Story rejected

[Stella_Omega]

*shrug*
Open your own website, Amicus, stand up and proudly set your own terms.
It's not costly, and it's not difficult.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I have no qualms with this site or any other that imposes rules such as the owners choose. However, if those rules are implemented out of fear of repercussion from government, then a 'chilling effect' settles over creative efforts and free speech.

In my opinion, that is not a good thing.

amicus...

Personally, I don't even think that's the reason for the rules- although I've seen it stated here many times as a rational. Perhaps it is, to some extent. However, I think the reason for the rule is Laurel's personal taste. It is not illegal in the US to write, print post or publish fictional stories about underaged sex- no actual children are harmed or even involved. (some states or cities might have anti porn laws, but that's general and doens't address the underaged aspect). Laurel doesn't want her site to have stories of underaged sex or beastiality or extreme beyond her limits, and that is her choice. She is creating a certain type of site, not a total free-for-all.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Are lit saying that people under 18 do not have sex worldwide, and even if they do, we cannot write about it?

Not at all.

The only thing they are saying is that you can't post it here.

And many are fond of saying that no one even *thinks* about sex before 18 as far as lit is concerned- but that's not even true. 18 year old characters are not required to be virgins - reference can be made that characters engaged in sex or were victims of sexual assault as minors, as long as that mention is not meant to arrouse, and is a brief statement and not a vivid scene of the incident. The point is, Lit is not a site for underaged sex stories. Since your story centers on underaged sex, it's not allowed.

 

[amicus]

Stella Omega...are you being stubborn or you just don't get it? It is a matter of principle, that of free speech. You must be from Europe, they never have understood it over there.


(hi sweets... )


amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

Stella Omega...are you being stubborn or you just don't get it? It is a matter of principle, that of free speech. You must be from Europe, they never have understood it over there.


(hi sweets... )


amicus...

hun, the way to stand up for your principles is to start your own site.

Rosa Parks didn't complain that others were giving up there seats, she stayed put in her own.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella Omega...are you being stubborn or you just don't get it? It is a matter of principle, that of free speech. You must be from Europe, they never have understood it over there.


(hi sweets... )


amicus...

I thought the liberals were all about matters of principle, and the conservatives were the ones who took concrete steps.
Here I have offered you a concrete way to stand up for your principles, and you tell me I'm being stubborn...
I guess you want the argument, rather than a solution.

 

[cloudy]

I thought the liberals were all about matters of principle, and the conservatives were the ones who took concrete steps.
Here I have offered you a concrete way to stand up for your principles, and you tell me I'm being stubborn...
I guess you want the argument, rather than a solution.

well, duh! It's ami, after all.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Okay...

Let's say this a millionth time: The story's not allowed, as per Literotica's rules.

Discussion end, thanx for stopping by.

Q_C

 

[Stella_Omega]

well, duh! It's ami, after all.

Well, that's what the ignore list is for, after all, huh!

 

[cloudy]

Well, that's what the ignore list is for, after all, huh!

Oh, he's fun. You just have to learn which buttons to push, that's all.

Besides, he wants me.

 

[amicus]

Rather than address the issue of government censorship on the internet, you suggest I go start my own site?

I have no idea why the rules here are what they are, one either accepts them and abides or goes elsewhere.

That is not the point. I am not comfortable with government censorship, either by law or by intimidation, anywhere.

I do not like book burning or the old Catholic 'List' of forbidden books.

I truly love the Library and found it a valuable tool for research and reading pleasure. I feel the same about the WWW, this vast internet of inter connected individuals and organizations that provides so much information and entertainment. As I dabble at writing also, I appreciate the many outlets.

What I do not appreciate is the opinion that somehow, government has an obligation to 'protect' some from reading or viewing what they choose.

Government should not dictate or even influence morality. I want government and government influence totally out and forbidden by law to interfere with the right of free expression in any media.

Rather than government protecting children from reading or viewing anything, anywhere at any time, I would prefer that dependent children be guided and protected by parents.

