Here is a link to Miller v. CA which concluded that obscenity is not a protected form of speech. This is the easy-to-read version housed on Wikipedia, for those that aren’t able to discern legalese and lose their minds when trying to read actual rulings. I mention this case, because it was used as a reason that a private online social service should allow nudity- when the ToS states that there is “no nudity allowed”. It was actually cited and then interpreted to mean something else when the admins of EC deleted a website for ToS violations. I wanted to get that out of the way right now. Anyway…
I find it funny that the First Amendment is ever used as a gauge for the ToS of any privately owned website. This is not a new stance for me. I recognize that free speech is meant to prohibit the government from overzealous censorship, but that not all speech is free (according to the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court- their only purpose being to interpret that sacred document). As much as many people wish otherwise, privately run websites- and even government controlled websites – do not have to afford any users total freedom to do whatever they want on the sites.
I don’t allow disruption beyond the friendly banter that sometimes occurs here. I don’t allow spam to infect my comment area (free speech, right? I’m a tyrant!). My hosting provider specifically prohibits pornography, hate speech1, illegal behavior2 and warez3 on their servers. I accept that. I agreed to it, as a matter of fact, when I signed up for the service. I cannot now go to my host and say “I don’t like that you have this clause. You need to change it now!” They’ll laugh heartily in my face and, quite literally, take away my blog.
I know this. I accept it. I live with it. If it becomes burdensome then I’ll move on. Unlike living in a situation that involves real censorship, I am able to decide if this is valuable enough to me to make the compromise. It is. I do.
I don’t really care about nudity, except for the fact that I don’t look at it. Well, not the pornographic kind anyway. Honestly, seeing these plastic and airbrushed young women posing in not-so real life ways just makes me want to go hide. Here’s the personal part: I was in a relationship with a man who thought that I should behave just like the girls in the pornos. He expected me to have legs like them (I’m 5ft. 1in. for crying out loud) and be acrobatic like them. It was a challenge to my feeling of self-worth. Of course, that lead me to recognize arguments that rad fems make against pornography as we see it now (there are other kinds that aren’t as well regarded that highlight the average woman in average poses without the makeup and plastic breasts). It’s a complex argument that I really don’t want to get into right now- aside from the fact that I don’t want to see it. Which for this post is all that matters.
Now, when I’m surfing through StumbleUpon I know that I’m not going to stumble upon porn. I have my filters set in such a way that it doesn’t get to my browser. When I’m looking through Google images, I don’t see a gangbang, because I have my filters set in such a way that it doesn’t get to my browser4. Nudity for comedy or for science isn’t offensive to me. Gratuitous sex scenes are. I browse in such a way that I avoid that stuff (it’s my responsibility to make sure that I don’t have to deal with that)5. And, yes, there is one site on my blogroll that I will only visit when I’m not going to be interrupted by a 4 year-old because some of the content is, um, racy. But if I’m dropping cards, surfing widgets, or checking out folks that want to advertise on my site, I am given NO warning about the content behind the widget. Which is sort of what inspired this post.
I am a firm believer that the rules of a website should be loose enough to encourage involvement, but stringent enough to discourage mass exodus and/or disruption. I’m one of the rare liberals that recognizes the First Amendment for exactly what it is. For instance, spammers often take over social sites. The social sites then get rid of the spammers any way that they can. This is because they are disruptive to the community. I agree with that. Under the umbrella of “free speech for all” spammers should be allowed to participate and eventually destroy all social websites. There should be no rules governing their behavior just because someone somewhere is always benefiting from them. I mean, so what if the rest of the community objects? So what if rules against spammers were in place already? They have rights, dammit!
No, they don’t. Puh-lease. They agree to the rules when they join. If the rules changed mid-stream, well, that might be a problem6. But when the rules have been in place from the very first day… Sorry, Charlie, you lose. You do not have the right to accept the rules and then break them while still carrying on as if you hadn’t. You do have the right to get kicked out. Thems the breaks. This isn’t Turkey or China where you have no choice. If you’re not already censored by your government, well, you’re free to move on. Yes?
