Update: Religiously motivated child abuse A-OK according to LJ
Roughly a month or so ago, I wrote an extensive article in regards to two communities on LJ which promote religiously motivated child abuse--specifically trainupachild which promotes the works of the Pearls, Tedd Tripp and Bill Gothard, and babywise which promoted the work of the Ezzos.
These two communities were selected, in part, because they have promoted religiously motivated child abuse that has specifically resulted in the deaths of kids; in part, I was inspired to report on and make formal complaint to LJ Abuse in regards to these due to reports that fanartists were having accounts removed whilst communities that were promoting activity known to be harmful to minors were left alone (in particular, several "pro-anorexia" communities which provided explicit instructions on how to binge and purge, sources of diet pills and laxatives, etc. that LJ had indicated were acceptable despite specific conditions in the terms of service that prohibit any community meant to "harm minors in any way").
A few days ago, Livejournal Abuse finally got back to me in regards to the complaints I had made (which included specific pointers to content promoted)...and, well, I think the evidence speaks for itself.
In regards to the complaint I had sent in regards to trainupachild:
Thank you for contacting the LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team. While we appreciate your concern, because of the great diversity of our userbase, our members will hold widely-differing opinions on a wide variety of topics and are permitted to express themselves freely so long as their behavior does not directly conflict with our Terms of Service (http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml). As long as the content does not explicitly encourage others to harass or physically harm any particular racial, ethnic, or social minority, it is considered allowable.
In order to properly investigate a complaint, the LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team always requires specific links to the entries believed to be in violation of the LiveJournal Terms of Service. Many LiveJournal communities are entirely "Friends Only" in order to provide safe spaces for their members to discuss topics which others may find offensive or distressing. The ability to view protected or "Friends Only" entries, journals, or communities is limited to select LiveJournal employees. This ability is only used in the event of serious violations of United States law or of LiveJournal's Terms of Service. Based on the information available on the Profile Page for "trainupachild", there is no basis for the Abuse Prevention Team to consider this community as a forum that endorses or advocates illegal behavior. Therefore, we will be unable to assist you further at this time.
Regards,
Alice
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team
This is, of course, despite the fact that I had in fact shown info from the very few public posts--and shown them evidence the community was made friends-only as a direct result of complaints regarding promotion of religiously motivated child abuse. (This, of course, also doesn't count things like the complete text of chapter 1 of "To Train Up A Child" linked from their profile page or direct sales links to Tedd Tripp's "Shepherding A Child's Heart" (both of which are also technically violations of Livejournal TOS).)
The result in regards to the complaint re babywise was even more bereft of clue:
Dear LiveJournal User Dogemperor,
Thank you for contacting the LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team. While we appreciate your concern, because of the great diversity of our userbase, our members will hold widely-differing opinions on a wide variety of topics and are permitted to express themselves freely so long as their behavior does not directly conflict with the LiveJournal Terms of Service (http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml). Please note, in accordance with the FAQ referenced above, that it is not against the Terms of Service to post negative or unpopular opinions, no matter how strongly-worded. While the content in question may be disturbing and in poor taste, it does not constitute a violation of the LiveJournal Terms of Service.
We have reviewed the specific posts you have linked to, and have found no material present which violates the LiveJournal Terms of Service. We will be unable to assist you further at this time, and can only suggest that if you find the contents of this journal disturbing that you avoid viewing it in the future.
Regards,
Alice
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team
Now, keep in mind, this is after I had sent them some rather extensive documentation on how a a California child-abuse prevention agency considers the works of the Ezzos as "Bible-based child abuse" or how a three-week-old baby was left alone to cry for over four hours (by a parent who was using the Ezzo books as recommended) and how this baby was diagnosed with failure to thrive at her fifteen-week checkup as a direct result of the advice her mom received.
Needless to say, I have appealed LJ Abuse's info (including providing additional info in pointing out specific TOS violations and also pointing out instances of children who have died because of advice promoted; at least one followup sent to LJ Abuse in regards to babywise contained info re infant deaths directly attributed to the advice given in the "Babywise" books and Babywise support forums as well as info re the original publisher having stopped publishing and even considered a recall when they found out that kids were dying as a result.
I honestly don't expect anything to be done--but I do intend to make a case that real child abuse communities aren't being followed nearly as aggressively as the complaints LJ has acted on with its strikeouts.
