InsaneJournal

This is a weblog revolving around persons and communities of which I was conclusively proven astute insofar positively identifying myself.

I thank numerous webloggers on Live Journal, Greatest Journal, & Insane Journal, including stewardess, for providing the proper shading of the colors which I was viewing.

For thirty-one active months, I maintained a weblog on Live Journal which was "permanently suspended" as an innocent victim of LJ's "Strikethrough 07".
I established my first LJ in late 2000, after being pointed toward it by an artistic real world friend.
Guess what? That LJ was never suspended.
LJ had no idea that I was the person behind it.

I am an aficionado of erotica. I have a library of erotica on both VHS and DVD, and many images and videos on computer media. With the backbone of the law governing erotica in the U.S.A. being "community standards"; such that some content could be legal in one district, yet be “illegal” in another, I puzzle as what could happen should a law enforcement agency decide to make an “example” of me. I do not want to become the example who is indicted. There is something I do in real life which must be obscured on this weblog, and for that matter, all websites where I identify with this personae. Some people in real life know about my erotica library. I have requested of them, and they have been scrupulously courteous as to not reveal what is my identifiable on-line personae.

I can admit to this: I reside in one of the areas where this petite (& quite young-looking) performer in U.S.-made porn videos [NSFW] refuses subscribers [twenty-one states!]. If her webmaster feels that her site is “illegal” in those areas, it is a safe projection that any other erotic website, whether pay or free, could also be “illegal” here.
(The key dialogue is in a small, inline, scrollable box near the foot of the page. It begins, "By clicking on any of the links above ")

This is the main reason why I utilize anonymous proxies when surfing on the World-Wide Web. It puts an additional barrier between me and the potentially “illegal” website I might land upon. And in the instance to which I am about to relate, it kept me from being falsely identified as a person with a "pedophiliac" weblog.

When Live Journal instituted its new policy of placing advertisements on selected LJ user and community pages, in so doing trashing its promise to never have ads on pages stored on its servers, I envisioned where this could lead. I feared that LJ would be more stringent about the content posted by its webloggers, if it appeared on a page where an advertisement appeared. Advertisers do not like controversy. A “do-gooder” gang could undertake a pressure campaign aimed at advertisers whose ads appeared on a LJ page where a weblogger expressed interest in a controversial topic. The targeted advertiser would likely relate to LJ that it did not want its ads to appear on any page where a controversial topic was mentioned.

I posted a reply stating this on any number of LJ weblogs where I felt the weblogger who had allowed ads to appear on his / her weblog [A "Sponsored Plus+" - later, only "Plus+" Account, because LJ felt more users would sign up for it if they didn't know this meant advertisements.] was cleaving too closely to this edge.

Over the weekend of Memorial Day [in the U.S.A.], 24 - 29 May 2007, Live Journal did exactly as I had feared. It capitulated to the convenient whim of a vigilanté gang; "permanently suspending" hundreds of LJ webloggers which the vigilanté gang had "flagged" - if it disliked any of that person's Interests, contended with anything he / she had on his / her User Info page, loathed any of his / her public posts, or deemed abhorrent any of the Communities in which he / she was a member. Weblogs orbiting around "fan fiction", including Harry Potter; were decimated in this manuever (because they had drawings of, or had "slash" stories of “underage characters”). LJ did not discern between Basic, Plus, Paid, or even Permanent Accounts. Two of the terminated weblogs who had an illustration of Harry Potter on them were Permanent Accounts, thus giving creed to my belief that since LJ knows it has gotten all the money it shall ever get from a Permanent Account holder, it will seize any opportunity to terminate that account, and get the content off its servers.

Live Journal capitulated to the demand
of a fascist, censoring, and intolerant vigilanté gang
to make it look more appealing to an
outside venture capital fund!

Free speech was again the casualty of “bean counters” more intent on providing a non-controversial wallpaper for advertisers.

Did it get its buyout?
That is tricky to answer. Six Apart, which did all of the above, sold its portion of Live Journal to SUP, which was the operating authority for LJ in Russia. I was familiar with some of the Russian-language weblogs and communities. Some of them were on my friends list.

Russia is fairly well-known as one of the last ‘wild frontiers’ when it comes to erotica on the World-Wide Web. Most of the jaw-dropping websites dealing with extremely controversial topics are on Russian (and / or Ukrainian) webhosts.
Will SUP be more tolerant towards erotica? I am unsure.

A more grave query is whether a Russian governmental agency could demand from SUP (& receive) the identification of a Russian Live Journal weblogger who expresses criticism towards it. There are reputable reports about persons arrested for something they scribed in their LJ weblogs. Russian webloggers who (absurdly) remain on LJ had better become knowledgable about hidden journals and anonymous proxies.
But for me, the question is actually moot.

