Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
Carved logo
theljstaff wrote in lj_policy
We have been contacted by the New York Attorney General's office with a list of registered sex offenders as part of their e-STOP initiative. Based on this data, we've suspended 186 accounts; we feel that it is important to remove these individuals from LiveJournal to help ensure the safety of our users.

This was only applied to registered sex offenders in the state of New York because they are currently the only state which has contacted us with this information and request. If other states or countries are able to provide us with similar data which can be used to remove potentially dangerous people from the site, we will take similar action.

May we know what sort of information was used to link these offenders to those LJ accounts, so we can be sure the accounts affected were indeed those used by said offenders?

I'll second this request for whatever details LJ can provide. It would be terrible if someone who happened to share a name with an offender, for example, was suspended.

Thank you for not only doing this, but also for informing the users that you're willing to take steps toward creating a safer community. Hopefully other states will step forward with their lists.

interesting... I approve.

It would be nice to know whether these are the child-molesting kind of sex offenders or the "got caught peeing on a tree in Central Park" or "got caught having consensual sex in a public space" kind of sex offenders.

Which is understandably information that you may or may not be able to provide, even though the space between the them on the continuum of "dangerous to society" is quite extensive.

There is a contact link via the eStop link above: http://www.ag.ny.gov/contact.html

They'd be the only ones who could give more information about what sorts of offenders ended up on that list.

I notice the linked article was from December 10th, calling on Livejournal.com to follow up with their list. Did this purge occur shortly after that article and we are just hearing now, or was there a reason the purge was delayed until now?

I reread this and realized it sounded confrontational, but I'm actually just curious how the decision went down. I like to understand WHY Livejournal does things these days; trying to learn from the past.

Edited at 2010-02-19 01:36 am (UTC)

Do you know what it takes to get on the sex offenders list? Almost nothing. Peeing on a tree can put you on the list, how is that dangerous to other LJ users? And definitely not something that I agree with LJ banning without so much as a "What did they do"? I'd understand if they were all stalker rapists, but most aren't, most were put on the sex offenders list as part of a plea bargain that had nothing to do with their original case

Bad move LJ, bad bad move

Edited at 2010-02-19 01:23 am (UTC)

Take it up with the state, if you don't like what they consider to be a sexually-based offense. LJ has no control over that, and while you may a-okay with predators being on LJ, but if it means having them removed, I'd rather all offenders be ousted than none.

Thanks for both taking this move and being up front about taking it. Much appreciated, LJ.

I am saddened by this; a blanket suspension without there being any indication that these individuals are using LJ for any inappropriate (let alone illegal) behavior is...

...well, it's one of the reasons why sex offender registries are so loathsome.

Thank you for helping me put my finger on what about this was bothering me.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
I can understand why you did this from a business perspective, but I still don't like this one bit. :\

*eyeroll* So patronizing a hooker is the same as sodomizing a child?

Gee...leave it to law enforcement and LJ to not make distinctions...again.

And, just to add, how hard would it be for them to classify the offenders by the type of crime, and monitor their Livejournal for violations? I understand the need for caution, with teens and kids online, but it seems to me like trying to kill flies with a sledgehammer. If someone was convicted of a "victimless" type of offense, versus a serious and violent felony, isn't it possible for LJ to apply some common sense and fairness to that? Seriously? Or should some guy who went to a prostitute be forced to be a pariah his whole life?

(Deleted comment)
In which state does only being accused get you on the registry?

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)

...Well, okay, at least I recognize that LJ is publicizing this decision and is prepared to defend it in an open forum this time. It's an improvement over the silent and unexplained purges of the strikethru days.

What does them being women have to do with anything?

Wait, what? So you're saying that LJ just made a blanket ban on 186 accounts because they were on one of those obnoxious sex offender lists? Protip: they've already paid their debt to society. Exactly why is it any of LJ's business whether or not prior sex offenders are utilizing their service to keep a journal? The only time I could see this being an issue is if someone is on probation, and one of the terms is that they are not allowed to use a blogging service. Which would be a case-by-case basis, and it's still not LJ's concern whether or not they're using it; if they're caught, it violates their probation and they're back in jail or whatnot.

This is a bit reactionary, and very much reeks of much of the fear-based bullshit that's destroying the liberty of the United States these days.

LJ, I am dissapoint.

It was pointed out in several comments (and in the thing linked to in their initial post) that yes, this is part of probation terms.