There’s a book going around now that alleges that Web 2.0 is socially destructive because blogs undermine traditional media and Wikipedia is oft inaccurate and prone to abuse. Some parts of this argument, as regards news and information, do have some validity, I think, although generally the book is not being embraced, unsurprisingly, by the blogosphere. (more…)

Amazingly, there is much controversy about the permanent account sale and the continual lack of clarification of what is acceptable on LJ, which is interesting as in the past there never was any clarification of what was allowed or not anyhow. If you look at LJ’s TOS, doesn’t it seem like they give, and have always given themselves, a wide ability to remove content on extremely vague grounds, without obligating themselves to do it? It has never been, to my mind, a question of “free speech,” because LJ has already implied in the TOS that they are willing to boot content above and beyond what is legally unacceptable in the US; that is, in the US, unlike in many European countries, IIRC, racially and ethnically “objectionable” and “offensive” content is legal. So it seems that LJ has always operated by some vague measure of community standard. IANAL, but having looked at other TOSs, it seems to me that you can say that content that is not illegal in the US is prohibited on one’s webservice, even if it is free speech in the US without jeopardizing one’s common carrier status. For example, I have seen many webhosts ban pornographic material, even though it is legal in the US to have an adult site, and to sell pr0n. The problem is that what’s allowed and what’s not is just vague, as are the mechanisms of enforcement. (For example, I’d say a large proportion of fandom is in violation of TOS for copyrighted material in their icons/mp3 sharing/whatever, but LJ isn’t going to do anything about it unless they receive a legit DMCA complaint.

Well, I’m not getting a permanent account because a) I don’t really have much use for the features, and b) I don’t really know whether LJ will be around that long and c) I’d rather spend the money on my own website. On the other hand, I wouldn’t really say that people who buy permanent accounts lose all leverage over LJ: people who buy perm. accounts tend to be heavy LJ users, and thus providers of content/social interaction. Since they’re not paying to use the LJ software, but to use the LJ server, content and social interaction are a major draw of the site, and these are provided by other users, not by LJ itself. So, I think by commenting and posting, you’re providing value to LJ, which encourages others to keep using the service. How many people have said that they’ll stop using LJ if their friends (you) go elsewhere?

Should any Content that you have authored be reported to LiveJournal as being offensive or inappropriate, LiveJournal might call upon you to retract, modify, or protect (by means of private and friends only settings) the Content in question within a reasonable amount of time, as determined by the LiveJournal staff.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but it seems to me that LJ is clearly saying that  it reserves for itself the right not only to police illegal content, but “offensive” and “inappropriate” content. Do these terms have a clear legal definition?

LiveJournal and its designates shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remove any content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable, or that infringes or is alleged to infringe intellectual property rights.

So, LJ is not saying that what it allows itself to remove is limited to what is specified as verboten in the TOS, but what is “otherwise objectionable.” Again, not a lawyer, but doesn’t this mean that the TOS says that LJ can remove whatever it finds offensive/objectionable/inappropriate, and that this is not limited to what’s in the TOS? So, therefore, LJ did not violate its TOS by suspending people who did not have technically illegal content.

The user agrees not to:  Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive to another’s privacy (up to, but not excluding any address, email, phone number, or any other contact information without the written consent of the owner of such information), hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

So, “abusive,” “vulgar,” “obscene,” “hateful,” and “racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable” content are banned. Regardless of whether obscenity is against the law or not, it seems clear that LJ has taken a position on it. Also, “otherwise objectionable” seems to be quite broad.

I am again not saying that LJ is unreasonable, evil, or out of line to have such a TOS. I’m just pointing out that LJ reserves the right to boot people on grounds broader than illegality. Heck, I’m pretty sure it’s legal for me in the US to have a banner advertising my business, or participate in an affiliate program. Yet, this form of commercial speech is banned by LJ.