uncooked thoughts on this LJ business

[my_daroga]

I can't help but think that "freedom of speech" and self-policing are two separate issues. I support the idea that unreasonable dictates from on high squelch free thought and should be questioned. But why does it follow, then, that we should absolve ourselves for all responsibility? Can't we want free and safe space to express ourselves and reserve the right, as individual communities, to express disgust with certain practices?

In plain speech, can we fight against censorship and also decide that we don't support certain forms of pornography? Why can't we say, "This should not be forbidden, but neither do I find stories of sex between adults and pre-adolescents acceptable in my space"? Or any other set of standards a community as a group want to apply.

Or is it just too hopelessly messy to have ethics and standards when we're talking about the limits of speech? Because no matter what they are, someone else will think those standards too harsh or too liberal, and clearly even asking whether we can apply "standards" implies that the speaker considers herself the ultimate authority. (Not something I intended, and I very much regret that.) Is it a contradiction to find anti-pro-ana stances hypocritical, but not think Junie B. Jones (to quote a recent metafandom post) porn is right? This is just an example. I am not trying to argue the validity of either of those statements. Only to discuss whether we can make both.

I expect I'll regret not writing this better. I just haven't the patience right now.

Edit to clarify: No, I do not like the behavior of LJ/6A over the past few weeks. I am decidedly *not* arguing that we shouldn't be worried, or that LJ should be able to ban any content that is not illegal. I am merely pointing out what is, for me, a nebulous ethical territory we should think about.

Edit after metafandom: I expect I'll regret it even more now, as my post has clearly left itself open to the interpretation that I might be advocating that only my own personal standards are valid. This is not at all what I intended. I merely used examples I felt were typical, in order not to be so vague as to be useless. Perhaps I could have said the opposite: "Perhaps we can call the anti-porn people hypocrites, but can't we also argue about the validity of pro-ana sites too?" All I really want to ask is whether we can ask LJ to allow us safe space for discussion and also dictate, for our own journals and communities, what material we deem appropriate. I personally think the answer is yes. What I am against is retaliatory action which only strikes at others the way fandom has been struck at.

Comments

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

I think it's really very complicated to draw a line. A lot of adult/adolescent probably won't bother most people, particularly if it's 20s/late teens. But I've definitely seen fiction like that which clearly shows a very messed-up power dynamic. And maybe that's the point--the message--which would make it okay, but maybe it's the author's nasty kink, which would make it creepy.

By the same token, where does one draw the line between thoughtful but explicit fiction about child abuse (and sometimes the explictness serves a purpose) and creepy stroke material? Most people view Lolita as being anti-child-abuse; some people find it erotic and aspire to be like the characters (not just men; there used to be an LJ community with women who wanted to be as Lolita-like as possible--most were legal, some weren't. I don't know if that community was strikethroughed or not, but it creeped me out immensely. But there's nothing illegal about adult women pretending to be naive teenagers, creepy as it can be).

So--yeah, I don't see anything wrong with having standards in theory, but I'm just not sure how they could be consistently laid out so users of a service like LJ would automatically know whether their posts were acceptable or not.

But if we do ban sexually icky material (or communities of mostly-adult women wishing they could find their Humberts), I don't see how it's hypocritical to ban pro-ana communities. But I have a hell of a lot of personal baggage on that end, and would arbitrarily ban pro-ed material from any internet service I ran because I wouldn't want to be facilitating the behaviors encouraged there (some of which are illegal--e.g. "Here's how to get banned diet drugs"), so paint me a hypocrite.

[my_daroga]

Your comment raises a lot of interesting points, but I think I wasn't clear.

For one thing, I don't want LJ/6A to draw the line; I want them to back down and make their policies more clear. However, I don't think that the threat of bolding being held over us is the same thing as a community, by member choice, making decisions about what's acceptable. Obviously we make those decisions in our homes, schools, neighborhoods all the time.

So it's not a question of LJ knowing when things are acceptable; I'm against involving them at all. I'm only trying to raise the point that we fans need to know what we're doing, too, and not just blanket everything in a rallying cry of "free speech!" It's a good rally, but at some point we need to step back and look at the landscape.

But if we do ban sexually icky material, I don't see how it's hypocritical to ban pro-ana communities.

I didn't say that. What I said was that people who are against banning sexually icky material should not turn around and say, "okay then, let's find someone else to persecute." I just personally don't see it as a very mature way of dealing with the situation; it's combative and it's like kicking the dog after your boss reams you out.

I'm not for a minute supporting any of the pro-ana business. It disturbs me to no end, and makes me really angry. But the stance leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Because ultimately, what they're doing is arguing for their right to produce something by making the opposite argument. And I don't think they're doing it ironically.