Promoting Censorship
 

A few days ago, I posted a message concerning the Portland Police Bureau. This posting had approximately 26 replies. However, someone removed this message and its replies.

I am left to ponder the hypocrisy of the owners and moderators of this sight. This is clearly an act of censorship, which should not be tolerated. This very web sight has a section called “Free Speech X-Press� which is promoted as “A weekly column about attempts to censor and regulate the adult industry�

I ask, should we tolerate censorship in any form?

did you ask wildcanine?

Forget wildcanine, that would be like asking Chief Kroeker to apologize for his anti-gay comments. I'd suggest that everybody that feels strongly about censorship to write a well thought out email to Keith, who is the CFS webmaster. The deletion of that whole topic on Portland Police Bureau was unprofessional, and cowardly. Keith's email is cruisemaster@cruisingforsex.com
and in case that gets censored out, go to the 'Hop To' drop down box at the bottom of each page, to "The Cruisemaster".

In case someone has been visiting this site and it still hasn't dawned on them that (smack your forhead) this site is about cruising for sex -duh- they are probably totally in the dark about Kroeker's anti-gay stance (in spite of his photo-ops with Darcelle) and that for sometime, PPB has been making warning noises about having to set up sting operations in the bushes to catch cruisers. Regardless of how you feel about sex in the bushes, at sexclubs, in theaters, or VW backseats, the cops should have more pressing issues to deal with, but it's a perfect opportunity for fag-hating cops to intimidate and harass gays, and they don't care if innocent people get swept up in their drag-nets.

In the past, wildcanine has locked up discussions that went down the 'troll' avenue, but to totally delete a whole topic about the cops?? That's shameful.

And now a disclaimer. If in fact the topic got deleted by accident, I apologize for not allowing for that possibility. But the silence has been deafening.

[This message has been edited by PDXsex (edited January 06, 2001).]

I can't speak specifically to the issues of the posting that disappeared about the Portland police since I never saw it. I can, however, tell you that a posting of a political nature is NOT usually acceptable within a state forum on this Message Board. There are sections of the board for more free-for-all discussion, but forums such as the one serving Oregon are limited -- hopefully -- to the pursuit of sex and not the politics involved.

And to answer the critic who thinks it is hypocritical that the posting should be 'censored' I can say this: you have NO right to post anything on this message board which is a private board and thus the owner (read: me) can set policies as he sees fit. I can also appoint representatives to enforce those policies and the moderator of this forum (who, by the way, does this absolutely free as a volunteer) is that person. Your freedom of speech is not guaranteed when it conflicts with the decisions of a private enterprise -- indeed your freedom of speech ends when you read and agree to the terms of use that are required by anyone before they register for this Message Board. Whatever freedom you have is granted by the owner and, as such, can be taken away at will and with no explanation. This is true of any private organization in the USA. Having said that, I allow a tremendous amount of latitude in letting men write about tons of stuff (some that seriously offends me), but I have set up some clear rules and I ask moderators to enforce those rules.

Censorship as referred to in the weekly column about regulating the adult industry is about the government censoring an industry through various tactics. Since the government is NOT a private business it has a tougher line to cover when it decides to silence someone, but I don't have to be concerned with that issue since I'm private -- not public.

------------------
Cruisemaster
cruisingforsex.com

And I thought Hitler died in 1945. How old are you now? I figure you must be what 111 years old by now?

Censor away you facist.

So true pdxhumm.

Hey, I told you to expect some weak bullshiit about "it's my board and I'll do whatever the fuck I want". These guys do that all the time. It's pretty outrageous.

Click on your own sponsors, Keith. I'm not about to.

couldn't agree more.....in a column about cruising for sex, i think it is critical to share information other than how big your cock is or whether you're a top or a bottom. it's especially critical in portland right now given the actions by the kroeker administration (or should i say the kroeker reich) over the last several months. i am critically and painfully aware of how excessive and intrusive the police presence has become in portland. i was one of the "suspects" arrested on new years eve. i was an innocent bystander....had just left silverado and was walking around to get some fresh air and was in the wrong place at the wrong time...i had no idea that someone had just looted a liquor store (that's apparently where all the bottles were flying from).....the next thing i knew, i'm being handcuffed and thrown in the back seat of a police cruiser. i've NEVER had any problems before and have a clean record....it has been the most terrible ordeal of my life and it isn't over yet. the point of all this is that the police are on full alert, ready to crack heads at the least provocation (or without provocation), and given "good old boy" kroeker's homophobia, i wouldn't be surprised if some serious sting operations were to start any time.

watch your ass out there boys...i'm thinking i'm just going to either rent porn or go to a safe spot to cruise until this all blows over.

