Why isn't this censorship?

[joy_of_cooking]

Not to sidetrack the conversation, but that's not censorship.

Made a new topic because I'm curious about this claim. Why do you not consider this censorship?

Original context was someone's stories being taken down, presumably due to reported (not necessarily substantiated) content violations.

 

[joy_of_cooking]

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.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Made a new topic because I'm curious about this claim. Why do you not consider this censorship?

Original context was someone's stories being taken down, presumably due to reported (not necessarily substantiated) content violations.

Censorship is something done by officials on behalf of governments, not by a private web-site, which sets it’s own rules, and can do what it likes with content.

Your first amendment rights have no standing with a private organization. They relate to the government only.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

It's a valid question. But I also wouldn't call it censorship, mostly due to the fact that Literotica's rules were likely conceived to avoid potential legal liability, not because Laurel has something against such content.
My idea of censorship is when something is forbidden due to political or religious reasons, or because it's somehow useful to those in power. This is not the case here on Lit, with the exception of AI-generated content, perhaps. I've a feeling that Laurel censors that content out of her own beliefs and not due to legal liability.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Laurel censoring

Unless Laurel has been appointed as an official by the U.S. government, what she does is not censoring. You are misusing a term.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a violation of the terms of service of a platform doesn't count.

Also, maybe I'm not being charitable enough to the other threads OP but a story titled "From Teen To Street Hooker" strikes me as a story that was always going to get rejected eventually. What is the roadside appeal of "From Teen To Street Hooker"? Is it censorship to have evaded pretty well-established rules for a time?

Sight unseen, are any of us really that surprised by what must seem very surprising to that author?

 

[AwkwardMD]

Seems like a nail on the road that was always there, and always had the OPs name carved into the side of it.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

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 absolutely censorship. Censorship is the suppression of any medium based on content. it just doesn't violate the second(EDIT: First... DUH... LOL) amendment as Lit is a private website.

 

[Baztrachian]

Censorship can be performed by both government and non-government entities.

When government does it then there's a problem. Especially when it is done for political reasons.

Non-government entities have every right to exclude expression that does not conform to the auspices of their particular group, something that is a protected right as defined in the First Amendment's Freedom of Association clause.

The site owners here at Lit have every right in the world to define what they do and do not allow and they have every right in the world to change those definitions at whim.

 

[Baztrachian]

It's absolutely censorship. Censorship is the suppression of any medium based on content. it just doesn't violate the second amendment as Lit is a private website.

Literotica bans guns?

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Literotica bans guns?

Oh, fu**. I feel sol stupid, but I'm in Texas. We say whatever we want anyway. Just don't come for our guns. LOL

 

[Robin_Starveling]

From ChatGPT:

Freedom of Speech and Expression — What the First Amendment Actually Protects​

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:

“Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

Key idea:
It restricts the government, not private individuals, companies, or platforms.

---

So what does this mean in practice?​

The government CANNOT:​

• Arrest you for criticizing a politician.
• Pass a law banning a certain viewpoint.
• Force you to say or not say something.

The First Amendment does NOT:​

• Guarantee you the right to say whatever you want on someone else’s private property or platform.
• Stop a private company from moderating, banning, or removing your content.

---

Think of it this way:​

• If you walk into someone’s house and start yelling political slogans, they can kick you out.
• That’s not a violation of free speech, because you’re on private property, and they’re not the government.

The same applies to websites, forums, or social media platforms.
They are like privately owned spaces. They set their own rules (Terms of Service), and they’re allowed to enforce them — even if that means deleting your post or banning your account.

---

What about expression laws beyond the Constitution?​

Some states (like California) have broader free speech protections in limited cases, but even then, courts usually side with the rights of private platforms to moderate content how they see fit.


There are also civil rights laws that prevent discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc. — as we covered before — but those are different from free speech laws.

---

Summary:​

• Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not from the rules of private websites.
• Private platforms can moderate, remove, or ban speech — that’s legal.
• Civil rights laws may apply if a platform discriminates based on race, gender, etc., but not just based on views.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Don’t see any mention of Literotica or Laurel there TBH. Do we not teach civics any more? We might want to try to enjoy the clause in red while we still can.

 

[TheLobster]

Lit obviously doesn’t ban guns when there are some serious, 10-inch-plus-caliber weapons being copiously discharged in every other story.

