The OP has marked it as resolved so I am closing it.

I have unexpectedly clicked into blogs that utterly offended my sensibilities. I am a member of the majority of bloggers, who do not blog on or depict images of mutilation and torture for the purpose of sexual gratification, and who do not want to be unexpectedly faced with this kind of content.

Do I expect that Automattic will be more inclined towards listening to bloggers like myself than those who clog the spam filters with unwanted and unsolicited material? YES!

What people write or the images they post in their blogs is not IMO the issue.

What people do within the privacy of their relationships is not IMO the issue.

Business people make ethical decisions and express them in policies every day in the USA and around the world. Intelligent and ethical business people listen to what the majority of their clientèle wants and act on the information.

Which blogs a webhost like Automattic chooses to promote and feature is their internal business. The policies either will reflect the ethical standards they wish to put forward, to be known by.

(1) If the blog host in question chooses to make it mandatory that all "adult" content blogs are labeled private and that failure to declare one's blog properly can lead to suspension or deletion that is their business prerogative, and there is no law that can compel them to do otherwise.

(2) If the blog host in question chooses to make it mandatory that all "adult" content blogs will have their tags/categories from their tag system that is their business prerogative, and there is no law that can compel them to do otherwise.

(3) If the blog host in question chooses to make it mandatory that all "adult" content blogs shall not be considered for top blogs, top posts, and from growing posts consideration that is their prerogative and there is no law that can compel them to do otherwise.

(4) If the blog host in question chooses to make it mandatory that all "adult" content blogs shall not be available through the use of the "next blog" button that is their prerogative and there is no law that can compel them to do otherwise.

(5) If the blog host in question chooses to make it mandatory that all "adult" content blogs shall not be linked to usernames in the forum that is their prerogative and there is no law that can compel them to do otherwise.

I will point out though that folks need to remember that what one's persons values are may not mess up with other folks. Also remember that the internet is not just the USA. (or AOL) Different laws apply in different locations. That's one of the reasons why I keep an law firm on retainer myself (outside of the country in fact so not to be affected by US leanings) and I'm sure Matt and crew have one on retainer as well.

Regards,
-drmike

If anyone has reason to believe their work is being copied here on wordpress.com, send an email in. You can expect a response AND action.

As I read your link I interpret it to mean "without previous knowledge" of a Copyright infringement a "Common Carrier" may be immune from prosecution or legal action.

If, however, I inform an ISP/blog host that my content is being stolen and I prove the provenance of my pre-existing work and the ISP/blog host then refuses to remove the content on my behalf, then they become liable as a co-conspirator because they are willfully refusing to recognize and act upon the removal of my exclusive ownership of the work even though they've been given fair notice to remove the stolen content.

Even if an ISP/blog host writes in their TOS they are absolved of all publication responsibility that doesn't mean they still cannot be put on the stand and crushed in the press as a meaty target for being made whole. Who has the deeper pockets for restitution? An ISP/blog host with a valuable brand and name or a fly-by-night Scraper/Spammer? The ISP/blog host may claim to be, in theory, right on the law, but it will cost them heaps of time and money to continue to defend that claim in court.

ISPs are largely immune from liability for third party content. The Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander. The DMCA established that ISPs which comply with DMCA would not be liable for the copyright violations of third parties on their network.

Thank you to everyone who participated in this vigorous conversation. Dialogue like this is invaluable and important.

I especially appreciate those who take an opposite view to help fully argue all angles of merit. Devil’s Advocate is a hard and unenviable position to be played, but it must be fought for to be fair to all sides.

I fully support the idea of free speech and as a publisher and an author I would be false to argue otherwise.

As we all age and gain perspective on people and the law, we can become more and more sensitive to context and not overarching arguments. The Supreme Court of the United States fought hard over the idea of obscenity and concluded; we “can't define it, but [we] know it when [we] see it."

Today, I felt I saw something that deserved a closer look. There's a time and a place for everything in a frame of understanding and our willful awareness of circumstance -- and the glimmer of specific issues over general ideals -- is what makes us all greater together and more wonderful in the whole of us.

Good night.

You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre and claim you are using free speech and so pornography and obscenity are not protected speech according to the Supreme Court of the United States:

"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

You'll have a hard time in any United States court defending your belief that a cervix with a pencil it is protected speech under any circumstance.

Back to the specificity of the topic: All the WordPress.com severs are on American soil. If they move to Canada, as I predicted they will in my 2007 Predictions and Resolutions article, they may find a safer haven, but not a better one on moral grounds.

Remember, WordPress.com is an international publisher so "community standards" apply to all aspects of the United States and not a single locality.

Again I say, regardless how repugnant various things may be to you or to any individual (and I have purposely not added my two cents, because frankly what they post on their blog isn't subject to my approval or disapproval), these particular ones are not TOS violations, and I do not support them being made so. That these thoughts appear on a WordPress blog does not mean WordPress endorses them, any more than a blog post about support for the Canucks means WordPress abhors the Calgary Flames.

