Why isn't this censorship?

[Five_Inch_Heels]

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.

Let's put it this way. 'Censorship' is removal of anything based on the opinion or views of the organization as opposed to the individual.

If the organization deletes any post in favor of green cars while leaving posts opposed to green cars, merely because the organization doesn't like green cars for example, that might be 'censorship'.

Now, if the organization posts a clear rule that you cannot post any content about green cars in any way and removes all posts about green cars, no matter if the poster is in favor or against the color green, that is content moderation, not censorship.

 

[MelissaBaby]

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...

No, the funniest part is that my attempt to lighten things up with a little humor got you more agitated. Really, this isn’t worth all this heat.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Let's put it this way. 'Censorship' is removal of anything based on the opinion or views of the organization as opposed to the individual.

If the organization deletes any post in favor of green cars while leaving posts opposed to green cars, merely because the organization doesn't like green cars for example, that might be 'censorship'.

Now, if the organization posts a clear rule that you cannot post any content about green cars in any way and removes all posts about green cars, no matter if the poster is in favor or against the color green, that is content moderation, not censorship.

I understand your point, but it can always be seen from a different perspective. For example, banning all talk about green cars but allowing talk about red cars is more or less the same as your example about green cars.
Disallowing the talk about green cars in general is still censorship.

 

[alohadave]

Now, if the organization posts a clear rule that you cannot post any content about green cars in any way and removes all posts about green cars, no matter if the poster is in favor or against the color green, that is content moderation, not censorship.

Pre-censoring vs post-censoring. The effect is suppression of particular speech.

 

[EmilyMiller]

No, the funniest part is that my attempt to lighten things up with a little humor got you more agitated. Really, this isn’t worth all this heat.

Word!

 

[AlexBailey]

I suspect a lot of Lit’s new rules regarding images and other content are an effort to avoid conflict with new red state laws.

If Lit falls into the category of ‘Porn’ users will be required to provide official identification to confirm users’ ages.

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/27/texas-porn-websites-age-verification-law-supreme-court/

Texas can require porn websites to verify users’ ages, Supreme Court rules​

 

[Kelliezgirl]

No, the funniest part is that my attempt to lighten things up with a little humor got you more agitated. Really, this isn’t worth all this heat.

I'm not agitated at all. I find the whole thing amusing.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Let's put it this way. 'Censorship' is removal of anything based on the opinion or views of the organization as opposed to the individual.

If the organization deletes any post in favor of green cars while leaving posts opposed to green cars, merely because the organization doesn't like green cars for example, that might be 'censorship'.

Now, if the organization posts a clear rule that you cannot post any content about green cars in any way and removes all posts about green cars, no matter if the poster is in favor or against the color green, that is content moderation, not censorship.

Where this definition falls apart is that those rules are often subjective. If we are talking about green cars, everyone can agree on the color green.
Now make the rule, "no ugly cars".
That is entirely subjective. How do we decide what is an ugly car?
Similarly, define terms like "adult content", "pornographic", "Hate speech" and so forth.
There aren't clear, easy definitions everyone agrees on.
So, by your definition anyone restricting content based on those terms is censoring.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I'm not agitated at all. I find the whole thing amusing.

Good. I have high regard for everyone in the discussion. It read like things were getting a bit chippy to me.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Good. I have high regard for everyone in the discussion. It read like things were getting a bit chippy to me.

For the most part it's been a friendly disagreement, and it seems to have resulted in a few people digging in to the matter and reaching their own conclusions.
All in all I consider that a good thing.

 

[Gamblnluck]

Now, if the organization posts a clear rule that you cannot post any content about green cars in any way and removes all posts about green cars, no matter if the poster is in favor or against the color green, that is content moderation, not censorship.

True. It is enforcing a rule. But if a post about a green car is allowed for a year and then suddenly removed it bears the question of why it escaped notice. Personally I do not care if it is a rule or not. Yes, in my opinion a rule may censor what I write. So what? I either live with and play along or don't play.

I did not read the original series about a 'teen to whore'. I believe drugs were also depicted. Again, I have no problem with that. Using the word teen in the title would tend to garner a little extra scrutiny.

On thing hit me. Was this a series of 1k word chapters over a period of time that approached an underage subject and then after 9 crossed the line? Or was this a big story that had one simple gaff? In other words, if the story had been posted as a whole, it would have been rejected outright for content but because of the way it was submitted, it escaped notice.

 

[SkyBubble]

That's not a person who is engaging with your post meaningfully. Those are all chatbot-informed responses.

Thank you.

 

[TheArsonist]

Then we are just quibbling over the meaning of a word. Which makes this a meaningless debate.

You may think so, but it is the question @joy_of_cooking started this thread about. It was not to debate LitErotica policy or when censorship is appropriate.

I would also disagree with your view, in that I think sloppy terminology leads to sloppy thinking. An example of this is when people appeal to the first amendment as if that is the definition of what free speech (and, by conflating another two concepts, censorship) is.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You may think so, but it is the question @joy_of_cooking started this thread about. It was not to debate LitErotica policy or when censorship is appropriate.

I would also disagree with your view, in that I think sloppy terminology leads to sloppy thinking. An example of this is when people appeal to the first amendment as if that is the definition of what free speech (and, by conflating another two concepts, censorship) is.

Well said.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

This thread is like the Energizer Bunny.