Current mood:

Flippant

LJ Abuse vs Boob Nazis
cali4niachef is informed by LJ Abuse her default icon is inappropriate and to cease using it by the 23rd or face having her account suspended.

Boob Nazis. LJ Abuse. Breastfeeding Icons.

I think we can all see where this is going. (booju_mooju first of all it seems.)

Once the anti-breastfeeding comms get hold of this it should really take off.

Edit the first Thanks to quickfade Apparently hardvice is responsible Icons in comments NSFW.

Edit the second Thanks to a mousie. cf_hardcore join the party.

Edit the third Thanks to freezer It hits metaquotes.

Edit the forth stupid_free weigh in. And fuckyoulist makes an appearance too.

Edit the fifth Just how much further can it spread? As far as retarded_icons, blackfolk and feminist apparently.

Edit the sixth hardvice shows solidarity with the boob_nazis. And magdalene74 has a new lj approved breastfeeding icon.

And to think when I originally posted this I was worried it wasn't wanky enough.

Edit the seventh Annnnnnnnnnd here's anti-feminist joining in the fun.

Edit the eighth Predictably - Exposing LJ Abuse

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

$like phonics only not really: ff ; fractured.$

smut_queen
2006-05-21 12:06 am UTC (link)

You, and several other people in this post & at the original posts which sparked the wank, have essentially been saying, "It's okay that these icons feature nudity, because it's in the context of breastfeeding."

What I've said, numerous times, is that the context is irrelevant. If LJ says no boobs, then NO BOOBS. It doesn't matter who is sucking on them. It doesn't matter where you're allowed to breastfeed. What matters is that LJ owns the site and LJ makes the rules.

What. Is so difficult to understand about this?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

chibikaijuu
2006-05-21 01:01 am UTC (link)

Nothing. The point is that LJ needs a better, and more consistent, description of what is and is not allowed as a default icon. If they disallow nudity and explicity sexual content, fine, no uncovered boobs. If convienent text, filters, or pasties counts as covered, so does a baby's head.

Yes, LJ owns the site. Yes, LJ makes the rules. However, the rules aren't clear and are essentially only enforced should a user choose to report someone's icon, usually not *because* the icon breaks TOS, but because said user dislikes other user and has found a way to get them in trouble. If painted Bea Arthur tits and this particular breastfeeding icon, in which the breast is a mysterious lump that only becomes obvious as a breast with context, are against TOS, then I would expect every single reported user with a default icon containing nudity or bare breasts (or, apparently, partially covered breasts), whether photographic, painted, drawn, computer rendered (2D or 3D) or sculpture, artistic, pornographic, or just matter-of-fact, to be requested to remove it. This does not seem to be the case.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

iwanttobeasleep
2006-05-21 05:08 am UTC (link)

LJ has a policy of taking things on a case by case basis. Hell, so do the courts. Saying no uncovered breasts could rule out perfectly innocent works of art. And some covered breasts can still be very sexually explicit. What's wrong with assuming that if someone doesn't report an icon, it isn't that offensive? Is it that hard to change your default icon that we suddenly need everything to be completely defined?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

shaggydogstail
2006-05-21 01:21 am UTC (link)

Except that the rules don't say no boobs, nor do they mention nudity, they say no overly explicit images. Context is usually deemed relevant when considering whether or not an image is excessively explicit, which is why art teachers can show schoolchildren pictures of Botticelli's Birth of Venus, but not snapshots of topless strippers and why classical nude statues are commonplace in city centres, but you wouldn't get planning permission for a latex model of Miss Whiplash.

Since the rules don't mention nudity or partial nudity, I think it's reasonable to argue that images which are generally acceptable in public view should not be restricted.

What matters is that LJ owns the site and LJ makes the rules.

Of course, LJ can do whatever they damn well please. Doesn't mean I can't bitch it if I think they're being unreasonable. (After all, bitching about stuff is second only to porn on the great list of What The Internets Are For.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -