Why isn't this censorship?

[MelissaBaby]

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Thank you. I don't know why people don't understand this.

No one has made any claims that this is a First Amendment issue. No one is even saying that you can't censor.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Now this is an important issue worth discussing. Arguing whether something falls under the definition of "censorship" is not so interesting, because it's just a debate over a definition.

If I invite you into my house and ask you to remove your shoes before entering, am I meaningfully limiting your fundamental right to wear shoes? I would say no, because you have no fundamental right to wear shoes in my house. It's my house, and the wearing of shoes is a consensual transaction. You and I can negotiate the terms upon which you enjoy my house and I enjoy the absence of your shoes and their dirt, and whatever conclusion we reach entails no abridgment of anybody's rights.

This is how it is, more or less, with Literotica. It's Laurel's house. She gets to decide what gets published here, and it does not in any meaningful way interfere with anybody's "rights" when she says, "You're not going to publish that in my house."


It gets a little trickier when you're dealing with a massive speech platform like Facebook, which has an almost quasi-public forum quality, like a public square outside a government building. But Literotica isn't quite like that.

If you submit a manuscript to Random House and they decide not to publish your novel, that's not censorship in any meaningful sense.

I agree to this extent: I believe in the value of free speech beyond it being merely a legal issue, and if I were in the shoes of the owners of this Site I would attach great value to people being able to publish the stories they want here, subject to extremely limited exceptions. But I think the exceptions observed at this site are pretty reasonable. And there are other places I can go if I want to publish stories that don't meet the standards of this place.

Also, you referred to "content moderation" as being equivalent to "suppressing ideas." That's not so. There are many forums people have to express their ideas. Literotica is under no obligation to give you a free forum to say whatever you want to say. It's a business. If you go to work for Tesla and wear a "Fuck Musk" t-shirt and they fire you, you can't really complain that your ideas are being suppressed. No business carries on that way.

The house/shoe analogy isn't remotely applicable, we are talking about the public square when we are online. The fact that Facebook is larger than Lit isn't relevant. And in fact, on their 2257 page they compare themselves to Facebook and Twitter.
The argument that it's private property only goes so far.
SCOTUS ruled in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins that the shopping center owners couldn't restrict students' rights to free speech even on their private property, so the issue is FAR more nuanced than merely. "It's my house I can do what I want."

Working for a company and posting in a public forum are different concepts. As mentioned earlier, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), grants immunity to interactive computer services from being treated as publishers. So, all the "publisher" analogies also fall short. I'd be willing to bet if Lit ever got sued Lit's Lawyer would run for cover behind Section 230. Click on the link that says 2257 down at the bottom of the page. They specifically state that they aren't responsible. The whole language of it is designed to provide them protection under the CDA.
I suspect you won't find any official language on this site where they claim to be a publisher in anyway.

​

 

[Kelliezgirl]

There's an odd combination.

And yet they all agreed and called it censorship. That should tell you something.

 

[Justplainjeff]

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.

WOW! I'm shocked that Laurel has ANY control over BlackRandl1958's website!

 

[SimonDoom]

The house/shoe analogy isn't remotely applicable, we are talking about the public square when we are online. The fact that Facebook is larger than Lit isn't relevant. And in fact, on their 2257 page they compare themselves to Facebook and Twitter.
The argument that it's private property only goes so far.
SCOTUS ruled in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins that the shopping center owners couldn't restrict students' rights to free speech even on their private property, so the issue is FAR more nuanced than merely. "It's my house I can do what I want."

Working for a company and posting in a public forum are different concepts. As mentioned earlier, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), grants immunity to interactive computer services from being treated as publishers. So, all the "publisher" analogies also fall short. I'd be willing to bet if Lit ever got sued Lit's Lawyer would run for cover behind Section 230. Click on the link that says 2257 down at the bottom of the page. They specifically state that they aren't responsible. The whole language of it is designed to provide them protection under the CDA.
I suspect you won't find any official language on this site where they claim to be a publisher in anyway.

