YES!!!!!!!!
where is this from?
From me, myself! 😁
@unspeakablearchives Very based
it doesn't even have to be a state government
Shout out to content warnings, the people-first solution to all creative controversy. No problems left that conservatives think censorship would solve, plus consumers can now make informed choices about what they wish to read, watch, and listen to.
The thing about content warnings in traditionally published books is they actually make it easier to protest and ban. I like in a country with one the highest book bans from schools and my librarian friend said that it’s because books that list things as like “tw: implied sex” where there is no scene, no details what so ever, it’s protested as pornography. To have it removed, you have to give a reason and to have it on the front page makes it easier to find. So while it can be beneficial to readers who are looking to avoid topics, it also makes it WAY easier to censor. It’s a real tricky issue
@heavywithfire I can see why that might seem to be the case, but in the country I live in, almost every other form of media, from movies to music and video games, all have content warnings accessible on the media itself, and we rarely, if ever, have concerns about their censorship in the present day; in fact, the disputes about censorship we once had led to the creation of these content warnings. If movies and music and games all have content ratings, why not books as well?
@kingedwardsapphires Tw: implied sex because the book has humans in it, and in order to produce a human someone would implicitly have to have had sex at some point
I do think some things should stay censored ^^" but i mostly agree with it
The thing is is that if you agree to censor one thing the inevitable question will become "whats next?" Where do we draw the line at censorship? And more importantly, where will governments keep pushing the lines at which we allow? Its imperative for us as a society that we allow every kind of work. This doesnt mean we cant criticise it or how the subject matter is represented, but we still must allow it to exist, even if it makes us uncomfortable. The healthiest thing to do is to block and move on when you see something that goes against your beliefs
yeah as itsorpheus is saying, you can't "mostly agree" that censorship is bad. you're saying that censorship is okay, you just have a certain opinion on what it should apply to. in reality, with censorship, you do not get a say on what it applies to. that say goes to people in power. in fact, if the censoring is effective, you won't even be able to tell what it applies to.
I do think that a very small amount of speechf should be illegal: Basically, things that violate the rights of others, and that cause very serious, tangible harm to very specific individuals. I'm thinking of things like CSAM, active targetted harassment, "revenge porn", etc.
"I'm missing the point entirely but I agree" jfc
Reaaaal
I’m not protecting Luke/Leia ships!
ok ? then why are you here ?
Cool. Do you want an award or something?
im gonna write more luke/leia porn now out of spite
Say it louder for the people in the back!!!!!! Don’t like something? Don’t read it. It’s that simple.
This reply is unavailable.
@oakenshieldsimp So you're promoting the idea of murder here. Nice self own, you don't see that every day.
@northchef y'all use this exact argument whenever being called out for pedo behavior and it gets stupider every time i hear it, please i beg of you to use your brain before it fries
My brain went to 'Daddy's Little Toy' and the fact the author got arrested. And she deserved it. Before anyone asks why. She dedicated it to her children saying she wouldn't be able to look at them the same ever again.
No she didn't. Not to be mean here but the fact is that you are just blindly repeating what you've been told online without any evidence whatsoever. People have capitalized on the fact that the book was never published, and so it's literally impossible to fact check any claim made about it. This is what she actually wrote, where she was thirsting over one of the men from the group The Wiggles: "To The Wiggles, I’ll never be able to look at you in the same way again after writing this book, which is going to be incredibly difficult considering all my children are under the age of five and are currently obsessed with you. #teamsimon #hehasthatbigdaddyenergy"
@unspeakablearchives Uh huh. Okay then.
@unspeakablearchives I just looked into that. That's also up for debate if she had dedicated that to the Wiggles or not. As people had said it was taken down then put up with that saying she changed it. So. Yeah. I don't trust that that's the truth. Or anything at all about this.
Completely admirable sentiment but I feel like the whole discussion is a bit moot? As in: those with the power to do censorship will do so, like they always have done and are currently doing. So the question becomes more one of whether there should be elected officials with that power, or if it should exclusively be held by unelected people and institutions.
A lot of things are only inevitable because people, falsely believing they're inevitable, do not oppose them.
@vexwerewolf cool beans
@thicccatbutts Try again.