 

[Gamblnluck]

Original context was someone's stories being taken down, presumably due to reported (not necessarily substantiated) content violations.

The key word her is unsubstantiated. Just because of a single complaint/report a story should not be taken down, much less a series without reason. Perhaps the author was a little unclear about when an activity took place and it took a report to catch it.
I've had a couple stories taken down. Both were a simple reference of how the adult was treated when growing up. (going through puberty).
To me, they were innocent.
In one my latest story, I have two teenage boys in the area. The adults are very careful not to do anything in front of the kids (part of the story line). The boys are aware and occasionally make a comment about it.

 

[crookedletter]

It's not a first amendment violation. It is censorship.

censor
2 of 2

verb​

censored; censoring ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ
ˈsen(t)s-riŋ
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
censor the news

also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
censor out indecent passages

Though of course a site has every right to censor its own content.

 

[Gamblnluck]

Unless Laurel has been appointed as an official by the U.S. government, what she does is not censoring. You are misusing a term.

The word censorship is not restricted to government. It can be applied to anything, including media and has been for years. Look at the 'censors' on network television who decide what content to allow or forbid. The Smothers Brothers were quickly censored for their content and none of it was sexual.
But I agree with your premise. The ones who control the site make the rules and enforce them. If you want to play, you follow those rules. Simple as that.

 

[Gamblnluck]

It's absolutely censorship. Censorship is the suppression of any medium based on content. it just doesn't violate the second(EDIT: First... DUH... LOL) amendment as Lit is a private website.

FIRST amendment. You can shoot all the guns here you want.

 

[TheLobster]

As usual, when discussing this stuff, there is always a conflation of at least three things:

1. the actual, literal text of the 1st amendment
2. the legal intent behind the 1st amendment
3. the broader concept of free speech, applicable inside and outside the US

The first one is the most obvious, and includes examples like the government actually banning publication that don't fall under the (nebulous, sadly) definition of obscenity.

The second is only a bit less obvious; if the government issues explicit or implied threats to third parties in order for them to effectively deny citizen their 1st amendment rights, then this is a violation of the intent of the 1A. The obvious example are gov't agencies pressuring social networks like Twitter to bury the story regarding a certain laptop of a certain family member of a certain presidential candidate.

The third is the most vague is open to interpretation, and can come into play whenever speech, in whatever meaning there of, is limited anywhere, including on private platforms. This is the area where you can endlessly argue about freedom of speech vs. freedom of reach, and how large a monopoly a social network must have to be effectively considered a provider of public service, etc. etc.

In general, most arguments in these discussions are attempts to take an example that only violates free speech under #3 and try to smuggle it under #2 or ideally #1. For what is worth, anything that Literotica does, whether or not it's in response to user reports or the current phase of the moon, does not constitute the violation of 1A.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It's not a first amendment violation. It is censorship.



Though of course a site has every right to censor its own content.

Common usage has shifted. But the original censors (in Rome) were officials. Through the ages censors have acted on behalf of the Church or State (or a mixture of both). We’ve become lazy in using the term, as in the case with many things.

It’s now a cri de coeur for anyone who wants to say what they like with no repercussions.

Much as narcissist is now shorthand for ‘my ex.’

 

[Gamblnluck]

Oh, fu**. I feel sol stupid, but I'm in Texas. We say whatever we want anyway. Just don't come for our guns. LOL

Yep, in Texas the MAIN amendment is the 2nd. Here in Louisiana, it falls after the fifth, because we have so many criminals.

 

[Tweedledude]

Censorship is something done by officials on behalf of governments, not by a private web-site, which sets it’s own rules, and can do what it likes with content.

Your first amendment rights have no standing with a private organization. They relate to the government only.

Yup what Emily said

 

[SmilingLez]

To me, it's content moderation - maintaining community standards.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

FIRST amendment. You can shoot all the guns here you want.

Yeah, I already corrected my gaffe. Thanks for rubbing it in. LOL

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Yup what Emily said

Sort of but No. Censorship is a concept outside the scope of the constitution. It is ANY suppression of information based on content by any person or entity. The constitution only says that the(our US government) government cannot censor. If it were strictly a constitutional concept, then what would you call the limits on free speech happening in places like China, the middle east, and North Korea today. They aren't subject to our constitution, but they damned sure get testy if you speak against the status quo they want perpetuated. People are getting beheaded for being Christian. I'd damned sure call that censorship.