Hi, right on keith, it is your board and you are absolutely right in your statement. the people screaming for "their rights" are the ones who scream the loudest about others freedom. you have a great sight and keep on with the wonderful way you run it. if people don;t like it, they can not read it. sincerely, mel

Thank you Keith for a lame response.
On the Crusiing for sex homepage there is a head line item "Heads Up" listing the "Latest Cop Alerts and Bashings".

How an open ended, all encompassing discussion, in the Oregon site could be viewed as threateneing to the integrity of
the site and a violation of its' "rules" is both a stretch and conflicting with the content on the homepage.

For one, I have used the site and it's banner advertisesrs regulary as a non-registered participant for awhile, and only when the original topic currently under discussion appeared did I feel compelled to register.

To the point that a particular topic begins to generate responses that attack the personality(ies) of specfic contributors in a hostile manner or promotes illegal activities, I would suggest that the forum be better served by deleting the offensive replys, NOT the entire topic.

Certainly there are other venues on the web where those of us who have chosen to post thoughts on a particular topic can go to for discussion, but when a topic is so apropos to the general intent of a particular cite, I fail to see how anyones needs are met by insisting we put our collective heads in the sand and not be allowed to discuss it.

don't you girls have anything better to do with your life then whine about how everyones picking on you and bitch at each other, get a life do something about your personal problems, stop bitching and whining like a bunch of fags

KEITH: I have in the past said that you do a very commendable job in getting this site back up and running when it breaks down. BUT I was coming on to this "Crusingforsex" site for a month before I knew that it had a Cruser Crackdown forum, and I would suspect that there are many others like me. I live in California but check out other states also, so I'll ask a question.

Sence this appears to be a local issue, would it not have been better if the Moderator moved the entire post to the "Cruser Crackdown" forum and then posted a notice to that effect on the Oregan Board?

By doing that the question of Censership would not have been raised.

Keith, Your a fair man.....

Your thoughts on this approach Please.

------------------
The Older the Violin, the sweeter the music
6'2" Br/Blue 6.5-7" uncut

Keith is right about his right to limit whatever crosses this private board. And so when the local government decides to give power to a bible-thumping extremist who likes nothing better than to crack down on everything he's morally opposed to, I guess we can expect this gay-oriented CFS board to legally hide behind the privacy clause and refuse to allow state forums to address these local gay related issues. Great way to protect ones twinkyporn-income, but I'm glad the drag queens of Stonewall had more balls under their dresses.

Keith, you DO have a great site, and I've used it to make lots of contacts, as well as locate bars, baths, and cruise spots all over the country before I travel. I also understand that you have to walk a fine line, since public cruising (which there's no denying this site promotes, thankfully) is considered borderline, if not outright illegal. But trying to separate gay issues from politics in this day and age is next to impossible. I don't want this board to disappear, or turn into a boring discussion of politics either. But when a string occasionally appears, I think it makes for healthy and interesting dialog, particularly when it comes to a few cops who want to use their authority to crack a few queer heads and clean up Dodge to their standards.

If a moderator choses to delete a whole topic, it would be admirable for him to comment on why he did, even if it's not legally required. Did someone pay a visit and offer to break his knees?? Why should we expect governments to provide freedom of expression if gay business are timid about doing so?

It's the ease of operating a dictatorship and police state that appeals to many government pols.... and the abundance of 'mels'& 'goicos' that allow it to happen. Just for the record, 'mel', there is nothing bad about people who, to use your words, "scream the loudest about others freedom".

[This message has been edited by PDXsex (edited January 07, 2001).]

Sorry, whiners, but Keith and his moderators are 100% right. It's their baby and they can do what they choose (thank heavens). Those who don't like it do not have to participate. I don't get into the cruising/Oregon forum to read a bunch of posts about politics. You're tired of seeing posts about dick size or cruising spots? Tough! Go somewhere else. This is about sex.