@iancurethis Saying you are against censorship while also saying that there “should be a line” for what may be expressed publicly is a pretty big contradiction. The moment a public “line” exists, someone has to define it, enforce it, and punish violations. That is censorship by definition, even if the motive may feel reasonable or well-intentioned to you. Likewise, the idea that acceptability depends on *why* something is written immediately raises an unsolved problem: how is an author’s intent determined, and by whom? Intent is internal, unverifiable, and often contested. Once expression is judged not by what it is, but by what someone *believes* the author meant, enforcement inevitably becomes arbitrary, political, or retrospective. The same applies to the demand that certain topics must be handled in a specific “responsible” way. Who defines what counts as sufficient exploration, condemnation, or framing? Different audiences, cultures, and historical moments will all answer that differently. Granting any authority the power to decide which depictions are “acceptable” versus “crossing the line” creates exactly the kind of discretionary control that free expression is meant to guard against. Let me be clear: none of this requires defending harm, criminal acts, or abuse. There is a clear and necessary distinction between expression and actions that directly victimize real people. But once speech itself is restricted based on perceived moral adequacy, public acceptability, or inferred intent, the boundary stops being principled and becomes subjective.
“Let me be clear: none of this requires defending harm, criminal acts, or abuse. There is a clear and necessary distinction between expression and actions that directly victimize real people.” Writing harmful things that encourages or normalises violence against others is harmful quite directly. Just because there wasn’t someone there being put through something doesn’t mean it’s invalid to ban it since it still encourages that behavior that will lead to “direct victims” crime comes systematically and it’s very important to restrict certain texts to private usage only. Do you want a tutorial on how to commit the perfect shooting without getting caught to be accessible at your local book store? Do you not see how that would probably make the crime rates higher? Do you not see how violence against certain groups in media will have affect on the readers?
@iancurethis First off, I believe it was US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy who said: "Even if these claims were true, the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government cannot create legislation with the intention of controlling a person's private thoughts. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought. To preserve these freedoms, we must draw vital distinctions between words and deeds, between ideas and conduct. The government may not prohibit speech because it vaguely increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed 'at some indefinite future time.' Indeed, we have already determined that the government may not even suppress speech that actively advocates the use of violence or a violation of law, unless such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is actually likely to incite that action. Here, there is no attempt, no incitement, no solicitation, and no conspiracy. There is no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit deviant sexual speech on the ground that it may encourage strangers to engage in illegal conduct."
@iancurethis And to answer your questions: 1.) I do NOT want a tutorial on how to commit the perfect shooting without getting caught to be accessible at my local book store. But neither neither do I want it to be eradicated from existence or the author / readers imprisoned. 2.) Yes, I do see how violence against certain groups in media can have affect on the readers. But influence is diffuse, variable, and deeply dependent on context, audience, and interpretation. The same work can provoke empathy in one reader, revulsion in another, and critical reflection in a third. Because those effects are neither uniform nor predictable, they cannot serve as a stable or just basis for restricting expression. If we make “potential impact” the standard for what may be publicly expressed, then virtually all serious literature becomes vulnerable. War novels depict violence; tragedies depict cruelty; political writing depicts oppression; journalism depicts atrocity. The question cannot be whether something affects readers - all meaningful art does - but whether we are willing to grant institutions the power to decide which effects are acceptable and which are not. History shows that this reasoning is routinely inverted: works that depict violence against marginalized groups in order to expose, condemn, or reckon with it are often the first to be suppressed, precisely because they make people uncomfortable. Meanwhile, the suppression itself rarely protects those groups. None of this denies that readers can be harmed, disturbed, or influenced. It argues instead that the remedy for harmful ideas has never been silence imposed from above, but open scrutiny, counter-speech, and the freedom to interrogate even the most disturbing material - because once the power to restrict expression is normalized, it is the vulnerable who most often lose access to their own stories.
I fucking love repulsive fiction
i will continue to write crackfics to contribute to anarchy.
Doing god's work 🫡
@unspeakablearchives thank you, im a true prophet of shit.
This reply is unavailable.
AGREED!!! FUCK DA GOV *holds onto random fence while screeching* ANARCHYYYY ANARCHYYYY!!!!
SOAD said it best in BYOB/CHOPSUEY/TOXICITY!!!