What gets my dander up is when the “rebels” disrupt the community for everyone else. They say “If you don’t like it you shouldn’t be online” or “You should leave” or whatever. Excuse me? This is true to a certain extent. I can leave. So can a lot of other users. But I signed up for the exact same service as you and we all agreed to the same terms. So,I choose to use a service specifically because there are safeguards in place and I expect those safeguards to remain in place. I have a right to my personal enjoyment of the service as advertised. I also expect those that don’t like the rules to develop their own software so that they can have the community they so desire. Disrupting a growing and thriving ONLINE community in an effort to change the norms doesn’t really accomplish much except to destroy that community. You’re not being a rebel fighting for a just cause.
Unless, of course, you’re fighting Google’s complicity in China’s censorship of it’s citizens. Are you?
You know, I like to use “colorful” language. Love it. It helps me express myself and, well, I’m uncouth like that. Guess what? I don’t use profanity on many blogs and/or forums. I should though, right? Because I’m important and it’s all about me? Right? NO. I respect the blog/forum that I’m on and refrain from letting loose. If, for instance, my most favorite word is frowned upon in a forum you will never see me write it. I could use it anyway and then question why I was banned. But what sense would that make? I went there on my own volition, so I implicitly agreed to abide by their rules. It’s not hard.
I also don’t use sites that, in my opinion, go too far with prohibitions7. If I feel that a site has overstepped more than normal, I go away. Far away. Pretty soon so do other people. That’s how sites live and die on the web.
Personally, I like the options that StumbleUpon (one of my favorite services), Google and even YouTube offer8. I can filter my viewing for myself and then everyone else can do their own thing. I’d love to see my other favorite thing- EC – offer the NSFW designation for blogs with pornographic images. Shoot, if those that are more offended by words than images want I’ll even offer up my widget to have the NSFW tag. I prefer that children not read my blog9. As a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure deeply religious Christians and rightwing Conservatives would prefer to not stumble on my blog too. With a NSFW10 designation everyone can get everything they want.
Then, of course, we’ll have the battle of what’s a bad word and what’s not. Gods, I can see it now.
This post was offered up without any profanity whatsoever. Can you believe it?
These are online services that I use the most. [↩]
Mostly for language and ideas that might not sit well with their parents. I am, afterall, a believer that parents have a right to determine what their children see online. [↩]
NSF Work or Kids
Here is a link to Miller v. CA which concluded that obscenity is not a protected form of speech. This is the easy-to-read version housed on Wikipedia, for those that aren’t able to discern legalese and lose their minds when trying to read actual rulings. I mention this case, because it was used as a reason that a private online social service should allow nudity- when the ToS states that there is “no nudity allowed”. It was actually cited and then interpreted to mean something else when the admins of EC deleted a website for ToS violations. I wanted to get that out of the way right now. Anyway…
I find it funny that the First Amendment is ever used as a gauge for the ToS of any privately owned website. This is not a new stance for me. I recognize that free speech is meant to prohibit the government from overzealous censorship, but that not all speech is free (according to the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court- their only purpose being to interpret that sacred document). As much as many people wish otherwise, privately run websites- and even government controlled websites – do not have to afford any users total freedom to do whatever they want on the sites.
I don’t allow disruption beyond the friendly banter that sometimes occurs here. I don’t allow spam to infect my comment area (free speech, right? I’m a tyrant!). My hosting provider specifically prohibits pornography, hate speech1, illegal behavior2 and warez3 on their servers. I accept that. I agreed to it, as a matter of fact, when I signed up for the service. I cannot now go to my host and say “I don’t like that you have this clause. You need to change it now!” They’ll laugh heartily in my face and, quite literally, take away my blog.
I know this. I accept it. I live with it. If it becomes burdensome then I’ll move on. Unlike living in a situation that involves real censorship, I am able to decide if this is valuable enough to me to make the compromise. It is. I do.
I don’t really care about nudity, except for the fact that I don’t look at it. Well, not the pornographic kind anyway. Honestly, seeing these plastic and airbrushed young women posing in not-so real life ways just makes me want to go hide. Here’s the personal part: I was in a relationship with a man who thought that I should behave just like the girls in the pornos. He expected me to have legs like them (I’m 5ft. 1in. for crying out loud) and be acrobatic like them. It was a challenge to my feeling of self-worth. Of course, that lead me to recognize arguments that rad fems make against pornography as we see it now (there are other kinds that aren’t as well regarded that highlight the average woman in average poses without the makeup and plastic breasts). It’s a complex argument that I really don’t want to get into right now- aside from the fact that I don’t want to see it. Which for this post is all that matters.
