The following found at; http://news.livejournal.com/102095.html?thread=54713039#t54713039

---------
Dear LiveJournal user stormcloude,

The comment you are referring to is correct; the content does not meet the legal definition of child pornography. As other, more recent entries in the community explain, however, non-photographic content involving minors in sexual situations which does not contain serious artistic or literary merit is likely in violation of Federal obscenity laws, and is content LiveJournal has chosen not to host.

Additionally, the Terms of Service (http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml) does not include any statement indicating that users will be warned prior to alternate actions. Specifically,
section XVI Member Conduct, at the bottom, explicitly states "If LiveJournal determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that any user is in violation of the TOS, LiveJournal retains the right to terminate such user's account at any time without prior notice." While LiveJournal does not do so in the instances of many violations of the Terms of Service, the policy adopted for this particular violation is to terminate without warning. You can find information on other policies at http://ww.livejournal.com/abuse/policy.bml.

The standard for artistic merit is not whether a work simply has technical merit; it is whether there is serious artistic value that offsets the sexual nature of the content. A group consisting of members of LiveJournal's Abuse Prevention Team, LiveJournal employees, and Six Apart staff reviewed the content that was reported to us. This group decides whether material potentially in violation of this policy warrants consideration for serious artistic value. In this case, they clearly did not see serious artistic value in content that simply displayed graphic sexual acts involving minors.

Regards,
Eric
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team
-----------

Well, that sums it up doesn't it.