Outlaw of Romance Writing

[jaF0]

I've never understood the obsession of wanting the site to be more aggressive about enforcing its rules. .

You're not understanding the potential legal issues. It isn't about likes or dislikes of readers or authors. I'll ask you the same question I asked above.

Would you rather that Lit tighten up content rules, or that the site as a whole gets taken down or blocked by regulators?

Welcome to the new reality, not the same as the old reality.


.

 

[lovecraft68]

I've never understood the obsession of wanting the site to be more aggressive about enforcing its rules. My attitude is: I don't care. I read the stories I want to read, and I don't care in the slightest what other people read or whether the site features stories I don't want to read. If Laurel and Manu let things slip through the cracks . . . so? How does that hurt anybody?

This is what I mean by the culture of free speech. If you don't support the right of people to read stuff that you intensely dislike, then you don't believe in free speech.

I don't want Laurel and Manu to spend one iota more of their time "policing" the stories and ensuring compliance with the content rules. I'd much rather have them spend their time on other things to keep making this a better site.

Well, they do neither of those things, enforce rules or work on site issues, so there's always that point.

"Free speech" is one thing, and smart speech another.

I start making nasty racist remarks, that's free speech, but would those remarks remain, or be removed?

You know the answer to that, which proves the common sense limitation of free speech.

There is censorship, and there is simply "Let me just avoid some unnecessary bullshit"

ASSTR was free speech, until they finally drew the wrong set of eyes to the site and its owner and....

 

[jaF0]

^^^ Was regulation an issue there, or did they just stop paying the bills?

 

[lovecraft68]

I've almost begged for the GB just so I can kill off the picture threads.

AmPics Mod does some, but not near enough in my eyes.

Let me ask you, do you know the KC Cummings situation that happened in the GB?

If you do, it will explain why things are as they are.

If you don't? I won't post it here because last time I told the story the post was removed, but I was there for the whole thing, and called it for what it was-and was mocked-long before the truth came out.

 

[lovecraft68]

^^^ Was regulation an issue there, or did they just stop paying the bills?

I believe if I have the story right, that the owner went up the river because the underaged content wasn't just sex-which isn't illegal-but violent and abusive sex involving minors and through that loophole they nailed him.
This site has proved they don't care about that, and not all that long ago.

 

[jaF0]

I don't recall it by that description. I've seen so much crap over the years I can't keep it separate. It all blends together and I just block it out.

 

[jaF0]

I try to keep the bad crap out of F&S and I have couple of people that report stuff I miss.


Some of what I see there annoys the hell out of me and some it it distresses me to think people could actually post it to begin with.

And yes, I do indeed wish content rules for the story side were more strict here, and more equally acted on.

Help has been offered to L&M multiple times and either ignored our outright rejected.


.

 

[SimonDoom]

You're not understanding the potential legal issues. It isn't about likes or dislikes of readers or authors. I'll ask you the same question I asked above.

Would you rather that Lit tighten up content rules, or that the site as a whole gets taken down or blocked by regulators?

Welcome to the new reality, not the same as the old reality.


.

There's no realistic prospect of this site getting shut down because of its content. None. That's a fantasy. It has existed for 25 years, as have many other erotic story sites. Its content rules are stricter than they used to be. There is no broad movement afoot in the United States to criminalize the kind of content that Literotica offers.

 

[SimonDoom]

"Free speech" is one thing, and smart speech another.

I start making nasty racist remarks, that's free speech, but would those remarks remain, or be removed?

You know the answer to that, which proves the common sense limitation of free speech.

You're talking about two different things. Stories, and forum posts. I can understand the site wanting to monitor, to some degree, forum posts so it doesn't get completely toxic. There were times in the past where things got ugly enough that it might have discouraged people from participating. That's still true from time to time. I think the site is right to regulate the ability of people in this forum to get vicious and nasty with one another.

Story content is a whole different issue.

