(no subject)

[sophistry]

Another issue we needed to deal with was journals that used a thin veneer of fictional or academic interest in events and storylines that include child rape, pedophilia, and similar themes in order to actually promote these activities. While there are stories, essays, and discussions that include discussion of these issues in an effort to understand and prevent them, others use a pretext to promote these activities. It’s often very hard to tell the difference. As such, we have suspended reported journals that do not clearly and substantially object to these activities while at the same time portraying them.

*SCREAMS FULL OF. RAGEFUL. ANGRY. SCREAMS*

Barak Berkowitz, you are a tool.

;klaz.zfsdhjek;DLFKjl.kre;

TLvop: ...
TLvop: the CEO person
TLvop: His default icon is labelled "defualt"
scuba soph: ................
bookelfe: GENIUS

Comments

[dramaturgca.livejournal.com]

The frak you say?

[campkilkare]

That specific paragraph has been amended in the post (with strikeouts to show what he originally wrote) in response to... I assume people yelling at him about it.

The current verbiage refers to comms or journals that "a reasonable person would think support" pedophilia. Which, the reasonable man standard is the basic rule for obscenity, jurisprudencewise, and the LJ Abuse Team has shown itself pretty reasonable, just handcuffed by a blanket policy, in recent events.

I think there probably does need to be some manner of rule covering Gentleman X's "fiction" about what he'd like to do to the naughty boys in his kindergarten class--but of course he would neverever really do it, ahem, ahem. Etc.

[genarti]

Yeah. It makes sense to have some kind of allowance for that; the question, of course, is the interpretation and the review policy.