Censorship of threads

[D_CountVonBhigBohner]

The Penn State scandal.
Issues/anxiety I had going through puberty.
How old were you when you lost your virginity?
When did you get/give your first blow job?
Did you ever go skinny dipping as a kid?

Answers could include the fact that it happened when you were a teenager. Participation doesn't mean you are a pedifile.

I respect the site owner and his choice to censor these threads. Sometimes you get inappropriate responses to any given topic. I would rather see those responses deleted versus pulling an entire thread.

There's an active thread with photo sharing of people exposing themselves in public, in cars, in airplanes. That's a felony in most states. Does that mean the owner should pull that thread as well?

There's a wrestling singlet site where photos from the internet are posted. I'm sure there may be some copyright infringement issues with the original photographer. I can go on and on.

So what is it that you want to discuss and feel you can't?

 

[houtx48]

Really!

I have found some highly educated folks here enlightening myself and others on various topics from health to politics to science. I guess the "how serious" question is best answered: As serious as you would like it. So, when someone asks a serious question about a health issue, that is not funny. And yes, without fail someone will advise them to see their doctor. Which assumes that they have access to healthcare for their issue.

Regarding taking a thread down. I'd rather have the Mods err on the site of keeping the site running then letting the forum become in jeopardy of being shut down over legal hassles. Unfortunately, the current social climate is rife with litigious zealots and moral bigots who are looking for a reason to destroy open discussion, especially one that is founded on the support of men with large penises.

I do not like the idea that "a current news story" cannot be discussed in detail on this site. But I am okay with that especially, when I have seen threads hijacked by people who seem to only want to disrupt the discussion rather then add relevant debate or insight. I may disagree with the Moderators on some of their decisions from time to time, but divisive individuals and lecherous types really set me off. I can only imagine given the opportunity what may have occurred if the negative types had been allowed to screw with a thread based on that stories subject matter.

This is a good thread in my opinion. Thanks to the OP for opening the dialogue, thanks to the Mods for not censoring it even though it hinted at sensitive topics, and thanks to posters with serious commentary, once again folks here have helped me understand an issue and put it in better perspective ("censoring threads"). Frankly, I never gave it any thought beforehand.

Seriously.

Opinions are like assholes everybody has one. No I'm not calling you an asshole.

 

[Q Vee]

Opinions are like assholes everybody has one. No I'm not calling you an asshole.

WOW! That is quite a defensive and almost abusive reply houtx48 (not to mention kind of off topic). My apologies to you and any who felt offended; that was not my intent.

 

[john_hiemer]

I rather enjoyed reading the "Exposed Fake Member" thread. While a few members took it a bit far, I feel as though the mods punished the whole instead of the few.

 

[rob_just_rob]

How serious can a big dick website be?

This point got me thinking - at times, it seems like the people who run this place want to have it both (or more) ways.

Sometimes, this is a 'big dick website'. That interpretation surfaces whenever people complain about not being allowed to talk about contentious topics. After all, this place isn't for serious stuff - it was set up as a joke!

However, at other times, we're pedantically informed that the site was set up as a joke, but it's become so much more than that! I hear this line sometimes from people defending themselves for being here.

And sometimes, this is a 'support group'. This interpretation is trotted out whenever people are being warned for being rude.

 

[D_Jacqueline_Boozann]

Well, anything related to minors, should not be discussed on any sites. Parents should have a lockout for their children, but their children can go visit friend's home -- wherein the parents may not be so diligent.

Anything else, as long as it's not offensive, dafamatory, or mean-spirited should be allowed. Then, again, I don't own the site.

 

[rbkwp]

Acceptance of how its all handled by the Authorative powers is all fine and well, by me
Never one to over analyze most things, a part from the human relationships forum of the site, almost disregarding the sexual content, apart from the occasional viewing of the chosen hah
All seems to go sweetly.
The amount and type of humour generated by discourse, and the varied topics, amuses me no end, why i dont mind being here ha.

 

[B_Hung Jon]

When I first joined lpsg four years ago the subject discussion did seem looser. The one area that seems to have gotten much more strict is what's been referred to as "minors issues". It seems these days that the owner and other people involved with the management of the site can get sued for any mention of people under the legal age in the USA, which is 18. I guess people from other countries might find this limiting but it necessary to abide by the laws of the country we do business in. I don't see where being critical of the management is helpful. The law is what it is.

 

[helgaleena]

So what is it that you want to discuss and feel you can't?

Yes. Speak plainly and perhaps you will get plain answers.

There are ToS that anyone can read. You can't link to Justin Bieber for any reason whatsoever, for example. But we have had a very compassionate thread about abuse, which includes underage abuse.

The reason it stays is because it is not going into 'wank fodder' detail, but is aimed at support and compassion. There is no linking to underage persons on news sites, or photos of them tolerated. The posts are by those who themselves are grown. And there is also no debating whether or not illegal abuse is anything but that, illegal as well as abusive.

Any thread about the Penn State scandal would contain references to something alleged, and it's in litigation right now. Such a thread would have to be all with the names changed and could not link to any news articles with minors mentioned in the content. That is for the same reason that we can't and shouldn't post photos of our young children in the galleries here. Try it and you'll get a warning or a temp ban.

A thread about 'coming of age' needs to stay very vague and certainly not identify anyone, I should think. Children do have sexual natures but it is not something to dwell on unless you are a parent and then not in a participatory fashion with other adults reading.

 

[aninnymouse]

Ignorance on high!Reread and read again,do a search.Children need not reply.