I do make exception for *acutlly* dangerous shit. Think AI gen foraging books. They exist. For mushrooms. just... ponder that.
which isn't a story. But still, when you're writing stories please have a gander at how to do the shit safely. and as the TV always used to say "don't try this at home kids"
I think the better remedy here is the civil court system (suing them), not censorship. When genuinely dangerous misinformation causes real harm - especially when it’s presented as authoritative guidance - the appropriate response is liability after the fact, not prior restraint. Publishers and platforms already face very real legal risk for negligent or reckless misrepresentation, and that pressure does actually tend to keep them broadly in check. (Now, I do criticize misuse of the civil court system too. It's imperfect and can be abused - SLAPP suits and power imbalances are real problems - but that’s an argument for reforming how courts work, not for granting sweeping powers to preemptively suppress speech.)
@unspeakablearchives Removing AI generated shit isn't censorship because you can't censor a damn clanker. It's ones and zeros and hallucinations. It's not art or speech, it's regurgitation. If somebody gets hurt using something writtten by living beings, then yeah civil or even criminal court (if the mis/disinfo got somebody killed). My line stops when a person stops being directly involved.
I draw the line at the repulsive fiction broadcast on fox news
An important clarification lol
Repulsive nonfiction must be protected! Perhaps even more. People hate the truth. Too bad. 🖊️ (L) Pen. Mightier than sword.
Yes! 🥳 As part of my ongoing work documenting and preserving rare, offensive, highly-suppressed books, I've noticed that nonfiction actually tends to be suppressed WAY more frequently than fiction!
You're so right! Thinking back to the Abolitionists, they wrote true accounts of slavers beating Black people to death Abraham Lincoln's USA. 😮🤯 #True
Mmhmm! You know, Frederick Douglas said uhhhhh wait let me find it... "Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise in the South would banish the auction block and break every chain."
This reply was deleted.
I'm on your side (kinda). I'm not a proshipper, but I believe in freedom of speech and expression. What those people express though, it really does depend on how explicitly it truly is. And I REALLY doubt the president right now wants to make cp illegal.
@beetlethebat In what universe is child sexual abuse material currently legal?
@thenookienostradamus It's not, but I really doubt trump wants to keep it that way iykwim.....
I think the only fiction that should not be protected is RPF about minors and people who have not consented to it. Not just that it shouldn’t be written about people who have said they don’t want people to write RPF about them but I mean that RPF should only be written about people who have said that they don’t mind or they are okay with it.
I agree with the real people, but its also kinds risky. I mean, clowning on Donald Trump by having him hook up with Shrek, or the others i- i want my presidental yaoi Fengari. On the topic of minors, while its very much not for me, i do believe it serves a buffer. Pedophilia as a mental disorder and often stems from the exact abuse people fear of them. But people tend to immideately assume the worst. Being attracted to something does not mean you immideately throw yourself at it, uncritically, like a mindless beast. At least i’d hope not. I’m bisexual, i’m attracted to most gender configurations, but I don’t go around mauling people. To some degree, pretending pedophiles are automatically rapists kinda takes responsibility off for the actions of full on child predators. Besides pedophiles are likely gonna zork is regardless, so if they’re gonna yoink it, i’d rather it be with a degree of seperating from reality than page one of a google search for swimsuits and bikinis for kids, or toddlers in tiara or whatever else content with actual kids they can find.
repulsive fiction like the jesus/larry the cucumber smut fic i found earlier?
Um no. I said "repulsive" not "hot as fuck"
@unspeakablearchives exCUSE ME
@fizzyfr0g3 Only God can judge me. And he's currently busy with VeggieTales characters.
the only dangerous story is the one we’re writing right now.
it’s my personal opinion that fiction need not be censored but rather labeled with appropriate warnings and kept within spaces designated for it. for example, you wouldn’t want some poor random kid scrolling on youtube to come across straight pornographic material, which is why it, as a well known easy-access platform, prohibits that sort of thing, or at the very least makes people put warnings. when it comes to places like ao3, however, tagging is a courtesy. ao3 is notorious for having dark and repulsive fiction on it, and if you aren’t educated enough on internet usage and safety to know that it’s home to a lot of otherwise-prohibited media, then it’s your fault for being on the internet in the first place. now, for example, if someone’s scrolling on tiktok and comes across a video portraying repulsive content without any warning whatsoever, i think the line is drawn there, because just like how you can’t just start having sex in public because that’s involving unconsenting parties in your sexual acts, it’s involving someone who never agreed to it or clicked on it and had no idea what was about to appear on their screen. now, if they make the choice not to scroll, it’s on them, but if there’s not enough warning time for them to make that decision for themselves, there’s an issue.
