can we make up one that says that we support not seeing children suckling on their moms boobies?

You can use their mailing form to send whatever ya want including support emails in FAVOR of LJ's policies to the intended recipient...just don't forget to change the subject heading ^_^

I do this all the time with conservative political email campaign websites.

I just saw a post about this in the ljover30 community, and I was hoping it would make its way over here! Yay for LJ!

LiveJournal offers free service - yes, there is the paid option, but it's completely voluntary. They can prohibit anything they want, no?

It's interesting that U.S. federal law protects nursing on all federal grounds, and California law (Cal. Civ. Code §43.3 1997 Cal ALS 59; 1997 Cal AB 157; Stats 1997 ch 59) explicitly protects the right of a nursing mother to nurse anywhere she has a right to be, which makes a clear case that neither federal law nor California law consider breastfeeding to be an act that is "inappropriate for a general viewing audience".

Umm...unless my understanding is grossly in error, the internet is neither on federal "grounds" nor the state of California. Therefore, don't those laws not apply?

Although I will be sad to do so, I will be forced to take my journals elsewhere

Don't let the door hit you on the ass as you go out, Moo. :)

As someone else once said, this petition can be translated as follows:

Moo. Moo moo moo. Moo moo. MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Moo.

That, and moo udders are just ugly. I'm all for less offenses to my poor eyes.

*laughs* Totally agreed!

To whom it may concern,

A member of the LiveJournal Abuse Team, Eric, recently decided that pictures of a nursing baby were unacceptable for use as default icons, because he deemed them "inappropriate for a general viewing audience".

I agree whole heartily to this change to the acceptable use policy. Nursing pictures are still not appropriate for the workplace.
Why do these "groups" believe that they can use them all over LiveJournal?
I do not use pictures from my recent Breast Reduction as an icon in EVERY Community; even though they are medical pictures and most unsexy.
Please remind these "groups" that there is a time and place for everything...

I am behind your new policy 100%

Sincerely,

I took poetic license with it and created this :


To whom it may concern,

A member of the LiveJournal Abuse Team, Eric, recently decided that pictures of a nursing baby were unacceptable for use as default icons, because he deemed them "inappropriate for a general viewing audience". It's interesting that all the tit nazis are mooing over this when they should be watching their kids instead of lowing on the internet about something stupid.

More mooing occurs here, lt/dr.

So apparently tits are only obscene if there's an ugly ass kid attached? I'm sure that most of the moos lowing about "protected status" are the same ones who threw a major bitch fest over the whole Janet Jackson thing.

I'm most definately keeping my live journal, especially since all the cows are waddling of to moo in greener pastures. Go Eric, you are now nearing folk hero status!

The LJ abuse team is clearly following the policies stated in the TOS, so they are doing nothing wrong. I don't see how hard it is to understand that if you want to utilize a service that is basically free (there is a paid option, but nobody is being forced to use it) you have to abide by the TOS.

I believe that this isn't even a valid issue, someone got warned about an icon deemed inapropriate. Oh noes, it's the end of the world if someone can't post pics of their sagging breasts everywhere!

In summation, I'd like to point out that this is an internet service and the owners or management are free to run their business/service the way they choose.

I look forward to LiveJournal management laughing at this issue while making fun of the people with sand in certain places mooing about descrimination. Please keep me updated as to your actions.

Sincerely,
Fake name.

At least it'll give the abuse team a good laugh or something.

I just erased all of their mooing bullshit and told them to keep their sick bodily functions to their own damned selves.

I don't get to walk around in the baking hot summer weather wearing nothing but short, so the Moos can keep things to themselves and their sprog until I get that option. It's only fair, I think.

Besides, I like to think that I've got a much nicer set of tits (not sagging utters) and maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the nice ones be seen anyway?


Hell, I should probably just shut up while I'm still ahead.

I and a couple of friends sent our own version of this letter in the fill-in form:

To whom it may concern,

A member of the LiveJournal Abuse Team, Eric, recently decided that pictures of a nursing baby were unacceptable for use as default icons, because he deemed them "inappropriate for a general viewing audience".

While, U.S. federal law protects nursing on all federal grounds, and California law (Cal. Civ. Code §43.3 1997 Cal ALS 59; 1997 Cal AB 157; Stats 1997 ch 59) explicitly protects the right of a nursing mother to nurse anywhere she has a right to be, so that Mothers are free to breastfeed in offices, parks, libraries, amusement parks, churches, and everywhere else, where it is necessary, that they have to start lowing and whining that a PRIVATELY OWNED internet company does not feel that it is appropriate to use images of this act when display of said imagesit is not necessary for the support of a baby.

I and other like me feel that it is hypocritical in the extreme for these women, doubtless many of whom would have cheerfully lynched Janet Jackson for her infamous 'wardrobe malfunction', are so put out of shape over this. One might ask why a female breast, when alone on a woman's body, is dirty and pornographic but magically then becomes sacred when it has a baby hanging from it, to the point that a picture of same, which obviously plays no necessary role in the feeding of an infant is also so sacred that it 'must' be allowed in an internet forum. I believe that these complainers, should same icon be made available without the baby, would be enraged.

I support the choice made by livejournal to remove depictions of bodily functions and nakedness from the default icons.
Sincerely,

You needn't ask; feel free.

let as many people as possible know that LiveJournal is not supportive of breastfeeding

Yeah, and all three who care'll no doubt thank you for it.

Eric be praised!

Does this mean I will never again be exposed to the horror that is sad, exhibitionist women pimping pics of their tits getting sucked? Can I dare to hope? Can I?

The thing is, the same bitches who make these BF-ing icons for the ENTIRE FUCKING INTERNET to gaze at are the first to start screeching like fucked cats if someone dares stare hard at them for tit-feeding in public. It's suddenly 'how dare you interrupt my private moment' and 'omg, you're making me UNCONFORTABLE' etc etc. Excuse me, if you plaster pics of your breasts all over the goddamn web, you do NOT get to complain about people actually fucking looking at them.

Either they admit they are tragic exhibitionists or they put their tits in their shirts, stop treatment every suckling as a camera/photoshop moment and shut the fuck up moaning.

Meh. BFing icons gross me out, but so do a lot of things. The only reason I'm against it is because if that kid ever finds out there were pics of him hanging off of a soggy, saggy tit posted for millions of strangers to see, he's gonna be pissed.

I don't care how this one ends, to be perfectly honest. I try to stay away from places where icons like that are common.

Not that I enjoy watching people breast feed, but how many other icons are going to be deemed inappropriate now? First bf icons, then the animated goatse icons, then ones of tits without kids attacked, and on and on and on?

I changed the text of the email, saying the exact opposite, and sent it like that.

And welcome to otf_wank . . . :)