And still, it's unsatisfactory, because of course they are going to apologize. What worries me is the leverage that WFI have found and used, and how LJ has caved in and messily so. If such a report (of journals soliciting criminal activites) is made, shouldn't LJ quietly investigate first, then if cause for concern is found, report to the proper law enforcement group? In order, you know, to actually apprehend criminals and not just send them underground?
Well, some of the suspended journals do seem to have belonged to paedophiles advocating abuse of children, and possibly were used as networking to commit child abuse. But some of the suspended journals (by most recent count at least half, and some are still being investigated for content by LJ) most certainly didn't fit that pattern and were actually thoroughly unobjectionable.
Quietly reporting suspect journals (after actually checking the content to see if they did promote child abuse) to the relevant authorities would have been the best way to react. Failing that, suspension of those journals, but again only after actually checking the content. What shouldn't have been done is exactly what LJ did - mass deletions based simply on listed 'interests'. It was thoroughly sloppy of them, but they've paid a price for it, I think.
Yes, they should. I suspect that if the same situation arises again LJ will act in a very different manner and that they certainly won't institute mass deletions without checking for content.
Hopefully they've learned and painful (and expensive) lesson.
Hmm, trying to survive and barely hanging on by my fingernails. Recent Government action has led to a catastrophic downturn in work (fee income is down by roughly 50%), with many lawyers going out of business. Consultants such as myself are particularly suffering.
So, I'm scrabbling about trying to find alternatives, which includes applying for various Government positions (oh, the irony) against fierce competition (there are a lot of desperate people around), as well as trying to come up with solutions that will allow me to actually pay the bills. We live in interesting, and very bleak, times at present.
I'm also deeply angry because lawyers such as myself are the last bastions of freedom, the last line of defence, and if we go, who will defend people then? The Government flat-out lied to us about it's so-called 'reforms' to how we're paid, but of course we don't receive any public sympathy because they think that we all earn vast amounts of money and we're all useless to them anyway. They won't be thinking that when the faceless men in black masks come to take them away in the middle of the night. But it will be too late by then.
Yes, I'm having a particularly horrible time of it of late. Sorry to be so negative.
I'd heard about this, and wondered if it affected you. I'm sorry you're caught in the middle of it, both for your personal reasons and for what you say, that lawyers such as yourself "are the last bastions of freedom, the last line of defence."
Aw, thanks JB. (Only just received some LJ comments for some reason, including yours, BTW).
Today one of England's most senior judges was acquitted, following a full trial, of flashing a young woman on the tube. For anyone who thinks it couldn't happen to them - that there's no way they could end up facing criminal charges - if it can happen to a Lord Justice of Appeal, it really can happen to anyone. Sigh.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 08:25 (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 11:54 (UTC)What worries me is the leverage that WFI have found and used, and how LJ has caved in and messily so.
If such a report (of journals soliciting criminal activites) is made, shouldn't LJ quietly investigate first, then if cause for concern is found, report to the proper law enforcement group? In order, you know, to actually apprehend criminals and not just send them underground?
no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 12:49 (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 20:56 (UTC)Quietly reporting suspect journals (after actually checking the content to see if they did promote child abuse) to the relevant authorities would have been the best way to react. Failing that, suspension of those journals, but again only after actually checking the content. What shouldn't have been done is exactly what LJ did - mass deletions based simply on listed 'interests'. It was thoroughly sloppy of them, but they've paid a price for it, I think.
no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 20:51 (UTC)Hopefully they've learned and painful (and expensive) lesson.
no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 15:11 (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 21:03 (UTC)So, I'm scrabbling about trying to find alternatives, which includes applying for various Government positions (oh, the irony) against fierce competition (there are a lot of desperate people around), as well as trying to come up with solutions that will allow me to actually pay the bills. We live in interesting, and very bleak, times at present.
I'm also deeply angry because lawyers such as myself are the last bastions of freedom, the last line of defence, and if we go, who will defend people then? The Government flat-out lied to us about it's so-called 'reforms' to how we're paid, but of course we don't receive any public sympathy because they think that we all earn vast amounts of money and we're all useless to them anyway. They won't be thinking that when the faceless men in black masks come to take them away in the middle of the night. But it will be too late by then.
Yes, I'm having a particularly horrible time of it of late. Sorry to be so negative.
no subject
Date: 1 June 2007 03:49 (UTC)Really sorry you're experiencing this. Hopefully things will change up for the better soon.
no subject
Date: 13 June 2007 20:25 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 June 2007 03:04 (UTC)My thoughts to you.
no subject
Date: 13 June 2007 20:28 (UTC)Today one of England's most senior judges was acquitted, following a full trial, of flashing a young woman on the tube. For anyone who thinks it couldn't happen to them - that there's no way they could end up facing criminal charges - if it can happen to a Lord Justice of Appeal, it really can happen to anyone. Sigh.
no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 15:22 (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 21:04 (UTC)