On Site Censorship

Keep in mind that this is not an adults-only community - the rules allow members from age 16.

Bunny said:

Keep in mind that this is not an adults-only community - the rules allow members from age 16

16 is adult.

You are old enough to get married (up until 2022 that is), have sex and have kids so I if this is allowed by law then I believe they can be exposed to a few swear words.

The law in the UK prevents you from purchasing alcohol, watching an 18 rated film or driving a car, but lets you create sentient life and go through the bloodbath of childbirth.

Swearing seems kind of trivial by comparison.

Iain said:

16 is adult.

Good grief! It demonstrably isn't. 

The age of majority in the UK is 18.

I'm not suggesting that most 16 year olds aren't familiar with words that may be censored here. I was simply reminding folks that members of this forum do include children.  

Just in case you're minded to continue arguing:

"Definitions of a child

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".

England

In England, a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:

living independently
in further education
a member of the armed forces
in hospital; or
in custody in the secure estate

they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child (Department for Education, 2023)."

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/children-the-law#skip-to-content

Protection of children is also why Ofcom prohibits swearing (among other things) on TV before the 9pm watershed. 

BZZZZT!!

It's *** Off!!

What do I win? (At least I'll win teh knowledge of if it censors the second word, or if the exclamation marks protect it). 

Anyone who has ever been in a school playground will have heard even infant school kids use words that would not be permitted on TV before the 9pm watershed.  I was visiting a school when a teacher was kicked in the shins and told to go away and copulate by a seven-year-old. (The actual phrase had two words and seven letters, of which the first and last two were f)

Bunny nothing you said is triggering to me, but the whole thing about not being able to use certain words in case someone is offended is, like my example above, 'stop male chicken', honestly does that not bug you too? Being unable to describe something that every house has and that you need to know where it is so as you can turn your water off in an emergency or for repairs is ridiculous!

Whilst online fora are quite happy to mess about with things like this they seem quite happy to allow online grooming for sexual exploitation and terrorism etc, but stopping some one from using an object or a persons proper name makes them able to say they take safe guarding seriously. It just as bad out there in the offline world too, should we stop young people from learning proper words or life skills because someone somewhere might get offended? That's where I think people need to get real and get a grip.

Iain said:

Thank you for making this clear. I respect your viewpoint but find it inconsistent with the rest of the country.

Iain said:

I will not try to change your mind

You seem intent on continuing to misrepresent my opinion. As I have tried very hard to explain clearly, my "viewpoint" is that I do not have one on the subject.

I do not feel that - if this is actually what is happening - censoring certain words on this forum in order to protect 16 and 17 years olds would be appropriate / good. Nor do I feel that doing so would be unnecessary / bad / amount to infantilising them. I literally have no opinion on it either way.

I'm not sure when or how you found the time and resources to canvas "the rest of the country" in order to be able to state that my non-existent viewpoint is different to theirs.

If I had to bet, then I'd guess that most of the rest of the country also don't care either way on the hypothetical subject. But that would be a total guess.

Iain said:

With all the above we still don't consider them able to be exposed to some bad words.

As I flagged previously, you are also assuming that the presence here of some children is the NAS's reason for censoring certain words. That may not be the case at all. To repeat from my earlier post: 

Bunny said:

Perhaps the current word censorship rules are there (whether in whole, primarily or in part) for child protection purposes, but - equally - perhaps not. They might, for example, instead and/or also be intended to help foster a more positive, respectful and polite general tone of discussion here than might otherwise be the case if people could (subject to any later moderation) instead use such words freely and without limitation.

Iain said:

Thank you for making this clear. I respect your viewpoint but find it inconsistent with the rest of the country.

Iain said:

I will not try to change your mind

You seem intent on continuing to misrepresent my opinion. As I have tried very hard to explain clearly, my "viewpoint" is that I do not have one on the subject.

I do not feel that - if this is actually what is happening - censoring certain words on this forum in order to protect 16 and 17 years olds would be appropriate / good. Nor do I feel that doing so would be unnecessary / bad / amount to infantilising them. I literally have no opinion on it either way.

I'm not sure when or how you found the time and resources to canvas "the rest of the country" in order to be able to state that my non-existent viewpoint is different to theirs.

If I had to bet, then I'd guess that most of the rest of the country also don't care either way on the hypothetical subject. But that would be a total guess.

Iain said:

With all the above we still don't consider them able to be exposed to some bad words.

As I flagged previously, you are also assuming that the presence here of some children is the NAS's reason for censoring certain words. That may not be the case at all. To repeat from my earlier post: 

Bunny said:

Perhaps the current word censorship rules are there (whether in whole, primarily or in part) for child protection purposes, but - equally - perhaps not. They might, for example, instead and/or also be intended to help foster a more positive, respectful and polite general tone of discussion here than might otherwise be the case if people could (subject to any later moderation) instead use such words freely and without limitation.