This Post is NSFP: Not Safe for Prudes

So what do you do about it— if you think "Not Safe For Work" censorship has gone too far?

NSFW is unmandated, unlegislated censorship — there's no ballot to punch, no senator to harangue.

The great majority of NSFW warnings are the result of unconscious class bias, with the conceit of American ethnocentrism. It's made a mockery of out of journalism and the First Amendment.

NSFW and its slippery slope of "assumptions" leads to stories and ideas of all kinds being banned, firewalled, off the grid in places from universities to major wire services.

Let's change our own responses.

1. Unless you would tag The New York Times, The New Yorker, Vogue, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, and Art World as "NSFW" —don't tag anyone else who covers the same turf of sexual politics, erotic culture, and the full breadth of the English language. And yes, those editors publish bare breasts— in some cases, every issue.

Think about the media class distinctions every time, and you'll find yourself exercising freedom of speech. It's that easy.

2. What if you want to tell your dear old fragile Aunt Dot about a spaghetti recipe, but you're worried she might take offense at the rest of the site, or worse, blame you for impropriety? 

Try being direct and nonchalant:

Dear Aunt Dot, Thought you'd love this recipe. [Susie's] site is feminist/leftwing/sassy/bohemian, but I thought you'd like it.

3. Sick of the false consciousness that runs this rating game?

Start a new labeling system that mocks the whole concept. Yep, it's time to announce: NSFP: Not Safe For Prudes.

Feel free to stamp it everywhere, or use the Li'l Bandit logo above!

4. What if you're reading a site at work and one of your co-workers/supervisors interrupts you with a shocked glance and demands to know what you're up to?

Again, imagine you were reading one of the magazines above. You would say, "Why, I"m reading an article about Kurt Eichenwald going off the deep end in New York magazine... what about you?"

Do not take the "prude bait" that there is something particularly unusual about what you're reading at your desk. It's a big world out there.

5. You work with someone who's a leering, porn-obsessed pig who all but rubs himself down with hand lotion every time you need to borrow a paper clip.

Solution: The problem is boundaries and privacy. That's how you address the problem.

Many of us don't like to listen to bigoted, narcissistic, neurotic demands for attention all day, but NFSW lunacy isn't working for anyone.

The creeps don't stop being creepy, no matter how many indexes you give them, and meanwhile, American political and cultural discussion is reduced to infantilism.

This story is one of our Top-10 most popular posts! If you've found it valuable, enjoyable, or beneficial— or just a great kick in the pants— consider making a small donation.  I'd love you to be a part of our latest schemes...  Subscribe for $5/mo. or donate what you can afford now— and I'll send you a Clits Up! button and my latest book/movie/whatever I'm up to! Thank you so much... Susie

Comments

[VJ]

A lot of this has to do with the very deteriorating rights situations at work. NSFW means 'this might get you in trouble'. And indeed it might. Our typical work environments are now places where the Constitution & Bill of Rights literally do not apply, and there's been generations of legal 'work arounds' to see to it that you're a mere cog in the machine who's Never supposed to express an independent or political thought inside the workplace. Free expression? Tell that to the numerous guys blacklisted or fired for having politically incorrect Bumper stickers on their cars/trucks IN THE LOTS of their work places.

The typical employee is controlled to a fare the well today, ask Barbara Ehrenreich or read her for many more examples. So if your buddy sends you a quick girlie pic of an ex or perhaps even (goodness!) someone he's/she's dating presently, geez there's just multiple jurisdictions and legalities included and to be considered now. No boos in today's environment is willing to tolerate that for long. If someone's willing to make a federal case of it, they will. Most of these suits (over other more mundane commercial issues) have been startling effective in now legally delimiting the right to any sort of privacy to something that just does not happen with; a) your work email or anything having to do with your work email systems and b.) anything to do with your work phone systems, (although this seems to be a bit behind the current trends).

