I hate it when people misuse the law in arguments.

[pat]

If I hear one more person say "California law requires LJ to allow images of breastfeeding mothers..."

It does NOT. California law requires that women be allowed to nurse in any area other than a private residence where both mother and baby are allowed. That's all.* Nothing about images.

And yes, I've checked Cal Codes; repeatedly, why do you ask? And before you link to articles -- such as this one you might want to ask, is this story about images or about ACTUAL WOMEN ACTUALLY BREASTFEEDING?

You want to argue that LJ is engaging in censorship? Fine. You want to argue that they are evil and mean and hate women and breastfeeding moms? Go right ahead.

You want to argue that an image is the same thing as a breastfeeding mom and has the same protections under California law? That's completely laughable.

You think I'm wrong? Prove it. Cite to explicit Code Sections [edit: or case law that's on point] that would not only allow but would force LJ to allow these icons. I dare you. I may have missed something. Oh, and if you find a code section stating that they are not considered obscene for purposes of pornography statutes that doesn't count: all that means is LJ or individual users can't be prosecuted if they have them.


*it also provides things not germane to this discussion, such as that employers have to provide adequate facilities for nursing or pumping, to which I say Hallelujah! I had to use a bathroom, which led a partner at my law firm to speculate that someone was using a vibrator in there. Also, nursing moms get out of jury duty.

Comments

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Miller would only protect the creator or distributor of images from government action. That is not the same as requiring LJ to allow the images. And Miller is a judicial precedent, always subject to legislative narrowing, as it has been in cases involving children.

As I said, if you want to argue that LJ is exercising censorship on its own, that's one thing. Personally, I think this is all a tempest in a teapot, given that it only involves default icons, and given many of the much more significant battles to be fought against suppression of free speech, but I certainly can see where people would feel otherwise.

What I was objecting to was people cavalierly misrepresenting the law, especially the law in California.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Indeed, until these things are taken to court its all rather uncertain. Indeed, I don't think its inconceivable that a lawyer could use the existing California law as a starting point in a successful case against LJ on this, but until someone stumps up money for lawyers we won't know.

I'm more concerned about the effect this has on a broader range of images, not just breast feeding. We can't use pictures of the Venus di Milo as default userpics as things stand, and that's just crazed, and goes well beyond the original FAQ wording about explicit sexual content or graphic violence.