(As always, people are free to link/mirror/Digg/etc. this link and wide distribution is encouraged)
These two communities were selected, in part, because they have promoted religiously motivated child abuse that has specifically resulted in the deaths of kids; in part, I was inspired to report on and make formal complaint to LJ Abuse in regards to these due to reports that fanartists were having accounts removed whilst communities that were promoting activity known to be harmful to minors were left alone (in particular, several "pro-anorexia" communities which provided explicit instructions on how to binge and purge, sources of diet pills and laxatives, etc. that LJ had indicated were acceptable despite specific conditions in the terms of service that prohibit any community meant to "harm minors in any way").
A few days ago, Livejournal Abuse finally got back to me in regards to the complaints I had made (which included specific pointers to content promoted)...and, well, I think the evidence speaks for itself.
In regards to the complaint I had sent in regards to trainupachild:
Thank you for contacting the LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team. While we appreciate your concern, because of the great diversity of our userbase, our members will hold widely-differing opinions on a wide variety of topics and are permitted to express themselves freely so long as their behavior does not directly conflict with our Terms of Service (http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml). As long as the content does not explicitly encourage others to harass or physically harm any particular racial, ethnic, or social minority, it is considered allowable.
In order to properly investigate a complaint, the LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team always requires specific links to the entries believed to be in violation of the LiveJournal Terms of Service. Many LiveJournal communities are entirely "Friends Only" in order to provide safe spaces for their members to discuss topics which others may find offensive or distressing. The ability to view protected or "Friends Only" entries, journals, or communities is limited to select LiveJournal employees. This ability is only used in the event of serious violations of United States law or of LiveJournal's Terms of Service. Based on the information available on the Profile Page for "trainupachild", there is no basis for the Abuse Prevention Team to consider this community as a forum that endorses or advocates illegal behavior. Therefore, we will be unable to assist you further at this time.
Regards,
Alice
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team
This is, of course, despite the fact that I had in fact shown info from the very few public posts--and shown them evidence the community was made friends-only as a direct result of complaints regarding promotion of religiously motivated child abuse. (This, of course, also doesn't count things like the complete text of chapter 1 of "To Train Up A Child" linked from their profile page or direct sales links to Tedd Tripp's "Shepherding A Child's Heart" (both of which are also technically violations of Livejournal TOS).)
The result in regards to the complaint re babywise was even more bereft of clue:
Dear LiveJournal User Dogemperor,
Thank you for contacting the LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team. While we appreciate your concern, because of the great diversity of our userbase, our members will hold widely-differing opinions on a wide variety of topics and are permitted to express themselves freely so long as their behavior does not directly conflict with the LiveJournal Terms of Service (http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml). Please note, in accordance with the FAQ referenced above, that it is not against the Terms of Service to post negative or unpopular opinions, no matter how strongly-worded. While the content in question may be disturbing and in poor taste, it does not constitute a violation of the LiveJournal Terms of Service.
We have reviewed the specific posts you have linked to, and have found no material present which violates the LiveJournal Terms of Service. We will be unable to assist you further at this time, and can only suggest that if you find the contents of this journal disturbing that you avoid viewing it in the future.
Regards,
Alice
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team
Now, keep in mind, this is after I had sent them some rather extensive documentation on how a a California child-abuse prevention agency considers the works of the Ezzos as "Bible-based child abuse" or how a three-week-old baby was left alone to cry for over four hours (by a parent who was using the Ezzo books as recommended) and how this baby was diagnosed with failure to thrive at her fifteen-week checkup as a direct result of the advice her mom received.
Needless to say, I have appealed LJ Abuse's info (including providing additional info in pointing out specific TOS violations and also pointing out instances of children who have died because of advice promoted; at least one followup sent to LJ Abuse in regards to babywise contained info re infant deaths directly attributed to the advice given in the "Babywise" books and Babywise support forums as well as info re the original publisher having stopped publishing and even considered a recall when they found out that kids were dying as a result.
I honestly don't expect anything to be done--but I do intend to make a case that real child abuse communities aren't being followed nearly as aggressively as the complaints LJ has acted on with its strikeouts.
(As always, people are free to link/mirror/Digg/etc. this link and wide distribution is encouraged)