So your points are well taken Susie. While I might agree & sympathize with the sentiment you express & hope for a new more adult 'ethos' (and have been for years now), the NSFW distinction has it's purpose & reasons for being. Not for websites per se, but for the incoming emails to staff. And of course for the now ubiquitous & near universal surfing for (real) porn while working. It's a new age, and no one's ever really caught up. But if you screw up at work, your health care disappears with you, and that's a burden almost no one in the 'middling classes' is willing to risk. Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'

[Ed]

Only tangentially relevant to the discussion, but I love wearing this t-shirt to work....

http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/7675/

[Steve]

It galls me to say this, but there is one topic upon which I agree completely wtih Rush Limbaugh - the sexual harassment movement has gutted our workplace of any kind of sensibility. What Rush said, and again it galls me to have to agree with him on anything, is that the problem with sexual harrassment is that the laws are based upon how someone "feels" rather than upon any truly measurable standard. In fact, you have to be careful of saying anything that anyone might feel funny about, even saying "That color is very flattering on you." The laws in this case have fucked up our workplaces, rather than help. Not that I care for anyone to be the target of sexual harrassment - in fact I have been the target myself, though I didn't do anything about it - but the resulting workplace is a place where anything can be censored because someone else might "feel" it's inappropriate.

[Shadus]

As a general rule the only time I see NSFW is when there are links to "fireable offense" pictures... I rarely if ever see it used for anything else. When I start seeing it show up for general links places, I'll start bitching it's gone to far, but right now... shrug, I think you're blowing it out of proportion.

[Aynathie]

I have made an icon-sized version of your little bandit sign. You can see it at http://www.livejournal.com/allpics.bml?user=aynathie, at the bottom of the page.

I assumed this was ok since you encouraged people to use your picture -- but it was a bit big for an icon...

If you want me to remove it, I will. Otherwise, I will make a post with it directing people to this article for details. Obviously, you can take my version and do what you like with it, too!

[Mandy]

I have only seen "NSFW" employed when a link goes to images that involve naked bits, and I've never seen it employed for text. My office computer policy is that we aren't supposed to look at pictures of naked people on the internet, mainly because we have conservative Southern Baptist clients coming in (I'm a southern lawyer, and we have several clients who do a lot of prayer before making any major legal decisions), who might not hire us if they saw naked people on our computers.

That is, I have to make sure noone's wandering around behind me if I do check out a site with naked people. NSFW warnings work for that.

[Goatse Guy]

Indeed, enough of this nonsense of warning people that a sight might be offensive! How dare people be offended?

You can find much more info about this campaign against prudery here:
Citizens Against Polite Behavior.

[Todd Belton]

I think you're kind of missing the point, which is that in the co-worker/supervisor situation, "Why, I'm reading an article about Kurt Eichenwald ..." would not be an acceptable answer either. Nor would being caught reading CNN. Nor much of anything else. You don't work in an office; you are not in someone else's employ; you don't realize what it's become like. These days, in most companies, being caught using the computer for ANYTHING other than doing work gets you a rebuke; being caught going to a site that is the least bit racy or controversial might well get you fired. There is absolutely no tolerance.

NSFW is not a prudery or an ass-covering measure; it's a polite warning. "Looking at my site might get you in trouble with your bosses and their protozoan brains." I've considered my personal site NSFW for years, and it's hardly high-profile. It's just the smart thing to do.

In short, it's not the delicate sensibilities of my READERS I'm worried about.

[Irfon-Kim Ahmad]

I can't find myself agreeing with the assumptions and assertions of this article. To begin with, there seems to be an idea that people tag every page of any site with controversial ideas about sexual politics as "NSFW" and that they don't for big-establishment sites like the New Yorker. That doesn't match my experience at all. What I've seen is that most people tag any page which has a naked or suggestive photo that the person thinks their readers might get fired for as NSFW and that they do this evenly for every source, whether it be somebody's personal blog or Time Magazine. The only sites that I see getting universally tagged as such by people who tag that way are sites that have a naked or suggestive picture that they think their readers might get fired for on every single page.

A small subset of people also tag articles that contain text which they think will be caught by corporate filters -- not ideas, but specific words. This seems to operate on the same principle as the above.

I've been involved in writing company policy on this matter, and I can also say that the people who write the policy aren't necessarily prudes. They're typically putting in a policy with the sole interest of preventing their company from being sued into the ground for harassment. Quite often the people are themselves totally okay with the content, but legally if they don't have such a policy in place and somebody complains, then they can trivially be held liable.

Also, it's very difficult to write policies with tight enough language to prevent the company from lawsuits that prevents some kinds of nudity and not others.

I don't know your current work situation well, but this seems like a "lack of perspective on the lives of most people," situation. Most of us, unfortunately, work in office places where internet usage is allowed only under certain guidelines and strictures and where it's important that we know in advance if clicking on a link is going to result in us being fired or not so that we can make an informed choice.

