(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	jenova 2006-05-20 09:50 am UTC (link)
	Oh they really have no idea the legal ramifications, do they. If they don't respond to you call the media, call anyone who will listen. They can't censor your breastfeeding icons if they don't censor icons with violence/abortion pics/feces/etc. ... yeah. They don't really grasp the whole "default icon" concept. Or hell, the "It's just the internet" concept. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	lessis 2006-05-20 10:38 am UTC (link)
	No kidding, all it means is that when people look at your journal or user info they won't see the boob icon, you can still have it and still use it where you want to. sits on hands resisting temptation to report all the "protesters" who now have breastfeeding default icons (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2006-05-20 04:04 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, God. Yes! Please do it! Not that I agree with the LJ Abuse, but it would just be plain old funny . . . (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lessis 2006-05-20 05:49 pm UTC (link)
	I think that may count as trolling the wank which is a big no no here. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2006-05-22 05:41 pm UTC (link)
	I've been doing it because they're posting outside of tit nazi communities. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	breecita 2006-05-20 12:26 pm UTC (link)
	Buahahahaha! I can just see that... cali4niachef: They won't let me use my boobies as a default icon! Media: Uhh... what's a default icon? Is this a porn thing? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mathilde 2006-05-20 12:34 pm UTC (link)
	See, actually, they're a private company, which means they can censor whatever the hell they want. ORLY? icons getting old? See ya! Oooh, someone hates the "down the block" icon? Buhbye. By not actually censoring icons, they're just being nice. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lessis 2006-05-20 12:47 pm UTC (link)
	My understanding is that some states have made laws that forbid private businesses, like restarants) to discriminate against breastfeeding women. So the business apparently can't ask a breastfeeding woman to leave or cover up. How this law applies to the internet I can't guess. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mathilde 2006-05-20 12:51 pm UTC (link)
	Sure, and that's totally cool. But lj wouldn't be discriminating against breastfeeding women, just their pictures of them breastfeeding. Laws don't address the right to disseminate a picture of yourself breastfeeding, just the act itself. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lessis 2006-05-20 01:03 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah and that was pretty much lj's response when they tried to bring up the laws protecting breastfeeding in public. (Reply to this)(Parent)

khym_chanur
2006-05-20 08:28 pm UTC (link)

If the law is badly phrased, it could be ambiguous enough to read as applying to picutres of breastfeeding. If the law is really badly phrased, it could literally say, with no ambiguity, that preventing women from showing pictures of themselves breastfeeding on the interent is illegal, in which case the boob nazi in question would have something of a case (I actually asked some lawyers about this after the last breastfeeding wank).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	iwanttobeasleep 2006-05-20 05:34 pm UTC (link)
	But breastfeeding=/=pictures of breastfeeding. And since LJ is paying to host the pictures, they have even more right, because they're paying for them (as opposed to a restaurant, where you are paying to be in their space). (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lessis 2006-05-20 05:51 pm UTC (link)
	Not saying I agree with the boob_nazi's position, just paraphrasing some of their reasoning. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	athenaps 2006-05-21 04:14 am UTC (link)
	What about paid accounts then? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	iwanttobeasleep 2006-05-21 04:19 am UTC (link)
	http://www.journalfen.net/community/otf_wank/421102.html?thread=22502126#t22502126 (Reply to this)(Parent)

	necronomist 2006-05-20 03:46 pm UTC (link)
	From now on, I will have as my default icon a pair of bare breasts, with the caption "These boobies aren't for lunch." You know, as a gesture of solidarity and stuff. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Icon <3 platedlizard 2006-05-21 05:09 am UTC (link)
	The world doesn't have enough Kill Bill references. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	honorh 2006-05-20 05:01 pm UTC (link)
	I'll say what I said below--the default icon thing makes even less sense than banning them altogether. A user could use a breastfeeding icon with every single post she makes, but if it's her default, that makes it somehow worse? I'm sorry, but I don't get it. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

airawyn
2006-05-20 07:16 pm UTC (link)

The default icons show up in a lot of places. If you search by region, for example, what you get is a list of usernames and default icons for that region. Therefore, LJ requests that default icons (but only default icons, not any of the others) remain work-safe.

I don't think that breastfeeding is obscene or sexual, but I can see why these icons would be considered NWS. No, it's not fair that some places would consider a naked breast sexual even with a baby attached. But I imagine Live Journal doesn't want people to have to stay off their site at work because of the risk of NWS icons showing up without warning.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	quinctia 2006-05-21 04:14 am UTC (link)
	Well I think the idea is that posts and comments are user space (comms and other users would have the right to ban you from their space if your icon offended them), whereas other areas where default icons show are LJ's space. LJ's nice enough to let you have whatever you want in your space, but they restrict a little more in LJ's space. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	dreamoflife02 2006-05-21 05:11 am UTC (link)
	Or the "it's the breasts, not the babies" thing. This isn't a massive conspiracy against breastfeeding, it's keeping default icons worksafe. I heard tasteful artsy nudes were getting the no-no, too. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -