Appropriate innuendo and crass sexual content?

Yeah, I've missed the naughty bits, too. Maybe it's for the best; I sometimes fear I tend toward the prudish these days...

Anyhow, I do appreciate that there are standards here...

Topic started by a 14 yr old girl - I don't think she meant to have it taken over by guys with 3 penis's or 5 and there pants fit like gloves.

I did not say there should be no line. I asked a question -- and invited the issue to be discussed.





NO!

What does that have to do with what is being discussed here?




Then it shouldn't have been brought up. You could have used something else to illustrate what you had to say.

AND I WANT TO GO STRONGLY ON RECORD AS HAVING SAID WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION THAT I DO NOT THINK KIDDY PORN SHOULD BE ALLOWED...so that I don't have to defend myself at some future time from an accusation from you that by having said what I did about a "line" I was in some way condoning kiddy porn.





Good! Do that.



I think I've covered that.

But perhaps this should be mentioned.

In another thread, I wrote a comment about something John Kerry said -- simply mentioning that John Kerry had used a vulgarity.

Someone asked what Kerry had said.

I responded to the question by saying that in response to a reporter asking about his shift from early support of Bush's war to his present position, Kerry said: "I didn't think he would **** it up as badly as he has."

That is a direct quote from a presidential candidate.

It got bleeped.

There is no way the line in this kind of discussion forum should be such that there is any censorship of that comment.

i love the conversation here. I love that it's intelligent and opens my mind to versions of things that I hadn't thought of and to topics and other things that I don't generally bother to think about. As an ex-chatter, I like a little 'free' speech and innuendo every now and then, but I also hate to see really good discussions go downthe sex-pot drain. I think a little monitoring is good and certainly any site that is not closed off to youngersters (how can one be...really??) needs a little censorship.

I say draw the line....but draw it in lightly.

Why are there only two options offered by this pool. Isn't there at least one glaring omission?

Could someone (hypothetically) want more inappropriate content?

Your example, Frank, bothers me too, and agree the word is fine in the context you used it, but that is one of the words that is primarily if not totally used gratuitously, and there needs to be a filter to catch all of its usage. The moderators don't have time to analyze every single instance to protect the occasional reasonable usage.

This is the reason I like the list of gratuitous words being short.

If the gratuitous usage of it isn't stopped, the site will lose the advertisers (etc) that keep it going.

You mean the Poll? - because I didn't think of it

Frank,

My intent was to simply establish that the line you questioned should exist and that the matter is where.

You claimed that the use of an extreme example was inappropriate but I disagree, it quickly established the answer to your question about whether there should be a line.

Either way, as long as we agree that there should be a line it's moot.

I will avoid comment on the rest because I do not wish to rehash an old argument. Choosing "kiddy porn" as an example was not done with that thread in mind, it's just the most obvious example of a reasonable line that I came up with at the moment.

As to whether that particular word should be censored I am inclined to agree with you in that it shouldn't have. It's a quote and the use of vulgarity is not gratuitous.

But I'm certain you agree that there can't be an automatic filter that establishes context.

For a long time there was no automatic filter, and said line was enforced on a case by case basis that precluded such automatic word censors.

As husker and others note, the use of gratuitous vulgarity has risen and the use of automated solutions is just one tool we employ to address this.

It's unfortunate that an automated solution can't distinguish the differences. That is why the automatic solution was left off for a year.

Prim & Proper Noddy Speaketh:

I've noticed the creeping ribaldry. Ribaldry has a place in the world--although its not my cup of tea. Not to worry--my scrolling finger is in excellent shape.

What does bother me is that frequently the ribaldry, the sexual innuendoes, the trash talk create an impression that A2K is a site of old cronyism and that newcomers--or diffident second comers--might feel excluded and unwelcome.

Much of the suggestive banter isn't designed for out-and-out vulgarity as to establish membership in an inner circle.

Furthermore, the suggestive in jokes are nearly always old jokes. Earthy-past-the-sell-date. Slightly moldy earthy as opposed to sparkling, clever wit.

I have spoken.

wait a minute.....