[Anna Feruglio Dal Dan]

Oh, I agree with the sentiment, but one of my co-workers got fired on the spot for forwarding a racy email. That's as much as it takes - we don't even have access to the web. We only have email. The shift supervisors do have web access but lately LJ has been blocked. It is anybody's guess why, but probably people just wasted too much time on it.

It's not a question of my sensibilites and beliefs. A double-entendre can get me fired. When my co-worker got fired my employer circulated an example of non-acceptable content: it consisted of this email:

"Why is chocolate better than sex? Chocolate doesn't smoke afterwards and you don't have to fake with chocolate."

Yeah, the workplace is a fun place. I would go back to work from home tomorrow - if only I could pay the rent with it.

[Uncle Sean]

What I see in the comments here is a bit of justifying of poor work habits. If you are at work, pure and simple you should not be surfing the internet unless that is part of your job, and if it is I'm sure your boss will forgive you the occasional clicking on something inappropriate.
I work in an office. I rarely if ever get on the internet at work for non-work purposes. When I do it's usually a quick personal email check, or to look up a phone number or address. Because, it is not appropriate for me to spend work time on personal activities. I, honestly, work in a very permissive office, but I know enough about the bizarre walking on eggshells world of corporate America to understand where people are coming from in their posts.
Still, some of what is being said sounds like a justification of bad work behavior. If you're bored at work because there isn't enough for you to do, then people not warning you about naughty links should really be the least of your problems. If you hate your job and are surfing the net to suck money out of your employers because you desperately hate them, then finding a new job would probably be a good idea.
If you're at home and want people to still put NSFW next to links, then you're being silly. Read what the context of the presented link is, the polite thing for the linker to do is not to put up some non-descriptive acronym but to give you context for the link.
As to the matter of sexual harassment in the work environment. Current policies and laws seriously mishandle human interaction in the workplace. Then, employers get in very uncomfortable positions when folks are really be quite harmless and human and they have to either follow rigid policies or cover their own asses. Sexual harassment happens, and it's wrong, but it is not the scourge of the workplace it has been made out to be.

[Ugo Cei]

Well said.

Luckily, I'm working from home, alone, so I get to decide what is SFW and what is not. So I wanted to follow some of the links to books and imagery on your site, but those silly, distracting "snap" pop-ups just got in the way. Can you please remove them? They're just annoying.

Thanks,

Ugo

[Anthony J. Kennerson]

I can see both sides of this issue...from Susie's perspective and those in the workplace who have to deal with Internet censorship/filtering.

I do happen to think that NSFW is mostly a tool of sexual censorship, and I do wish that workplaces could be a bit more progressive and accepting in what adults do on their own spare time. On the other hand, though, you are at work to work; and those who tend to abuse their time on the clock by trolling the Internet for their favorite porn sites at the expense of what they are being paid for should be held accountable at the very least. And companies do have to protect their employees from the dangers of unwanted sexual harrassment...even though I consider some of the rules restricting consensual adult contact to be excessively restrictive and overburdening.

I'd much rather that companies handle slackers in ways other than resorting to Internet filters (or better yet, just turn off the Internet all together and go to more centralized "dumb terminals" without direct 'Net access and require their employees to use their own laptops to access their favorite sites). Until that time comes, unfortunately, there will be a need for the "NSFW" label.

The "NSFP" Bandit, though, is f'n brilliant. Permission to borrow it for my own blog??

Anthony

[Will Von Wizzlepig]

Sending someone a link without warning them about what it is when they might open it at work is not a friendly thing to do. NSFW is just a simple warning for that.

Yes, healthy naked humans are fine, yes, talking about them is fine, but-

in most states you can be let go for ANYTHING, and they don't even have to tell you. Remember the last election when the woman was fired for failing to remove a 'Kerry' bumpersticker from her car?

Looking out for your friends is where NSFW began.

Where it is now, if 'site labeling' is actually running rampant, well, that's misuse of the concept, and it's too bad.

Are we going to start a cultural revolution by pointing out, yet again, all the ways our prudinsh society is retarded?

I like NSFP, too. Funnier.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

Our web browsing is monitored by nannyware at work. My boss reads my blog practically every day (we're on good terms, and I gave him the URL). I do tag sites as not safe for work, both in the case where I link to a site that might also have naked pictures and in the more common case where I link to a site with text that may be disliked by the nannyware, so my boss (and other people who may be reading my blog at work) doesn't click on my links and get them flagged by the nannyware as porn.

