Why isn't this censorship?

[TheLobster]

Thing is, what does this make the guy?

A jester, since he obviously has no intention of paying either way.

 

[HordHolm]

That story is told about many different famous men. I heard a version involving Churchill when I was in the UK studying. It’s probably totally apocryphal.

Thing is, what does this make the guy? Or is it yet another asymmetry where being a prostitute is infinitely worse than paying for a prostitute?

I know it’s meant to be humorous, but it always rather irritated me.

I think it's meant to be an illustration of hair-splitting. That's certainly why I've repeated it here...

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think it's meant to be an illustration of hair-splitting. That's certainly why I've repeated it here...

I get that totally. Just has some different standards embedded in it. IMO of course.

 

[AwkwardMD]

View attachment 2556822

"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd."

If this isn't the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me, it's in the top five.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

To add one more obvious example, and I don't know how I didn't think of this first, is the regulation of pornographic content.

If the government were to bar everyone from accessing pornographic content, that's censorship, plain and simple. Such intent and motives come from oppressive tendencies and false morality. But if the government bars children up to the age of, I don't know, thirteen, from pornographic content, then that's regulation done out of concern for the mental health of children.

Intent and motivations matter, in my opinion.

It's still censorship, it's just censorship we happen to agree with.

I strongly disagree with the notion that censorship is exclusively a governmental concept. Laurel is allowed to censor content on her site. That doesn't magically mean it isn't censorship.

If you push a little old lady out of the way of a bus, you still pushed a little old lady. You just did it for a good reason.
We agree as a society that pushing little old ladies is a bad thing, but we acknowledge that sometimes there is a good reason.

The challenge for any society is deciding what constitutes a good enough reason.

 

[SimonDoom]

I partly disagree. Your post makes sense, but I'd say that the motive for regulation/censorship makes a lot of difference in choosing one or the other term.

For example, to include the favorite pastime of you Americans, say there is a public platform named Icecream, and say that it's privately owned and fully within its rights to regulate its own content. No problems so far, right? But say that the platform is left-aligned (or right-aligned, take your pick as it doesn't matter at all) and thus will remove any rightist ideas posted by forum users, while allowing leftist ideas to stay.
Is that censorship? I'd say yes, even if the private platform is exercising its right to regulate its own content. It's the intent to quell the opinions that differ from their own that makes it censorship.

So again, Literotica's rules are fine because they stem from legal concerns mostly, not due to bigotry or false morality. Laurel's stance on AI might be borderline censorship (if and only if she is doing it out of her own convictions and not legal concerns). I mean, personally, I am fucking glad she censors AI content, but still, it might be censorship, depending on what her motives are.

My view of what constitutes censorship might be wrong, but I put a lot of weight on intent and motivations behind the censorship.

I don't necessarily disagree with the substance of what you say. I just think we're wading unnecessarily into the weeds when we argue whether it's "censorship." It's just a word.

I think we can all agree that it's much more troubling if the government criminalizes certain erotic speech than if Literotica decides it doesn't want to host it.

But Literotica is a big site, and its readers depend on it for providing erotic content, so it's perfectly legitimate to question why Literotica WOULD ban certain stories, even if we all concede it has a legal right to do so.

I have questioned this. I'm way over on the "maximalist" side of the free speech scale, and I would like to see Literotica do whatever it can do to support free speech and the maximum range of erotic expression. I'm chagrined at the recent decision to remove nude visual images. It seems a little extreme to me. I understand at the same time it's not my site and they have lots of things to be concerned about that I know nothing about.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I don't necessarily disagree with the substance of what you say. I just think we're wading unnecessarily into the weeds when we argue whether it's "censorship." It's just a word.

I'm inclined to agree about that. But for once, I was trying to adhere to the exact topic of this thread. And we do discuss a lot about the meaning of words and expressions here.

 

[TiberiusPrime]

This is a public site, but the owners of it decide what to allow. When you join, you agree to certain rules. If you do not adhere those rules and your content is removed, it is not censorship, it is you not following the rules!

 

[SimonDoom]

To address the original post by the OP:

It looks like the story/chapters were removed because the story violated the under-18 rule, maybe because of the use of the word "teen." Maybe certain words triggered a filter. I don't know.

I personally think people get a little silly about the under-18 rule, but I cut the site a lot of slack to navigate this issue the way it wants to.

I applaud the site for not wanting to be affiliated with pedophilia. I personally don't think there's anything inherently wrong with stories that involve post-pubescent and under-18 characters who have sexual encounters. It's life. I remember what it was like to be 16. Judy Blume wrote coming of age stories 50 years ago. There are TV shows and mainstream movies that deal with the theme. Think American Pie. None of that is illegal. And it's not immoral, either.

But I understand that from Lit's point of view it makes sense to have a very clear, bright-line rule that is easy to administer and completely avoids problems that might arise with zealous law enforcement agents or demanding credit card vendors.

