|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2010 : 01:49:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I have never worked in a supervised office environment. I am curious about your comment (which I have seen posted here many times by others in other threads referring to - possibly sexually graphic - material.) What, exactly, is meant by "work safe"? |
Honestly, I'm not sure myself. I work in a fairly tolerant environment, where I don't have a cubicle, but anyone walking around can see my computer screen and what's on it. The noise-level however makes it harder to hear what is discussed, and no one in my team is as fluent in English as I am.
However, I can imagine a situation where this is not a problem, and where co-worker gets grossed-out about hearing how people get aroused by masturbating horses.
While sex with animals is currently not illegal in Sweden (though animal protection laws may come in play) there are other places where it is.
I more or less understand your reference to "parental-guided", although I think this itself is a topic worthy of discussion here at sometime in the future. Right now, I am curious as to how it affects adult readers. |
Most work places has a restrictive policy on Internet use, and while people generally ignore that and still goes on-line every now and then, keeping a low profile will not jeopardize the live-and-let-live policy among coworkers. But if people starts getting grossed out by sexual content involuntarily, sooner or later someone will run to the boss and ask for more enforcement.
To refer specifically to the pretty squishy soft porn that the trollette Emma has been posting and attempting to post here; what is the authority ethos that prohibits such adolescent silliness from being read by adults? Is it a religious proscription, or rather a position of "we" (those who own the office or the website) "know what is good and not good" for you folks that work or read here? |
What people do in the privacy of the home does not really concern us, but when at a workplace, potentially more people may be affected. The same goes for other public places like a library. We don't want a situation where a library starts firewalling us because we didn't caution readers that some material should be handled with care.
Or is there Swedish and American law that applies to racy, suggestive, or even outright pornography appearing on certain websites? Does it require licensing or some such governmental control? Or is all strictly an effort to keep "children" (needs definition) from seeing such images or text? |
Only when it comes to child porn. I never saw the photo, so I can't pass judgment there, but I trust Dave to make the right decision. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2010 : 05:20:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I have never worked in a supervised office environment. I am curious about your comment (which I have seen posted here many times by others in other threads referring to - possibly sexually graphic - material.) What, exactly, is meant by "work safe"?
|
Many companies have policies designed to avoid the creation of a hostile work environment, and their associated legal liabilities.
Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex, race or other legally protected characteristics unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Anyone in the workplace might commit this type of harassment – a management official, co-worker, or non-employee, such as a contractor, vendor or guest. The victim can be anyone affected by the conduct, not just the individual at whom the offensive conduct is directed.
Examples of actions that may create sexual hostile environment harassment include:
*
Leering, i.e., staring in a sexually suggestive manner
*
Making offensive remarks about looks, clothing, body parts
*
Touching in a way that may make an employee feel uncomfortable, such as patting, pinching or intentional brushing against another’s body
*
Telling sexual or lewd jokes, hanging sexual posters, making sexual gestures, etc.
*
Sending, forwarding or soliciting sexually suggestive letters, notes, emails, or images
|
Because it's reasonable to assume that some might find Emma's postings offensive, they are "not safe for work" or NSFW. There's also the fact that most of us don't get paid to sit around watching YouTube videos of people talking about getting boinked by their pet pony, so get the hell back to work! |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2010 : 05:46:49 [Permalink]
|
Wreck:
Because it's reasonable to assume that some might find Emma's postings offensive, they are "not safe for work" or NSFW. There's also the fact that most of us don't get paid to sit around watching YouTube videos of people talking about getting boinked by their pet pony, so get the hell back to work! |
I've got no work to get paid for, but I find bestiality a very dull topic. I never even finished that video. But am I offended? Nah. Just bored.
Emma needs to sit down and figure out something interesting to post that doesn't involve kiddie porn or yootoob idiots who are probably lying, anyway. Then maybe we can get a conversation going.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2010 : 07:17:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
ig, as you undoubtedly know, there is a vast selection of the precise material that Dave describes as "kiddie porn" instantly available to anyone with a Google portal. It isn't that I want to see whatever it was that "emma" posted, I truly am confused by reasonably rational people like Dave and Kil being paralyzed by fear of a single image of underwear, or an adult woman's breasts, when there are literally thousands of hard-core Internet sites delivering preposterously explicit streaming video of pre-pubescent children engaging in every type of sex act imaginable - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There must be many hundreds of website proprietors being jailed daily, if such laws are actually enforced! |
That's too US-centric of you. For every thousand such sites you might visit, odds are that 999 of them are on servers outside US jurisdiction and run by people for whom the benefit/risk ratio is high enough to be profitable, either due to lax laws or lax policing.
We, however, derive zero benefit, so any risk (however small) is unacceptable. It's not like there's a principle at stake. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2010 : 09:10:09 [Permalink]
|
Say, here's an idea; as this thread started out with a claim of esoteric tastes in drawers, Emma could, perhaps, write us an essay on undergarments. It would be interesting history and on topic for this thread. For example; what sort of unmentionables was Salome wearing when she was presented with the severed and sunburned gourd of St. John the Baptist?