Ao3 does warn you though. It tells you much like any porn site does upon entry that if the material on screen is not to your liking, close out/back out. Im not certain exactly how much more educational material would be required on ao3 beyond rating systems which are similar to most game ratings (rated from G for Gen Fic all the way to E for Explicit. That leaves little room for not understanding the full scope of a fic's contents and the warning is shown on all M to E rated fic) Mind you im not saying i disagree, just mentioning that ao3 does give courtesy warnings before throwing readers into the thick of any M-E rated fic
@symphonyofspirits exactly, and people still get mad about it. like??? if the bag says there’s a dead dove in it and not to eat it, why would you open the bag and get mad that there’s a dead dove in it???
A-fucking-men!
OP I love this comment of yours that I found in the replies and just wanna quote it: “Saying you are against censorship while also saying that there “should be a line” for what may be expressed publicly is a pretty big contradiction. The moment a public “line” exists, someone has to define it, enforce it, and punish violations. That is censorship by definition, even if the motive may feel reasonable or well-intentioned to you. Likewise, the idea that acceptability depends on *why* something is written immediately raises an unsolved problem: how is an author’s intent determined, and by whom? Intent is internal, unverifiable, and often contested. Once expression is judged not by what it is, but by what someone *believes* the author meant, enforcement inevitably becomes arbitrary, political, or retrospective.”
I'm so glad to hear you say that, and also wow I do not remember writing that at all 😅 Yo I was cooking tho tbh, I need to write that down to use later lol
I face this a lot as someone who loves the horror genre. Lots of (mostly) well intentioned sentiments from people saying stuff like “this dark subject matter is allowed to be explored but only by people who are doing it for good reasons like working through their own trauma”. A very popular and specific example is “only REAL victims of sexual assault can write about rape/noncon and anyone who depicts these things in their art/stories for other IMPURE reasons shouldn’t be allowed to” So, whose job is it then, to interrogate artists and authors and make them disclosure this sort of highly sensitive and personal information about themselves? What public criteria is supposed to exist for whether or not someone has experience sexual trauma “valid enough” to be allowed to make art about it? What about the extremely common phenomenon of victims to have their trauma overlap heavily with kink? Art that a rape survivor creates may look completely indistinguishable from art made by someone who just plain has a kink for noncon, and you wouldn’t know the difference unless you harassed both creators into giving you personal information that you have no right to demand. It very quickly becomes the exact same kind of attitude that sexual assault victims constantly face of having to prove and defend that what they experienced actually happened or that it was “bad enough” to be taken seriously. And the only way to actually protect these victims is to accept that anyone is allowed to make whatever art they want for any reason. Otherwise, trying to draw a line between “people making this art for the right reasons” and “people making this art for bad reasons” is literally always going to be deeply harmful to the very same people they are claiming to try and protect.
Well said.
Regardless of how “problematic” the media is, it’s fake. It’s fictional. No individual was harmed or even affected in the creation of the content. Leave the fictional stuff alone and go for the people who attempt to reenact such things IRL. Come on.
This is a dumb as fuck take
Care to elaborate? I don't see how.
@unspeakablearchives Hi, as an example normal places have hate speech laws. This doesn't cause the government to control us, it helps protect vulnerable people. The idea that all speech is equally valid bc otherwise "government overreach" is how you get Alex Jones.
As a librarian assistant I need this on a shirt
Except for colleen hoover.
Nope, not even her I fear. Rules are rules XP
@yourlocalcringekid .....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Fine...
"If you can be told what to see or read, then it follows you can be told what to say or think"
American problem
No. It's an *everywhere* problem.
Fully agree, however i think some people need to understand that theres a difference between "this is repulsive and should be illegal" and "this is repulsive and deserves critique". A lot of people seem to think being anticensorship means that no one can ever critique content for being probematic.