So I don't think of it as "censorship," because I think they're making a pragmatic decision about how to moderate content on their privately owned site. They're not trying to prevent you, wholesale, from getting access to such content.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm inclined to agree about that. But for once, I was trying to adhere to the exact topic of this thread. And we do discuss a lot about the meaning of words and expressions here.

We ARE writers, after all. Being obsessed about the meanings and shadings of words is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Writer61]

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.

What was the old topic? Or, has that been censored?

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

What was the old topic? Or, has that been censored?

A writer had a series that had been up for about a year. Some of the chapters got deleted for underage and she wasn't able to repost.

OP thread here.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This is a public site, but the owners of it decide what to allow. When you join, you agree to certain rules. If you do not adhere those rules and your content is removed, it is not censorship, it is you not following the rules!

And that's a form of censorship. There isn't anything wrong with that.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Back on the meaning of censorship, I'd argue the most useful definition is an authority banning certain writing or speech. Partly because there's not really another word for that action. Sometimes the authority over you will be the government; if you're a kid in boarding school having letters home checked, or Richard Feynman at Los Alamos likewise, it's not - or if you argue the US military is just an arm of the government and that makes only the latter censorship, then you're claiming you need to describe people doing identical actions for the same reason need different words just because of their relationship to you. Fill your boots, but I don't think it's a useful distinction in most cases.

Either way, arguing over 'is this censorship' is much less interesting than 'is this particular censorship (or whatever word you want for banned words) good or useful?'

 

[TheArsonist]

Regulation of content in a private forum is not censorship, as that term is commonly understood.

That should be "as that term is commonly misunderstood."

 

[ElectricBlue]

That should be "as that term is commonly misunderstood."

Agree. Governments censor, publishers moderate content. This whole thread is splitting hairs about two different things which are similar, but not identical, in meaning.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Agree. Governments censor, publishers moderate content. This whole thread is splitting hairs about two different things which are similar, but not identical, in meaning.

This. Literotica is a publisher. No one has any more right to have their story posted here than they have a right to have it printed in the New Yorker. Editorial discernment is not censorship.

 

[iwatchus]

The problem with using the word in the broader sense is that it still carries the connotations of the government crackdown that it has been traditionally associated with. So some people, especially ones who lack enough introspection to see who was in the white house when "Xitter was interfered with", will think the sky is falling when reasonable content moderation exists.

 

[TheRedChamber]

There was a thread recently about how we'd change the Internet that I didnt get round to posting on. The issue is that the Internet has congealed around a few megasites - YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon - that are not quite the only sites in their niche but are so big that not being on them when everyone else is can be very damaging.

It's not censorship in the classical definition, but it is something to be worried about the effect it can have on the promise of true free speech of the original Internet.

Lit isnt quite at that level, hosting text is fairly easy and its only mucky stories after all. And most of my complaints would be about it not enforcing its rules strictly enough rather than too draconionally.

That story is told about many different famous men. I heard a version involving Churchill when I was in the UK studying. It’s probably totally apocryphal.

Thing is, what does this make the guy? Or is it yet another asymmetry where being a prostitute is infinitely worse than paying for a prostitute?

I know it’s meant to be humorous, but it always rather irritated me.

I think my view of this varies with who actually said it. I can believe that Shaw had some ubderlying point about the necessity of poverty l. Churchill was more likely just being an ass.

(See also 'Madam, you are ugly' 'And you, Sir, are drunk!' 'Yes, but in the morning, I'll be sober again and you'll still be ugly')

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This. Literotica is a publisher. No one has any more right to have their story posted here than they have a right to have it printed in the New Yorker. Editorial discernment is not censorship.

Are they a publisher?

According to the CDA section 203:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

It would be in the site's best interests to claim they AREN'T a publisher.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The problem with using the word in the broader sense is that it still carries the connotations of the government crackdown that it has been traditionally associated with. So some people, especially ones who lack enough introspection to see who was in the white house when "Xitter was interfered with", will think the sky is falling when reasonable content moderation exists.

The problem with these arguments is they all depend on someone's view of "reasonable" which most often translates as "things I disagree with".

There's quite a bit of recent history of people advocating for "reasonable" content moderation to stop "misinformation" of things that turned out to be true.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Are they a publisher?

According to the CDA section 203:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

It would be in the site's best interests to claim they AREN'T a publisher.

I think it's a stretch to consider Lit, or at least the story section, as "an interactive computer service". They have complete control over what is or is not posted in the story section. But I'm not really interested in a back and forth over semantics. Lit is a publisher as that word is generally understood.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Are they a publisher?

According to the CDA section 203:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

It would be in the site's best interests to claim they AREN'T a publisher.

What else can they be? They're not exclusive, but they do "publish" my content in the sense that, here it is, it's available. One could describe them as a "host", I guess, because they're not publishing in the book sense, where there is no tangible product sold for money.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Censorship is censorship. You can call it something else; rule, regulation, guidline, whatever, if it restricts some sort of expression, it's just censorship under another name. That's all there is to it. Most of that other shit is simantics.

 

[EmilyMiller]

simantics

Is that another way of saying monkeying around?