![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tabular_rasa[Error: unknown template qotd]
I think it's reasonable to require posted warnings for adult content on the Internet the same as for movies, etc-- but, as with movies, I think it's reasonable to expect that many non-adults are still going to enter in spite of the warnings. The warnings would be just as useful to adults who aren't interested in certain material (such as when I learned to set the Google image search filters to "medium" when searching for "Remus Lupin") and for writers and artists themselves to prevent unwanted remarks about the indecency of their work. (Not that they won't get them anyway, but having a posted warning allows them to point out "You came in in spite of warnings, so any offense you take is YOUR FAULT"). Most conscientious and courteous retainers of web material post these types of warnings anyway.
As someone who regularly posts creative content to the Internet in the form of a blog and has also posted fanfiction and art, being asked to post warnings on certain material doesn't bother me. I regular self-select to do so anyway out of courtesy. I don't think it limits my creative self-expression in any substantial way; if anything, it gives me a more sympathetic and interested audience, which I would prefer anyway. (Though, lol, sometimes posting "adult content" gets you readers/viewers who simply are intrigued by the idea of it being "adult" :-P).
Of course, if we're going to legally require web pages to post warnings, we need a consistent rating scale-- something like the G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 system we have for movies, where if you have so many swear words, sex scenes, violent scenes, or adult themes you know what category you fall in. (Actually, wasn't there a quiz that attempted to do something like this?). I repeat that it has to be consistent and widely publicized. The sanctions for failure to post proper warnings need not be huge, because it's so easy to accidentally leap into the next tier (one PG-13 piece on an otherwise PG DeviantArt page, one R-rated post in an otherwise PG-13-rated blog, etc) and it's difficult to truly harm anyone, merely momentarily disgust or confuse them-- which, come on, you can be a big girl/big boy and deal with. I'd support some sort of flagging system that grants the retainer of the content a grace period to either censor or post a warning before the offensive content is removed-- or, in the case of hosted sites like LJ, Blogger, Deviantart, etc, simply placed under a warning veil automatically by the site retainers. Automatically jumping to remove people's work without warning (or just some bitchy "Guess what? We took down your stuff" email after the fact) pisses me off and can be quite destructive, since not all uploaded content is saved in alternate locations. (I actually rely on the Internet to keep a lot of my work, since I've rotated computers so many times).
I do not think the government (or host websites themselves) should do anything more than demand posted warnings, however. I would rather a piece of artwork or writing be placed under a veil with a warning than have the government or host website place a black bar across offensive visuals, remove offensive words, or-- heaven forbid-- remove the entire piece without warning in order to make it suitable (by their definition) for public consumption. If I choose to post a censored, public-friendly version myself, that's my business, but I find that sort of censorship to be way more offensive and stifling.
Though I do have to add . . . Good luck getting all countries of the world with web access to use and enforce the same rating system!
I think it's reasonable to require posted warnings for adult content on the Internet the same as for movies, etc-- but, as with movies, I think it's reasonable to expect that many non-adults are still going to enter in spite of the warnings. The warnings would be just as useful to adults who aren't interested in certain material (such as when I learned to set the Google image search filters to "medium" when searching for "Remus Lupin") and for writers and artists themselves to prevent unwanted remarks about the indecency of their work. (Not that they won't get them anyway, but having a posted warning allows them to point out "You came in in spite of warnings, so any offense you take is YOUR FAULT"). Most conscientious and courteous retainers of web material post these types of warnings anyway.
As someone who regularly posts creative content to the Internet in the form of a blog and has also posted fanfiction and art, being asked to post warnings on certain material doesn't bother me. I regular self-select to do so anyway out of courtesy. I don't think it limits my creative self-expression in any substantial way; if anything, it gives me a more sympathetic and interested audience, which I would prefer anyway. (Though, lol, sometimes posting "adult content" gets you readers/viewers who simply are intrigued by the idea of it being "adult" :-P).
Of course, if we're going to legally require web pages to post warnings, we need a consistent rating scale-- something like the G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 system we have for movies, where if you have so many swear words, sex scenes, violent scenes, or adult themes you know what category you fall in. (Actually, wasn't there a quiz that attempted to do something like this?). I repeat that it has to be consistent and widely publicized. The sanctions for failure to post proper warnings need not be huge, because it's so easy to accidentally leap into the next tier (one PG-13 piece on an otherwise PG DeviantArt page, one R-rated post in an otherwise PG-13-rated blog, etc) and it's difficult to truly harm anyone, merely momentarily disgust or confuse them-- which, come on, you can be a big girl/big boy and deal with. I'd support some sort of flagging system that grants the retainer of the content a grace period to either censor or post a warning before the offensive content is removed-- or, in the case of hosted sites like LJ, Blogger, Deviantart, etc, simply placed under a warning veil automatically by the site retainers. Automatically jumping to remove people's work without warning (or just some bitchy "Guess what? We took down your stuff" email after the fact) pisses me off and can be quite destructive, since not all uploaded content is saved in alternate locations. (I actually rely on the Internet to keep a lot of my work, since I've rotated computers so many times).
I do not think the government (or host websites themselves) should do anything more than demand posted warnings, however. I would rather a piece of artwork or writing be placed under a veil with a warning than have the government or host website place a black bar across offensive visuals, remove offensive words, or-- heaven forbid-- remove the entire piece without warning in order to make it suitable (by their definition) for public consumption. If I choose to post a censored, public-friendly version myself, that's my business, but I find that sort of censorship to be way more offensive and stifling.
Though I do have to add . . . Good luck getting all countries of the world with web access to use and enforce the same rating system!