​

I think we're getting into the weeds if we talk too much about the law, but I'll just respond to the Pruneyards point. That was an outlier case from over 40 years ago that has always been somewhat controversial for its application of First Amendment principles to a privately owned shopping mall. To my knowledge its holding has not been extended to an online platform like Literotica.

Literotica is not a public square. It is nothing remotely like a public square. It offers erotic stories. It should have an unlimited right, legally and ethically, to offer whatever stories it wants to. I might agree or disagree in certain situations with its decisions about refusing to publish some stories, but I don't see what meaningful consequence there is. I can go somewhere else to publish or read. Do you disagree with that?

Do you believe Literotica should be subject to the restrictions of the First Amendment?

Do you believe it's wrong for Literotica to tell authors that there are some stories they cannot publish here?

If, like me, you believe the answer to both these questions is "no," then I don't see what we are arguing about.

Putting aside the definitional quibbles, I don't quite understand the principle you are arguing for.

This is my principle: this is a privately owned site that has an unlimited right to decide what stories it will allow to be published. I may disagree with its judgment calls from time to time, but if it decides, for example, it doesn't want people to publish bestiality stories here it's not the same as if the government is trying to throw you in jail for publishing those stories. It's not "censorship" in the same sense.

 

[Zootonius]

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.

If a newspaper refused to publish your letter to the editor, do you see that as censorship? The newspaper, like this website have rights too. Like the right to choose what they publish.

In short @EmilyMiller is correct, only the state can censor. They can completely block publication. If this site refuses, you can take it elsewhere.

 

[Zootonius]

A cartoon that makes the point
https://i1.wp.com/leftycartoons.visionmule.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2018/08/silenced.png

 

[TheArsonist]

Loving how one side of the definitional debate has produced copious evidence, and the other is just like "nope, I will continue to assert my position as truth regardless of facts."

 

[TheLobster]

Loving how one side of the definitional debate has produced copious evidence, and the other is just like "nope, I will continue to assert my position as truth regardless of facts."

But they use memes and allegedly funny cartoons so they must be correct.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Loving how one side of the definitional debate has produced copious evidence, and the other is just like "nope, I will continue to assert my position as truth regardless of facts."

One side has certainly produced lists of things. Calling it evidence of more than "examples in history of other people also misusing a word" is a stretch.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Some day, someone some where will quote this thread as a list of something.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

One side has certainly produced lists of things. Calling it evidence of more than "examples in history of other people also misusing a word" is a stretch.

And the other side has just pointed a finger and said, "you're wrong" while providing nothing more.
Do better.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

One side has certainly produced lists of things. Calling it evidence of more than "examples in history of other people also misusing a word" is a stretch.

Prescriptivists have generally given up on the English language, in favour of descriptivist approaches. Language changes over time, and original definitions may not be useful enough to stay 'the' definition.

I could give you examples, but you clearly wouldn't appreciate them.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

One side has certainly produced lists of things. Calling it evidence of more than "examples in history of other people also misusing a word" is a stretch.

Yeah, once they start dropping memes you know their argument is iron clad.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Prescriptivists have generally given up on the English language, in favour of descriptivist approaches. Language changes over time, and original definitions may not be useful enough to stay 'the' definition.

I could give you examples, but you clearly wouldn't appreciate them.

They wouldn't be "examples" they would magically transform into a "list of things" when they didn't fit her narrative.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Prescriptivists have generally given up on the English language, in favour of descriptivist approaches. Language changes over time, and original definitions may not be useful enough to stay 'the' definition.

I could give you examples, but you clearly wouldn't appreciate them.

Okay

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I think we're getting into the weeds if we talk too much about the law, but I'll just respond to the Pruneyards point. That was an outlier case from over 40 years ago that has always been somewhat controversial for its application of First Amendment principles to a privately owned shopping mall. To my knowledge its holding has not been extended to an online platform like Literotica.

Literotica is not a public square. It is nothing remotely like a public square. It offers erotic stories. It should have an unlimited right, legally and ethically, to offer whatever stories it wants to. I might agree or disagree in certain situations with its decisions about refusing to publish some stories, but I don't see what meaningful consequence there is. I can go somewhere else to publish or read. Do you disagree with that?