 

[jaF0]

There is no broad movement afoot in the United States to criminalize the kind of content that Literotica offers.

.....

Welcome to the new reality, not the same as the old reality.
.

We are now in a reality that features alternate realities we never thought possible twenty years ago

.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Would you rather that Lit tighten up content rules, or that the site as a whole gets taken down or blocked by regulators?

In this thread, they are separate arguments, separate issues: 1) free speech in general and 2) the rules of the site. The rules of the site do not impinge on freedom of speech since anyone is free to post their work elsewhere. Lit is a private club like any other. If you want to be in the men's club, you have to be a man. That is one of their rules. The men's club does not stop other genders from having their own clubs. If you want to be in the official local Christian congregation, you have to be a Christian. Nobody is demanding that the Catholic church open all of its services to Muslims and Jews (although they may do so at their own discretion and often do but not required). Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and all other faiths all have their own temples and it's all good. If you want to join Fight Club you have to fight on your first night. That's just the rule of the club. It's part of what makes that club what it is. Without it, it wouldn't be Fight Club, but that doesn't stop anyone else from getting together for fights but not enforcing participation.

Which is why I ask the question and it still has not been answered: Stricter rules (or enforcement of such) on lit aside, do you support the rights of artists to produce work that violates your morals/ethics/judgements outside of lit in general?

 

[jaF0]

Which is why I ask the question and it still has not been answered: Stricter rules (or enforcement of such) on lit aside, do you support the rights of artists to produce work that violates your morals/ethics/judgements outside of lit in general?

Lit, the Lit forums, the AH and this thread are about Lit. My comments here are confined to Lit as per Lit rules.

 

[SimonDoom]

.....

We are now in a reality that features alternate realities we never thought possible twenty years ago

.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Lit, the Lit forums, the AH and this thread are about Lit. My comments here are confined to Lit as per Lit rules.

That's cool, but you still haven't answered the question.

Do you support the rights of artists to produce work that violates your personal morals/ethics/judgements outside of lit in general?

 

[jaF0]

I have no idea what that means.

See the issue being raised by the OP.

 

[alohadave]

Lit, the Lit forums, the AH and this thread are about Lit. My comments here are confined to Lit as per Lit rules.

You are evading the question with a non-answer.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

End point, is Porn, video, written, etc...has no friends in politics, which is concerning. I only say this because being centrist in a lot of my beliefs, I get tired of seeing either side always being blamed for one ideal or lack thereof.

While this certainly feels true, the last fifty years have proven that the vast majority of politicians are willing to complain about porn, and make token attempts to regulate it - like this bill, for instance - but in the end largely do nothing. The only arguments and areas where Washington and the states have been successful in getting curbs passed has been in regards to child sexual abuse material and keeping porn away from kids.

Other than that, where is the censorship? The porn industry is thriving and has been for decades. There's more access to it and it's making more money now than at any point in history. You've got mainstream "romance" that is barely different from any of the stuff we're writing here and it's in every major bookstore. You can find just about anything you want with a google search.

I was flippant earlier with my comment about literary value, so if folks took that joke as me suggesting you can get around the Miller test by writing better, I apologize. That was not my intent. My intent was to assure the folks here who are concerned that laws like this could be passed and have an impact on the site or on their personal enjoyment of 'prurient material' that they don't have anything to worry about.

 

[SimonDoom]

See the issue being raised by the OP.

The OP posted an article about a bill, being proposed by a conservative state legislator in one of the most conservative states in the USA. It's not law. There's no indication that it will become law, and if it did it probably would violate the First Amendment. There's nothing to worry about. It's just same old, same old. We've seen stuff like this forever.

 

[bumpercars]

A few folks are conflating site rules with censorship, which I think muddies this discussion.

Literotica deciding not to publish certain stories because of violence or whatever reason isn't censorship. Each person, including the owners of Lit, can decide what they do or don't want to publish on sites they own. We can argue about whether the rules are good or bad for the writing community or for the culture at large, but saying "I won't publish this" is not censorship.