*cough*

Urban Dictionary: troll


Urban Dictionary: butthurt



Just 'cause your little rapey threads got bahleeted is no reason to be a little bitch. Grow up already.

 

[Ed69]

*cough*

Urban Dictionary: troll


Urban Dictionary: butthurt



bahleeted

Spelling please,it works much better when you try to insult people.

 

[Enid]

Spelling please,it works much better when you try to insult people.

I believe he spelled that wrong on purpose, for effect.

 

[helgaleena]

Enid, I love your Mandelbrodt!

 

[rob_just_rob]

It seems these days that the owner and other people involved with the management of the site can get sued for any mention of people under the legal age in the USA, which is 18.

Sued by whom?

I can't see how anyone could prove damages, unless they were the subject of the thread in question.

 

[Ed69]

I believe he spelled that wrong on purpose, for effect.

Well the effect was,it made this poster look ignorant if the effect was to impress me.

 

[sassy Lisa]

*cough*

Urban Dictionary: troll


Urban Dictionary: butthurt



Just 'cause your little rapey threads got bahleeted is no reason to be a little bitch. Grow up already.

Don't know what your problem is but this is a thread about censorship and I started this thread because the so called thread you seem to think was not so important was to me. So get over your trolling punk ass or get out of MY THREAD. I am Ed69's Wife and I may not have many post but I do read and don't care for your bullshit. This is a thread for people to express their opinions on censorship and wanting to talk about serious issues, not falsely accusing people of trolling and attacking members.

 

[aninnymouse]

Don't know what your problem is but this is a thread about censorship and I started this thread because the so called thread you seem to think was not so important was to me. So get over your trolling punk ass or get out of MY THREAD. I am Ed69's Wife and I may not have many post but I do read and don't care for your bullshit. This is a thread for people to express their opinions on censorship and wanting to talk about serious issues, not falsely accusing people of trolling and attacking members.

Please. He's done nothing but whine and bleat over the "Fondling a Sleeping Guy/Girl" threads, and how unfair it was that they got deleted. He came into this thread to stir stuff up about it and make childish comments, IMO. I responded in kind. Admittedly, not the most mature thing to do, but whatever.

The problem that myself, and a lot of other people had with both of those threads was that they described an act that was very much illegal in many/most cases, technically being sexual assault, and something that can be very damaging to people. When someone went into the first thread stating that they didn't feel it was appropriate, they were mercilessly attacked. That's why it got reported, and that's why it got deleted.

I know there are a few other threads on here about seeing your father naked, one even about seeing your father erect that will sketch me out from time to time, but, I usually just ignore them.

I do appreciate you starting this thread, 'cause I definitely think there is an issue about threads and what gets edited/and censored.

I wish there was more clarity with some of the issues regarding minors. Just yesterday, as per the Moderator Actions thread, there were 8 or 9 people who got Heads Ups about content regarding Minors. I'd like to know more about that, and what it was, exactly that these people said/did that caused a problem.

I understand the whole teenage thing, and the "what age did you first _____" issue. That's no problem, though I wish it didn't have to be like that, 'cause I think sexual development/identity, especially as a teen is very important, and is fascinating, though not in an arousing way.

What I don't understand is some of the Penn State threads getting deleted. We certainly weren't talking about anything in a sexualized way, and we certainly weren't going into graphic detail about what happened. I also understand that part of what happened with that is that those threads got reported, and the executive decision was made by the moderating team to remove them. I know that didn't sit well with A LOT of people.

I would like to know, what would the potential consequences be for some of the milder stuff regarding minors? To me, it doesn't seem like there would be any real consequence. Would the site really get sued? Could it really get taken down?

 

[petite]

One of the big problems with the "when I was a minor" type of threads were the number of pedophiles who joined in order to include their own "memories" that were obviously just sick wank fodder, so those threads were constantly being moderated in order to remove those posts and ban those posters. What also bothered me was that at least some of those posters appeared to be identifying one another and communicating. I remember one Obvious Pedophile who left three sick sexual "memories" then invited anyone who was interested in hearing more stories like that to email him. That's when it became clear to me that those threads literally attract pedophiles to LPSG. It would be nice if that wasn't a problem and everyone was sincere and not at all creepy about it, but it's evident that those threads create such an issue that it's simpler to not allow them at all. I support that decision, especially after having read some of the posts written by those sickos before they got deleted.

 

[joyboytoy79]

As the government of the United States classifies LPSG as a pornographic site, sexual discussion of minors must be curtailed. Sexual discussion of minors on a pornographic site does, under current interpretation of US law, constitute something akin to pedophilia. As such, discussion of minors that goes into any detail that relates them in any way to a sexual or perceived sexual act is removed. If it isn't removed, it leaves the possibility open for LPSG being shut down. The Sandusky threads were removed when people started linking to and describing the acts he perpetrated against minors.

As for the "fondling" threads, after much debate, and input from the owner of the site, they were removed because the appeared to be glorifying sexual assault. Consensus was that sleeping people can't consent, and many of the "experiences" shared involved people who were much less capable of consent than if they were merely sleeping.

I invite everyone to read the Rules. If you are unsure if a thread you desire to start might break the rules, please feel free to post a question in the Support Center, where Mods, Admins, and the site owner himself will have access to your post and can inform you if you would be breaking any rules.

As for claiming there is Censorship on LPSG, as far as I'm aware, neither the US government, nor the government of any other country as edited content here.

 

[helgaleena]

Thanks joyboytoy. That is what I was trying to say, earlier, without actually being a mod.