Do you believe Literotica should be subject to the restrictions of the First Amendment?

Do you believe it's wrong for Literotica to tell authors that there are some stories they cannot publish here?

If, like me, you believe the answer to both these questions is "no," then I don't see what we are arguing about.

Putting aside the definitional quibbles, I don't quite understand the principle you are arguing for.

This is my principle: this is a privately owned site that has an unlimited right to decide what stories it will allow to be published. I may disagree with its judgment calls from time to time, but if it decides, for example, it doesn't want people to publish bestiality stories here it's not the same as if the government is trying to throw you in jail for publishing those stories. It's not "censorship" in the same sense.

So, an "outlier case from 40 years ago"?
Do Supreme Court precedents expire? Do they stop being the law after a certain time?
We both know the answer to that.
SCOTUS settles the law and we all move on. If there isn't a challenge then the issue doesn't get revisited.

New York Times v. Sullivan is now 60 years old. Is it no longer relevant case law when we discuss libel?

There is also Marsh v. Alabama where SCOTUS ruled that private property doesn't grant an absolute right to censor speech.

The precedent is clear that it isn't as simple as "it's private property you can do whatever you want."

As for the public square argument, In Packingham v. North Carolina SCOTUS described social media as a modern public square. So I'd say that the analogy is relevant. As to your argument that Lit is somehow different because "porn"... as I previously mentioned on their own 2257 link Lit compares themselves to Facebook and Twitter.
If the site itself says they are the same, then I'd say take it up with them.

As for the rest of your post.
I've never once claimed the site has to publish all comers, or doesn't have the right to restrict content. I've simply said doing so is a form of censorship.

If a girl announces, "I only date men who are at least 6ft tall" she is discriminating against every guy 5ft 11in or shorter.
Does she have the right to do that? Absolutely, but you can't claim she isn't discriminating.

The site doesn't have to publish it, but they are censoring content that they don't agree with. The fact that words like censorship and discrimination get people's dander up doesn't change the fact that's what it is.

I used the analogy earlier that if you push a little old lady out of the way of an oncoming bus, you are still pushing a little old lady. You are doing so for what we consider a socially acceptable reason.
If someone after the fact says, "you pushed a little old lady" that's a factually accurate statement. No, it is also an incomplete statement and missing important context, but it is still factually accurate.

Much like a self-defense case where you have an affirmative defense. "Yes, I did this, but there was a good reason for it".

 

[SimonDoom]

As for the rest of your post.
I've never once claimed the site has to publish all comers, or doesn't have the right to restrict content. I've simply said doing so is a form of censorship.

Then we are just quibbling over the meaning of a word. Which makes this a meaningless debate. We can agree to disagree about exactly what each of us thinks the word "censorship" should apply to, and there's absolutely no consequence or significance to our agreement to disagree.

Meaningful debates are about what people should do, not about what words people should attach to what they do. But if you disagree, OK.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Then we are just quibbling over the meaning of a word. Which makes this a meaningless debate. We can agree to disagree about exactly what each of us thinks the word "censorship" should apply to, and there's absolutely no consequence or significance to our agreement to disagree.

Meaningful debates are about what people should do, not about what words people should attach to what they do. But if you disagree, OK.

You are certainly entitled to that perspective.
Words have meanings, and using the right words is important.

 

[crookedletter]

And, scene.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

View attachment 2557026

The funniest part about this is that the TOS and the Content Guidelines are two completely separate things.
The issue at hand has nothing to do with TOS and everything to do with content guidelines.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good meme though...

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Me thinks some doth protest too much.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I've tried to read up a bit on censorship since the start of this debate, and what seems indisputable is that censorship can be exercised by the state, but also by different organizations, public and private, and by individuals as well. I don't think that the claim that only the state can censor has any true merit.

I've also previously expressed an opinion that something being named censorship, in my view, implies an intent to regulate content for something other than purely altruistic reasons. But I understand that's debatable.

 

[crookedletter]

implies

I think this is the key point. Words have meanings. They also have connotations. It may or may not be semantically correct to call this action censorship. But perhaps it's not the best word for it for the connotations it carries.

We are writers here, after all.