Censorship is when the government says "no one can publish this." The religious fanatics in our country would love to ban porn, and they're getting a lot of what they want these days, so it's not impossible.

 

[jaF0]

The OP posted an article about a bill, being proposed by a conservative state legislator in one of the most conservative states in the USA. It's not law. There's no indication that it will become law, and if it did it probably would violate the First Amendment. There's nothing to worry about. It's just same old, same old. We've seen stuff like this forever.

You are not understanding that the new reality is not the same as the old reality.

It all changed a month ago.

It's only the beginning of the new reality and some don't understand what is happening.

Lit follows US law. When that changes, Lit changes.

I don't not believe that the First is on the verge of repeal, or massive modification or that it won't get speedy ratification.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

You're not understanding the potential legal issues. It isn't about likes or dislikes of readers or authors. I'll ask you the same question I asked above.

Would you rather that Lit tighten up content rules, or that the site as a whole gets taken down or blocked by regulators?

Welcome to the new reality, not the same as the old reality.


.

I have a legit question concerning this claim. In the US, is the website's liability dependent on the state where it is registered, or are websites strictly under federal jurisdiction? I ask this because there are other long-time story sites with more lax rules - such as SOL, where you can post sexual content involving teenagers, for example. There is also AO3 where there are practically no limitations whatsoever. There, you can post bestiality, sex involving infants and toddlers, outright rape, etc.
So my question is, if legal issues are such a concerning thing, how is it that these websites are still up and running? It's a genuine question as these arguments often come up.

 

[bumpercars]

I don't not believe that the First is on the verge of repeal, or massive modification or that it won't get speedy ratification.

The first amendment isn't going to get repealed or modified as long as we're a democracy, but a partisan court could just decide that porn doesn't count as speech, or some other rationalization.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

I have a legit question concerning this claim. In the US, is the website's liability dependent on the state where it is registered, or are websites strictly under federal jurisdiction? I ask this because there are other long-time story sites with more lax rules - such as SOL, where you can post sexual content involving teenagers, for example. There is also AO3 where there are practically no limitations whatsoever. There, you can post bestiality, sex involving infants and toddlers, outright rape, etc.
So my question is, if legal issues are such a concerning thing, how is it that these websites are still up and running? It's a genuine question as these arguments often come up.

Simon is going to laugh when I say this, but it depends.

My experience in this area is that most sites are subject to the laws of wherever the server the site is hosted in happens to be. But there are arguments to be made that you can get jurisdiction anywhere the site is viewable, or wherever someone views it, or wherever the owner resides, or wherever its registered agent resides, etc. It's not always an easy answer, and it's not really cut and dried.

Most of the time, those sites are up and running because they're not on anybody's radar, and they're hosted in countries that don't care about policing the internet or they're run through so many different anonymous sites they are hard to pin down to an individual or location. Eventually, if the material is bad enough, they will get hit.

 

[SimonDoom]

Simon is going to laugh when I say this, but it depends.

My experience in this area is that most sites are subject to the laws of wherever the server the site is hosted in happens to be. But there are arguments to be made that you can get jurisdiction anywhere the site is viewable, or wherever someone views it, or wherever the owner resides, or wherever its registered agent resides, etc. It's not always an easy answer, and it's not really cut and dried.

Most of the time, those sites are up and running because they're not on anybody's radar, and they're hosted in countries that don't care about policing the internet or they're run through so many different anonymous sites they are hard to pin down to an individual or location. Eventually, if the material is bad enough, they will get hit.

I'm not laughing. I agree. Regulation of Internet content in the US is complicated.

 

[jaF0]

The first amendment isn't going to get repealed or modified as long as we're a democracy, but a partisan court could just decide that porn doesn't count as speech, or some other rationalization.

Are we? Many contend we no longer are.

Delving into that WILL take this thread to the PeeB