I love you Americans. I do.
You come from the land of the free, the brave where everything is shiny and new.
A nation that celebrates it's freedom of speech? Yet, I never, ever hear anyone else, ever, bring the censorship issue up. Political Correctness, the evil shadow, rears it ugly head.
Craven, Frank invited a discussion and you most certainly did go above and beyond, choosing the most heinous of crimes in comparison. But, words do not leave bruises and all can be forgiven.
If you have a problem, you have a choice. Flag a monitor or debate.
Isn't this what this site is about. If the child/teen has been shown inappropriate (fill in the blank)material. Bring it up! Stand up for your beliefs. Why create a separate thread to chastise someone?
The child will learn more from a proper debate. The kid in question may never see these arguments and risks missing another opinion...... And I think we owe long time members a chance at rebuttal at the source.

I come back to a2k everyday because I learn something new. Our words can become weapons here, if they begin to sting, there is a system of recourse but if we limit the scope or language and overlook common sense we all miss out on unending possibilities.

I hear the issue of censorship and the tired and completely irrelevant mantra of freedom of speech all the time Celi.

This is a privately owned and operated website. This is a resource that costs money.

To try to raise the issue of free speech here is about as fair as someone claiming that spraying graffiti on your wall is "free speech".

"Free speech" doesn't mean others are required to pay to broadcast any vulgarity. It means you have the right to say what you want but not to force any medium to foot the bill.

i think i may have missed something.

at least, nothing's ever caught my attention in terms of inappropriate innuendo and crass sexual content yet.

perhaps i dont have high standards! or the threads i'm in are too serious.

as far as words that get bleeped are concerned, i dunno about that.

yes, if your host asks you to please mind your language so as not to offend his/her sensibilities, one of course obliges.

but i dont have much of a problem with it myself, and i've never bought the "it'll corrupt the children" argument (especially since we're talking 13 up here anyway).

they walk on the street, take the underground, shop and sport - they'll hear it often enough; trying to shield your children from contact with it is illusory. the only thing that counts is trying to teach them (when its better) not to use it themselves.

then again, if a2k makes it say ****ing instead of what i'd wanted to say to express how i'm feeling in the dear diary thread, say, the point pretty much comes across just as good, so i dont mind the word censor much either.

Craven de Kere




There's nothing being forced here Craven, this is all about choice, on your part and all the sites participants. You can ask/demand that we all pay a monthly fee to access your site and some of us will pay, but will paying members have greater freedom to say whatever they wish to say in whatever manner they choose to say it then they already have?

Do you have a greater freedom then the rest of us? You can ban anyone of us theoretically for any reason you choose, but none us can ban you unless some of us have authority in the larger community of which this site and all else is controlled (attempted).

"Freedom" of speech is a lie, for many reasons, one being because all avenues to express it are owned and controlled.

Craven I believe you missed my point. My point about free speech was.....The irony, Instead of using common sense and firstly confronting someone at the point of contention, censorship seems to be the first option for many americans. With out discounting anything you have done for this site Craven, and to slap the members on the back, I think most members on this site do a pretty good job of creating or adding to an atmosphere where the nasties don't get out of line.
I believe a member can have rational discussion where by if someone says something and others disagree, bring it up and complain, use all the other steps available. Then if a problem can't be rectified reasonably start a thread to chastise, bleep em, kick them out, I'm sure you have a protocol. But to bandy about censorship right away, oy!
I am well aware this site is a business and wishes to keeps it advertizing. I just haven't seen many instances that have worried me and if I did I would like to think I would challenge that which offended me. I haven't seen a proliferation of nasty language or gratutitous sex. Most of what I see on a2k is humour, intelligence, wonder, curiosity and the heartbreak of everyday life said in the appropriate venacular.
So I don't see the need for such drastic actions. But If others feel we need to be monitored be a machine, I see it as a drastic measure that will stifle speech.

I must be reading the same threads as nimh: I haven't seen any inappropriate sexual content either. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, or maybe my imagination just isn't that good.

And while I agree that there should be a ban on posting kiddy porn, I would encourage everyone here to post more kitty porn. My cat is a stay-at-home single guy, and ... well ... I'm sure he gets kinda' lonely. Granted, his sex life was drastically curtailed, due to an unfortunate but necessary surgical procedure -- but, as they say, a guy can still look in the store windows even if he doesn't have any money in his pockets.

Twyvel,

You misunderstand Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech does exist and A2K is certainly a part of it.

