Why isn't this censorship?

[Kelliezgirl]

The hill you're fighting to defend is a Termite Mound.

Sorry, but when someone claims there is a clear definition of a term they ought to at least be bothered to provide that definition.

And if it was just a termite mound, why are people so desperate to attack it?

 

[SimonDoom]

Can you provide this clear legal definition? Also, if it is "totally aligned" with the commonly understood meaning why is it so easy to find examples of main stream sources using the term in a way that DOESN'T fit your meaning?

Those two things would seem to be at odds.

May I ask, why do you care about this issue? Who cares what we call it? There's no interesting policy or philosophical issue involved in debating what you want to call something. The interesting questions concern what kinds of speech should be prohibited or regulated and in what contexts. The word you choose to put to it isn't interesting. Why keep asking?


If what you are trying to ask is, why isn't Literotica's prohibition and regulation of certain kinds of content "censorship" in the same sense as the government in the USA banning books like Tropic of Cancer, my answer would be:


1. Private associations have a greater right to regulate content under the law than the government does, for obvious reasons. The consequences aren't as dire. If the government catches me with something it considers obscene, I go to jail. If Literotica doesn't like my story, I just go elsewhere to publish it.

2. The First Amendment of the US Constitution applies to governments, and in some limited cases to quasi-public entities like shopping malls, but in general it does not apply to private entities like Literotica.

3. There's a difference, ethically, legally, and practically, between asking a private entity like Literotica affirmatively to use its resources and money to host a platform for stories it regards as unworthy, and asking the government merely to allow people, without fear of criminal punishment, to publish certain kinds of stories in whatever platform they choose.

These are all interesting issues to debate. But whether you call something "censorship" isn't nearly as interesting.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Well, you are the one arguing for how terms are "commonly understood".

Am I? A quick search of the forum for "commonly understood", posted by me, shows 3 results:

1) me responding to Simon, acknowledging his superior understanding of the subject. His post used the phrase.
2) me responding to you. Your post used the phrase.
3) me making a post in my review thread in June of 2024 about the difference between what I do and a film reviewer.

Between this and your misread of that MSN article, I'm worried. We don't agree on some things, but you aren't usually so obviously wrong.

Are you okay?

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I was thinking about making up some nonsense about "as commonly understood", but then I decided actual examples would make a stronger case.
Thanks for noticing.

Here's another example:

Walmart going back to the 1980s banning music.
Notice how the article refers to that as *gasp* censorship.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/sma...lbums-that-were-banned-by-walmart/ar-AA1sfDc3

I had a harsh reminder of that years ago. My dumbass went to buy Eminems Rap God album, put it in the car and it sounded like the cd was skipping.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

May I ask, why do you care about this issue? Who cares what we call it? There's no interesting policy or philosophical issue involved in debating what you want to call something. The interesting questions concern what kinds of speech should be prohibited or regulated and in what contexts. The word you choose to put to it isn't interesting. Why keep asking?


If what you are trying to ask is, why isn't Literotica's prohibition and regulation of certain kinds of content "censorship" in the same sense as the government in the USA banning books like Tropic of Cancer, my answer would be:


1. Private associations have a greater right to regulate content under the law than the government does, for obvious reasons. The consequences aren't as dire. If the government catches me with something it considers obscene, I go to jail. If Literotica doesn't like my story, I just go elsewhere to publish it.

2. The First Amendment of the US Constitution applies to governments, and in some limited cases to quasi-public entities like shopping malls, but in general it does not apply to private entities like Literotica.

3. There's a difference, ethically, legally, and practically, between asking a private entity like Literotica affirmatively to use its resources and money to host a platform for stories it regards as unworthy, and asking the government merely to allow people, without fear of criminal punishment, to publish certain kinds of stories in whatever platform they choose.

These are all interesting issues to debate. But whether you call something "censorship" isn't nearly as interesting.

Why aren't you equally interested in why the other side of this discussion is so adamant?
You can't defend a hill unless someone else is attacking.

No one is arguing that Laurel doesn't have the right to set the boundaries for this site.

From a legal context it does get more nebulous when we get into social media sites and other platforms. They enjoy legal protection precisely because they are supposed to be a common carrier. Just as the phone company isn't liable for what you say on a phone call, Facebook isn't liable for your posts because they exercise no editorial control.