I will never again logon to Live Journal, regardless of where it is hosted, or who owns it.

I continue to adhere to my belief that all the "non-vanilla" weblogs on Live Journal need to leave there and reappear here, before they are "permanently suspended".

There are a significant number of persons in North America, especially in the U.S.A., who loathe social networking World-Wide Web sites (of which a weblog service like Insane Journal can be adapted to serve as), who loathe erotica, whom (I suspect) have not had an enjoyable sensual episode with a willing consort in years; and who otherwise feel powerless in real life; that they must strike out against those whom they perceive have an active sex life.

They are using the "friendly" cloak of eradicating "pedophiles", and "child molesters" (Herein lies one problem: These terms are not synonyms.) from the Earth to shadow their ultimate yearning: To expunge all the erotic arts from legitimate and respectful humankind. They attempt to taint the responsible aficionados of erotica with the tarring brush of the few who perpetrate horrible actions against pre-pubescents. This anti-child-molestation angle is what they use to attempt to give themselves credibility. They will proceed to accusing all erotica aficionados of contributing to an atmosphere which "enables" acts of child molestation, urging law enforcement agencies to monitor and investigate persons expressing an interest in erotica, and petitioning governments to criminalize the content, including that being performed by consenting, legal-aged persons.

I shall not yield another inch. Anti-erotica zealots will not erode my position via small steps.
Yes - I am defending "child pornography". Because their conflated redefinition of "child pornography" is not my definition. I will not let them get away with this any more.

For a well-thought-out, academic dissertation of the anti-erotica zealots, what they seek, and why they ultimately cannot accomplish their objective, read Chapter 6 of "Sadomasochism In Everyday Life", by Lynn S. Chancer [1992: ISBN 0-8135-1808-3].

I keenly contend with the attempted redefinition of "child pornography". Agencies are over-applying the term to situations where it does not adhere. (Because they know that by merely making the code-worded accusation, they get an instant and automatic conviction through their lapdogs in the mainstream media; which is hostile to it because it has not deduced a profitable way to present it, or any erotica.)

Genuine "child pornography" is despicable;
especially if somebody believes he / she can
profit financially from its production.
Genuine molestation of children is reprehensible.

But "child pornography" should not be used to refer to a mother's videotape of her six-year-old son washing himself in the bathtub; a snapshot of a mom, dad, and their pubescent boy and girl on a nude beach in Europe; a father's photograph of his fourteen-year-old daughter in a bikini; a photojournalist's image of a sixteen-year-old female gymnast on the balance beam {A court in the U.S.A. has redefined some imagery of non-nudity as "nudity"; so it therefore qualifies as "child pornography".}; the antics of the juveniles in the Japanese movie "Emperor Tomato Ketchup"; Eva Ionesco in the Italian movie "Maladolescenza"; Delphine Zentout in the French movie "36 Filette"; or even Alexandria Quinn in "Edward Penishands".

Every ‘protect the children’ bill passed by the United States Congress now includes verbiage which criminalizes drawings and illustrations of “underage” persons in sexual situations. Yes, the U.S.A., and now U.N.I.C.E.F. are trying to outlaw hentai manga and anime.
Who is the "victim" being exploited in a drawing of a sexual situation?
There is no victim.
But because the content squicks some persons, intolerant types are demanding it be criminalized.

Since the anti-erotica zealots are yelling, "Say NO to sensuality."; their cry gets to be expressed without restrictions. Those of us who would like to reply, "Explore your sensuality." will be hit with taunts of "sending an inappropriate message to ‘underaged’ persons". We are directed to get the names, addresses, and real ages of those over 18 who respond to our plea (with draconian penalties for non-compliance); and we'll have to provide that data to the "NO" side if they request it. (Why don't they have to do bookeeping? Why can't we have the names and addresses of those who responded to their roar?)

This is not a fair match. This is one side blatantly cheating, and the ‘referee’ allowing them to get away with it. (We will get the “unsportsmanlike conduct” penalty if we object.)

If you are under the age of consent for your state or country, you should not read this Insane Journal. I am certain you never surf an “inappropriate” W-WW site.
Having stated that, I also add that if you might, this would be a good weblog into which to sneak.

Finally, with all the hue & cry over “predators” on the Internet, what is being (conveniently?) overlooked? No one in the U.S.A. is allowed to sign up for an account at MySpace, Facebook, Yahoo!, Live Journal, Insane Journal, or any other social networking W-WW site, unless he / she is at least thirteen years of age.

A thirteen-year-old is neither a child nor a pre-pubescent.
The people who consider a thirteen-year-old to be a child or a pre-pubescent want to artificially control his / her life for additional years, hoping that their messages of intolerance, fear, and wrath will take root.

Fie on them.
And fie on those who yield to their proselytizations.