The US's First Amendment is, as has been commented, a restriction on what the US government (and, by extension through the 14th, the state governments) can legislate. It does not, in general, restrict what a private organization chooses to do. Further, there is a very large quantity of judicial precedent and such on the subject of what it actually means for lawmaking in cases where freedom of expression conflicts with other rights (not all of which I necessarily personally agree with — especially as far as “obscenity” goes — but such is life).
Also: falsely attributing the First Amendment in that way is, at least in some circles, associated with spammers and other net-abusers seeking to defend their actions. So, it dismays me to see a not unreasonable opinion (that LJ should permit the pic) have supporters who descend to that level; but, as someone famous said, ideas don't get to choose who believes in them, or something like that.
(Drat. I can't recall who said that, or enough of the wording to extract it from Google.)
But anyway. I agree that LJ's clarifying the definition, one way or the other, would be a good idea.
(I think this is the most nude userpic I have — my forearms are bared!)
no subject
Also: falsely attributing the First Amendment in that way is, at least in some circles, associated with spammers and other net-abusers seeking to defend their actions. So, it dismays me to see a not unreasonable opinion (that LJ should permit the pic) have supporters who descend to that level; but, as someone famous said, ideas don't get to choose who believes in them, or something like that.
(Drat. I can't recall who said that, or enough of the wording to extract it from Google.)
But anyway. I agree that LJ's clarifying the definition, one way or the other, would be a good idea.
(I think this is the most nude userpic I have — my forearms are bared!)