i wrote:

To Whom It May Concern:

I recently received an email from your LJ Abuse Team informing me that my that default userpic is inappropriate. I have carefully reviewed your restrictions for userpics and my user picture does not meet the criteria. It is not violate your TOS. Your TOS only specifies that "we require that your default userpic not contain anything too explicit. In particular, icons which are graphically sexual or violent in nature tend to be inappropriate for default userpics." In what way do you classify a photograph of an infant nursing, the single most natural act between a mother and child, as graphically sexual or violent in nature -- or indeed, as sexual at all? Breastfeeding is not a sexual act. It is not a violent act. This icon in no way violates your state Terms of Service.


Women have the legal right to breastfeed in public in all 50 states, many of which have laws which specifically protect a mother's right to feed her baby in public. Perhaps LiveJournal is not aware of the recent media coverage of cities governments and businesses which have tried to interfere with a mother's right to nurse her child?


Since you use a court ruling to define indecency and legally they'd be required to abide by the laws of the state where LJ is located (California) and also by the federal laws, perhaps you'd be interested to note these laws:

California: Cal. Civ. Code ?43.3
1997 Cal ALS 59; 1997 Cal AB 157; Stats 1997 ch 59

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, except the private home or residence of another, where the mother and child are authorized to be present.

In other words, breastfeeding in public isn't subject to indecency laws, and that means it isn't indecent. If it's not considered offensive to have pictures of you and your child in your journal, then a picture of you breastfeeding said child is also acceptable. Federal law also protects women during breastfeeding.

Federal law and California law both state that nursing is exempt from indecency laws, and LJ should abide by their laws.

Sincerely,
Cindy Collins


"It is curious commentary on our society that we tolerate all degrees of explicitness in our literature and mass media as regards sex and violence, but the normal act of breast feeding is taboo." - American Academy of Pediatrics.

response:
Dear Ms. Collins,

Thank you for your inquiry. The standards informing LiveJournal's policy governing default user picture icons are not, broadly speaking, grounded in specific legal codes. Because LiveJournal is a privately held company, it can choose to set and enforce guidelines for use that are more strict in places than United States law would otherwise be. Specifically, default user picture icons are prohibited to contain overt violence, or a direct, unobstructed view of any primary or secondary sexual characteristics, regardless of the content of the icon itself.

This policy and the email you received are not grounded in the belief that breastfeeding is illegal, obscene, inappropriate, or otherwise subject to censorship. Rather, the content restrictions placed on default user picture icons are made necessary by the fact that default icons can be seen in many places within the LiveJournal.com domain; their appearance is not limited to entries or comments for which they have been selected. Because these icons can be seen in places on the site where one would not reasonably expect to find sexually explicit content, such as user directories and searches, they must not contain material which may be considered inappropriate for viewing in certain settings. We realize that breastfeeding is not a sexual activity, however images depicting the activity cannot be used as default icons if they display an unobstructed view of the subject's breasts.

You are free to use your breastfeeding icons within your personal journal and communities. The content restrictions apply only to default icons; non-default user pictures are not subject to the same restrictions, and community maintainers are free to decide for themselves what content, if any, to disallow in their communities.

Finally, please be aware that write-in campaigns are never effective in swaying the opinion of the Abuse Team or LiveJournal administrators, or in focusing attention on a particular issue. A flood of requests concerning the same issue only serve to slow down the responses given to valid inquiries such as your request for policy clarification.

Regards,
Carson
LiveJournal Abuse Team