The stated purpose of the CFS message boards is to "meet, share information or otherwise shoot the breeze." discussing the currently dangerous situation in portland here qualifies to me as "sharing information." i think it's important before you go shaking your cock at sauvie's island or rooster rock or forest park or any other public location to know it's EXTREMElY risky out there. given the fact that many guys who cruise 4 public action are "straight" and probably don't read gay publications, they may not even be aware of what is going on in terms of kroeker's attitude about "cleaning up" the city. (hmmm...cleaning up....ethnic cleansings....hmmmm where have i heard that before?).

fine. don't bother discussing what's happening and when your ass ends up in jail for public lewdness, don't come whining here. you've been warned.

and for the record, i really don't see why keith is being so protective. maybe he should put something on the main page that this page if for people to discuss, but only if the thought is with one's cock and not with one's cerebrum.

I will not even bother addressing some guy who decides to throw out that tired Hitler comparison. Generally people call you names when they realize their own argument is substantially weaker than they wish it were.

Anyone who wants to discuss the politics of most anything can find an appropriate forum on this Message Board. There IS a forum specifically called 'Cruiser Crackdowns' and that is obviously where this discussion about a crackdown in Portland needs to happen.

It is really very simple guys: when you signed on as a user of this board you agreed to abide by the rules. If you no longer feel comfortable with that agreement please feel free to go elsewhere. There are definitely numerous newsgroups and message boards that are a true free-for-all. Indeed, if anyone wants to understand why I try to keep these forums more focused all they need do is recall the way newsgroups (once a great forum for exchanging ideas and views) have often deteriorated into such chaos and so much spam that many of us who once loved them now look elsewhere -- like forums such as this one which try to stay more focused on finding a good hard man.

------------------
Cruisemaster
cruisingforsex.com

Keith, As somewhat of a novice to all this stuff, would it be possible to move topics that appear in inappropriate places to a more appropriate location rather than removing them completely? Just a thought that might satisfyboth parties here.

Thank you, Keith, for protecting us from ourselves....fuck you and your site.

Wonder what will happen to your site when the conservatives decide to shut it down?

[This message has been edited by N2MENN (edited January 07, 2001).]

Whoa, people! I think this whole thing got started with a discussion about how boring and uncruisy the Eagle has become. That thread disappeared awhile ago - probably because it degenerated into unsubstantiated accusations of police crackdowns and far too many "Hitler" comparisons. The fault for the Eagle becoming pathetic belongs to the straight owner- John Adams, Jr. - and no one has supplied any evidence or anecdotes that show the police have anything to do with it. I'm afraid I have to agree with Keith here - you shouldn't get on this board and rant and rave and claim we're all going to be herded off into the ovens unless you have some actual proof or experience to share. Relax, Chicken Little - maybe the sky isn't falling!

To any of those who disagree so strongly with this website's policies and decisions--START YOUR OWN WEBSITE.

I asked someone in the police bureau about this new "police presence" at the Eagle, as it's being called. I was told that the bar itself asked the police to do occasional walk throughs. As I've stated on here before, the police do regular walk throughs of the bars on Stark St. This isn't a way of them trying to crack down on gay activity. It's a way of trying to establish a rapport with the community on Stark Street and making a presence felt to try and prevent violence/harrassment against gay people in the area. I think the people who claim it's the new owner who is responsible for the new attitude at the Eagle, are correct. They've added a stage area where they are planning on having strippers and they've taken down the bars upstairs and put in a faux fireplace. This isn't the result of the police doing a walk through of the bar. I was there on Saturday evening, and walked into the restroom. Someone else was in there already and within about 30 seconds the bartender walked over to the door and screamed "I don't have time to babysit you people." This barteneder has seen me in there many times and knows I come in drink a beer or two and leave. I've never given any reason to make him think I'm all the sudden having sex in the bathroom, so obviously they employees have been told to crack down on any potential behavior going on.

There is no new OWNER. A new manager perhaps, but John Jr. still owns it....and he's trying to, basically, get rid of the Eagle.

The n2menn person is way out of line, over the top, and his comments are irrational. You need to chill, big time.

If the posts had stuck to the topic of, there has been stepped up police action at such and such place... I have no problems with that.

The thread referred to went much further than that and was into name calling accusations and the like. That is what will not be tolerated in the forums.

I have said many times before that we are adults and should act accordingly. I have refrained from taking any sides in these debates. All I am doing is enforcing the rules set forth by the owner of this message board.

