Post's removal

[thealtruist]

I see the thread about Angel Long has been removed. I wonder why? I also wonder how long it will take before this post is removed.

[IainT]

I would imagine it was removed because is was personal and offensive.

I don't know the girl, but the thread certainly offended me.

[one eyed jack]

If posts are going to be removed because they cause offence then where does one draw the line?

I'm sure Im not everyones cup of tea but it still interests me to know what people think. Thankfully Im still on the right side of alright but if I'm shit I wanna know about it

[IainT]

There is offensive and there is offensive.

If someone said I'm the crappiest photographer out there and every time I pick up a camera its just a waste of good pixels, I might not like it, but tough shit.

But making personally offensive comments like calling somebody a skank etc...is that really acceptable?

[thealtruist]

The problem with that, Iain, is that it's only a small step to getting something removed just because you don't like it regardless of whether it's offensive or not.

If somebody says the latest Killergram film is crap what's to stop Killergram getting the post removed because they "found it offensive" when, in reality, they're doing it to quieten the detractors of the film? Big companies like Warner and Fox try this with Google. It stifles free speech. It's the only thing we have left.

I also find it ironic that a site about pornography which has had to fight years of censorship is now censoring posts at will.

And, just as an additional, has everybody forgot that the home page of Angel's website featured her stood against a wall with the word "skank" graffitied on it? That was her selling point. She's made a career out of it. If you don't want to be called a skank don't brag about being one. Trumpton wasn't attacking the REAL Angel Long. He was having a go at the porn star. Two very different things.

If Angel doesn't like people thinking about her in terms of tit's and pussy then she's in the wrong job. It was her choice to get into the industry. She knew what to expect. That's the nature of being a porn star.

[ted]

I regret defending thealtruist's manner of expressing their disappointment with Angel Long's changing appearance now. Do you think Angel Long gets home from a hard day's sex work and takes off her tattoos and piercings? Of course Trumpton's remarks were offensive to the 'real' Angel Long - you must be able to comprehend that.

I agree that being able to express one's opinion freely is an important right that should be available to all. Objecting to the look of an actor, the sets of a producer, criticizing the director's scripts etc - no problem. Call them shit. But don't write "Killergram's latest movie blows big time because that pig-ugly bitch XYZ and her sour face and putrid body that make me want to throw up in disgust is in it".

"I don't like Killergram's new movie; XYZ features too much in it. I'm not into her looks and think she doesn't perform well, personally" expresses the same opinion, but in a far more reasonable form, I think.

I would categorize posts like Trumpton's Angel Long piece separately - it contained personal, offensive insults that were made purely to belittle and aggravate and surely only for shock value. It is completely unreasonable and irrational to refer to Angel Long as "It" and to condemn her as being 'mentally retarded' (or rather, try to, and end up looking a bit mentally challenged in the process). These are simply rantings with no factual basis and for that reason alone it was the right thing to do to remove the post.

Basically, if thealtruist's post was made in a thread of its own, it would still be up for view by all, I believe.

All imho as they say, of course.

[thealtruist]

I don't see where you defended me. But, no matter.

I do understand and see what you're saying. But, I just don't think that Trumpton looked that far into it. He just sees the character. Probably never occurred to him that Angel Long has a real person playing her.

I agree that the words used was offensive but do I think it should have been taken down? No. That's free speech. We may not like it but we've got no right to stop anybody saying it unless it's to cause harm. That's censorship. Fascism.

Removing the post is just a small step to a big amount censorship. Where do you stop? I find your rebuttal to me offensive. I demand to have it taken down. I'm not a fan of Michelle Thorne. Does she have the right to take my post down because she didn't like me saying I'm not a fan?

Somebody says they don't believe in god. That offends people who do. Take the post down.

It's a slippery slope.

[Millzy82]

Oh please, there is no slippery slope and like too many people, you misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the state cannot silence you for voicing your opinion even if it is controversial or out of line with the popular view.

Freedom of speech however does not mean that the state has to provide the means for you to voice such an opinion. Freedom of speech doesn't mean Trumpton can come into my home, use my computer and print off defamatory leaflets about Angel Long at my expense, nor can he freely use this forum to spout his hate filled views. Finding such means is his responsibility and his alone. If Trumpton wants to voice his grievance without fears of "censorship" from BGAFD, he should make his own website and foot the bill for running it instead of acting like this site is is personal soapbox to use as he pleases.

[one eyed jack]

"If somebody says the latest Killergram film is crap what's to stop Killergram getting the post removed because they "found it offensive" when, in reality, they're doing it to quieten the detractors of the film? Big companies like Warner and Fox try this with Google. It stifles free speech. It's the only thing we have left"

I wouldnt mind free speech like this on social networks where you an identify the person making harsh remarks. Is that what they are really feeling or are they eliberately trying to be hurtful? In this case I find its the latter, especially where racist and sexist words are used with expletives. Youtube is the worst for that but I cant help but feel this is the price we pay for free speech

I agree with Kim on the other post that I think its folk in this business shit stirring for the sake of hurting that persons feelings.

Trumptons comments though were disturbing in that he came across as an angry spurned fan. When you refer to someone as IT you are in effect dehumanising them to justify the level of abuse you want to put across as if its ok because she is not a person.

Free speech or not, try that in a work place and you'll be standing tall before the boss given your marching orders for hateful comments. I ould say the same rule applies here, even if you are hiding behind a pseudonym doing so

[cockneygeezer2009]

Trumpton's post was trolling of the worst kind. There is no need for trolling.