Censorship or not?

[Horse with no Name]

I joined absolutepoker.com and everyone is given a choice of an avatar.
I chose this one:


So, I get this letter in my email today...

"This is a friendly note to let you know that your recently uploaded image has unfortunately been declined. At Absolute Poker, we have an obligation to only allow images that are not offensive to any of our players or don`t contradict any of our policies. In order to remain consistent when making the decision to approve or decline an image, our Images Department uses the following criteria to decide whether or not to accept an image: Players will not be allowed to upload images that are in any way obscene, offensive, or inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, images that contain the following: Each player is entitled to change the image uploaded only once. Any further uploads will automatically be deleted Nudity Death and dismemberment Disgusting body fluids or other bodily secretions Sexual Positions or innuendo Lewd gestures or hand signals Inappropriate cartoons Offensive Remarks or provocative slogans (i.e. Racist remarks, Religious connotations, etc.) Pictures obtained from Absolute Poker screenshots Pictures of cards that may be deceptive or confusing to other players Advertisements We do not allow an image to be changed more than once, except in special circumstances. All images are screened for approval. If you have any questions about this policy, or if you would like to have an image prescreened before it is submitted for upload, please don`t hesitate to contact us at [e-mail]. If there is anything else we can help you with, please don`t hesitate to let us know. It is our goal to make sure that you have an outstanding experience while playing cards and making friends at Absolute Poker."

So...I guess I will choose another image, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if I see a regular "Wastika", I will complain because I find those offensive as hell.

[Selatius]

1. Upload a Kerry election pin if you see a "Wastika"

If they don't challenge the "Wastika," there's not much you can do, but you'll get your answer as far as them being consistent is concerned.

In the end, it's a privately owned website, not a public one. As a result, they have the right to regulate what happens on their site as they please.

[Demit]

2. I would ask them to spell out why they declined your avatar.

What was "obscene, offensive, or inappropriate" about it? They don't include "anything political" in their list of no-nos. At the very least this shouldn't count as your one change of avatar. Dipshits. Make em explain.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Who cares why?

It's GOVERNMENT censorship we're supposed to be protected against. Private citizens/companies are free to allow whatever they want on their property. And you're free to criticize. And the government is NOT free to inhibit either one of you.

Are they a private ciztizen or company? Then they can allow whatever the hell they want, within some rather broad limits.

You get freedom to speak, but not the freedom to force THEM to publish it. What's the problem with that?

[havocmom]

4. a-yup. People can have rules on their own property.

People forget that internet sites are private property and the owners can have rules. To not accept that would be to say it's OK for other citizens to come into your home and do as they please, or that Skinner can't ban disruptors from DU.

Private parties can set private limits and rules. Free speech is not guaranteed in other people's rooms.

Can't figure why that is hard to grasp :shrug:

[Warpy]

5. Political speech is protected speech

and the avatar didn't fall anywhere near the company's stated guidelines covering objectionable material.

That is what is wrong with it.

[BlooInBloo]

9. from GUBMENT interference...

... unless I'm massively misreading the 1st amendment, it doesn't say anything remotely similar to "partypoker.com shall make no rule adbridging the freedom of speech on their own site".

The Bill Of Rights protects you from the GUBMENT, NOT OTHER PEOPLE.

Else my understanding of matters is rather faulty...

Their company, their property, their speech, their choice (but see previous sentence).

[Demit]

10. The original poster.

The problem, bloobloo, is that the website posted guidelines for potential members that didn't properly lay out what it wouldn't allow. It owes an explanation to the member, Bloobloo. That's the problem.

[Greyhound]

6. Just send them a message, "thanks but no thanks I'll spend my $

elsewhere". That is the only message that they care about.

[Hutzpa]

7. I don't get it............this line left me baffled

At Absolute Poker, we have an obligation to only allow images that are not offensive to any of our players or don`t contradict any of our policies. does this means * and his entourage spend government time gambling online....hmmm no wonder they have sold us out to China and India, he must have lost couple of Texas hold em' to these mongrels.

:tinfoilhat:

[Laelth]

8. 1st Amendment is not implicated here.

The 1st says that the government shall not abridge freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc. Is this online poker company "the government"? If not, then they can abridge your speech all they want, especially on their own site.

I'm none to pleased about their decision, either, but it is their decision to make, and your rights have not been violated in any way (from what I can tell).

-Laelth

[hiaasenrocks]

11. It's not censorship, technically.

There is no First Amendment requirement that a private entity provide you with a platform from which to speak.

Sort of like here at DU, where people get banned or threads get deleted for breaking the rules or not complying with the wishes of the site owner.

It may suck for the person who gets banned or has something deleted, but it's perfectly within the rights of the site owner.

[countingbluecars]

12. Your peace sign might

be a good alternative. Certainly they couldn't have a problem with that?