The hateful and unfounded comments that were being brandished about were out of hand. I did not want to go through the entire thread and weed out the portions that violate the rules of this forum. I also had many complaints from other members of the message board about the particular thread and asked that it be deleted.

I deleted the thread for those reasons. I don't care if you hate the police or anyone else in authority. If you can't play by the rules, then look elsewhere. No matter what you think, everywhere you go, there will be rules to follow.

------------------
MWM,42,5'11,215#,brn/brn

Well-spoken COMRAD! Did you by any chance take goose-stepping lessons with Keith?

I don't mind being called irrational or out of line, it happens all the time to people who think outside the box and present ideas foreign to the majority.

My part in those posts was to debate the influence the new chief may have on our community. Yes, it did degenerate at times into political name-calling, but nothing more serious than what occurs on the floor of any legislature.

Uh, yeah.. It IS about sex-- and more importantly it's about where we can FIND sex easily as well as about where we CAN'T find it anymore in places where we've grown rather accustomed to finding it. This is why the original and now deleted topic (to which I never contributed, but-- unlike our cruisemaster Keith-- I DID read) was so relevant. I don't live in Portland, but I visit there often. I consult this board for up-to-date information on where to find what I'm looking for. Now I know not to go expecting action at the Eagle, unless it's a drink of beer that I want.

In my opinion, Keith is only about 50% right, not 100%. Sure, this is site is a private business and its owner does have every right to decide AND to change his mind as to what he wants to allow here. But any business that wants to retain satisfied "customers" will try to live up to its "advertising". So I reviewed the "Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers" in the registration section. Perhaps the messages containing references to Hitler were considered by the moderator to be "defamatory". I would probably agree. Even THIS thread contains some of those as well. So how about just deleting the offending messages rather than the whole topic? (Ok, I see now the moderator's later comment that this course would have been too time-consuming.) I also checked the message board FAQ. Question: "Are there any censor features?" The answer says only that certain WORDS may be replaced by asterisks... (Perhaps "Hitler" should be one of those words.)

AND, if you look at how many replies THIS thread has been generating in such a short period of time, isn't this ample evidence of what WE "the customers" of this business think is relevant to the issue of CRUISING FOR SEX?? Yes, the police as well as the owners and managers of bars DO have some kind of role in this-- like it or not.

I would love to know the last time,if any? I go to alot of "playspaces", and never a problem. Pleeeze understand PDX is very cool.So enjoy!

If you guys like a hot topic, why not go to Vote.com/gay section and lay you arguments.Gets you to win free miles too...

------------------
33 lkn 28, 5'8 160, blk/brn, brown complexion,average build with good looks, bottom-love kissing,cuddling,sucking and getting fucked.Clean and discreet and very tight.Sorry don't have pics.

Don't buy Keith's bullshit, boys.

Go read his vanity page. He's a registered Republican who puts his economic concerns first. At the same time, he boasts that he has been arrested 12 times in non-violent civil-disobedience actions pertinent to AIDS, including protests against unfair DRUG PRICING. In other words he has protested private enterprise's rights to do what it wants (charge what it wants)...while reserving the right to do what he wants here, including manipulating and controlling effective protest.

Perhaps those of you who post "out of forum" could characterize your actions as "civil disobedience" and he would be more charitable. (yeah right) The irony of someone using the privacy clause to argue that he doesn't have to allow discussion of government interference is obvious. Well, "obvioius" is the nicest word I can think of.

Keith really doesn't care about sexual politics except insofar as they inhibit his ability to make a buck. He made a colossal fool of himself at the Sex Panic convention in Southern Calif. a few years ago. In his "association" with Steam Magazine, he never got what Scott was attempting, which was far more than the right to shove your cock through a glory hole or to make money in the sex industry.

There is NO sex, particularly public sex, without political discourse. You don't establish a board for interaction -- like the message board -- and then tell people how they are supposed to treat sex (as stripped of political meaning, for example). The "stall wall" is the place for pure sexual advertisement. Discussions on the message board evolve naturally.

Those of us who have read CFS for a few years are well familiar with the hypocrisy that rules it. I noticed that Keith has taken down his own column. Otherwise, I could point you to his own direct refutations of his own point here.

You're dealing with a businessman, not a serious sex radical. (Oh, and notice who's modifying --er, moderating -- this forum. DUH.)



[This message has been edited by bongo (edited January 13, 2001).]