But, I guess we could ban Lolita and Lady Chatterlies Lover, all over again if you wanna go down that road.

amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

When people begin standing on principle, it's a pretty sure bet that one of three things is occurring:

(1) They're advocating something that cannot be practically achieved, like suggesting that a Constitutionally acknowledged right may never, under any circumstance, be abrogated, limited, or held in abeyance in any way or for any purpose (including when such rights, as inevitably occurs, come into conflict with each other).

(2) They're advocating something that will benefit them but cost someone else a good deal of time, risk, or money.

(3) They want what they want, and they can't find a better reason for demanding it than retreating to the high-sounding "principle" because what they want is inherently unreasonable and selfish.

There are, of course, rare exceptions. Sir Thomas More, for instance, stood on principle, and it cost him his head. That's usually the sign of someone genuinely standing on principle; someone somewhere is sharpening an axe.

Shanglan

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sure, if you want to castigate the owners of this site for their policies...
And you want to say that they made their decisions out of fear of the government...

Start your own site. Run it in the way you see fit. Set your own policies, decide for yourself that you will be fearless and not kowtow to the ridiculous speech infringement policies that you are so vocal in scorning!
Go, go, go! Yay Amicus rah rah!

BUt I think sweetnpetite might have the reason anyway- that Laurel, herself, doesn't like the idea of minors in erotica. According to sweetnpetite it has nothing to do with the laws on this government, but the personal decisions made by the site's owners.
Unless it comes from the horse's mouth- All of our conversation on the subject is merely conversation, yanno.

Personally, I've had to re-write a few stories but that's okay with me, I think I'm a good enough craftsperson to take on the challenge.

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...Shang...Usually it is considered a virtue to stand on principle. Almost by definition, a 'man of principle' is a value.

But you say otherwise...so a man without principles is then your pinnacle of morality?

"Give me Liberty or give me Death" that was just silly, then, yeah, I can see how you would think so.

amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hmmm...Shang...Usually it is considered a virtue to stand on principle. Almost by definition, a 'man of principle' is a value.

But you say otherwise...so a man without principles is then your pinnacle of morality?

"Give me Liberty or give me Death" that was just silly, then, yeah, I can see how you would think so.

amicus...

*snicker*
How about- "Give me my choice of freedom of speech on your site- but don't ask me to share the risks with you!"

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen;
"I knew Patrick Henry, and you are NOT Patrick Henry!"

 

[H Dean]

Amicus

Change, right or wrong, never occurs easily or peacefully and I think those who commented realize that but just prefer not to acknowledge it.

This is an incorrect statement on both ends.

Laws, in most cases, cannot be challenged rhetorically, they must be broken and then adjudicated, thas the way it works.

Another incorrect statement.

My keyboard, hooked up to my computer reaching out via modem, phone lines or satellite to other computers, should be beyond the province of 'government'.

Expecting your computer to possess some alternate reality from any other physical item in your position is not logical.

I have no qualms with this site or any other that imposes rules such as the owners choose. However, if those rules are implemented out of fear of repercussion from government, then a 'chilling effect' settles over creative efforts and free speech.

All freedoms have limitations. The Supreme Court has continually placed limits of freed speech and even stated that pornography is not a protected form of expression. However, pornography has still not been made illegal.

 

[BlackShanglan]

*snicker*
How about- "Give me my choice of freedom of speech on your site- but don't ask me to share the risks with you!"

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen;
"I knew Patrick Henry, and you are NOT Patrick Henry!"

I love you, dear one. You are simply superb.

A person of true principle is the pinnacle of human moral and intellectual achievement. A person of principle is one who has rigorously examined his or her own values and assumptions, carefully weighed the interests of all mankind against that which profits or pleasures someone in his or her particular circumstances, and attempted to identify the true, lasting roots of human happiness with a scrupulous disregard to personal interest. A person of principle has devoted his or her most profound thoughts and most ardent labors to understanding that which is true, that which is moral, and that which is right, and has attempted in all aspects of his or her life to apply these values with courage, humility, decency, honor, and love. Such a person is the best of us.

That is what a person of principle is. Persons who publically announce that they are standing on principle, on the other hand, are generally as described in my post above.

