Some Thoughts on DeviantArt 'Censorship'

First, I don't blame DeviantArt for their often-cramped rules. They're looking at the spiky mace of government power crashing down to crush and rend them if they displease Our Bureaucratic Overlords.

Second, the obvious intent is to have the definition of "pornography" in literature mirror the definition used for drawings, photos, and other images. But there are a few wrinkles where writings are different from drawings.

Third, I think the definitions for images are mostly clear. (In fact, I sometimes wish other sites would be equally clear in their definitions.) The chief problem is when images have naughty porn-bits that the artist blocks or blurs in self-censorship. This leaves the artist open to having his self-censorship "deemed insufficient or lacking by the reviewing staff member." But an artist acting in good faith should be able to tell ahead of time if his blurring or blocking of naughty porn-bits has avoided being "insufficient" or not. He shouldn't have a ban-hammer come down on him because he made a reasonable guess that the reviewing staff member turned out to disagree with.

Fourth, the problem above is much more severe when it comes to writing. Either the author leaves sex scenes out entirely (which is a bigger burden on writing than on images), or he does the writing equivalent of "blurring" them by using euphemisms rather than anatomical or vulgar-slang terms, by not giving details about what ...things... look like or about how ...things... interact, and by using indirection and innuendo. But how can an author tell ahead of time if his efforts have avoided the dreaded "insufficient"?

Fifth, if DeviantArt can't completely avoid subjective judgments, can it at least avoid double jeopardy? If a piece is reported, but then deemed to be acceptable after all by a staff member, will it be tagged so, to prevent the unfairness of a second review by different staff member bringing down the ban-hammer?

(Expanded from my comment on a DA post here)