Reply from LJ support to my question

[solarbird]

I posted, here, a question about how they propose to handle organised anti-gay complaints from fundamentalist groups. My take-away from their response would be that they have no plans for dealing with this particular issue, and no particular guidelines set up to handle the real-life situation I describe in my comment above. If they do, they aren't telling me about it. Here is the full text of their support-chain reply:

Dear user solarbird,

Thank you for your follow-up comment. As noted in the latest lj_biz post, LiveJournal must investigate all reports that we receive, regardless of the identity of the reporter. LiveJournal cannot accept certain reports but not others, nor can we perform any sort of 'filtering' on the reports we receive -- LiveJournal is legally required to investigate all reports equally.

No reporting person, group, or agency is given special treatment, either of a 'higher' or 'lower' ranking, as to the status of their reports. Action will only be taken, however, if the material being reported warrants it according to our Terms of Service and policies.

Regards,
Annika
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team

Did this answer your question?
YES:
http://www.livejournal.com/support/act.bml?close;796406;6ddtsphshkpcjed;3034025
NO:
http://www.livejournal.com/support/see_request.bml?id=796406&

If you are having problems using any of the links in this email, please try copying and pasting the *entire* link into your browser's address bar rather than clicking on it.

I suppose the implication is that we will have to rely on their judgement. My strong suspicion about how this will end up is described in replies to my original query.

Comments

[waysofseeing.livejournal.com]

In your ideal world, how were you expecting them to respond?

[ellerisse.livejournal.com]

Not speaking for solarbird of course, but I would have liked to see the above plus some information about how spurious and politically-motivated empty complaints would be reacted to after investigation.

For example, I believe that people and groups who use the complaint system to try to marginalize groups or communities baselessly should be punished, perhaps with account suspension - and baseless complaints certainly should not result in any action against the 'defendant' party. SixApart's actions so far suggest that these measures will not be part of their policy; they will simply shut down 'defendant' parties if they have any reason, however thin, to do so. This is potentially a major coup for certain activists - a chance for them to enact censorship on a grassroots level.

[solarbird]

ellerisse pretty much has it right, tho' I'll add, in an ideal world, they'd be saying rather different things anyway, such as, "we'll shut you down for illegal content only," and/or, "we'll remove posts and put you on probation," and/or, "yes, we'll be modifying our TOS," which they're not, despite effectively changing them.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Such are the joys when dealing with 'Morally Superior' people. Which is what the folks at LJ think they are. They will be more than happy to tell us when we break the rules, after the fact.

I also like the bit about being 'legally required'. Sure would be nice if they'd point out the law that has laid this burden on them.

[avram]

I'm tempted to ask them if the author of this post should be banned for making a threat against a Presidential successor. But if they actually went ahead and banned him, I'd feel like a real jerk.