Where The Green Ants Dream

It's come to my attention, via adela_terrell, that LiveJournal is putting pressure on people who have user icons featuring breast feeding. Most of these LJ users, understandably, thought they were on safe ground considering how explicit some people's pictures are, and are understandably cheesed at having to get rid of their pictures.

I've racked my brains as to why this might be worth censoring in some people's opinion, and I can only assume that they're worried it might be down to fear of posting an indecent image of a child. Which is nonsense on no less than three levels - firstly, that no court in the free world would make such a conviction, secondly, that paedophiles are generally none too interested in adult breasts, and thirdly that paedophiles are generally aroused by any picture of a child, so unless LiveJournal is planning to ban all pictures of children their position has a hole in it.

If you find all this as baffling and indefensible as I do, why not drop LiveJournal a line?

Happy links! MaryAnn Johanson comes up with a good definition for that odd Colin-Bakeriness that Colin Baker-era Doctor Who has; it's "baroque" TV, which probably explains why I have such a perenially unfashionable soft spot for it. The BBFC rules that Walking With Monsters contains "mild fantasy violence", no doubt to the chagrin of the BBC, who continue to insist that every single second of it is eight hundred per cent factomation. But what's with "None" under "Sex/Nudity"? Some of those Dimetrodons looked pretty damn naked to me!

Meanwhile, Lindsay Lohan's publicist... no, I can't describe it. Just read it for yourself and wish along with me that all publicists were as amusingly indiscreet.

I'll reply to comments and LJ updates later. Current reading material - Postcards by Annie Proulx and Game For Antyhing - Writings On Cricket by Gideon Haigh. Current favourite album - They'll Have To Catch Us First - A Domino Records Sampler featuring Adem, Franz Ferdinand, Quasi, Four Tet et al.

Tags: bbc, bbfc, censorship, dinosaurs, lindsay lohan, lj, maryann johanson

Current Location:	Prehistoric LJ
Current Mood:	content
Current Music:	Dixie Chicks - 'Not Ready To Make Nice'

On June 8th, 2006 08:30 am (UTC),

demona_hw commented:

As I understood it, the problem was not breast-feeding icons per se, but default icons of breastfeeding. Because the default icons appear on a person's info page and someone could accidentally come across these extremely disturbing images, Or something.

As I'm sure you're aware, it's not that they jump on every incidence of obscene iconage. See here: http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=111

Your default userpic is viewable throughout the LiveJournal site, and unlike individual journal entries, it cannot be hidden or protected. It is potentially available to anyone on the Internet who randomly browses the site. Therefore, we require that your default userpic not contain anything too explicit. In particular, icons which contain nudity or graphic violence tend to be inappropriate for default userpics.

The other thing to bear in mind is that they don't trawl through lj looking for icons to ban - they intervene when someone reports an icon, so there are no doubt plenty of people breaking the rules who haven't been noticed.

I think you're on the wrong track with the paedophilia thing, though. I think it really is just the nipples or suggestion of nipples which is offensive.

Reply · Thread

On June 8th, 2006 05:44 pm (UTC),

parma_violets replied:

Yes, the indecent images of children thing was just a desperate stab at making sense of the whole affair. I think I'll leave this discussion to youse lot now, because you know more than I do and are more fun.

Reply · Parent · Thread

On June 8th, 2006 08:50 am (UTC),

despotliz commented:

as far as I know Hester is right - it's just default icons. And I think it's fair enough if LJ decide they want to have a rule about default icons not showing the nipple in them, because they show up on the directory and search pages and they get complaints about them, and given they have a volunteer team who look into complaints, I think it's better they have a hard and fast rule than allowing them all to decide for themselves what is inappropriate. The other point is that they will only investigate icons which are complained about, because if they start going looking for them they then become responsible for policing a million default icons.

Where they have completely fucked up is that they had a vague wording in the Terms of Service which was different from that in the FAQ, and went and changed the FAQ without telling anyone, and have managed to imply that they fouind breastfeeding offensive. And the responses from the abuse team have been inconsistent at best, and the paid employees have not done anything to make it better.

I can see both sides of this, in that I see what LJ are doing but don't like the way they're doing it, but some of the people on the other side make me not want to be on theirs either. If it were every icon I might feel differently, but I can have 115 icons with as many nipples as I like. I'm not feeling oppressed over here.

Reply · Thread

On June 8th, 2006 10:57 am (UTC),

demona_hw replied:

I can see both sides of this, in that I see what LJ are doing but don't like the way they're doing it, but some of the people on the other side make me not want to be on theirs either.

I haven't actually been following any of the breastfeeding communities, and perhaps if I did I'd be more inclined to distance myself, but from a standing start I think I favour militancy with regards to breastfeeding.

I'm a great fan of breasts as sexual objects (mine and other people's), but when it comes to using them to nourish a child I'm quite happy to tell people to grow the fuck up and avert their eyes if they find it so damn offensive. I don't want to see women confined to their homes if they have decided to do the best thing for their child by breastfeeding, nor do I want to see them shoved into filthy public toilets for 20 minutes at a time because the sight of a suckling child (regardless of the amount of nipple and breast on show, which can be much less than is visible in your average low cut top) is just too much for the delicate constitution of the public.

I can understand that it's hassel for lj and their terms are far from a complete ban, but it is part of a larger cultural problem, which is that breastfeeding rates in the UK are quite appalling given the mountain of evidence in favour of its medical benefits for mother and child. I'm sure part of this at least is the view that breasts are for sex, not for children (there are, of course, practical problems as well concerning working mothers).

It is a bizarre society indeed if a woman can breastfeed her child next to a magazine rack full of FHM, Nuts, and The Sun, but it is the former which is liable to be removed from public view.

I suspect you may agree with all of this, I was just riffing off your comment because it was there.

Reply · Parent · Thread

On June 8th, 2006 11:15 am (UTC),

despotliz replied:

I suspect you may agree with all of this

I do agree, and I am all in favour of breastfeeding advocacy, because it should not be something considered unacceptable in public. And most people on breastefeeding comms seem to be perfectly fine.

However, I read a few pieces on LJ from women who could not breastfeed for whatever medical reason even after trying for months, and they talk aobut how some breastfeeding advocates had in turn made them feel ashamed and a terrible mother because they couldn't do it. Which is not on. (I'll see if I can find the links later.)

Plus there were the people planning the mass deletion in the hope that it would fuck up the LJ servers enough to cause problems for everyone still using them. And the person who suggested that LJ had deliberately chosen this policy because they were racists, and that it was discriminating against women from minorities who might have large areolas which show while breastfeeding. And the people generalising that because they had one bad experience with LJ Abuse, the whole thing is rotten and needs to be taken down, and the general hostile feelings I saw in a discussion where one of the Lj Abuse team tried patiently to expain the whole thing. Generally it's the same thing I get with some feminists - the feeling that while the vast majority are doing excellent things, there's a few that make me not want to be on their side.

Reply · Parent · Thread

On June 8th, 2006 12:11 pm (UTC),

cpt_buggernuts replied:

Again, what you said.

With the addition that I'm still failing to see how re-categorising a photo of something in order to simplify a TOS document translates into the whole 'Six Apart want your baby to STARVE' idea.

Also, from a personal point of view I think that the breastfeeding pictures are actually counter-productive when it comes to encouraging breastfeeding amongst those groups currently unlikely to do so, as - in my view - they foster a continued sense of breastfeeding as a lifestyle/political statement rather than the practical default decision.

Reply · Parent · Thread