Biggest Fan Fiction Site under attack

The law literally states

the child pornographic content reproduces no actual or realistic act, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of between three months and five years.
German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB) (gesetze-im-internet.de)

As per The reddit link earlier (https://www.reddit.com/r/FanFiction/comments/104q69n/on_the_ao3_on_german_google_dilemma/ )

The page in question was indexed on the 13th of December 2022 via the decision 15399 on the basis of offering child p***graphic contents.
So yeah the ban at hand is because it is classified as CP. I do not see any doubt about that.

If the ban on fiction would stand a constitutional challenge is doubt-able. never the less the law as it currently stands bans it and that is what they apply.

Edit: Attributed the reply to the wrong guy sorry :slight_smile:

2 Likes

And what would a constitutional challenge do? Would it strike down this portion?

1 Like

I think the word you are looking for is “dubious.”. :smile:

2 Likes

or just … “doubtful”

3 Likes

I managed to find an article about it, but it’s in German:

If someone could translate what the article says, that would be greatly appreciated.

Erst setzt die Bundeszentrale für Kinder- und Jugendmedienschutz eine große Fan-Fiction-Seite auf den Index. Nach kritischen IFG- und Presseanfragen hebt sie die Maßnahme wieder auf. Doch vom Tisch ist die Indizierung damit noch nicht.

First the “Bundeszentrale für Kinder- und Jugendmedienschutz” puts one of the biggest Fan-Fiction Sites on the Index. After some critical IFG (Law regarding the freedom of Information this law requires all Government bodies to release any letter, or similar things, any findings and other documents used to reach a coclusion when asked for the specific document. Some things are however excluded from this) and Press questions they change this. But putting it on the index is not out of the window yet.

Viele Menschen staunten nicht schlecht, als sie im Dezember ihre Lieblingswebsite nicht mehr mit der Google-Suche finden konnten. Aufrufbar war die Seite noch, aber von einem Tag auf den anderen schien das beliebte Fan-Fiction-Portal archiveofourown.org aus den Ergebnissen der größten Suchmaschine gefegt worden zu sein. Erst später wurde klar, warum: Die Bundeszentrale für Kinder- und Jugendmedienschutz (BzKJ) hatte das Forum als kinder- und jugendgefährdend eingestuft.

Many people where quiete Surprised when there favorite website was no longer listed on google. You were able to vistit it but from one day to the other the beloved Fan-Fiction site http://archiveofourown.org/ was no longer in the results of the biggest search engine. Only later it was revealed why. The BzKJ did classify the forum as child and youth endangering.

[… Skipping a section explaining the website and why it is important as that not relevant here]

Erst eine IFG-Anfrage bringt Klarheit

Nicht selten haben Fan-Fiktionen einen sexuellen Charakter. Auch auf AO3 finden sich viele sexuell explizite Geschichten, Nutzer:innen können die Inhalte mit einem Filtersystem nach ihren Präferenzen sortieren. Als Reaktion auf die restriktive Content-Policy der meisten kommerziellen Plattformen verfolgt das Projekt einen „maximal inklusiven“ Ansatz. Immer wieder gibt es Debatten darum, wie weit dieser gehen soll. Ob es Autor:innen zum Beispiel erlaubt sein soll, Themen wie Inzest, Vergewaltigung oder Pädosexualität zu verarbeiten.

Clarity only after IFG request

It is not rare that fan fictions do have a sexual character to them. So too with AO3, where one can find many sexually explicit stories, which users can filter and sort according to there own preferences. As a reaction to the otherwise restrictiv Content Policies of most commercial Plattform the project follows a “maximum inclusion” appraoch. Every once in a while debates about how far this should go flare up. For example rather authors are allowed to deal with subjects such as incest, rape or “Pädosexualität” (Node by translator: Pädosexualität can refer to child abuse, as well as pedophilia (the attraction). sometimes it is used to signal that pedophilia is like other preferences (removing the word difference here) sometimes it is used to eliminate the romantic parts of the attraction. and cast it as something only sexual. It is sometimes also used to refer specifically to child abuse perpetrators that do have pedophilia.)

Das hat Ende 2022 offenbar die deutschen Jugendschützer:innen auf den Plan gerufen, die auf dem Portal „kinderpornografische Inhalte“ entdeckt haben wollen. So schreibt es die Bundeszentrale für Kinder- und Jugendmedienschutz am 6. Januar in einer Antwort auf eine IFG-Anfrage, die jemand über FragDenStaat gestellt und veröffentlicht hat.