Freedom of speech means that you have the right to express any view without interference from the government. It does not mean that you can express any opinion on any private forum. Nearly all media outlets are, and always have been, privately owned with an editor that decides what goes in and what stays out.

This has worked well for our country. If an opinion is stifled in one place, it usually can find an outlet elsewhere.

This type of site must have an editor. A site that is an Anarchy is a disaster. It is unreasonable to ask that this site be run as a democracy since it is a privately owned site. Democracy also adds inefficiencies and is impracticle in this type of group. If you doubt this, try to hold a rational discussion in an unmoderated newsgroup.

What twyvel has said is unfair. Craven does have the power he deserves and needs to build the community we enjoy. I don't see him abusing his power. I have seen him take directed personal attacks while showing incredible restraint.

This site is a testament to the leadership of Craven (and others?) who have built a community that is vibrant and diverse. I think that most of us agree that how Craven is running this site is working.

ebrown_p- It constantly amazes me that many people do not understand this concept.

When it comes to dealing with PRIVATE entities, my attitude is, "Buy the premise, buy the package". Craven, as the owner of the site, has the perfect right to set the tone of the site. No one is forcing anyone to post on A2K.

Re: Appropriate innuendo and crass sexual content?
So let's recap:



I'm not about free speech restrictions- I'm thinking more about lack of judgement or poor taste in topical posts? Nothing about the freedom of expression or stifling of ideas. Most men don't go to a proctologist to talk about there head problems unless less there head is in there arse.

I have no problem with the way this site is managed. But I have not seen any posts I would regard as inappropriate either. Maybe Kraven as got them all out before I saw them, but I doubt it.

What are you talking about? I've long said that this site will never demand a fee.



Perhaps in theory, but in reality I am further constrained because persons such as yourself are all too willing to play that there card you just played and I am all too sensitive to it. As an aside it's one of the more unpleasant things about this website for me.

What it has to do with sexual innuendo and reality I am unable to decipher.


Celi,

I understood your point very well, and replied that I hear the tired mantra about censorship and freedom of speech all the time.

And I expounded to say that it's the equivalent of claiming the right to use your property, for example, your telephone as "freedom of speech".
This thread is not about the decision to censor. That decision predates this site. I would not have ever spent a minute putting it online if it were for anyone to use and abuse as they personally see fit. This site always has been and always will be a censored site. It is this way to maintain a standard. By placing this site online no right to use it in any way one wishes to was ever granted nor will it ever be.

I understood your point perfectly, I simply disagree with it stridently. Many like to get on the soap box and paint this as a principled issue of censorship and I think they are wrong to do so.

The reason I think them wrong is because this is not a matter of censorship versus the lack of it. I am legally required to censor so the question is about what degree.

It's not about "freedom of speech" either. Which is a legal right that has no application whatsoever here.

The reason I consistently say this is because of the nearly universal perception that by placing a website online I am now required to grant anyone the right to use it as they see fit or I am a "Nazi" who "censors" and is taking away one's "free speech" etc.

If I sound frustrated by these worn out labels I am. I can't count the number of times I have heard this. Spammers are the most notorious, see they even think that "freedom of speech" means I pay for them to advertise.

And this is what I am trying to get at. Portraying this site's functions as one in which "free speech" is an issue is to automatically grant oneself a right that was never extended.

I find it rude and inconsiderate, and as I said, if allowing anyone to use the site as they see fit were the way this site would be I certainly would ahve had no part in its inception.

It's impossible to please everyone and I get as many people complaining to me that I am letting this site go to the dogs as I get that I am a Nazi bastard who works for the CIA silencing everyone's free speech (that's not a joke BTW, I can point you to where a member earnestly alleges that I am paid by the CIA to silence him).

So I apologize if I sound frustrated about this, but I am. The sense of entitlement to rights is something I consider unwarranted. And it is something I have thrown in my face on a daily basis and that I have little patience for.

I guess what I'm saying is that I've reconciled myself with the idea that by creating a site with a standard in mind I am a "forum Nazi" squelching free speech".

I speak up against the desire to characterize this that way because that is what it is. "Free speech" is a fine ideal that is cheapened by persons using it to describe being able to do whatever one wants wherever they want. That is not what "free speech" is about so its use in this context will almost always elicit this boring tedious rant I typed.