Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Slight change to a policy
Carved logo
theljstaff wrote in lj_policy
We've done extensive reviews of our policies in this community now, and for the future of this community, we intend to post updates as our policies grow and change. Many of these are likely to be very small changes to one or two policies where we have seen room for improvement.

We have not formally changed our policy at http://www.livejournal.com/abuse/policy.bml#childporn yet, but intend to shortly. We feel that it is necessary to implement a very slightly more lenient stance in regards to content which has been posted and which is questionable as to whether it technically qualifies as child pornography under United States law, or was done without the person posting that content knowing the image was of a minor. In such borderline cases, we do not feel permanent suspension from the site is warranted; instead, we plan to temporarily suspend users until they are available to remove the content. Whether or not the user was aware the image portrayed a minor, or should reasonably have known, will be a subjective judgement made internally. Further, in such cases, we will report such cases to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to ensure we remain in compliance with US law. Users who repeatedly post borderline content will still be subject to permanent suspension.

(Deleted comment)

Can you elabourate please?

What is an "ED" comm?

Thank you

Seems like a reasonable adjustment. I'm shocked.

Sounds good to me! :3 And first page, yay!

I can honestly say this is the first time I'm actually completely happy and in full agreement with a policy change.

Sounds fair. At least, a careful decision is made this way.

Another well done policy change.

It's good that you're making this a habit :)

Edited at 2008-06-11 02:46 am (UTC)

An intelligent change?

Announced in advance?

Welcome back LJ. :)

Agreed, and about fucking time.

This is fair.

Thank you for the update.

Sounds reasonable to me.

curious if anyone knows how child pornography laws and regs deal with antiquities? I know that what is considered a minor now differs from say, victorian and edwardian times. Are such pieces now considered historic works or works of art or otherwise protected, or are pornographic images from this time period, which could likely contain individuals now considered minors prohibited as well (not just talking LJ here, in general info would be appreciated too!)?

In the previous LJ_Policy post, they specifically mention this:

We have also stated within the policy that non-graphic, non-sexualized nudity is not considered explicit adult content. This includes things such as an image of a mother breastfeeding their child, or a non-sexualized work of art such as the Statue of David. We have also extended this to our policy on default userpics; non-graphic, non-sexualized nudity is no longer considered a violation of our default userpic policy.

So, as long as it's a work of art, it's not considered porn. Hope this helps. :)

Wow, it looks like you guys are actually getting things right. I almost look forward to further updates if this is how clear and open things are going to keep being.

?

Log in

No account? Create an account