Mr. Mill, may you rest in reverenced peace.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

H Dean, I believe that this is the second time I've remarked to myself how I've enjoyed your simple, straightforward logic in a post; given that you appear to have only six posts and I've read only two, that's an awfully good percentage. I would have conveyed my appreciation in a private message, but you don't seem to care to receive them. Thus, I say here - I'm glad you've joined us at Lit, and hope that you'll stay.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

Shanglan: "...A person of true principle is the pinnacle of human moral and intellectual achievement. A person of principle is one who has rigorously examined his or her own values and assumptions, carefully weighed the interests of all mankind against that which profits or pleasures someone in his or her particular circumstances, and attempted to identify the true, lasting roots of human happiness with a scrupulous disregard to personal interest. A person of principle has devoted his or her most profound thoughts and most ardent labors to understanding that which is true, that which is moral, and that which is right, and has attempted in all aspects of his or her life to apply these values with courage, humility, decency, honor, and love. Such a person is the best of us...."


Well, that is a curious 'opinion' of what a 'man of principle' is. John Stuart Mill?

When you divorce 'personal' interest, then the motivation for principle becomes one of altruism, pandering to a non existent 'group' ethic.

It is only through rational self interest that values can be defined and pursued.

Rather than sacrificing 'self' to god or the state, it is only when a man values 'self' that he can then become the best among us.

amicus...

 

[H Dean]

BlackShanglan

H Dean, I believe that this is the second time I've remarked to myself how I've enjoyed your simple, straightforward logic in a post; given that you appear to have only six posts and I've read only two, that's an awfully good percentage. I would have conveyed my appreciation in a private message, but you don't seem to care to receive them. Thus, I say here - I'm glad you've joined us at Lit, and hope that you'll stay.

Shanglan

I should have my preferences set to receive any message. Perhaps I need to check and make adjustments.

In any regards, I appreciate your comments regarding my posts. I do endeavor to find a logical position, even if it fails to win the popularity vote.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Well, that is a curious 'opinion' of what a 'man of principle' is. John Stuart Mill?

When you divorce 'personal' interest, then the motivation for principle becomes one of altruism, pandering to a non existent 'group' ethic.

It is only through rational self interest that values can be defined and pursued.

Rather than sacrificing 'self' to god or the state, it is only when a man values 'self' that he can then become the best among us.

amicus...

But if you all go for the blonde and block each other, not a single one of you is going to get her. How do you ever expect to get laid?

 

[H Dean]

Lauren

But if you all go for the blonde and block each other, not a single one of you is going to get her. How do you ever expect to get laid?

I simply drop the tail of my whip out the window and see what bites.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I simply drop the tail of my whip out the window and see what bites.

Well, sure. If you're gonna pull out the whip, that works too.

 

[amicus]

Lauren Hynde.... "...But if you all go for the blonde and block each other, not a single one of you is going to get her. How do you ever expect to get laid?..."
__________________


Now where the heck did that come from...

 

[mack_the_knife]

Not that it matters....

All across the news today the name, 'Rosa Parks' is being heralded as a benchmark in civil rights. She was arrested for refusing to give up a seat on a bus to a white man.

Gay marriages in California, while illegal, were conducted in public.

Change, right or wrong, never occurs easily or peacefully and I think those who commented realize that but just prefer not to acknowledge it.

Laws, in most cases, cannot be challenged rhetorically, they must be broken and then adjudicated, thas the way it works.

I think you do not sense the wider issue at hand, that of control, restriction, regulation, censorship.

My keyboard, hooked up to my computer reaching out via modem, phone lines or satellite to other computers, should be beyond the province of 'government'.

There are of course, the 'screaming fire in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire...' issue of limits to free speech; but to regulate and control or forbid free speech because it might somehow be injurious to someone of a given age, goes beyond the pale of 'protection of the young', and infringes on the right of free expression.

There are nude beaches in many places, but society has proclaimed that only a certain degree of nudity is permitted at the mall; but in your home, or on a 'private' computer, society has no claim.

I have no qualms with this site or any other that imposes rules such as the owners choose. However, if those rules are implemented out of fear of repercussion from government, then a 'chilling effect' settles over creative efforts and free speech.

In my opinion, that is not a good thing.

amicus...

According to the last post on this subject from Lauren, they chose it for their own reasons, not from fear of being shut down.