That got the german youth protection agency interested in the website. They claim to have noticed “child pornographic Content” on the site. That is what the BzKJ answers to an IFG question transmitted via Ask the State

Man habe die Website archiveofourown.org mit Entscheidung vom 13. Dezember 2022 indiziert, heißt es in der Antwort. Auf den Index setzt die zur BzKJ gehörende Prüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien neben Filmen, Musik und Büchern auch Internetangebote, die ihrer Meinung nach die Entwicklung von Kindern und Jugendlichen „oder ihre Erziehung zu einer eigenverantwortlichen und gemeinschaftsfähigen Persönlichkeit“ gefährden könnten.

As of the decision of the 13th of December 2022 the website was put on the index belonging to the BzKJ, so the BzKJ. Movies, Music, Books and Internetwebsites that the BzKJ is of the opinion would harm the development of children and youth or would interfere with there “Education as Independent and Community-capable personalities” are put on there.

“Wir wurden nicht kontaktiert“

Konkret ist das Archive of Our Own auf einer Block-Liste gelandet, auf dem sogenannten BPJM-Modul. Diese Liste kann von Routern und Jugendschutzprogrammen genutzt werden, um indizierte Inhalte für Nutzer:innen zu verbergen. Auch Suchmaschinen wie Google, die bei der Freiwilligen Selbstkontrolle der Multimedia-Diensteanbieter (FSM) mitmachen, nutzen das Modul, um indizierte Inhalte nicht mehr anzuzeigen.

We did not get contacted

In specific the AO3 was put on a block list, the so called BPJM-Modul. A List which Routers and Youth Protection Programs can use to hide listed content from users. Search engines like Google that are a part of the Multimedia Services voluntary self control (FSM) use this modul in order to not display listed content.

AO3 hat mehr als fünf Millionen angemeldete Nutzer:innen. Wie viele davon in Deutschland leben, ist nicht klar, doch es gibt knapp 20.000 Beiträge mit dem Label „German“, etwa Liebesgeschichten um Tatort-Ermittler:innen.

AO3 has more then 5 Million users. How many of those come from germany is unclear, however there are more then 20 000 Posts using the label “German” among them love Stories relating to Tatort (a german crime series / the word crime scene ) Investigators

Bei vielen AO3-Nutzer:innen in Deutschland löste die Nachricht, dass das Portal auf den Index gesetzt wurde, Unverständnis und Sorgen vor einer gänzlichen Sperrung aus. In einer Diskussion auf Reddit betonen sie die Sonderrolle von AO3 als eine der wenigen großen nicht-kommerziellen Plattformen im Internet.

For many AO3 users in germany the message that the website landed on the index resulted in disbelieve and worry that the site might be blocked entirely. In a discussion on reddit they empathized the special role of AO3 as one of the few big non commercial platforms of the internet.

Auch die Betreiberin von AO3, die gemeinnützige Organization for Transformative Works (OTW) aus den USA, ist von der Entscheidung der Bundeszentrale merklich vor den Kopf gestoßen. „Wir sind sehr enttäuscht über die Maßnahme“, schreibt uns eine Sprecherin auf Anfrage. Weder OTW noch AO3 seien von der Bundeszentrale kontaktiert worden. „Wir wissen nicht, welche konkreten Inhalte bemängelt werden oder was von uns gefordert wird, um die Indizierung rückgängig zu machen.“

The Administrators of AO3, the Non for Profit organisation for transformative Works (OTW) from the USA, is notably surprised by the decision.
“We are very disappointed at the measurements taken” the speaker wrote in a request. Neither OTW nor AO3 have been contacted by the ministry. “We do not know the exact content that is the problem nor what is needed to be done in order to revoke the indexation”

Aufgehoben heißt hier nur: aufgeschoben

Die Antwort erhalten die Macher:innen des Projekts nun auf Umwegen: Sie müssen gar nichts machen, jedenfalls vorläufig. Auf eine Presseanfrage von netzpolitik.org muss die Bundeszentrale nämlich eingestehen: Sie hat bei der Indizierung Formfehler gemacht und sie deshalb am 10. Januar 2023 aufgehoben.