"These types of reporters are the lowest predator and I hope one day to see them get their due. My only fear is that all of us (including decent journalists) will pay in lose of free speech because of these men and women advancing their careers."

That's a quote from Keith before he went on television -- invading the sacred space of privately held news media -- to advance the cause of public sex. Gosh, Keith, isn't there a time and place for everything! Thanks for advancing the cause of free speech while you deny ours!

Let me get this straight. I'm censoring people? Oh yeah that is exactly what this thread proves with no doubt.

Reading the tasteful notes from above is such clear evidence of why it was silly of me to create rules about topics that can and can't be discussed within some of the forums and to actually have the nerve to have a moderator who was willing to enforce those rules. I take it all back.

Bongo and others have absolutely proven how people can be counted on to not allow forums to deteriorate into name-calling, flaming, and other things that interfere with the real reason for most of the forums on this board: finding sex.

------------------
Cruisemaster
cruisingforsex.com

Nice evasion, Keith.

You don't get it. You never will. Go back and read your response: You can do anything you fuckin' please, even if it contradicts your own behavior (i.e. protesting free enterprises), cuz you're the owner. Your own attitude, your inflexibility and selective enforcement of your own rules (according to your pleasure), to say NOTHING of your weird definition of censorship (as if it is only significant if practiced by the government; get a book on the Fourth Estate, buddy)...all of that is why your boad deterioriates into name calling so frequently. You set the example.

How complicated is it? You kill posts because you want sex stripped of political significance in the state rooms. Your cock can't bear it, apparently. People object to your killing their posts because FOR THEM sex has a political context right where they are cruising. Killing their posts is control of expression and that's censorship. They complain. You tell 'em tough shit, go find another place, cuz you're a private enterprise. And then you wonder why you get nasty reactions. DUH.

"He made a colossal fool of himself at the Sex Panic convention in Southern Calif. a few years ago."

Mr. Bongo please clarify exactly what you mean by this statement. What did I do? Who were you? Given that you've made this charge, I'm sure you'll be willing to tell us your real name and what you did at Sex Panic.

"In his 'association' with Steam Magazine, he never got what Scott was attempting, which was far more than the right to shove your cock through a glory hole or to make money in the sex industry."

Exactly what was your relationship with Scott? It would be helpful to know how it is you feel so confident to speak about what Scott was about and what he was doing with Steam.

------------------
Cruisemaster
cruisingforsex.com

[This message has been edited by Keith (edited January 15, 2001).]

Nunya business, Keith. You're not addressing the issues -- just as you didn't in the original post that initiated this string. You claim to want to avoid ad hominem attacks and here you are demanding my name instead of addressing the issues.

You're a unrelenting hypocrite who demands for himself precisely what you refuse others.

Right on, bongo!

Keith doesn't need to know identities and such in order to effectively address the issues presented here. The only thing that demands naming names is his ego right now.

The issue is not necessarily whether certain posts should or should not be deleted. The real issue is how Keith allowed this to be handled. No explanation. No attempt at diplomacy. Not even a disclaimer as to why he allowed this post (or any others) to get deleted or closed. The message is clear. He is the boss. This is not about ethics or genuineness. It is about Keith playing with his train set the way that he wants to play with it.

That about sums up the radical significance of CFS and its founder. Too bad.

I agree with Keith on many points he made in his Jan 7th response. CFS is his private website, and since he does not charge anyone for access to this website, following the spirit and intent of the rules is not difficult for us to do (at least most of us try to follow the rules). The rules, in case you might have missed them, are very easy to understand. Most of us can live with those rules. Deleting inappropriate or expressively prohibited material is not censorship. If you are not paying for access to this site, why are you complaining about having to abide by some of the rules of conduct if you choose to become a contributing user of this free access site?

Being a registered Republican has nothing to do with operating a website that is provided free to access the many areas. There are a lot of unhappy registered Liberals who are using this free access site for their own self-serving purposes. I strongly suggest to those unhappy Liberals who are using this free access site to go to another comparable site...that is, if there were another free access site like this one. If you are unhappy and a registered Liberal, you can always try to spend your own money to come up with a free access site which is owned and operated by a registered Liberal, right?

I think Bongo needs to spend less time at free access commercial websites editorializing on censorship. Cruising for Sex is a privately owned, operated, and managed website that we, the public at large, have access to ... free of charge. In exchange for providing free access to this website, the Cruisemaster and his volunteer corps of Moderators administer the various subject boards with few rules to guide and moderate the various boards.

