I’m with you all the way on trying to protect your business from lawsuits, etc. BUT, I’m also a little shocked and disappointed that the Reader would take such a position. After all, your newspaper is distributed in record stores, bars, and on street corners. It also contains adult content, including “escort services”. If Mayor Daley tried to ban the Reader, I’m sure hell would be raised. Why should it be any different online?
How much outright pornography is available through the purchase of the Reader? 'Bout zip, I’d imagine (unless you have a broader definition of “pornography”).
I, for one, have no qualms with the idea of “adult” content running around. Most of it’s amusing, and some of it is used to accentuate a point (see the “Child Porn vs. The 1st Amendment” thread in the Pit), but even so, this board is accessible to EVERYONE, even if they’re not a member. Part of fighting ignorance involves contact with the widest “customer” base possible, including lil’ kids. After all, why not de-ignoramify them while they’re young?
(Yes, I know “de-ignoramify” isn’t a real term)
I should preface any remarks I make here by saying that I am not speaking for the Chicago Reader, but just as a message board moderator, trying to explain why we make the decisions we do. But I’m a little confused about your last point. Where did you get the idea that we are trying to ban anything? There’s a difference between what you think should be on the web and what you want accessed through your own site. I mean, hell, we could put up porno ads on our front page and probably make a fair chunk of change for the Reader. That’s not what we want to be known for.
I have seen “psychic reading” ads on the front page. I’m not sure that’s what you want to be known for either. I also doubt we’re really their market.
picmr
picmr comments:
Why do psychic readers need to advertise?