Revoked here means: delayed

The creators of the project there answer by Detour. Nothing at all, for now at least. Responding to a press inquirier of netzpolitik.org the ministry has to admits that the indexation had an error in Formalities. As such it has been revoked as of the 10th of January 2023.

„Grundsätzlich sind bei Indizierungsverfahren zu Telemedien die Anbieter nach Möglichkeit anzuhören“, teilt uns eine Sprecherin der Behörde auf Anfrage mit. „Diese Anhörung ist im vorliegenden Fall nicht ordnungsgemäß erfolgt.“ Zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung dieses Artikels ist archiveofourown.org über Google-Suche zwar noch nicht wieder auffindbar, dies liegt aber vermutlich daran, dass die Aktualisierung des BPJM-Moduls und die Übertragung an die Suchmaschinen eine Weile dauern.

"In principle during the process of indexation the administrators are to asked if possible. A speaker of the Ministry says answering one of our inquiries. “In the specific case however this has not happend.” At the time of publishing this article the site is not yet find able using google again, this however likely is a result of delay in Order to update the BPJM-Modules and transmitting this to the search engines.

Zumindest für den Moment können AO3-Nutzer:innen also aufatmen. Doch die Indizierung ist laut Sprecherin der Bundeszentrale nicht vom Tisch: „Mit der Aufhebung der Entscheidung besteht nun die Möglichkeit, die Anhörung nachzuholen und dann eine erneute Entscheidung zu treffen.“

At least for the moment Users of AO3 can breathe a sigh of relive. However the indexation is still on the table according to the Ministry. “With the revocation of the decision we can now ask the Administrators and reach a new decision afterwards.”

Wie hierbei die Chancen stehen, lässt sich derzeit kaum beurteilen, denn die Bundeszentrale will nicht sagen, welche Inhalte genau in Frage stehen. Sie teilt lediglich mit, dass es um „kinderpornografische Inhalte in Textform“ geht und dass in Deutschland „auch virtuelle Darstellungen und Schriften“ zu den laut Strafgesetzbuch verbotenen „kinderpornografischen Inhalte“ zählen.

How the odds are divided on this issue however still remains unanswered for the Ministry does not want to answer which content specifically is the problem. They merely point to the fact that it deals with “child pornographic content in the form of text” And that in Germany virtuell depictions and content (Translators note: The origonal wording here reads script. in German legal speak this however refers to a lot more then written things. Content is the more likely translation and used in the law (see ) belong to those banned under the criminal code. (see section 184b STG and section 11 STGB)

Indizierung wirft Fragen auf

Die Bundeszentrale muss sich nun allerdings selbst einige unangenehme Fragen gefallen lassen. Dazu gehört die, warum es erst kritische IFG- und Presseanfragen braucht, damit die Behörde bemerkt, dass sie einen gravierenden Formfehler begangen und die Anhörung der Betroffenen vergessen hat.

The Indexation results in questions

The ministry now has to accept a couple of uncomfortable questions however. Among them, why did it need critical IFG requests and Press inquiries for a ministry to notice that a major error of formalities has taken place.

1 Like

Auf Fragen nach der Verhältnismäßigkeit der Indizierung der kompletten Seite antwortet die Bundeszentrale derweil nur mit allgemeinen Auskünften. Die Prüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien achte immer darauf, dass ihre Maßnahmen verhältnismäßig sind, schließlich sei eine Indizierung für die Anbieter:innen mit weitreichenden Konsequenzen verbunden. Darüber hinaus sei „Kern eines guten Kinder- und Jugendmedienschutzes das Kinderrecht auf Teilhabe: Kinder und Jugendliche sollen möglichst nicht von für sie relevanten Angeboten ausgeschlossen werden.“ Allerdings gebe es Fälle, bei denen die Indizierung der gesamten Seite eine verhältnismäßige Schutzoption für Kinder und Jugendliche sei.

Regarding questions rather the indexation of the entire site was reasonable the ministry only answers with general information. The BzKJ would always check rather a method is reasonable or not, after all the indexation is connected to major consequences for the Administators of a website. Additionally at the core of any good child and youth protection law is the childsright to participate. Children are not supposed to be excluded from any offering relevant to them. There are however some cases where indexation of a whole website is a resonable option to protect children and teenagers.

