This is the fourth post in my ongoing discussion of the rules. Feel free to sound off, just try to keep on topic.

The Rule:
4. Do not post pornography, other adult material, or links to said items. A good rule of thumb is if you would not show it to a thirteen year old, it is not OK to post.

The Reason:
The posting of pornography is not the purpose of this site. For a number of reasons--including the possibility of legal consequences, the presence of minors, the strong and diverse opinions and feelings about pornography and other adult content as well as our desire to not have our community marginalized or filtered by workplace internet software--we concluded that allowing adult content would do more harm than good.

The Action:
There don't seem to be many people who have a hard time understanding this particular rule, still; if you are unsure about what does and doesn't constitute "adult content," go ahead and ask a mod. As with most infractions, the punishment will likely hinge on a variety of factors, but ultimately members can be banned for posting pornography on this site.



Views: 115

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There don't seem to be many people who have a hard time understanding this particular rule, still; if you are unsure about what does and doesn't constitute "adult content," go ahead and ask a mod.

Well, I for one am unsure what is meant by "adult content". If it is merely an extension of "pornography", then the phrase seems redundant.

Also, given the international nature of this site, what may be considered "adult content" (vague as the phrase is) to one group or nationality of people may be considered appropriate to another group or nationality of people. There is the guideline included in the rule that A good rule of thumb is if you would not show it to a thirteen year old, it is not OK to post, but again opinions on this will differ. Hell, opinions will differ even between people of the same group or nationality.

And given that the onus is on what I, or any other poster, considers appropriate to allow a thirteen year old to see, I don't see how enforcement of this rule under that guideline can occur. Unless, of course, the poster admits that they were mistaken in posting that particular material because they acknowledge that it is not appropriate for a thirteen year old to see.
Pictures of people who have jumped off of buildings or been decapitated would be other examples of "adult content" that don't conventionally qualify as porn, although I guess anything is possible.

I understand where you are going with your second statement, but again, the arbiters of what is and what is not "adult content" will be the mods. I wish there were a more definitive way to outline it, but there you have it.
For the record, we have always had a policy of deleting all pictures of dead bodies. This is the Ning enforces it as well. No room for compromise here.
Oh, okay, I see what is meant by it. That sort of thing didn't even occur to me.
This explains a lot. I've seen a number of examples where adults behave like 13 year olds. They saw this rule and think that's required.

Actually this too is Ning ToS.
On the one hand, we do have some pretty blunt and graphic discussions about sex that many would not show to a 13 year old.

On the other hand, most 13 year olds are hearing way worse on the playground, if not already experimenting on their own.

If my (hypothetical) kid were to go looking for "dirty talk," I'd far, far rather they end up somewhere like A/N's Secular Sexuality group than any number of other places on the 'net.

I.e.; Certainly not ideal for 13 year olds, but a way better alternative to much of the shite they hear.

Same goes for profanity in other discussions. Say, anger at a news story. With all the places a child can go to hear a curse-word-salad, here it's usually (not always, but usually) accompanied by a frontal-lobe discussion of current events. I say we're ok there too.
I don't know that it's a matter of "can't" versus "we choose not to be the source."

I'd have to agree though that there are such things as photos of dead bodies that are not in poor taste contextually, and sometimes even a necessary evil to drive home a point.

I'd be ok with reconsidering a blanket "no dead bodies" rule in favor of a case-by-case rule.

Sorry to bring back such a sleepy thread, but what about an adult atheist nexus section, hosted on another site that is specifically 18+ (the "age of reason" in the eyes of the law?)

 

Censorship is nobodies friend, although if I have to pick one or the other, I prefer to sit at the adults table as I can't stand children.  Although, most wouldn't call me mature anyway....

 

Not to mention no pictures of dead bodies?  What about in regards to religious atrocities such as ritual sacrifice, holy wars, suicide bombings, and regular suicides (with religious abuse as the root cause?)

My two cents...we all know that porn doesn't belong on this site.  We shall use our judgement and good taste will prevail. 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service