities by saying: "Material which can be interpreted as expressing interest in, soliciting or encouraging illegal activity places LiveJournal at considerable legal risk." That led one user, "femmequixotic," to reply: "I list 'gay marriage' among my interests--that is illegal in my state. With this wording my journal could be deleted, without warning, for the fact that I support equal rights of marriage for all."


ps -- I've avoided clicking on any links to W's of I. If you already have, you might want to scan your hard drive for spyware. This may be hysteria or me giving in to an urban legend of sorts, whatev.

(Read 4 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]deathisyourart
2007-05-31 11:38 am UTC (link)
It may be a good point, but argument is flawed, because she is still stating something that she supports, and what LJ was attempting to remove were people who supported "rape", "incest", and "pedophilia".

I think everyone should thank their lucky stars that LJ didn't decide to turn over the list of LJ names and IP addresses to the police, and that they are going to be handling the clean up on a case by case basis.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]astridaria
2007-05-31 04:26 pm UTC (link)
I think what she's arguing for is that once you start censoring people based on whether their interests (things they are expressing support for) are legal or illegal, you start down a slippery slope. Sure, there's no logical comparison between, say, showing support for pedophilia and showing support for gay marriage -- except that both activities are considered illegal in most places. And there are some, extremely screwed up people who would argue that one is just as reprehensible as the other. I don't think lj/sa would ever make such an argument explicitly, nor do I think they'd ever censor someone for expressing interest in something like gay marriage -- but the language of the statement, however inadvertantly, lends credence to such a gesture.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read 4 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…