How Would You Feel If A Website "Locked" A Topic It Didn't Want Discussed?

[Guest]

I got to thinking....I have a lot of Unregistered brothers and sisters on this site. We are trolls and flamers and pretty politically incorrect. As the senior Unregistered (IT'S MY FUCKING NAME) I cause a lot of mischief. But how would you regular "name" folks feel if Laurel or Manu locked a thread that they didn't want discussed? Is that a form of censorship within the site? We know it's their right, but by the same token, no one HAS to participate in the forum.

THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED HERE AT LITEROTICA.

But it has happened at another less popular site. The discussion was not racist or sexist and did not violate the rules of discussion.

What would be your reaction here?

 

[KillerMuffin]

*shrugs*

It's the right of the site owners. I would feel like it's the right of the site owners.

Passing a judgement on a site that doesn't permit trolling, either as an anonymous troll or under a registered name as a troll is a bit condescending, don't you think? Not everyone in the world takes on the view that trolling is a good thing, you know.

 

[Guest]

KID ROCK1

No one cares about your board. Except it's not yours anymore, is it?

 

[Guest]

*shrugs*

It's the right of the site owners. I would feel like it's the right of the site owners.

Passing a judgement on a site that doesn't permit trolling, either as an anonymous troll or under a registered name as a troll is a bit condescending, don't you think? Not everyone in the world takes on the view that trolling is a good thing, you know.

What if it was about the site itself?

 

[KillerMuffin]

Gee, I know exactly what site you're talking about.

The site owner locked the thread to keep the regulars from trolling newcomers. And this is a problem for you?

 

[Calamity Jane]

There's another message board i post on, and on that site, several threads have been locked, for various reasons. It doesn't bother me. The site owners have the right to do what they wish, and if locking a thread keeps the board going, then isn't that the point?

 

[Guest]

I guess to me it depends on WHY they locked it.

If it was like one of Renegades stupid bandwith wasters I might go with it. But if I ran www.myassisonfire.com and people were discussing www.myassisonfire.com and people related to it, I'd feel obliged to let them go on till they tired themselves out.

Sort of like a dog chasing his tail. He'll get dizzy or tired or both eventually. This does not apply to Renegade.

 

[Guest]

This sounds like a beauty pageant question.

Fuck you DCL!!





how did he know? i won miss houston fair and square.....

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

This sounds like a beauty pageant question.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

If some people tried to do some nice things for some other people but those other people didn't think the nice things were very nice how would you help the nice people be nice and the other people understand the nicenes of the nice people so all creeds and colors can live in harmony with the spotted owl?

 

[Guest]

If some people wanted to eat shit and die but others wanted to die and eat shit what would the responsibilty of an out of work actor to shut up?

 

[PowerOfOne]

Censorship?

I had no idea that Literotica blocked threads and I only recently learned that the threads can be editied by a moderator. The only problem I have with that is the banners across the screen at Literotica promoting freedom of speech:


Electronic Frontier Foundation
National Coalition
Against Censorship
Free Speech Coalition


This seems to be in direct contrast to the banners. Food for thought?

 

[Calamity Jane]

Freedom of speech applies to the government censoring our words... not individual people making decisions about a forum that they own.

IF Lit was to lock/edit threads, that would be their right. This is a business, and as such, they can run it as they see fit. If they decide that me posting personal info about someone else is against the rules, it's their right to remove the information. It's also their right to remove/block me from the board.

 

[Guest]

Freedom of speech applies to the government censoring our words... not individual people making decisions about a forum that they own.

IF Lit was to lock/edit threads, that would be their right. This is a business, and as such, they can run it as they see fit. If they decide that me posting personal info about someone else is against the rules, it's their right to remove the information. It's also their right to remove/block me from the board.

PCG, that was covered in the topic heading. Re-read it. What would be your feelings about that website? Would you continue to post there? Would you think less of the proprietors?

 

[Guest]

Re: Censorship?

I had no idea that Literotica blocked threads and I only recently learned that the threads can be editied by a moderator. The only problem I have with that is the banners across the screen at Literotica promoting freedom of speech:


Electronic Frontier Foundation
National Coalition
Against Censorship
Free Speech Coalition


This seems to be in direct contrast to the banners. Food for thought?

Your reading skills need work. Go read the starting post again. They're not talking about lit.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

If some people wanted to eat shit and die but others wanted to die and eat shit what would the responsibilty of an out of work actor to shut up?

Your panties are bunched.

Got you.

 

[PowerOfOne]

Re: Re: Censorship?

Your reading skills need work. Go read the starting post again. They're not talking about lit.

