Why isn't this censorship?

[Britva415]

What is the value in adhering to the strictest definition except to muddy the waters between things that are and aren't okay?

I don't think it muddies any waters.

What Lit is doing/has done is OK.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

This is not a perfect metaphor, but sex and rape are actions very similar mechanical motions. We use different words to describe them because they are different things, with different motivations and legal status.

But they're both still sex. Rape is involuntary, often violent sex, but it's still sex.

Censorship by this site is still censorship. What word would you suggest for censorship that would qualify for a more pejorative definition yet still allow Laurel to mediate the content of her site??

(Yeah, I had to stop by one last time... )

 

[Gamblnluck]

Does not answer the question. Isn't there value in a distinction in terms?

censorship is simply not allowing certain content. They use the term rules here. It is the same thing. Certain content is not allowed on Lit. Follow the rules or leave.

 

[Gamblnluck]

Certainly the content might violate the terms. I was only saying the title gives us no reason to think that, because you said a story with a title like that was always going to be rejected.

Actually, she had a great point. Using the word Teen in the title is going to get the story a look under the microscope.

 

[Gamblnluck]

They can’t both be the same if one is fine and the other is a big, broadly accepted no-no.

Censorship is not a no-no. It is used all the time. Rules are not a no-no. The rules on Lit ARE a form of censorship. They state certain content will not be allowed. Simple as that.

 

[SimonDoom]

Regulation of content in a private forum is not censorship, as that term is commonly understood. Literotica has its own First Amendment right to express itself the way it wants to, and that includes regulating and moderating the content it hosts on its platform. You are free to go to another platform.

To some extent we're just quibbling over how we define "censorship," and I always say debates over definitions are not meaningful. It IS a regulation of speech, and there's a meaningful debate over whether it's an appropriate one in this case. The meaningful way to frame this debate is "Is this the right thing to do in this case" as opposed to "is this censorship."

 

[SouthernCrossfire]

Laurel's house, Laurel's rules. If you violate the terms of service, she has every right to take out the trash.

Someone equated network censorship, but the networks are governed by FCC rules as a requirement of their licenses. They are acting as a representative of the government agency when they censor certain language.

Lit obviously doesn’t ban guns when there are some serious, 10-inch-plus-caliber weapons being copiously discharged in every other story.

Those are some BIG guns (i.e., caliber is gun-barrel diameter, not length).

 

[AwkwardMD]

But they're both still sex. Rape is involuntary, often violent sex, but it's still sex.

Censorship by this site is still censorship. What word would you suggest for censorship that would qualify for a more pejorative definition yet still allow Laurel to mediate the content of her site??

(Yeah, I had to stop by one last time... )

You just call it content moderation, a thing we all agree Laurel has purview to do.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Regulation of content in a private forum is not censorship, as that term is commonly understood. Literotica has its own First Amendment right to express itself the way it wants to, and that includes regulating and moderating the content it hosts on its platform. You are free to go to another platform.

To some extent we're just quibbling over how we define "censorship," and I always say debates over definitions are not meaningful. It IS a regulation of speech, and there's a meaningful debate over whether it's an appropriate one in this case. The meaningful way to frame this debate is "Is this the right thing to do in this case" as opposed to "is this censorship."

Thank you, I lack the legal vocabulary to delve deep into a topic like this.

 

[Gamblnluck]

18 and 19 year olds are teens. Just going by the title there's no issue.

Yes, but waving a red flag is going to get you scrutinized. The answer of whether there was a rule violation is still unanswered. I'll bet it might not have been blatant, but still existed. But that is a guess on my own past experiences.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

You just call it content moderation, a thing we all agree Laurel has purview to do.

Fair enough, and I'll continue to believe that falls under suppression of speech based on content, or censorship. Thanks again for a scintillating, rational discussion. Those seem to be rare on her most days. .

@SimonDoom is right, we're just picking nits, but it has been fun.

 

[Archie93]

Fair enough, and I'll continue to believe that falls under suppression of speech based on content, or censorship. Thanks again for a scintillating, rational discussion. Those seem to be rare on her most days. .

@SimonDoom is right, we're just picking nits, but it has been fun.

Free internet, eh? Lol.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

To me, it's content moderation - maintaining community standards.

Ding ding, ding, Ding Fucking DING!!!

 

[AwkwardMD]

Certainly the content might violate the terms. I was only saying the title gives us no reason to think that, because you said a story with a title like that was always going to be rejected.

I was using the entirety of the original conversation to reach a conclusion. The title alone is not the only clue we have available to us. In the same thread, the OP insisted that not only had they been censored, they'd already tried to resubmit and were blocked. And then Laurel herself replied, pointing to the FAQ on how to resubmit.

So. New author, who doesn't read the rules, doesn't read the rejection notices she's given, writes a story with  that title, and then starts a thread about how persecuted she is. These are our clues.

i fully admit the nail metaphor was not a charitable take, but there’s only so many times you can see this loop play out over a decade without coming to some jaded conclusions.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Regulation of content in a private forum is not censorship, as that term is commonly understood.

Thank you for the informed legal opinion.