Inquiring minds want to know....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2010 : 17:32:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
the ignored.....
| Edit: bngbuck, just ask for that picture from him in a PM...you know you want to see it! |
ig, as you undoubtedly know, there is a vast selection of the precise material that Dave describes as "kiddie porn" instantly available to anyone with a Google portal. It isn't that I want to see whatever it was that "emma" posted, I truly am confused by reasonably rational people like Dave and Kil being paralyzed by fear of a single image of underwear, or an adult woman's breasts, when there are literally thousands of hard-core Internet sites delivering preposterously explicit streaming video of pre-pubescent children engaging in every type of sex act imaginable - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There must be many hundreds of website proprietors being jailed daily, if such laws are actually enforced!
Kil's position makes a little more sense; this site is not intended to be a showcase for pornography, and with the exception of the Humor forum, there are relatively few instances that I can think of where racy images or text are particularly germane to the subject matter under discussion in these forums.
Of course there are many other subjects than pornography that frequently find their way into the forum discussion here and are not questioned even though they may not relate in any way to the "mission statement". For example, "Humor" may or may not invite Critical Thinking, skepticism, logic, etc.
There is no question in my mind that a true troll (like the health food purveyor in today's postings) should be banned from a Skeptic's site. And "Emma" is about as true a troll as could be found anywhere on the Internet.
Banning of any further postings concerning crossdressing with underwear, Zooerastia, or a cosplaying "star" personality would certainly seem appropriate in a skeptic's forum, although there are discussion pages elsewhere where these subjects might be interesting if well written. Kil's point here is well taken and does not seem to be focused on only sexual content introduced into a non-sexual posting context, but on any inconsistent or non-relevant material that a troll might introduce for mere sensationalism.
My inquiry was directed specifically to the rationale of censorship of sexual material simply because it was sexual. Justification of banning or censoring because of inappropriate relevance to the subject matter of a post is clearly justified, as is the banning of subject matter that bears no relationship to the "Mission" of SFN, I guess. The latter must be pretty hard to identify sometimes.
I pretty well had my question answered. Sin lies within the sense of the censurer.
|
bngbck,
Here in the states, the definition of child porn is up to the individual states. Over the years, adult material was attacked by some of the more stringent states. Irrespective of where the servers lie, the states will go after the site owners.
The usual description of kiddie porn tends to hover around less developed female forms in the nude. In addition, just getting it from a site which is fine to it's own locale will still net you jail time if the state in which you live does not agree. Then there is the problem of the age of consent which differs from country to country.
In this casre, the objection is not sin, it is instead exposure to liability.
I say this from experience as a system owner of an adult website for three years. I had to be acutely aware of what subject matter was on the site and what was currently legal to show. Its one of the myriad reasons my first wife and I broke up. She wanted to put things on the site and I would not let her due to the liability factor.
I trust Dave's judgement in this matter.
Even though the material is easily retrieved by Google, it is not a guarantee of local legality. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2010 : 19:32:38 [Permalink]
|
Do we seriously need 10 people to explain to bngbuck why any sane adult would want to discourage adolescent minors from posting risque pictures of themselves on this website or any other? Why is he so interested, anyway? More than a little unseemly.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/29/2010 19:42:46 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2010 : 20:01:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Do we seriously need 10 people to explain to bngbuck why any sane adult would want to discourage adolescent minors from posting risque pictures of themselves on this website or any other? |
I've done what I've done for self-preservation only. Whether she's 15 or 50, what little I've read from her and about her on the Web indicates that she is seriously damaged goods, and there's no way in hell anything I could do or say would discourage her from anything. Especially if she's just a troll and it's all an act. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 03:40:22 [Permalink]
|
Hummer.....
Dave's statement, as substantiated by Kil,- both owners of SFN - together with the response of Dr. Mabuse; was more than sufficient to satisfy my query about "what constitutes pornography here and in the workplace?"
I had not fully considered the international nature of mandatory censorship on sexual material and the probable fact that many porn sites are located outside of the U.S. Valiant Dancer's excellent posting as to an "adult" site owner's exposure to liability for certain types of sexual material posted on the Internet certainly dispelled any doubt that may have remained in my mind as to the reasons for removing such material immediately as soon as posted. VD being a former or present adult site owner qualifies him exceptionally in my judgment as an expert on this type of situation.
As to why several very complete responses were made to my query, I can only assume that it is because I asked a question on a subject I knew little about, and several astute menbers of SFN who did have correct information about the matter, responded. I thank them all.
| Why is he so interested, anyway? More than a little unseemly. |
If you would care to explain publicly exactly what you are talking about in the above comment, I will be more than happy to reply to you in detail. If you wish it to remain here as a slimy personal insinuation directed toward me, you can take your closet prurience and go fuck yourself! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 08/30/2010 03:46:00 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I wear boys underwear
