pictures of girls in threads

[Mike Haven]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike,

"in the subject case I knew I did not have that option and I did not remove it for any reason other than to pass the thread back to nation for editing"

Now I'm confused again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't have, and I knew I didn't have, the option of being able to delete the photograph of the two girls from the thread, permanently, because it wasn't going to end up in a forum that I moderate. If nation wanted to put it back in and if the bbv4l mods wanted to leave it in, then they could have, no matter what I would have preferred.

I have said it a number of times, but once more won't hurt: I deleted it solely so that, in effect, I was not responsible for posting the photograph, associated with the relevant post, in a public forum.

[Mike Haven]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike,

"I'm guessing that they're not threads I would normally choose to read, so my opinion would probably not be of any consequence."

I'm guessing that you normally wouldn't read "o snap i smashed a nonfattys kidshtter(pic)" either, but we all have opinions on it that I think are worth sharing. Even if we don't have rules, I think having an understanding of what is acceptable posting behavior on 2+2 is a worthwhile discussion, even if it won't really impact the stuff a number of us personally read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you mean.

What are your opinions on those particular threads?

[El Diablo]

Mike,

"I deleted it solely so that, in effect, I was not responsible for posting the photograph, associated with the relevant post, in a public forum."

Ah, got it. Makes sense now, hadn't read it that way.

[El Diablo]

Mike,

"Is he straight or gay? - pictures of a guy with gay/straight/bi poll" - I don't think posting pictures of real-life non-celeb people for discussion of whether they are gay or not is really appropriate.

"Ugliest college - pic in thread of a bunch of girls from his school referring to them as ugly" - Feel about the same way of taking random people and having thread about how ugly they are in what ways.

"Mr. Slope's Sister - pics of a girl, check out the captions being put on there" - Same thing, just getting raunchier.

In all three, I think this sort of thing should really be limited to people who request this sort of thing themselves - ie: "rate me 2+2."

"Description of jacking off session" - Well, I just think this is sorta gross and not what I would want posted on my forum, but if that's what people want to read and 2+2 is OK with it, isn't hurting anyone.

"Would you? - picture of very young looking girl for discussion of whether or not people would have sex w/ her" - I dunno, I just find this sort of thing pretty gutter level. This is pretty similar to me as the first handful, but maybe a little worse since it has to do with people talking about having sex with this girl.

"Check out my new bong" - sort of whatever, I don't care if peopel discuss drugs/paraphenelia

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Mat,

FWIW, for various reasons over the last few years I've talked to a a number of lawyers regarding user submitted content on websites. Some of these have involved some of the largest sites on the web. Most would disagree with various elements of your attorney's position. Feel free to post here or PM me if you care to discuss further. If I were you, though, I'd get a second opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

El D,

This has to do with merely being a common carrier vs. actively moderating forums. If a board censors absolutely nothing by default and simply removes illegal/defamatory/etc. content when alerted to it, it's immune from most lawsuits. If that same board performs half assed but active censorship, threads that slip through the cracks can pose legal problems. I'm not familiar with the last couple of years' worth of legal development on this topic, but this has in the past given Yahoo and The Motley Fool, among others, a lot of headaches.

[El Diablo]

ad,

I agree, but the distinction I've been told has to do with removal of content rather than having rules, but we're probably splitting hairs here. Anyway, that's a separate discussion for Mat.

I think the main point of this thread is what 2+2 (including the mods) considers to be reasonable posting standards/decorum to hold users to.

Hmmm, actually, back to your point, are you suggesting that removing pictures like the one nation posted is actually a bad idea for mods to do?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the main point of this thread is what 2+2 (including the mods) considers to be reasonable posting standards/decorum to hold users to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be honest and say that I'm all for censoring absolutely nothing, not least because DS's entire posting history is pretty much in the top 10% of the stuff we'd have to censor.

edit: [ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, actually, back to your point, are you suggesting that removing pictures like the one nation posted is actually a bad idea for mods to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

We'd want to either have a rule or not have a rule, and definitely not "remove some pics but not others." Removing pics on request is obviously OK regardless, as is censoring profanities while leaving the pics up, but we don't want a situation where someone can legitimately say "well, you spared this girl's feelings, so why are Photoshops of my face on some porn star staying up?"

[El Diablo]

ad,

"I'm not familiar with the last couple of years' worth of legal development on this topic"

Yeah, I'm no expert, but just on what has been told to me in course of diligence for various things is that w/ the explosion of UGC, lots has been changing in terms of legal opinion on such stuff.

[adanthar]

I briefly went looking for updates and found this very recent case from the Ninth Circuit (here's the tldr). That case deals with online classifieds, but some analogies can be drawn, and the bottom line is that altering other people's posts in the Ninth (ie, Nevada) might be a problem.

[nation]

mike,

my bad. i didn't mean to misrepresent you. what i was trying to say was "mike gave me a reason to think about not posting it" so i wanted to make sure we were allowed to post.