Illegal Censorship
It did not take long for the bigoted people who run this website to take down my gymnastic pose photograph, even though I had already cut it so that you could not see anything more than legs and feet.
IF YOU ARE WONDERING WHY YOUNGER PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER COMING INTO THE NATURIST LIFESTYLE IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THOSE SORT OF CENSORSHIP ISSUES. ONCE AGAIN A WEBSITE ACTUALLY ACTS ILLEGALLY BY IMPOSING SUCH CENSORSHIP.
ONCE AGAIN A WEBSITE ACTUALLY ACTS ILLEGALLY BY IMPOSING SUCH CENSORSHIP.
Can someone please explain this to me. How is a website acting illegally by imposing censorship? not trying to be a jerk, but I don't quite understand, a reference or something would be really nice.
censorship (snsr-shp) n.
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
2. The office or authority of a Roman censor.
3. Psychology Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.
censorship - deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances
What is illegal about what the site owner did. What is done on or in privately owned whatever, is not illegal.
It did not take long for the bigoted people who run this website to take down my gymnastic pose photograph, even though I had already cut it so that you could not see anything more than legs and feet. IF YOU ARE WONDERING WHY YOUNGER PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER COMING INTO THE NATURIST LIFESTYLE IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THOSE SORT OF CENSORSHIP ISSUES. ONCE AGAIN A WEBSITE ACTUALLY ACTS ILLEGALLY BY IMPOSING SUCH CENSORSHIP.
From reading what you have to say and the way it is worded, I think your main concern should be that of attitude, not what pic's are removed. You have a serious attitude problem. Get it sorted out before it is too late.
I have messaged the young lady, she seems quite reasonable, just outraged that her photo was removed. I have suggested that maybe she could re-create it in a clothed version and crop it in the same way. Then we would be able to suggest where the problem was. From what she says it was not a pose that involves running and jumping, but a floor based exercise. So we will have to wait and see what her reaction is. She says it was cropped so that her genitals were not on display.
Actually, if you check the U.S. Constitution and relevant case law you will find that they can't just do what they want where censorship is concerned. The website is actually in the PUBLIC domain despite being privately owned. Just like 99.9% of all media. You can censor something that is illegal, but nudity is not.
Also, as I stated in my original thread post, I had carefully edited the photo so that it did not show genital area at all. However, it was a photograph of me in the "Bridge" gymnastic pose, taken from the feet end. I may be gymnastic, but I can't move my face onto my feet!
Start by reading the basics of the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, all protected as absolute rights unless an appropriate law has been passed to prevent a particular activity. Nudity, whether it shows genitalia or not, is completely legal regardless of age.
I am not the one with an attitude problem here. This a a matter of basic freedom of speech/expression. It is an area of law that I have studied with great interest and in quite some detail. Indeed the US Government have been looking into the censorship activities of Yahoo on precisely this type of issue.
If you were to replace the "no under-18" rule or the "no genitalia without face" rule and instead say "no blacks" perhaps you will understand what the real issue is here.
I assume that your implication is that TN is wrong in not allowing photos of naked children to be posted. "If so, your anus will be several sizes larger when the good people of TN are finished."
NMA - I generaly enjoy your ascerbic wit but the comment is uncalled for (imho) as the young lady has not mentioned children and from others could be construed as flaming.
As for Natureloz, come on 'build a bridge',get over it! - TT1 only chose not to publish your photo he did not censor it! Us oldies should not need to point this out to educated young ladies.
Please remember this is a site for nudists if your headless torso is allowed - where does it stop?
I'd kind of like to know where the bigotry is. Are you saying the people who run this site are prejudiced against naked people?
In any case, I've had a lot of things done to me on websites that I didn't like. But in the end, it's really up to whoever owns the website. And you know, you say you're of legal age, OK. But you DO look awfully young. Frighteningly young.
I may be mis-reading this but I do not think natureloz was challenging the over 18 rule, just trying to illustrate her point by subsituting one group name for another. I have seen similar arguements about the "no single male" profiles, pointing out that if they stated no Blacks or Gays then there would be uproar. But the posters where not suggesting that those should be allowed. As for the regardless of age I think she was just communicating that the fact that whether she is 19 or 49 should not make a difference.
NIM: is it not possible for naturloz and yourself to bury the hatchet (preferably not in each others backs)?
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!