Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > rockwriter58 > ♪ Ruminations ♪ |
Censorship & The Bunny
|
Censorship & The Bunny My writing voice is choked as I type these words. The true chilling effect has settled like a pall of snow over me in wintertime. The truth of the limitations here is ever evident and I tread carefully as I write this because to slip too far in one direction means banishment. The event that sends this creative chill is the freezing of Barbiebunny’s original blog. Some may know that this author is a fan of [blog barbiebunny] (See: Centennial Celebration Week & Centennial Celebration Favorite Blogs). The TATTLER’s Publisher broke the story about [blog barbiebunny] banishment last week and others on The Tattler have worked on her behalf. (For more see: BARBIEBUNNY69 BANISHED FROM BLOGLAND & [post 96335].) But the fallout still resonates with me. Part of the problem is the sketchiness of the details. The Publisher skillfully pieced his report together without giving too many specifics. To repeat the offending remark would be to court banishment too. We know the offense concerned an offhand statement regarding bestiality. The good news in all of this is that [blog barbiebunny] has revived her blog under a slightly new handle. Go visit her new spot. She’s hoping the problems won’t completely destroy the readership she has worked to build. Her old blog is frozen and the offending comment removed, a testament to the powers of the censors. How is it that a sex site would not allow an open discussion on this matter, when even family newspapers can report on the topic and print the details? (For those who want examples look no further than the recent case in Washington state which had lethal implications for one man.) By mentioning this topic, did [blog barbiebunny] violate the Terms of Use? (A close reading says the administrators can ban someone at their whim. The topic that caused [blog barbiebunny] banishment is specifically mentioned. However, that document also bans “pornographic or<b> sexually explicit material.</font></b>” If all of that were banned though, how much of the site would remain? ) The topic she mentioned is actually legal in 17 states in the U.S., including Washington state. Is it fringe behavior? No doubt. I have no idea what was actually said, but that should not matter. A free and open discussion of sex should allow for debate on all topics, even those that make some of us squeamish. There are all sorts of kinks represented on this site. If debate about sex is not part of the communication process here, then what is? Some acts are clearly out of bounds but to ban their very mention is excessive. (For other posts regarding censorship in BlogLand see these: Censorship; Intolerable Censorship; Censorship Revisited; and Censorship Reconsidered.) © ♪rockwriter58♪  |
|||
|
Well, we live and learn around here since the exact rules are what is truly sketchy. Maybe if she had used CARTOON animals in that blog it would have passed muster?
| ||
9/23/2005 10:21 am |
Does this mean I cant post about my trip to the farm with the kids last week?
| ||
|
i posted on bestilty months ago and had no problem,the title was even bestily,fair enough it was a shock horror one but still no problem,it went through the censors twice and posted again without a hitch, I'm a   and i'm here to stay
| ||
|
>>>Well, [blog AmberSolair]... normally I would say try it and see. But I would hate to see you get bounced too. >>>Mr. Publisher... thanks again for your good deeds. I think I have seen posts about cartoon sex. Next time, I'll have to bookmark them.
| ||
|
I think the lovable Papy has unknowingly found the side door on this one 
| ||
|
>>>Well, Amber... normally I would say try it and see. But I would hate to see you get bounced too. >>>Mr. Publisher... thanks again for your good deeds. I think I have seen posts about cartoon sex. Next time, I'll have to bookmark them. >>>papy... that just shows the capricious nature of the censorship. I'm glad someone is able to have the wider sexual conversation. Maybe they give more latitude to those in Europe.
| ||
|
Postscript Folks, apparently some messages posted but didn’t show up until hours later, so I wanted to add this for several reasons. First, [blog barbiebunny] did send me a clarifying e-mail and I think I should share some of it. Much of what she writes here is also in that mailing, so I won’t add the whole piece to make this redundant. Also, I didn’t want to make it seem like I was ignoring folks. Literally, the additional responses popped in after I had filed my initial comeback. Thirdly, I thought since the issue is joined fairly intensely here that it would be good to dig up papy’s older post on this topic. As [blog jayR63] notes, papy may have found an ingenious way around the system to discuss this. So check it out at: [post 47406]. As for [blog barbiebunny] here is what she wrote to me: Thank you for coming to my defense. I only tell the truth, so the deal is this... I did a two-part series on bestiality. I had used sources, gave them credit and a tongue and cheek commentary. If they had half a brain they would know that I am an animal lover (not in that way) however my intent was to rattle some cages and force some of these Neanderthals to stretch their thinking on acceptable and not. Sometimes people here can be two-faced prudes. I did not know the subject of bestiality was illegal in California. Hence, once someone complained and Senior Sizzle reviewed it, the legal department got involved, and although there are a lot of groups here to have sex with teens, touch fido and you’re banned for life. >>>I have no idea when the administrators added the clause that covers this issue, but I went over the Terms of Service before writing this entry. Perhaps the only good thing to come of this is that some of the original debate that [blog barbiebunny] hoped to instigate is happening here and in The Publisher’s blog.
| ||
|
I had similar problems on ALT (where my evil alter ego lives) and had a group I started be "Denied" after being up and running for several months. It was a group devoted to gangbangs and it was yanked because (and I'm not making this up as Dave Barry used to say) it was being used by people to arrange for sexual encounters. Huh? WTF? What the hell were we supposed to be doing on a gangbang group on Alt of all places? Discussing Great Books? Oy! Supposedly it violated the TOS but I was never able to actually get them to point out where in the TOS it said you that.
| ||
9/27/2005 4:55 pm |
Thanks Rock for all this information. I read in Ambers blog about hopping over to Bunny and giving her support. Now I'm clear on what happened.
| ||
|
Greeneyes in Atlanta... like you... I like to get to the nitty-gritty on topics. Glad this helped... usually it is the other way around, with your blog giving me the insight. Darth Murax... thanks for letting us know we are not alone on this. As noted, the TOS allows you to be booted for anything. Gotta keep my instigation on the right side of the line!
|
Become a member to create a blog