Dass dieser Schutz auch den Betreiber:innen von AO3 ein Anliegen ist, betont die Sprecherin der Organization for Transformative Works. Man müsse zum Beispiel volljährig sein, um einen Account bei dem Forum anlegen zu dürfen. Außerdem sei das Posten oder Einbinden von Darstellungen des sexuellen Missbrauchs von Kindern, wie sie das Recht der USA definiert, strengstens verboten.

One of the speakers of AO3 confirms that this protection is a major concern of OTW. One has to be above the age of 18 for example to be allowed to register an account. Futhermore the imbedding and posting of depictions of sexual abuse of minors as regulated by the US law is forbidden.

[… skiping a section relating to the fact the speaker used CSEM]

„Sobald uns CSEM gemeldet wird, entfernen wir die Inhalte, unternehmen Schritte gegen die Verbreiter:innen und benachrichtigen die zuständigen nationalen Behörden“, betont die Sprecherin.

Das dürfe auch die Bundeszentrale für Kinder- und Jugendmedienschutz erfahren, sobald sie die Betreiber:innen kontaktiert. Offen bleibt, ob ihr das ausreicht.

As soon as we are informed of any CSEM we undertake multiple actions against the distributor and report them to the national authorities. The speaker notes.

The ministry will know this too as soon as the administrators are contacted, rather this will suffice remains open however.

1 Like

Well let´s start at the beiging

  1. since the change in law is older then 1 year now (it was decided in 2021 already) you will have to start at the administrativ court. the result could then be challenged at the higher Administrativ Court which could then land at the Federal Administrativ Court and then at the supreme court (no you can not just ask the supreme court directly a judge can but you can not)

  2. even if we where within the 1 year grace Periode where you can challenge the law directly in front of the supreme court, you cannot for this specific instance since it is only a “reformulation of existing law” and not a new law (you see the previous version did not mention content needs to be real or realistic and as such it is argued that this is not a law change but only a change in punishment and wording which is effective imitatively and needs to be challenged the entire way through the lower courts)

Now presume you do all that. (eg. run essentially 4 court cases that will take time) and they will find in your favor they may:

  1. strike down the entire law (that amended this law) including the increase in penalty for sex offenders, the ban of child like sex dolls and the ban of “Manuals for the exploration of children” that is so badly done that factual information might be counted as part of it.

  2. Ask the Parlament to change the law and do nothing.

  3. they kinda gave them self a third option which is to just declare the part invalid, that however would mean that the law remains in the books and that anyone could still use it. As a defense you could then however just raise the Supreme Court decision. (so it is technically ineffective presuming good and reasonable defense)

However presume the indexation would be off and the ban is non constitutional. The content of AO3 is clearly pornographic. Such content needs to be for People above the age of 18. As such you need to implement one of 4 (?) different methods to prostivly identify the person as above 18

  1. Confirm his identity via his ID Card / Driver License or another official document.
  2. Confirm his identity through a bank / credit card
  3. Confirm his identity through post ident / remote identification services (tldr you show the post men / a guy via zoom your id card he confirms you are 18 and who you claim to be and are free then)
  4. restricting access to them from 23:00 (11:00 PM) to 6:00 (6:00 AM) german time

since AO3 does not gate there content behind any such mechanism (and doing so would likely be there death) they can still be indexed (as happend with XHamster, also that is the reason you can not access porn games on german steam)

Now you could challenge the requirement for user authentication again (running through the same marathon of court sessions) That however is unlikely to succed.

  1. The law is OLD (like pre Internet old)
  2. There have been people on it with alot more money then you (like Steam / Sony / Microsoft / Hollywood) they have not been succesful.
1 Like

You can criminally charged (not harshly but still) for swearing at someone else or for generally “hateful” or “offensive” speech in Germany , it seems to me that any sort of constitutional challenge would be doomed at the outset given how flaccid their “free speech” protections are and have been historically

1 Like

Eh big Asterisk to the “offensive speech” thing. The sole Purpose of the speech has to be in insult someone else in an not insignificant way while also not being a gut reaction to something. Additionally you need to consider how speech usually works in the circumstance the statement was made.
The statement also has to be intentionally offending. Eg. the prosector has to prove that you knew it was offensive and you wanted it to be considered that way. Or simply put: taking the interpretation that is best for the person that said the possibly offensive words, there is no way but to conclude that the statements made had no interest in any shape or form but to insult another person. ( a statement regarded to a group has even bigger restrictions including that group belonging to a set of small specific groups and the statement being made over a special attribute of said group)

After that you additionally have to consider the rights of the person saying this and the exact person that is being said to. A politician for example has to pretty much always accept even clearly offensive words with no other context then to offend the person as they are people that stand in the public sphere and do say heavily controversial things. The alleged offender must also have made this as a statement of fact not of possibility or similar. Freedom of arts (which is a separate freedom entirely). The statement must also be offensive in the eye of the average person. So one can´t just take any statement and claim it to be offensive.

