11 Responses to “LJ and Free Speech”

1. Jack T Robyn Posted: May 31st, 2007 at 5:49 pm

   1 “Protected” is always a tricky word. I think you have it pretty much correct; they have a right to say and post such things as part of free speech, but LJ has a right to remove them and prohibit them as a service provider. What this speech should be protected from is censorship by law and government, not by the lawful acts of other free citizens. This last is my opinion, it is not meant to be an interpretation of your own.

2. Jason Posted: May 31st, 2007 at 6:19 pm

   2 If the government came down on them, that’s a violation of free speech. Since they didn’t, it’s simply a company looking out for their own interests. I have no problem with it. If the pedophiles want to fund their own platform, no one is stopping them. JMHO (oh, and the law’s too… )

3. Henry Posted: May 31st, 2007 at 6:25 pm

   3 I can’t think of anything you can do to foster more ill-will that to shut down rape and incest survivor support groups. I mean, FUCKING SUPPORT GROUPS!! That’s going too far. If you look at the article again, it seems that they realized that they fucked up severely and are trying to fix it. Frankly, I have a lot of respect for people that can admit that.

4. CharmCityShinobi Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 at 12:30 am

   4 It’s pretty crazy that LJ went through and suspended all those accounts quite quickly without notification or clarification from the users. But fortunately they only suspended and not deleted, so that people whose blogs or communities dedicated to fighting pedophilia and incest can have their accounts reinstated. LJ has owned up to their mistakes which is a great thing; the only thing that they did wrong which they admit was a flaw system at preventing this content without hurting those trying to be supportive. I think they were entitled to what they did, and for people who complained they are only doing so cause this is a minor inconvenience to them, but if someone else’s content had a detrimental influence on them, I’m sure they’d be quick to complain. People love to complain when the system fails but never acknowledge when the system runs smoothly.

5. torso_boy Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 at 12:46 am

   5 Jason pretty much nailed it as far as my opinion goes. Though, I might add that if they are to continue to enforce such policies, then they should start to rebrand their company so that potential new users know what type of journalling environment they would be signing up for.

6. shadebug Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 at 2:00 am

   6 If, as they claim, this has all been done according to the terms of service then no rebranding is necessary being that the branding is right there and you read it before ticking the agree box. You did read it before ticking the agree box, didn’t you?

7. fiftywan Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 at 8:41 am

   7 Sure, they had the right to close all the accounts they want. That’s what their Terms of Service grant them. They don’t even have to give a reason to do so. Yet, I can’t help but think at the collateral damages. French Declaration of Human Rights, back in 1789 (and I think the American Constitution does that, too), warranties Freedom of Speech. This Freedom, as always, has limits. Denying the Holocaust, for example, is considered a crime. I was raised with these concepts in mind, and agree with it. People should be able to say what they want, as long as they’re not offensive to other people or communities. “With great powers come great responsibilities”. IMHO, they should have checked each account they were closing.

8. George Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 at 9:42 am

   8 Problem here is, they went across the board and eliminated accounts that were anti-pedophile and anti-incest. They’re infamous for acting without thinking. A while ago, they were banning people for using images of breastfeeding. I wasn’t on LJ then, but I signed up just to complain, use a nursing image and get banned, as a form of protest. I really hope the whole thing craps out for them and LJ disappears forever. The web world doesn’t need more brainlessness.

9. Jason Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 at 10:46 am

   9 “French Declaration of Human Rights, back in 1789 (and I think the American Constitution does that, too), warranties Freedom of Speech.” But this doesn’t mean you can come into my house and start talking about some thing as simple as even the Denver Broncos without getting your ass thrown to the curb (I hate the Broncos). The nation is free, private property is not. That sounds like a rambling analogy–but in it the nation is the Internet: you want to talk about pedophilia on your own site, have fun. But, when you’re talking about it on someone else’s business platform, you can get tossed (even without the “terms of conditions.” they don’t need that to run their business as they see fit).

10. D-W Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 at 11:22 am

    10 Considering that they owned up to their mistake of suspending the support group I would saw that LJ is handling this fairly well. These are some pretty serious subjects that people have journals on and LJ would carry some liabilty if they became aware of activity that was considered illegal and did nothing. Sure writing about pedophilia and incest may be protected but there is the risk that these writings are based on real acts which has no protection. I really don’t fault them for not initially reading each and every journal on these subjects only because of the shear number of them. Sure it sounds easy enough, but I wonder if they have people whose sole job it is to check site that have receive complaints and how many complaints they recieve a day. As for Free Speech, sure we have the right to say what we want but we also have to realize that there can be consequences. IMHO, everybody has the right to say what they want, but they also have the obligation to bear the burden of their words afterwards.

11. warrior_monk721 Posted: Jun 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    11 I bet the same people who did that are the ones trying to get the former chief of the aclu (who was convicted of child porn, the investigators said it was the most violent and disgusting so far) ‘maximum internet access’… which is like giving a convicted murderer a gun! >:[