 

[ThatNewGuy]

writes a story with  that title,

I will just add that the short description of the chapter still available on the OP's Works page reads as follows: "A Young Teen Gets Enticed By Her Fantasies Of Prostitution." [emphasis mine]

 

[AwkwardMD]

I will just add that the short description of the chapter still available on the OP's Works page reads as follows: "A Young Teen Gets Enticed By Her Fantasies Of Prostitution." [emphasis mine]

It doesn’t feel good to spot red flags and give up early on someone asking for help, only for the red flags to continue to pile up. There's no win in "Ha! I was right!"

I would like to be more charitable, and I am trying to be a more positive and optimistic person, but it's hard.

 

[dirk2024]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Don’t see any mention of Literotica or Laurel there TBH. Do we not teach civics any more? We might want to try to enjoy the clause in red while we still can.

I think Civics classes stopped in the 80's. Fortunately I was able to attend in the 70's.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think Civics classes stopped in the 80's. Fortunately I was able to attend in the 70's.

It was part of Social Studies but I did what I’d call civics in elementary school in the 2000s. We even had a field trip about it. So we learned about the different branches of government and the constitution etc. Did some of the amendments as well including the first.

 

[HordHolm]

Thing is, as a Brit I really don't get hung up on this idea of censorship (or moderation, or rules, or whatever you want to call it) in the same way I think people on the other side of the Atlantic, for reasons I understand. The only thing I'd add, is that there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, never has been, likely never will be. And I wouldn't expect it anywhere connected with publishing stories, in particular.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Regulation of content in a private forum is not censorship, as that term is commonly understood. Literotica has its own First Amendment right to express itself the way it wants to, and that includes regulating and moderating the content it hosts on its platform. You are free to go to another platform.

To some extent we're just quibbling over how we define "censorship," and I always say debates over definitions are not meaningful. It IS a regulation of speech, and there's a meaningful debate over whether it's an appropriate one in this case. The meaningful way to frame this debate is "Is this the right thing to do in this case" as opposed to "is this censorship."

I partly disagree. Your post makes sense, but I'd say that the motive for regulation/censorship makes a lot of difference in choosing one or the other term.

For example, to include the favorite pastime of you Americans, say there is a public platform named Icecream, and say that it's privately owned and fully within its rights to regulate its own content. No problems so far, right? But say that the platform is left-aligned (or right-aligned, take your pick as it doesn't matter at all) and thus will remove any rightist ideas posted by forum users, while allowing leftist ideas to stay.
Is that censorship? I'd say yes, even if the private platform is exercising its right to regulate its own content. It's the intent to quell the opinions that differ from their own that makes it censorship.

So again, Literotica's rules are fine because they stem from legal concerns mostly, not due to bigotry or false morality. Laurel's stance on AI might be borderline censorship (if and only if she is doing it out of her own convictions and not legal concerns). I mean, personally, I am fucking glad she censors AI content, but still, it might be censorship, depending on what her motives are.

My view of what constitutes censorship might be wrong, but I put a lot of weight on intent and motivations behind the censorship.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

To add one more obvious example, and I don't know how I didn't think of this first, is the regulation of pornographic content.

If the government were to bar everyone from accessing pornographic content, that's censorship, plain and simple. Such intent and motives come from oppressive tendencies and false morality. But if the government bars children up to the age of, I don't know, thirteen, from pornographic content, then that's regulation done out of concern for the mental health of children.

Intent and motivations matter, in my opinion.

 

[HordHolm]

Thinking a little more about this I am reminded of what might well be an apocryphal tale about George Bernard Shaw. The story goes that he was sitting in a London hotel bar or restaurant with a well known actress, and the conversation turns to prostitution. GBS asks the actress, "would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" The actress erms and ahhs but basically says, "well, yes, I suppose...." GBS nods and says, "well, would you sleep with me for five pounds?" The actress huffs and splutters out, "George, what do you take me for!?" "Oh, I know what you are," GBS shoots back, quick as a flash, "now we're merely arguing over the price..."

 

[MelissaBaby]

It doesn’t feel good to spot red flags and give up early on someone asking for help, only for the red flags to continue to pile up. There's no win in "Ha! I was right!"

I would like to be more charitable, and I am trying to be a more positive and optimistic person, but it's hard.

"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd."

 

[EmilyMiller]

Thinking a little more about this I am reminded of what might well be an apocryphal tale about George Bernard Shaw. The story goes that he was sitting in a London hotel bar or restaurant with a well known actress, and the conversation turns to prostitution. GBS asks the actress, "would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" The actress erms and ahhs but basically says, "well, yes, I suppose...." GBS nods and says, "well, would you sleep with me for five pounds?" The actress huffs and splutters out, "George, what do you take me for!?" "Oh, I know what you are," GBS shoots back, quick as a flash, "now we're merely arguing over the price..."

That story is told about many different famous men. I heard a version involving Churchill when I was in the UK studying. It’s probably totally apocryphal.

Thing is, what does this make the guy? Or is it yet another asymmetry where being a prostitute is infinitely worse than paying for a prostitute?

I know it’s meant to be humorous, but it always rather irritated me.