It's time to stop biting the hand that provides free website access to everyone. Bongo has been given free access to this site so that he can vent his particular viewpoint. Bongo still doesn't understand why CFS has no competitor on the internet while the rest of us figured it out a long time ago.

I would like to offer my comments from a slightly different perspective:


I believe that differences of opinion between readers of a publication or broadcast and those who create it will always exsist. The CFS website is no execption, and the opinions, feelings and viewpoints among the viewers, moderators and our Cruisemaster will naturally clash on occasions. If you may, please allow me to offer my opinions in the following peaceful fashion: Even though I DO agree wholeheartedly that we should be able to have unbridled freedom to post our views -- even on a free website called "Cruisingforsex.com" (my apologies to you IrishRedHead) -- we also have to take into consideration that Keith is the proprietor of CFS and has the absolute control to moderate as he so desires. Keith really is no different than any journalist or editor who is in charge of a daily newspaper or monthly magazine, if we take some time to think about it. My local newspaper will NOT allow certain language or viewpoints to be published because the managing staff has developed certain guidelines within that publication. Even gay publications and websites (for example, PlanetOut) have guidelines...the fact is, there will be some control over how we present our views, even on free discussion boards around the 'Net from time to time. I'm not defending Keith or the CFS viewers, I'm only describing things as I have observed them to be. Keith, may I propose a couple of ideas to you, and would you think them over, perhaps? 1. Would it be acceptable to you to feature a guest column from fellow cruisers each week, to give them an opportunity to air their sentiments and feelings on the current events at hand? I believe this may bridge the gap between sides and help some cruisers feel that their Cruisemaster is agreeable to sometimes controversal viewpoints. It would also allow cruisers to post in an appropriate area and give everyone an opportunity to "speak freely" in a cooperative way. What do you think about this idea? 2. Would it be a good suggestion to have a "political forum" thread under each state listing, to help everyone stay abreast (not my breasts!) of political happenings in each state? For example, in North Carolina, attempts are being made to consider reform of our state's sodomy statutes...but that may not happen anytime soon! These state forums would help -- I believe -- cruisers and others expound on the political sides of the cruising issue without detracting from the "cruising for sex" aspects of each state's listings. Would you see a possibility in such a forum on CFS? I'm asking you in a respectful way because I do remember perhaps a few years ago when you wrote to me privately a couple of very sweet letters and I have never forgotten your kind words. I can see both sides of this issue and it would sadden me to see such a wonderful service change in a less-than-favorable direction. I don't know how I first discovered CFS, but I can say that it's still the best site for cruisers anywhere. I hope that everyone can reach an agreeable compromise on this issue.... Peace to all! http://web.cruisingforsex.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by blackguy469 (edited January 16, 2001).]

Try reading the posts, Red, instead of reacting reflexively. You still aren't addressing the issues. You're simply concurring with the assertion that an ability to do something, kill posts, makes it okay. And , like the love-America-or-leave-it types, you argue that we should leave or shut up if we don't like it. In other words, you want to control expression. ....which is the ISSUE. (You don't need to reply, if you are just going to reiterate the point that Keith has the right to do what he's doing and that if I don't like it, I should go elsewhere. I get your point.)

And by the way, media, though privately owned, are regulated and, in the case of electronic media, cannot unilaterally deny expression to opposing points of view (such media are also free). Defamatory speech is regulated through libel torts. And, beyond that, most media are governed by ethical rules of their professional associations.

I agree, as I already said, blackguy, that most media have rules that attempt to make debate civil. But in actuality, civility is not protected or mandated under the law, which recognizes that free expression often results in heated exchanges that include "hyperbolic invective."

Also, the internet is a more democratic medium where many voices can make themselves heard. Nobody here has advocated that people should be allowed to overtake the entire board with their agendas. What I am advocating is permission to politicize sex WHERE IT OCCURS, rather than shoving it off to the side because the political sentiments or the language offend someone.

I can't see how this isn't totally obvious. I mean, do you really think it makes sense to protect someone's posting a fantasy about mounting a dog or a teenager, but to say it's not okay to mount a soapbox about sexual politics? Nobody kills or banishes to the back of the board posts on the disgust factor that I know of...but they do kill (or reasssign) posts on a political basis. Don't you see the obscene irony?