Now, when I’m surfing through StumbleUpon I know that I’m not going to stumble upon porn. I have my filters set in such a way that it doesn’t get to my browser. When I’m looking through Google images, I don’t see a gangbang, because I have my filters set in such a way that it doesn’t get to my browser4. Nudity for comedy or for science isn’t offensive to me. Gratuitous sex scenes are. I browse in such a way that I avoid that stuff (it’s my responsibility to make sure that I don’t have to deal with that)5. And, yes, there is one site on my blogroll that I will only visit when I’m not going to be interrupted by a 4 year-old because some of the content is, um, racy. But if I’m dropping cards, surfing widgets, or checking out folks that want to advertise on my site, I am given NO warning about the content behind the widget. Which is sort of what inspired this post.
I am a firm believer that the rules of a website should be loose enough to encourage involvement, but stringent enough to discourage mass exodus and/or disruption. I’m one of the rare liberals that recognizes the First Amendment for exactly what it is. For instance, spammers often take over social sites. The social sites then get rid of the spammers any way that they can. This is because they are disruptive to the community. I agree with that. Under the umbrella of “free speech for all” spammers should be allowed to participate and eventually destroy all social websites. There should be no rules governing their behavior just because someone somewhere is always benefiting from them. I mean, so what if the rest of the community objects? So what if rules against spammers were in place already? They have rights, dammit!
No, they don’t. Puh-lease. They agree to the rules when they join. If the rules changed mid-stream, well, that might be a problem6. But when the rules have been in place from the very first day… Sorry, Charlie, you lose. You do not have the right to accept the rules and then break them while still carrying on as if you hadn’t. You do have the right to get kicked out. Thems the breaks. This isn’t Turkey or China where you have no choice. If you’re not already censored by your government, well, you’re free to move on. Yes?
What gets my dander up is when the “rebels” disrupt the community for everyone else. They say “If you don’t like it you shouldn’t be online” or “You should leave” or whatever. Excuse me? This is true to a certain extent. I can leave. So can a lot of other users. But I signed up for the exact same service as you and we all agreed to the same terms. So,I choose to use a service specifically because there are safeguards in place and I expect those safeguards to remain in place. I have a right to my personal enjoyment of the service as advertised. I also expect those that don’t like the rules to develop their own software so that they can have the community they so desire. Disrupting a growing and thriving ONLINE community in an effort to change the norms doesn’t really accomplish much except to destroy that community. You’re not being a rebel fighting for a just cause.
Unless, of course, you’re fighting Google’s complicity in China’s censorship of it’s citizens. Are you?
You know, I like to use “colorful” language. Love it. It helps me express myself and, well, I’m uncouth like that. Guess what? I don’t use profanity on many blogs and/or forums. I should though, right? Because I’m important and it’s all about me? Right? NO. I respect the blog/forum that I’m on and refrain from letting loose. If, for instance, my most favorite word is frowned upon in a forum you will never see me write it. I could use it anyway and then question why I was banned. But what sense would that make? I went there on my own volition, so I implicitly agreed to abide by their rules. It’s not hard.
I also don’t use sites that, in my opinion, go too far with prohibitions7. If I feel that a site has overstepped more than normal, I go away. Far away. Pretty soon so do other people. That’s how sites live and die on the web.
Personally, I like the options that StumbleUpon (one of my favorite services), Google and even YouTube offer8. I can filter my viewing for myself and then everyone else can do their own thing. I’d love to see my other favorite thing- EC – offer the NSFW designation for blogs with pornographic images. Shoot, if those that are more offended by words than images want I’ll even offer up my widget to have the NSFW tag. I prefer that children not read my blog9. As a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure deeply religious Christians and rightwing Conservatives would prefer to not stumble on my blog too. With a NSFW10 designation everyone can get everything they want.
Then, of course, we’ll have the battle of what’s a bad word and what’s not. Gods, I can see it now.
This post was offered up without any profanity whatsoever. Can you believe it?
Related posts: