Why isn't this censorship?

[Kelliezgirl]

Censorship is censorship. You can call it something else; rule, regulation, guidline, whatever, if it restricts some sort of expression, it's just censorship under another name. That's all there is to it. Most of that other shit is simantics.

No, no, it's only censorship if it comes from the Censor Region of France. Otherwise it's Sparkling Fascism.

 

[XerXesXu]

I think it's a stretch to consider Lit, or at least the story section, as "an interactive computer service". They have complete control over what is or is not posted in the story section. But I'm not really interested in a back and forth over semantics. Lit is a publisher as that word is generally understood.

The section heading is 'Common Carriers'. Lit has no obligation to review anything posted to it. If it does, and declines to publish, it becomes a 'Good Samaritan'. Either way it has statutory immunity, 'Common Carrier', against the USA, 'Good Samaritan', against the poster.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

There was a thread recently about how we'd change the Internet that I didnt get round to posting on.

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/if-you-could-go-back-and-recreate-the-internet.1638452/

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I applaud the site for not wanting to be affiliated with pedophilia. I personally don't think there's anything inherently wrong with stories that involve post-pubescent and under-18 characters who have sexual encounters. It's life. I remember what it was like to be 16. Judy Blume wrote coming of age stories 50 years ago. There are TV shows and mainstream movies that deal with the theme. Think American Pie. None of that is illegal. And it's not immoral, either.

Also Porky's and Summer Of '42

But they weren't explicit.

 

[Noor]

Maybe in 2025 I should add, I agree that pedophilia is bad and I have no objections to Laurel censoring depiction of underage sex. I'm just confused by the claim that it's not censorship.

It’s not censorship, it’s following the law and protecting the site.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

It’s not censorship, it’s following the law and protecting the site.

Technically writing kiddie erotica isn't illegal, unless it's deemed obscene by some judges discretion, versus how it's written, which is laid out in obscenity laws. It's less illegal than visual depictions, even fake ones. So Rule34.Paheal is more illegal than the child erotica that could be found on asstr, or other sites.

And here the lowest age is 18, nearly every other erotica site, it's 16. And AO3 has no lower limit to be honest. So Laurel is protecting the site, yeah, even though the gubmit ain't going after LushStories, or SexStories, or AO3 for Muppet Baby or Peanuts Gang orgy stories. Following the law, she isn't. This is a literary site, not PornHub or Motherless.

And it's still censorship if it was a law.

And there are sites that are up and running that has -18 erotica. The fbi is shutting down darkweb shit everyday, yet they aren't going after those sites, or AO3.

 

[Gamblnluck]

A writer had a series that had been up for about a year. Some of the chapters got deleted for underage and she wasn't able to repost.

OP thread here.

The idea that the series had been up for close to a year is what bothers me. Why now? And Laurel did reply about submitting an edit. I wonder if the OP still has the draft of her stories.

 

[joy_of_cooking]

Wow this really blew up. I'm glad I'm not the only one who interprets censorship more broadly, but also surprised to see that the narrower interpretation is hardly a minority either.

Is this a US thing? Are people basically using censorship as a synonym of "first amendment violation"?

 

[AwkwardMD]

Are people basically using censorship as a synonym of "first amendment violation"?

Yes. Constantly.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Is this a US thing? Are people basically using censorship as a synonym of "first amendment violation"?

No. Censors date back to Rome (insert Monty Python reference here) and were government officials. If anything the lazy interpretation of the word has increased due to people complaining about SM sites removing hate speech and the like.

Governments (or the Church) censor, private sites moderate content. This is not a controversial definition outside of this thread.

And it’s no more an American issue than many other things we get blamed for.

 

[Baztrachian]

Also Porky's and Summer Of '42

But they weren't explicit.

The original scripts and storyboards for "Lolita" (1997) and "The Blue Lagoon" were reportedly explicit.

Both scripts were reined in after underage actresses were hired for the lead roles. And in both cases adult body doubles were brought in for specific scenes.

Heck, even "Dirty Dancing" had an original script that was going to be hard R or even X until the script was cleaned up and reimagined for a broader audience.

 

[Writer61]

Yes, it is censorship, and there is nothing wrong with that. Any site is perfectly justified in applying certain criteria to decide what is published, or not, especially if they have to consider laws in multiple jurisdictions.

Even in the US context, the much hallowed first amendment allows a person to say whatever they want, but does not confer the right to have their comments published.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

No. Censors date back to Rome (insert Monty Python reference here) and were government officials. If anything the lazy interpretation of the word has increased due to people complaining about SM sites removing hate speech and the like.

Governments (or the Church) censor, private sites moderate content. This is not a controversial definition outside of this thread.

And it’s no more an American issue than many other things we get blamed for.

It just isn't an accurate definition.
Here is the dictionary definition.

Notice there is no mention of the government.



censorship
/sĕn′sər-shĭp″/

noun
The act, process, or practice of censoring.
The office or authority of a Roman censor.
Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition •

Censorship is not exclusively "something the government does".

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Wow this really blew up. I'm glad I'm not the only one who interprets censorship more broadly, but also surprised to see that the narrower interpretation is hardly a minority either.

Is this a US thing? Are people basically using censorship as a synonym of "first amendment violation"?

The First Amendment only applies to the US government, those who are arguing that censorship is something only the government can do are using the terms as synonyms.

The rest of us are arguing that concepts like censorship and freedom of speech are much broader than that.

If you go around pulling down political signs from a candidate you don't like, that's an act of censorship.


Here's a good example:
Private groups are pressuring companies to remove adult content.
People are (correctly) calling that out as censorship.

https://www.wired.com/story/gamers-...rship-of-nsfw-games-and-theyre-fighting-back/

Every news article you see about it calls it censorship even though there is no government involvement.

https://www.gameshub.com/news/artic...es-its-war-for-video-game-censorship-2736180/

https://leveluptalk.com/news/collective-shout-censorship-exposed/

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

It just isn't an accurate definition.
Here is the dictionary definition.

Notice there is no mention of the government.



censorship
/sĕn′sər-shĭp″/

noun
The act, process, or practice of censoring.
The office or authority of a Roman censor.
Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition •

Censorship is not exclusively "something the government does".

Did a deep dive on this last night. From a historical and legal perspective, Em is right. Censorship is a government action.

It is a fairly recent(last few decades) development where the concept of private censorship has become a thing. Sources(the internet, it must be true) equate private censorship with site moderation and made specific references to well known social media sites in their analysis.

Take away, we’re all right. It just depends on the context you want to use.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Did a deep dive on this last night. From a historical and legal perspective, Em is right. Censorship is a government action.

It is a fairly recent(last few decades) development where the concept of private censorship has become a thing. Sources(the internet, it must be true) equate private censorship with site moderation and made specific references to well known social media sites in their analysis.

Take away, we’re all right. It just depends on the context you want to use.

All the articles I just linked are censorship as pushed by a private organization and aren't "content moderation".

There are plenty of other historical examples.

The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) that the Catholic Church maintained until the 1960s

The Hollywood Blacklist.

Publishers refused to publish James Joyce's Ulysses not as a matter of editorial choice, but rather out of fear resulting from non-governmental pressure campaigns.

I can keep going if you'd like.

 

[AwkwardMD]

All the articles I just linked are censorship as pushed by a private organization and aren't "content moderation".

There are plenty of other historical examples.

The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) that the Catholic Church maintained until the 1960s

The Hollywood Blacklist.

Publishers refused to publish James Joyce's Ulysses not as a matter of editorial choice, but rather out of fear resulting from non-governmental pressure campaigns.

I can keep going if you'd like.

You have definitely listed things. No one can argue with that.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You have definitely listed things. No one can argue with that.

I was thinking about making up some nonsense about "as commonly understood", but then I decided actual examples would make a stronger case.
Thanks for noticing.

Here's another example:

Walmart going back to the 1980s banning music.
Notice how the article refers to that as *gasp* censorship.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/sma...lbums-that-were-banned-by-walmart/ar-AA1sfDc3

 

[AwkwardMD]

I was thinking about making up some nonsense about "as commonly understood", but then I decided actual examples would make a stronger case.
Thanks for noticing.

Here's another example:

Walmart going back to the 1980s banning music.
Notice how the article refers to that as *gasp* censorship.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/sma...lbums-that-were-banned-by-walmart/ar-AA1sfDc3

Did you read that article? It says Walmart banned them per their internal guidelines. It mentions that "some critics" call that censorship, but that’s hardly a ringing endorsement.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

What a merchant chooses to stock is not censorship.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Did you read that article? It says Walmart banned them per their internal guidelines. It mentions that "some critics" call that censorship, but that’s hardly a ringing endorsement.

Well, you are the one arguing for how terms are "commonly understood".

 

[EmilyMiller]

As far as I’m concerned there is a clear legal definition and there is the - totally aligned - commonly understood meaning. If people want to play Humpty Dumpty, have fun. As @SimonDoom says, it doesn’t really mean anything and it certainly doesn’t matter. Enjoy your debate.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

What a merchant chooses to stock is not censorship.

As far as I’m concerned there is a clear legal definition and there is the - totally aligned - commonly understood meaning. If people want to play Humpty Dumpty, have fun. As @SimonDoom says, it doesn’t really mean anything and it certainly doesn’t matter. Enjoy your debate.

Can you provide this clear legal definition? Also, if it is "totally aligned" with the commonly understood meaning why is it so easy to find examples of main stream sources using the term in a way that DOESN'T fit your meaning?

Those two things would seem to be at odds.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Can you provide this clear legal definition? Also, if it is "totally aligned" with the commonly understood meaning why is it so easy to find examples of main stream sources using the term in a way that DOESN'T fit your meaning?

Those two things would seem to be at odds.

The hill you're fighting to defend is a Termite Mound.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

What a merchant chooses to stock is not censorship.

If they are bowing to outside pressure I'd say it is. If you look at the history of the Parents Musical Resource Committe (the reason for warning labels on music) it was consistently characterized as censorship.

https://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/09...r-explicit-rock-lyrics-dee-snider-373103.html

"The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation heard testimony from three popular musicians: Frank Zappa, Dee Snider and John Denver.

All three argued voraciously against what they characterized as censorship. In perhaps the most enduring testimony from the hearing, Zappa described the PMRC's proposal as "an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children and promises to keep the courts busy for years."