As a real world example to show how hard it is to get something considered offensive Speech. The all so familiar statement of “kill all pedophiles” is not considered offensive since there is no clearly definable group that is talked about here. (according to the rejection of a online criminal complain I handed in.)

1 Like

I see, the standard is more stringent than imagined. guess I know a little more about German law now.

In the US where I live, speech (barring specific threats of violence) from one person to another is at most a civil matter (in the case of libel and slander). For instance, while kill all pedophiles may not fly afoul of german law, an individual in the US would be perfectly within their rights that any specific group or individual should be killed. All the “kill joe Biden” posts in Facebook illustrate that quite well.

Hate speech is also a generally foreign concept to us law, and so while a German national may be breaking the law by openly saluting hitler, or publicly claiming the holocaust never happened, a US national can openly be a Aryan brotherhood or KKK member spewing whatever falsehoods and hatred they please without legal repercussion.

My thinking in pointing to these differences is that if the US who has evidently carved out considerably fewer exceptions to their citizens rights to free speech, has at many occasions held the prosecuting of individuals for fiction as lawful and constitutional - then it seems very implausible to me that the German courts would simply find such a ban outright unconstitutional.

Hopefully there are successful challenges levied against this, but I have a hunch that this will likely stand as it has with similar laws in neighboring countries like the Uk and France

2 Likes

Well german Courts have found plain out banning the Possession of drawings depicting children in sexual acts as unconstitutional. That runs afoul of the freedom of art which in germany also covers porn. The freedom of art can only be limited by other freedoms of another person.

Another persons freedom is however not attacked with a drawing of the abstract idea of a child. As such banning the Possession (and private creation) of that is unconstitutional. What is however not covered by the freedom of art is the sale of art. (It is generally unclear in how far businesses have any right in Germany. That isn´t given to them by a law. The constitutional rights only deal with humans) As such there acting can be limited.

You really have to step away from the idea that freedom of speech and freedom of art is the same thing it is not in German law. Freedom of speech as given by the German constitution can be limited by law. Arts, Science, teaching and research can not they merely have to follow the Constitution. Which is why schools may still use depictions and so on from Nazi Germany. Because laws can not Limit the freedom of a school or it´s teaching. For all intends and purposes Teaching, Research science and art in germany is above the law.

Offensive speech in a song for example is absolutely legal. Same with hard right leaning statements. Which is why Germany has a pretty big music scene in those regions (street / gangster rap and “Rechts rock”)

1 Like

I’m certainly misunderstanding something here. What does this new law prohibit exactly?

I read the page that you linked for reference to this law and it simply refers to dissemination, which could be undertaken by a business for profit, but it also seems as though this applies just as much to lone individuals who may be “disseminating” this content for whatever reason at all.

My understanding is that this law is being pushed mainly for the purpose of going after hosting sites, but there doesn’t seem to be anything preventing individuals from being prosecuted even if that’s not the present focus.

1 Like

yes distribution means a group of people that can not be individually identified anymore or that by there very nature is not able to be singled out. You may send it to your friend. But yes distribution is another thing that is not really part of the freedom of art.

Freedom of art refers to the freedom to create, view and own art. Selling, buying and distribution isn´t really part of it.

Another point is that private dealings especially those in your bedroom, are also a lot more strongly protected from the interference of the Government.

As a last side note what exactly is “private” is a complicated thing and will pretty much always land in front of the court.

1 Like

I see, well that does clear things up. It does seem strange however to separate the viewing of art from its distribution, insofar as people have not gained the ability to magically conjure up the art of others, distribution seems a necessary component to being able to view anything at all beyond what you or maybe your friend created

Something that still confuses me is the fact that the law provides criminal penalties and sentencing ranges for distributors and yet it Only applies to groups for which it is impossible to single out any individual as the relevant actor

1 Like

Not 100% sure I understand this one. but in general there are no ways to charge multiple people in german law. A crime commited in a group would see every person in that group get charged individually and one of them used to figure out the merits. furthermore not everyone in that group has to distribute.

