I didn’t read the rule that way. I read it as saying they would allow the thread under different circumstances.
from ed zotti:
What if it was “AT person who knows of some pedophiles” or “AT the guy who wonders how pedophiles feel when they are treated as they are by society” for example?
Or what if it was “AT pedophile” but the pedo in question was not Cesario? Could Cesario participate? Or is he forever banned from “The reindeer games” no matter how the topic comes up?
Can he continue to post in Free Speech discussions?
Are those of in those discussions now risking his membership by addressing CP in the context of Free Speech, when it might “provoke him”? Are we risking ours?
CP? Cesario Pedophilia? If discussing free speech with Cesario, don’t ask him about pedophilia. Don’t bring up Cesario’s non-right to talk about pedophilia as a Free Speech issue.
Don’t make accusations or comments anywhere about Cesario and pedophilia. Don’t make comments about what he supposedly believes or has advocated or has or has not done. Drop it.
Well, if banning or even suspension is at risk, it doesn’t pay to be to careful in advance.
So, if there is a discussion about Free Speech and how it relates to deciding what is Child Porn and what is not, it is OK to explicitly solicit his opinion?
Suppose he branched then to pedophilia? Is the person who raised the issue that brought him around to it at risk?
On a separate point, there is another thread in MPSIMS right now dealing with a real life example of a therapist seeking advice on a client’s mother’s perception of rampant pedophilia in her autistic (IIRC) son’s life.
Under what circumstances could Cesario post there? How about Claude Rains? Or PDoul?
Given that child porn is directly related to pedophilia, it seems to me to be obvious that it would not be OK.
Yes. To me that seems to be a clear example of provoking.
Cesario may not post there, since the discussion involves pedophilia. Ed’s statement only applies to him, so I don’t see that any other poster would be prohibited from posting in that thread. Neither of the individuals you mentioned have made it a habit of posting on pedophilia.
It is not obvious to me that - are you suggesting that when people advocate for Free Speech, they are advocates for pedophilia too? Are you aware that the major issue revolves around electronic concepts of thngs that are fictional, and for which no one was hurt? That there have been cases of traveling photo exhibits (owned by Elton John of all people IIRC) that have been claimed as CP, but when brought to court found otherwise?
Are you saying there is no room for honest discussion there? That an accusation of CP de facto evidence of latent pedophilia as a topic in the discussion?
Maybe you can take that all back to TPTB for a consult?
Really? So whoever he quotes on entering a thread is automatically on the hook for whatever else he says in the rest of the thread, forever? How can that be?
I read the thread (It’s been a few hours so it may have changed) as a therapist’s concerns with the way parents of her clients typically react to her suggestions, not about pedophilia per se, and the client is a 16 year old boy/young man, hardly what Cesario has expressed interest in in the threads I have seen him express interest.
And technically speaking, interest in teenagers is not pedophilia at all, it is more likely fear of ephebophilia that the OP is referring to.
Is Cesario banned from discussing ephebophilia or hebephilia?
If so, why? He has AFICT never discussed those matters,nor is anyone accusing him of doing so in any of the threads this week that I noticed anyway.
If not, then how does it tie into the child porn answer you gave earlier?
I am not being purposefully difficult, I am poking around the edges of this ruling, because it is foreseeable that these issues will come up eventually. I have already been involved in a Free Speech thread with him in which he did nothing wrong - had his posts been mine or yours no one would have noticed them at all, and I can imagine it happening again.
This ruling seems tantamount to me to saying that Free Speech discussions can not run their full course regarding porn of all types without the posters putting their status at risk because of something Cesario might say in response, which we have no control over.
And it also seems odd to make a specific distinction about pedophilia - what we are going to argue if the porn was about per-pubescent or post-pubescent kids ad nauseum?
Isn’t that worse than the original problem, having us have to innoculate ourselves against Cesario by discussing ephebophilia or hebephilia only?
What about the case, already present, where the case is wrongly labeled by the OP as pedophilia, and at least one mod has also misinterpreted the post by taking the terminology in the OP at face value?
What if the OP is not so clear cut?
What if a thread is about pedophilia and/or one or two of ephebophilia or hebephilia? Can Cesario post if he restricts himself to the latter two topics?
What if Cesario simply says he likes the picture on the cover of some DVD with a movie family, or that he enjoyed the movie without going into details about the daughter? Where is the line? Can he say that she had a nice outfit in the photo? That the color of the sweater was nice? That everyone has nice outfits in the sweater? That the girl’s performance in the movie was wonderful?
I am sure there will be more gray areas uncovered, but these are serious concerns because of the “provoking rule” combined with topics that are clearly allowed. I confess I am very troubled by all this. I would have brought it up earlier, but I was not aware of the issue until after the decision was made.
Sorry, not_alice, I’m not going to get into some extended discussion with you about every possible hypothetical situation that could conceivably arise. If you are so concerned about the issue, when a specific thread does come up and you have some doubt about whether your post is appropriate or not, contact a moderator for advice. I am sure they will be happy to provide you with guidance.
It is not an extended discussion, it is a list of grey areas.
You have already misinterpreted the one thread you were willing to look at. Its OK, you are only human, but doesn’t that show that even the one you were willing to consider is not as straightforward as it first appears?
And yes, I did include some specific questions about that thread, I have posted there once and am now more concerned.
Further, I would like to return to the Free Speech thread now that I realize it is stil here (having thought it was closed a few weeks ago), and I will likely raise all the rest of these questions, and more regarding various variations present in Japanese Anime with the intent of asking the Aussies present how they would be handled by various current and planned gov’t agencies.
Given that Cesario is already on that thread, and it is unclear to me if my planned post falls under the pedophilia umbrella (band name!) or other philias, am I considered at risk of provoking him by posting such questions?
Thanks for your consideration - if you need time to take it back for discussion and get back to us here in ATMB, that is fine.
not_alice, are you being willfully obtuse? I don’t want to call your posts disingenuous but I’m having a hard time believing that you really don’t get it. Everyone else seems to.
As I just mentioned to another poster in another thread (In the pit) who mentioned this, de-pitting it (I hope), some people seek safety and certainty in the middle of the herd.
But without the edges where the danger is, there would be no middle.
I prefer the edges myself of questioning, myself.
If the questions don’t make sense for you, that is OK. They are not intended for you anyway, and the answers are probably not of much concern to you either for your purposes here.
