Responsibility v censorship

page 1 of 3123next »

Responsibility v censorship

Peter Rogerson 04 Apr 2007 17:30

One or two comments have been aired recently regarding the nature of content available on this Wiki and I feel it ought to be open to general debate by any members who are either interested or concerned.
Bearing in mind that children's books are published on Lulu and therefore young people might visit these pages and that our own pages might contain links to other sites I think it might be wise to open a debate on the relative merits of personal responsibility and the dreaded censor.

Re: Responsibility v censorship

Vibracobra23 04 Apr 2007 21:45

As it's not possible (as yet) to filter or attach ratings to the pages on this wiki, and considering that there are a number of authors/publishers here who produce books for children, then I, personally, believe that we have some sort of responsibility to be aware of where our younger visitors may wander here. As long as there is nothing explicit within the pages of this wiki, I have no objection to links here to content pages on Lulu which do feature explicit content, as long as those content pages contain the relevant access settings. Moreover, it is possible for the very young to actually publish on Lulu, and any from the UK would naturally be welcome as a member of this site, and it would be inevitable that they would want to check out the rest of the site.

Lulu enable their members to set their own access levels and some members choose not to set the appropriate access levels for their own material. In the UK, at least, where these access levels are not set, this may well, in some cases, be in contravention of the Protection of Children Act 1978, and where there are previews accessible on Lulu content pages where the access levels are set to "Everyone" containing explicit material, and which can, therefore, be freely viewed by children of any age, this may be in contravention of the Obscene Publications Act of 1959, and I have no wish for this wiki to become embroiled in any legal issues regarding this. It is obviously up to Lulu whether or not they choose to ignore this.

I am, in general, as much against censorship as Peter is, but I feel that we need to take some collective responsibility for how younger visitors may use this site. If wikidot happen to enable the setting of access levels to the pages on their wikis then this would, of course, not be a problem.

Other members are sure to have differing opinions on this matter and I wouldn't want it to cause the loss of any of them, myself included.

---

"One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time." ~ André Gide

Last edited on 04 Apr 2007 21:48 by Vibracobra23 Show more

Re: Responsibility v censorship

Taffybach 06 Apr 2007 09:44

Always a tricky subject!

Remember that it is not just minors that you have to consider. On an open forum you also need to bear in mind the sexuality, creed, religious beliefs etc; etc; of others. Healthy debate is good but the line must not be crossed - what makes it even more difficult for moderators is that the location of hat line differs for each individual!
We can only do the best we can and keep a watchful eye if any 'debate' begins to get out of hand.

taff

Re: Responsibility v censorship

Peter Rogerson 06 Apr 2007 15:50

Taff,
I think that consideration regarding minors is different from understanding adult variations in sexuality and religion and all the other differences that mark us as indiividuals. Children are at an early stage of a journey and may have their attitudes in the future distorted if they stumble across some issues too soon on that journey. Adults, on the other hand, have completed that journey and are unlikely to be corrupted by anything they may meet on an Internet site like this one. But I agree that everyone's right to believe what they want to believe should be respected, and the variations in sexuality and morality that exist in any group acknowledged without offence being offered.

Peter

Re: Responsibility v censorship

Taffybach 07 Apr 2007 22:58

Peter,
I agree totally.
What I meant is that all groups should be considered when posting.

taff

Re: Responsibility v censorship

kapali 08 Apr 2007 16:46

Hello all,
I have to admit that I haven't found anything on this site that concerns me. Lulu itself provides a means by which works can be rated (thereby preventing children from accessing adult material). This seems sufficient to me. As for debates in forums, simple common courtesy should be sufficient. Admittedly, online debates do seem to attract more than their share of rude individuals, but if we show respect for one another, then differences of opinion should not be an issue. There is, of course, the possibility that one person's opinion will offend someone else. That, however, is something a person living in a free society simply has to accept. I see no reason to engage in self-censorship to avoid offending others. I myself have been offended by certain opinions I find noxious, but I don’t think I or anyone else has the right to prevent those others from speaking their minds. It is enough to be courteous. A modicum of ordinary decency, and the use of the tools Lulu itself has provided, should be enough to keep this site amenable to the great majority of users.
Dorian

Re: Responsibility v censorship

Vibracobra23 09 Apr 2007 16:47

Hi Dorian.

The debate was sparked by an application from a Lulu member whose Lulu contant pages contain previews of unquestionably adult material and whose ratings are still set to Everyone. This is, obviously, a concern. The author was advised that, due to the links from this wiki to his Lulu content pages which would inevitably appear here, they would need to change their Lulu ratings in order that young children would not end up reading these previews. The author refused and the application has therefore been denied. I don't think that any of the content currently on this wiki is of any concern whatsoever. I'd say that it's very suitable for visitors of all ages, especially considering the diversity of members here.

As to the rest of your comments, I totally agree.

Chris.

---

"One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time." ~ André Gide

Re: Responsibility v censorship

Peter Rogerson 09 Apr 2007 18:17

It's a gnarly problem and one Chris has dealt with in the only way he could. All I can add to his comment is that an author of adult material does have a problem if he clssifies it on Lulu as adult, because it then appears nowhere, not even on his storefront. So to ask him to change the classification with Lulu is to ask him to effectively remove the title from that storefront, which will impede anyone who, having read one of his books, wants to find others by the same author. The sad thing is that Lulu has the teen classification, which is just about as broad as any classification can be. We're all aware that 13 is very different from 18 or 19. If there was something in between teen and adult, a classification like Older Teens that didn't involve the almost total suppression that happens at the moment with adult, then I feel everyone would be a great deal happier. Why, I'd have used it for two or three of my titles myself.

Peter

Re: Responsibility v censorship

Vibracobra23 10 Apr 2007 17:37

This is partly true, though any material with an adult rating will show up in the searches, content pages and storefronts of anyone browsing Lulu who has their own browsing Access level set to adult (as I do). This can be changed by going to My Account, then to Change Access Level on the left menu. Then all titles with all ratings will be seen. Many of the titles on Lulu are purchased by other members of Lulu and any of these who are specifically looking for adult material is surely going to have their own access set to adult. Of course this doesn't help with non-Lulu members who are simply browsing the site but I cannot see in any way how this problem could justify setting a rating of Everyone for an adult title. Lulu is not renowned for its marketing (this being one of the very reasons for the existence of this wiki) and there are more than enough relevant websites around where links can be added and titles advertised. It is very easy these days for authors/publishers to set up their own personal websites and this can easily be done for free. Links from these would be followed by Google and anyone who has the safe search turned off on their browser would therefore have the possibility of finding these titles when using a search engine. So, as previously stated, I can personally see no justification for making available explicit material and which can easily be accessed by young children, and which might, in this respect, be in breach of UK law, not to mention US law.

---

"One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time." ~ André Gide

Re: Responsibility v censorship

Peter Rogerson 10 Apr 2007 21:52

I agree with every word you say, Chris, but I think it would be a good idea if Lulu opted for an additional category equivalent to the cinema 15 classification. As for Lulu's including adult materials on storefronts, and back to the cinema for an example, 18 films are advertised where young people have access to that advertising - daily newspaper, for example. So what's so different about the printed word except for the simple truth that younger teens almost certainly wouldn't understand some printed stuff whilst they would understand the same subject matter in a visual medium.

Peter

page 1 of 3123next »