Why isn't this censorship?

[MelissaBaby]

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.

How does anyone involved in this thread know whether or not the complaint was substantiated?

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

What is the purpose of broadening censorship to include "Lit won't publish my 4-part masterpiece 'Farmer Jessup and his best cow Bertie'"? Isn't it useful to have a distinction in terms?

Because Lit refusing to publish your 4-part masterpiece 'Farmer Jessup and his best cow Bertie' is censorship. And we do have a distinction in terms. When the US Government engages in censorship, it is a violation of our constitution. Governmental censorship, non-governmental censorship. Constitutional issue. Not a biggie because laurel has the right of every other private citizen operating a business to restrict what is shown on HER platform.

 

[Erozetta]

Censorship would be Lit trying to get all of a certain type of content banned across the internet.

Content moderation is what this is. Lit is moderating the content they want to appear on this site and their reach doesn't go beyond what can be posted to this site.

There are still other sites where such content can be posted and Lit is not making any attempts to prevent any user from posting the content they don't want here, elsewhere.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Because Lit refusing to publish your 4-part masterpiece 'Farmer Jessup and his best cow Bertie' is censorship.

If I write a novel and send it to Random Hose, would they be censoring me if they reject it?

 

[AwkwardMD]

Because Lit refusing to publish your 4-part masterpiece 'Farmer Jessup and his best cow Bertie' is censorship.

Does not answer the question. Isn't there value in a distinction in terms?

 

[Baztrachian]

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.

Exactly. This is also why there were valid complaints from conservatives about being banned from private platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and etc. because the effort seemed to be coordinated and as it turned out it was being coordinated by whoever was pulling the strings in the White House. I'd say Biden but as of this moment it's pretty clear he didn't control anything during his four years as the Occupant In Chief.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Does not answer the question. Isn't there value in a distinction in terms?

I updated my response. Not sure it answers your question any better, but how you differentiate between government censorship and private censorship. They're both the same, it's just that we have a contract with our government that says they can't do that to private citizens based on content alone. Contextual censorship, screaming fire in a crowded theater kind of thing, is pretty much a no no by any reasonable standard.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I updated my response. Not sure it answers your question any better, but how you differentiate between government censorship and private censorship. They're both the same, it's just that we have a contract with our government that says they can't do that to private citizens based on content alone. Contextual censorship, screaming fire in a crowded theater kind of thing, is pretty much a no no by any reasonable standard.

They can’t both be the same if one is fine and the other is a big, broadly accepted no-no.

 

[crookedletter]

If I write a novel and send it to Random Hose, would they be censoring me if they reject it?

That's interesting. In that case I'd say they were opting not to purchase your work. This being a site where anyone can and does publish -- as long as the content is deemed acceptable -- is different, I think. But it's a valid point, it does complicate the question.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Also, I don’t know if there's an existing rule for this kind of thing (if there isn't, we can call it Awkward's Law), but having a crank agree with you should trigger a moment of reflection on your position.

 

[djrip]

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?

18 and 19 year olds are teens. Just going by the title there's no issue.

 

[crookedletter]

Also, I don’t know if there's an existing rule for this kind of thing (if there isn't, we can call it Awkward's Law), but having a crank agree with you should trigger a moment of reflection on your position.

I'm not sure which crank you mean, but a broken clock etc. etc.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I'm not sure which crank you mean, but a broken clock etc. etc.

I misspoke, I meant crackpot.

 

[BDA73]

Bottom line call it what ever you want but know this...this is their site they can choose what ever they want to allow on their site and have every right to do it..

Think of it this way...

You go to someone's house...you go into their living room and yell "go fuck yourselves"... the owner of the house said..umm..get the fuck out..now..


Their house..their rules..dont like it..get the fuck out and go create your own website.

 

[AwkwardMD]

18 and 19 year olds are teens. Just going by the title there's no issue.

That is 2 of the 7 possibilities, yes.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

They can’t both be the same if one is fine and the other is a big, broadly accepted no-no.

It's a slippery slope that we dance on by convention. While our constitution serves as our guide in such matters, our legislatures and courts are the system, by which me mitigate such things. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but how would you suggest we differentiate different types of censorship as you see them? They're still censorship.

 

[djrip]

That is 2 of the 7 possibilities, yes.

And a search for 'teen' turned up over 27,000 stories on lit. The usage of the term is not an issue.

 

[AwkwardMD]

It's a slippery slope that we dance on by convention. While our constitution serves as our guide in such matters, our legislatures and courts are the system, by which me mitigate such things. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but how would you suggest we differentiate different types of censorship as you see them?

The thing that is not fine is censorship, preserving the use of the word as a perjorative. The thing that is fine, like Lit enforcing its stated terms of service, a living document that can change, is just Lit enforcing its rules within its own domain.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

And a search for 'teen' turned up over 27,000 stories on lit. The usage of the term is not an issue.

For the OP it wasn't an issue either, until it was.

 

[AwkwardMD]

And a search for 'teen' turned up over 27,000 stories on lit. The usage of the term is not an issue.

There is a way to resolve this. Shall we request copies to see which of us is being charitable to the party in the wrong?

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

The thing that is not fine is censorship, preserving the use of the word as a perjorative. The thing that is fine, like Lit enforcing its stated terms of service, a living document that can change, is just Lit enforcing its rules within its own domain.

Lit enforcing it's rules within its own domain is still censorship in the truest interpretation of the word. According to Meriam Webster, to censor is to to "suppress or delete as objectionable."

I'd suggest it doesn't become a pejorative until it's abused by our(a) government.

EDIT: and while this has been fun, I have things to do. Thanks for a well thought and civil discussion on the subject.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Lit enforcing it's rules within its own domain is still censorship in the truest interpretation of the word. According to Meriam Webster, to censor is to to "suppress or delete as objectionable."

I'd suggest it doesn't become a pejorative until it's abused by our(a) government.

What is the value in adhering to the strictest definition except to muddy the waters between things that are and aren't okay?

 

[djrip]

There is a way to resolve this. Shall we request copies to see which of us is being charitable to the party in the wrong?

Certainly the content might violate the terms. I was only saying the title gives us no reason to think that, because you said a story with a title like that was always going to be rejected.

 

[AwkwardMD]

This is not a perfect metaphor, but sex and rape are actions very similar mechanical motions. We use different words to describe them because they are different things, with different motivations and legal status.

 

[Britva415]

What is the value in adhering to the strictest definition except to muddy the waters between things that are and aren't okay?

I don't think it muddies any waters.

What Lit is doing/has done is OK.