On the other hand, I've accidentally clicked on sites that the nannyware thinks (falsely) are porn, during my lunch break, and have never gotten in trouble for it; I just get blocked. But I'd rather have the nannyware falsely flag me as looking for porn as little as possible, given that really surfing for porn is a fireable offense at many companies.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

And, incidentally, I don't agree with the "If you are at work, pure and simple you should not be surfing the internet unless that is part of your job" argument. Work includes a lunch break. It includes after hours, when it's your own business if you hang around for a little while browsing before you come home. My workplace nannyware explicitly allows for a set amount of time for non-work-related web surfing (aside from the job-related web surfing on technical matters that I do, which of course is not limited and which also takes me nowhere near anything that would be flagged NSFW). As long as you're surfing during time that you're legitimately allowed as break time, I see no problem.

[Oska]

I'm really disappointed with the general tenor of these comments. Ppl applauding the use of Nannyware for fuck's sake!

The point is: Who is to say what is safe for your work or not? Only prudes assume publications or websites that discuss sex or show nudity are inherently not safe for any workplace.

Describe what you are linking to. The reader can then decide whether they will go there. End of story.

[Martin Wisse]

Work in an office, especially in America, which, you may have noticed, is not very liberated on sexual issues, and you are vulnerable to being fired for looking at the wrong kind of websites.

It's nice to be all outraged about being oppressed for having to have NSFW warnings, but it's somewhat harder to be oppressed by losing your job because some prick didn't label a dodgy link NSFW.

[Oska]

I work in an office for an insurance company with access to the internet.

"Making assumptions" is the problem with this label. It spreads a narrow sense of cultural homogeneity. It's a form of self-censorship which is subtle and pernicious in the raft of mainstream assumptions it brings with it. Mature writers expect their mature readers can determine for themselves, in their own individual context, what is appropriate for them to be reading or not.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

"Ppl applauding the use of Nannyware for fuck's sake!"

Who applauded the use of nannyware? I see its use being described, not actively advocated for all workplaces (still less public libraries).

"Only prudes assume publications or websites that discuss sex or show nudity are inherently not safe for any workplace."

That's all very well, but by that definition of "only prudes," most of us in the ordinary world of cubicles work for companies run by prudes.

What *should* be restricted out of sexual harrassment/hostile environment concerns is one thing (and I'd be interested to know where people think the line should actually be drawn in an ideal world). But blaming people for giving each other friendly warnings strikes me as over the top.

"Describe what you are linking to. The reader can then decide whether they will go there."

And that's fine, too. I don't think I've ever tagged a link to a Dan Savage column as NSFW; I figure I've already described him as a sex columnist, and anyone who's in circumstances where they can't read sex columns won't follow the link.

I don't think NSFW labels are needed if your links are already sufficiently described, but I don't see where it's wrong to use it as shorthand. (Occasionally, if I'm flagging something just because its words may trip the office nannyware, I've used some longer "should be safe for work, but your nannyware may think otherwise" explanation).

[David Buttrick]

I dont think you're taking into consideration the fact that most of the web surfing, unwashed masses are pretty stupid. I used to work for a fairly large telecomm provider, and the thing that took up most of HR's time was warning people about surfing porn during work hours.
I myself, appreciate the fact that the NSFW tag has been implmented by US, the end users, and not legislated.
But it does seem to me that we are on a slippery slope here.
In the end it is actions like these (implmenting the NSFW tag) that might cause legislation to be enacted. And that woudl be bad.

Like I said before, people are fuckin' stupid. and we need ways to protect ourselves, and them.

Thank you.

[Nabil]

I think folks are kind of missing the point when they're describing the origins and uses of NSFW, and the state of the American workplace.

We're quite well aware of the current state of things, the point is that it's time to CHANGE that, and and that change occurs (like any other major shift) through individual action.

[Jeanette Ponder]

Susie, you're spot-on with your assessment of "NSFW". It's thrown around soooo liberally.

You made me think of something: National Geographic. Black women walking through Africa, their girls proudly free-range. They're beautiful, regal, and amazing, and I'm proud to be among their number (although I'm American).

But...wait a minute. If these women were rich and Caucasian, for instance, this wouldn't be allowed, now would it?

It seems so silly. It really occured to me, looking at the NYTimes.com slide show, that this was the first time I'd seen Caucausian women in a major publication depicted in nearly the same natural environment, with their undress accepted as beautiful and natural, en masse. What does that say about our society? Plus, what does that say about our definitions of what is sexual?