How many blog posts showing the execution of Saddam Hussein made Top Blogs over the past couple of days? Do I find this repugnant? Yes. Do I believe that WordPress should censor them? No.

I am curious as to why it is ALWAYS the sex blogs that bring up these discussions, and not violence. Sociologically, it's revealing to say the least.

You are arguing a point that is stillborn, but embedded, in the scope of human abuse and suffering, but that doesn’t mean it should appear unfettered and sponsored by WordPress.com.

And for the record, I am personally acquainted with a man currently charged with multiple murders, and have been a crime writer off and on for several years. Believe me, I know what it looks like.

Adam -- The "Common Carrier" argument doesn't wash and even the link you provide proves that point: "Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined routes and schedules. Airlines, railroads, bus lines, cruise ships and freight companies may be common carriers." Where in the world do you read “blog publisher” into that defintion?

WordPress.com is hardly a "Common Carrier" under the law and if they are claiming that, I believe they will have hard and unwelcoming reckoning soon.

WordPress.com, is a publisher of content in partnership with the blog. Without their servers and access to bandwidth and the public eye, the content doesn't get published. I have used that argument many times -- that the web hosting service is a de facto co-publisher -- to get my stolen content removed from the internet because the web host has the money, the power and the position to remove the Copyright infringement if they so choose. I force them to choose the illicit activity or the courts: The responsibility is theirs for remedy to my grievance and to shrug their shoulders and say, "Gee, it's them not me, it’s them" is to wrongly shift the responsibility for content publication away from those who have the power and the understanding to remedy.

timethief -- I'm with you all the way!

I do not want to click on "next blog" and unexpectedly be looking at what David describes:

Sexual parts sewn up and burned and twisted and bruised and whipped and needled and inside sexual parts pulled outside the body.

I agree that these blogs should be labeled, removed from the tag system and rendered ineligible for top blog, top post and growing blog rankings just as blogs with "adult" content are. I also do not want the bloggers of such blogs to be allowed have their usernames linked to their blogs on the forums so I unwittingly click on their names trying to help them and am unexpectedly viewing such disturbing images of depravity.

I believe that Mark and our other staff are dealing with the reports I make prompting and in appropriate ways. If however this can be addressed in the TOS as a message to those kinds of bloggers to seek hosting elsewhere then I want that to be done.

No arguments about freedom and censorship will ever convince me that these kinds of blogs contribute any value whatsoever to my blogging experience at wordpress or to society as a whole. I do not want what they are peddling. To me the it's spam of the very worst sort.

automattic's position is that they are a common carrier. i can't explain that very well, as i'm not a lawyer. if wp.com wasn't a common carrier, they would fall under all sorts of laws (not least of which being section 2257, which would require that automattic, not the blog owners, keep records of any nude models here on wp.com), which would make daily operation cost prohibitive.

personally, i'm very glad that wp.com TOS doesn't prohibit adult content. that sort of TOS is the reason i left blogger.

Thanks for the comment on my blog -- I answered you -- and thanks for the pointer to your blog -- I commented there.

There is a human idea of "Common Human Decency" that we must all stand together and support in light of those who choose to not only cross that idea but violate its very tenets in the name of entertainment and profiteering.

Sometimes supporting ideals like "free speech" over the harsh reality of sexual exploitation damages us in horrible, awful, internal ways as people that cannot be outwardly understood until it is too late and the damage has been inflicted on the body and the national psyche.

Mark and I have had a thrilling and thoughtful conversation on this matter and I appreciate the opportunity to open a frank and blunt dialogue on the matter with the powers that be inside WordPress.com.

There is great power in standing up for Doing The Right Thing in bandwidth support and blog publication.

If anyone wants to visit their "real" website to catch an eyeful of the crud they had here, let me know, but I'll only send it to people I know well here. I don't want to be in the titillation exchange business but I do think that sort of vicious content should be identified and removed as a WordPress.com TOS violation.

I understand sexuality is drawn with fine lines and subtle shadings, but I just can't imagine anyone from WP.COM holding up those sorts of images as examples of "non-TOS violations."

The behavior may be legal but so are links to paid sites, etc. The only reason link violations are "illegal" here is because the TOS makes them "illegal" by definition. I believe the same sort of TOS coverage would go a long way in protecting sexuality while removing extreme visual examples of sexual exploitation and torture.

I would like to propose that hardcore nudity and sexual torture -- real or pretend -- also be included as WordPress.com TOS violations.

Reported to feedback.

Ooof! The site is awful. Sexual parts sewn up and burned and twisted and bruised and whipped and needled and inside sexual parts pulled outside the body. Ugh. Ugly.