My issue here is when you start to argue censorship "as it's commonly understood".
I've linked to articles going back 40 years where people refer to non-governmental action as "censorship".
That is pretty clear evidence that the "common understanding" of censorship doesn't match the legal one. And it also predates social media, so the argument that it's just because "people got mad at social media for policing hate speech" isn't true either.

Freedom of Speech is a precious thing, worth defending. Insisting on using weasel words like "content moderation" to describe suppressing ideas is dangerous.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Am I? A quick search of the forum for "commonly understood", posted by me, shows 3 results:

1) me responding to Simon, acknowledging his superior understanding of the subject. His post used the phrase.
2) me responding to you. Your post used the phrase.
3) me making a post in my review thread in June of 2024 about the difference between what I do and a film reviewer.

Between this and your misread of that MSN article, I'm worried. We don't agree on some things, but you aren't usually so obviously wrong.

Are you okay?

Ohh, sweetie, wonderful attempt to obfuscate. I bet you were really impressed with yourself when you typed that out.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Ohh, sweetie, wonderful attempt to obfuscate. I bet you were really impressed with yourself when you typed that out.

Okay

 

[SimonDoom]

Freedom of Speech is a precious thing, worth defending. Insisting on using weasel words like "content moderation" to describe suppressing ideas is dangerous.

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.

 

[TheLobster]

I suspect that oftentimes, when people argue that something is not censorship and insist on using other terms, what they really mean is that they agree with this particular kind of content restriction and therefore, by their definition, it cannot be censorship.

I believe @Kelliezgirl is trying to counter this rhetorical trick by establishing some more accurate definition of what 'censorship' actually means.

 

[SkyBubble]

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 what the government does. Laurel is free to maintain any standards she likes on Lit. We don't have to like them, but we have to accept them.

 

[SkyBubble]

Censorship is something done by officials on behalf of governments

Or by private entities under government compulsion.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I suspect that oftentimes, when people argue that something is not censorship and insist on using other terms, what they really mean is that they agree with this particular kind of content restriction and therefore, by their definition, it cannot be censorship.

I had writing up on another site (HF) that would never have met the 18+ requirement of Lit. Unfortunately that site removed that chapter as well, and the only artifact of that is that the story now goes from chapter 1 to 2 to 4.

I never reposted it. It wasn’t worth tracking down a new site to host it, but it’s still canon in my head.

EDIT: Oops. It goes from 1 to 2 to 5, because the missing chapter was long.


No one has ever taken me up on the offer.

 

[dingdongditchding]

some folks cant handle even the tiniest of Qs

 

[SkyBubble]

Why do you not consider this censorship?

@AwkwardMD is right about this.

 

[SkyBubble]

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

Or the government told her to, and she's acting on their behalf.

 

[SkyBubble]

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

@AwkwardMD You're correct.

 

[AwkwardMD]

AwkwardMD is right about this.

 

[SkyBubble]

a story titled "From Teen To Street Hooker" strikes me as a story that was always going to get rejected eventually.

Correct. Violation of the under-18 rule.

 

[SkyBubble]

From ChatGPT:

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

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




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.

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

 

[SkyBubble]

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.

Unfortunately, @EmilyMiller We don't.

 

[SimonDoom]

I suspect that oftentimes, when people argue that something is not censorship and insist on using other terms, what they really mean is that they agree with this particular kind of content restriction and therefore, by their definition, it cannot be censorship.

I believe @Kelliezgirl is trying to counter this rhetorical trick by establishing some more accurate definition of what 'censorship' actually means.

This is my point: there's no such thing as a "more accurate definition" of censorship. Abandon that whole concept. Stop focusing on the word and the definition. Words mean whatever we want them to mean. If I were able to dig up a US Supreme Court case that defined "censorship," would that give us a more enlightened debate in this context? No.

Instead, debate values.

Just focus on what Literotica is doing, and is it good or bad. That's the interesting debate.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Gotta pop the bubble again.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Hey Awk, shot time?

 

[AwkwardMD]

Hey Awk, shot time?

We will do this again, and again. Drink, my friends.

 

[SimonDoom]

Gotta pop the bubble again.

Your five inch heel should do the trick.