Thank you! I will go and get huked on fonics! The banners are there for all of us to see. It may not be what Literotica's policy contains but the banners are there and this is in direct contrast to what they can do. That is all I am saying, it seems odd that a site that would have those banners would practice censorship. BTW, you would get further if you did not try to be so insulting about someones post.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I have a lot of Unregistered brothers and sisters on this site. We are trolls and flamers and pretty politically incorrect. As the senior Unregistered (IT'S MY FUCKING NAME) I cause a lot of mischief.

And, gee, I thought if I trolled you a little you'd call me "brother" and think I was cool n stuff, instead I got Booby all upset.

Aw.

 

[Calamity Jane]

PCG, that was covered in the topic heading. Re-read it. What would be your feelings about that website? Would you continue to post there? Would you think less of the proprietors?

See, since i answered that question in my first post to this thread, i chose not to answer it a second time in my reply to an entirely different subject.

 

[Mischka]

Re: Censorship?

I had no idea that Literotica blocked threads and I only recently learned that the threads can be edited by a moderator.

The first post clearly states that the blocked thread is not here at Lit. It is at another site, and that site is not associated with Lit.

There is absolutely no conflict between what Lit does and the banners on free speech. Free speech is not limitless - the courts have clearly articulated what is outside the boundaries of the First Amendment (shouting "fire!" in a theater being the most common example). Moderators edit the threads here to remove personal information posted about others, illegal pictures (think underage), and spam. Laurel has mentioned these boundaries several times. The moderators here do not edit people simply because they do not like the discussion in the thread.

The other site has different standards, and frequently promotes the concept of self-censorship. In this case, people were not following the concept, so the web mistress decided to act for them. It's her site, and she can do that. Do I agree? It's not my place to judge. I don't post there.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Censorship?

Thank you! I will go and get huked on fonics! The banners are there for all of us to see. It may not be what Literotica's policy contains but the banners are there and this is in direct contrast to what they can do. That is all I am saying, it seems odd that a site that would have those banners would practice censorship. BTW, you would get further if you did not try to be so insulting about someones post.

You are right. People should never make a separation between personal people and government. If people support war in afganstan then they must get guns and fight it themsleves too. If people are against government going in their homes then they must not go in their own homes either. If people do want the government to leave them alone and privacy then they must leave themselves alone in privacy. People must not be so foolish. This is right you are good.

 

[PowerOfOne]

Re: Re: Censorship?

The first post clearly states that the blocked thread is not here at Lit. It is at another site, and that site is not associated with Lit.

There is absolutely no conflict between what Lit does and the banners on free speech. Free speech is not limitless - the courts have clearly articulated what is outside the boundaries of the First Amendment (shouting "fire!" in a theater being the most common example). Moderators edit the threads here to remove personal information posted about others, illegal pictures (think underage), and spam. Laurel has mentioned these boundaries several times. The moderators here do not edit people simply because they do not like the discussion in the thread.

The other site has different standards, and frequently promotes the concept of self-censorship. In this case, people were not following the concept, so the web mistress decided to act for them. It's her site, and she can do that. Do I agree? It's not my place to judge. I don't post there.

I am very aware of the limitations of freedom of speech. However, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater does not apply here. I have seen numerous mentions of a thread being edited for reasons other than what you stated but I did not see them myself, before they were edited, so I cannot comment on those.

I still think it is bizarre to post banners for freedom of speech on the internet and have ways to censor people's posts. *shrug* It just seemed odd.

 

[scylis]

If some people tried to do some nice things for some other people but those other people didn't think the nice things were very nice how would you help the nice people be nice and the other people understand the nicenes of the nice people so all creeds and colors can live in harmony with the spotted owl?

those are still around? i thought i bagged the last one last week when it kamikazied my car.... wierd.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Re: Re: Re: Censorship?

I still think it is bizarre to post banners for freedom of speech on the internet and have ways to censor people's posts. *shrug* It just seemed odd.

Censorship is legal. It's not protected by the First Amendement. You are perfectly free to pay for your very own web site and post anything you like. Laurel is under no obligation to provide a forum for eveyrone's point of view. If she wants to eliminate the letter "J" from every thread she can -- it's her right. And doing so does has absolutely nothing to do with "Free Speech".

The New York Times doesn't have to print your opinion of the Middle East and Laurel doesn't have to post personal information about her members. It's perfectly legal, proper censorship.

And it has nothing to do with "Free Speech".

 

[PowerOfOne]

You are missing the point I was making. Having the freedom of speech banners in a forum that does practice censorship is like having the morning after pill banner at an anti-abortion page. Do not read so much into it because it is not that complicated. I have no intention of discussing the bill of rights. I only posted an observation about the banners.