(similarly by the way with sueing there is a “Norm Feststellungsklage” which essentially seeks to find a common way an act worked. But every person in a group needs to sue by itself.)

1 Like

Yes that is the part that is the most confusing to me, as while the law applies to groups it is ultimately only individuals that can be charged - and so the law seems to be such that an individual has the right to distribute, but this act becomes criminal if one is party in a group of other people all of which individually have the right to distribute? So this law (and it’s corresponding penalties) doesn’t apply to individuals, and it does apply to groups, but also only the constituent individuals : while at the same time a group is defined a a collection of people in which no one individual can be singled out as the relevant actor?

This law if it really is like this, seems to be completely oxymoronic, it’s inconsistent with itself.

1 Like

Ok so to clear that up hopefully:

Consider 3 Cases in which I share a factious picture of a child.
Case one: I share a picture to you. For example by printing it out and handing it to you in person. Such an act is not making it public as at any point in time only you and I have access to it.

case two: I share the picture on my public Facebook wall that any person can visit. As I do no longer have control over the pictures distribution this is to be considered making it public. As such it is punishable.

Case three: I share the photo on my facebook wall that only my “friends” can visit. This one is actually 2 cases.

  1. I can identify any person in my friends list uniquely and without doubt and I can furthermore without reasonable doubt say that all of them will not make it public them self. In this case it would not be punishable as it is not public.
  2. I can not identify everyone in there or I can not without reasonable doubt say they will not make it public them self. In this case it would be a crime. As the people it gets shared to are no longer uniquely identifiable. (Or I had to expect that they would make it public and therefor should not have done so)

Do note that Sentence 2 (" undertakes to make available to or obtain possession of, for another, child pornographic content which reproduces an actual or a realistic act," does not apply to fictitious content only to real content)

Now in case of fictive content receiving / owning it does not have a penalty. only sharing it does. If more then one person shared it they all get charged for the picture(s) they shared. (There is however no “charged with 52 counts of X” in German law. All pictures are charged as one offense. The amount will just increase where in the range you will land)

1 Like

I want to clarify by saying that possesion of fictitious content can be illegal if it looks realistic. Also, much more interesting and relevant here are so called “pedophilic guides”. It is much more likely that a story can fall under this new law. This law also covers material that “is designed to incentivize abuse, or may cause it” and according to lawyers this also applies to descriptions of sexual actions. Very vague. It may also cover japanese comics as a prosecutor can now argue that it illustrates an abusive scene that could be reconstructed in real life and thus be used as a Guide. This is not something I pull out of my arse since this very reasoning is how many countries legitimize their criminalisation. This is key information, because the law makes clear that it includes pornography and it also criminalizes possesion. The politicians did talk about the current state of the CSAM law and that such guides were legal to trade with individuals since it was considered fiction. This law is almost never mentioned, but it can be relevant.

Clear fiction was not a gray zone in terms of possesion, but now it is when it comes to anything that tells a story with words or images (Comic). Could also hit singular art pieces depending on what it shows. It’s not really clear.

2 Likes

They just released the document which explains in detail why the website shall be put on the index and thus be removed from Google searches

According to the blackened document a council consisting of three people ruled to “ban” the site. One of the persons (name censored) is responsible for “art”.

The reason given is that fictional stories in russian, containing minors are being hosted on the website. These stories are illegal and the harm for the youth is explained by saying:

The harm to the youth is obvious

Followed by mentioning how such content being deemed harmful through laws supports the one sentence answer.

Now the more interesting part and also why I mentioned that someone responsible for “art” is also mentioned in the document.

Paraphrased:

Comparing the breach of artistic freedom a ban would cause to the breach of youth protection the material causes it is clear that youth protection weighs more than artistic freedom. Stories with the sole purpose of arousing the reader are at the very least of small artistic quality.

So much for artistic freedom!

Given that this content is accessible without proper age verification it is not possible to stop the process of indexing for pettiness.

I doubt that even matters.

In short:
You can totally ban a large website for a few bad texts the website owner refuses to delete and thus affect 99% of its users.

5 Likes