My company is creating a website and we want to say that uploading of pornographic, violent, and hateful content is prohibited. Some people at the company think these exact words are too direct, so we want to replace them with a euphemism. Does "adult content" or "mature content" encompass porn, violence, and hate? Personally, when I think of adult or mature, I only think of porn. I think it's because American culture these days has played down the effect of violence and hate. It's okay for kids to watch Iron Man beat up other people, but not okay for them to watch Playboy. So in effect, you don't need to be adult or mature to watch violent and hateful content.
4
-
3"Don't upload what your grandmother would not upload."– avpadernoCommented Mar 28, 2011 at 21:49
-
3@kiamlaluno I'm sure a lot of grandmas would upload porn. Johnny Knoxville screened Jackass 3D at a nursing home. After watching, the grannies told Knoxville that there should have been more penis in the movie.– JoJoCommented Apr 1, 2011 at 17:10
-
It must be the new generation of grandmothers. I am still used to my grandmother baking cookies, rather then wondering why her browser has cookies but it doesn't offer her.– avpadernoCommented Apr 1, 2011 at 17:14
-
We will eventually have grandmothers that grew up with the internet. It's gonna be weird.– ASACommented Apr 21, 2016 at 12:21
Add a comment
|
5 Answers
I vote for specificity so that users know exactly what is prohibited and you aren't passing value judgments on anything -- unless the site's mission is passing value judgments.
On second thought, "hateful" denotes a value judgment, but I guess it's hard to avoid that if you want to be clear about what is and isn't allowed.
Indecent or objectionable is a possibility, but it leaves the door open to whatever interpretation a user decides to make.
-
They told me we can't be specific because it's scary to read - all those evil words floating around. By hateful, we mean racism, attacking other users, etc...– JoJoCommented Mar 28, 2011 at 19:56
-
3I don't know of any other clear, concise way to imply everything you listed. Like you, I interpret "mature/adult content" as "pornography" even though violence arguably is worse for kids. You could say "indecent or objectionable," but that's so subjective that you'd be opening the door to violators who could justifiably claim they didn't understand. Commented Mar 28, 2011 at 20:17
-
3Of all the above, I give the nod to Kelly's contribution of "objectionable content." It covers all the bases. Even better: "objectionable or inappropriate content." It's vague, but vague is OK. Gives you carte blanche to pull down all unwanted material. Commented Mar 28, 2011 at 20:34
-
1Objectionable is good - it's subjective but so are all the other words.– mgbCommented Mar 29, 2011 at 0:56
“Explicit, inappropriate, and offensive content” probably covers all your meanings but is kind of vague.
-
This is not merely 'kind of vague', but much broader than 'porn, violence, and hate'. Taking the prohibition of explicit content literally would require one to convey everything one wants merely by implication, which is logically impossible (in order to convey something by implication, one has to say something else explicitly). Saying something off-topic is inappropriate, but may be otherwise perfectly respectable.– jsw29Commented Sep 12 at 20:15
I assume this isn't a legal declaration? If you can use an informal, assertive tone, I would consider:
No mean-spirited content, please. It's bad karma. Be nice.
or possibly:
No nasty content, please....
answered Mar 28, 2011 at 20:04
-
1
-
Fair point. I guess I was thinking the act of uploading such would be mean-spirited. I've edited the answer. Commented Mar 28, 2011 at 20:18
I think it is a good idea to be as explicit as possible when mentioning what should and shouldn't be posted. It is interesting how the word "explicit" has shifted in meaning toward crude (or at least sexual) connotations over time. Actually, there are a bunch of words that have done the same thing in the English language. Explicit formally means "non-implicit" or not implied but stated. Since US culture has a bit of neo-puritanical roots, it means that we try really hard to be, well... pure. That has many ramifications, from our fairly conservative religious tendencies to the obsession over "pure bloodlines" which surfaces in white supremacy groups like the KKK, but in times past showed up as slavery and the three fifths laws (slaves were considered 3/5 "non-subhuman" for the purposes of taxation and representation in 1787.) But most notably for the purposes of this question- it has effected what we consider decent and appropriate to post.
The main entailment of this culture is a very cautious eye toward things that would be considered indecent, unseemly, or obscene. For instance, we have enacted laws that are extremely vague on what would be considered as such- yet they can result in lengthy prison sentences even though they aren't defined in a way that citizens could actually use. In the end, it is up to a judge in your jurisdiction to decide whether something you said, or posted, or otherwise expressed is illegally obscene. In Texas, vibrators are illegal because well.. I guess they aren't big on pleasure for women by themselves there. "They should be desperate for us men.." the lawmakers may have thought. Interestingly, the legal age of consent is 16 in Texas. However, as you may have guessed- any 16 year old who posts a nude selfie can and has been prosecuted for CP abuse. The odd thing is that CP laws were created to protect minors. Not to prosecute them. I guess there is some sort of mandatory minimum in play where the judge has no choice but to throw the book at them.
In other states "sodomy" is illegal, however there is no legal definition of sodomy provided. Again, judges are required to interpret that word for themselves. Anything from oral to anal has been prosecuted as Sodomy in the Bible Belt. And selective enforcement has led to the law being used almost exclusively to punish gay citizens. Many judges don't consider it sodomy if straight people are doing it; and they don't have to justify their selectivity or bias in their verdicts and sentencing.
In Virginia, a guy was given 20 years in prison (in the late 2000s if I remember correctly) because he downloaded some anime that the judge or jury didn't like. He tried to appeal twice, but wasn't given the time of day- I guess he will be out by 2030ish if he survives that long. All of this goes to show that ambiguity or uncertainty in stating the rules can be a force for draconian treatment, and in particular for selectivity of repercussions.
Recently the White House (well, our President) has signed some sort of writ declaring censorship illegal in all cases where they agree with the poster; they name various entities and viewpoints that do not qualify for this level of free speech because "they are Unamerican and Undemocratic." (Communists, and China in general, and I think possibly unpatriotic speech were the listed exceptions.) What the Whitehouse is trying to do is prevent hate speech from being banned on various media platforms. I actually agree with them for once. I would just extent that even further and stop the banning of unseemly or indecent/obscene expressions as well.
Banning hate speech only makes it more powerful. The people can correctly say that they have been censored or muzzled in a fashion similar to what other authoritarian governments do the same. Now I know both the right and left have different ideas about what is family friendly or acceptable content and what should be penalized with legal sanctions of one sort or another- and surely threatening to kill or harm somebody SHOULD be illegal, as should yelling fire in a theater, etc. But if you warn the users that they are going to possibly encounter X,Y, or Z types of content- I think we should allow it. Otherwise, content producers will always veer toward less risky (and more boring) narratives that do not challenge the publics mind. The term "a chilling effect" has been used to describe this. According to wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right."
I just realized this post was almost a decade old. I need to switch to decaf, I think. I apologize for the length of the post.
-
-
You're half-way through a Masters thesis here, Noah. :-) Its a little dense in spots, brilliant in others. I wonder if the OP will ever see it, but be assured your brain power did not go to waste -- I enjoyed it. Commented Sep 15, 2020 at 23:21
Some terms that come to mind that would encompass this are:
- Questionable content
- Controversial content
- Inciteful
- Provocative (although this sometimes means 'though provoking')
- Inflammatory
- Unprofessional
- Demeaning
answered Mar 28, 2011 at 20:14
