Dissents Of The Day, Ctd


A reader passes along a Roger Ebert post on exactly the same topic. He made the decision I have:

In the future I will avoid NSFW content in general, and label it when appropriate. What a long way around I’ve taken to say I apologize.

Readers are now criticizing me for agreeing to the censorship their workplaces demand. But if someone’s job is at stake, I don’t see how I have any choice. I really do not want to get my readers fired. And, if I didn’t make it clear enough before, I’m genuinely sorry to have risked that – even once. I haven’t worked in an office for ages and was less sensitive to this genuine issue than I should have been. Apologies if I sounded dismissive. I was being dismissive of the laws, not your genuine worries.

But what I will not do is place some kind of veil over this material, or tuck it after a “Read-On”, or add some NSFW label. First off, that won’t help anyone who sees the post via a link – someone less likely to be as adult as most Dish readers are on this kind of thing. But more importantly, that kind of half-measure implicates me in the notion that viewing these images is somehow dangerous for the workplace environment and places me in the role of aider and abetter of Puritanism. I’d rather post no potentially naughty bits at all than engage in some kind of coy dance to the music of the Puritans – of feminist left and theocon right.

That’s my response to the laws that target readers for perusing completely legitimate material. My job is to protect you from any corporate punishment. It is not my job to legitimize the infantile logic of the laws.

(Photo: NSFW.)