The term freedom is often thrown about on this website, typically during disputes between those who support the rule of law and those who reject it. In this context, it is usually the case that the Rejecters are accusing the Supporters of taking away their freedoms. Notwithstanding that it is on the internet, this is a pretty serious issue, and one I feel needs to be addressed. Because the Rejecters make such an emotional issue out of this, they seem to miss an important point which I intend to elaborate on here; that what they call 'exercising their freedoms' is often in reality 'abusing their freedoms'.

Now, in order to understand this properly, I must first explain just how much freedom people really have on deviantART. I will do this by considering a number of key points, namely on the nature of the submission process, on the nature of permissible material, on the extent to which the administration gets involved in member affairs, and finally on the level of access which is permitted without monetary charge.

On the first point, it is very much worth noting that the website uses a predominantly honour based system for submitting material. That is to say, there is no screening process before a submission can go up for public viewing. In this regard, deviantART grants users considerable freedom to build their galleries as they wish and with a reasonable pace. Indeed, the alternative of screening all submissions would not be a realistic practicality given the size of the community and the rate at which submissions are made. So whilst it is to an extent a necessary system, it is none the less a very free one.

On the second point, it should be noted that the rules permit almost anything to be submitted, contrary to the opinions or beliefs of many. The rules prohibit the posting of explicit pornography, copy written material, bigotry, under aged nudity, and disturbing real images. This leaves considerable room for members to post what they like, and the actual moderation tends to give the benefit of the doubt to the person who made the submission rather than the person who made the report. In this respect, it is impossible to argue that the rules really limit or impede the ability of good artists to express themselves, when in fact they do the exact opposite, allowing immense freedom of expression in many different mediums and with most kinds of subject matter.

On the third point, the administration has a policy of only intervening in serious issues and not butting into every little dispute. This may seem like a detriment, but in reality it allows users quite a bit of breathing room and in truth means that people can go about and say what they like without worrying about whether someone is breathing down their proverbial necks and will jump on them for the slightest mistake. There are limits to what one can do and say, of course, but these limits are also quite relaxed, and essentially resemble the rules concerning prohibited submissions. As such, nobody could complain about a freedom of speech issue here because they realistically have more freedom here than they might in the real world, thanks to the anonymity of the internet in unison with the above outlined rules and policies.

On the fourth and final point, this website is essentially free to use. There are some benefits to be gained by purchasing a subscription, but these are more like add-ons rather than actual processes essential to getting the most out of the website. This, whilst not unique by any means, is none the less a great freedom given to the membership. Many complain about charges for this and that, or that the administrators are only concerned with making money, but the truth would seem to be that most users are not charged at all for accessing the website, and those that do get charged are in actuality willingly paying for an additional service and not the essentials.

Having explained just how free people really are on this website, it is time to explain why the accusation that supporters are suppressing freedom is just plain wrong, and why those rejecters who are dealt with are in reality abusing their freedoms. I'll begin by giving the short but complete answer to the former of those two 'why's. The simple fact is that Supporters are not in any way impeding the freedoms outlined above, since they are all concerned only with maintaining the rules that give those freedoms in the first place. For example, some Supporters have been accused of wanting to destroy "all mature content" on the website. This, however, is patently false. Personal opinions notwithstanding, nobody ever reports images just because there are naked people in them, and even if they did do so these images would not be removed. If an image of a naked person is reported, it is because the person in the image was under aged or engaged in some kind of prohibited sexual activity. This is also why it would be removed, and no image without fulfilling those criteria are ever removed. In this regard, the Supporters are maintaining the rules that allow actual artistic nudes to be submitted whilst keeping the website from turning completely into a repository for cheap pornography. That is just one example of how Supporters are preserving, rather than suppressing, the freedom of the membership.

The issue of abusing freedom is also quite simple, as it is simply a matter of examining how the freedoms above become broken to the detriment of the majority of users. Take, for example, the users who insist on posting material which they have stolen. They are abusing the freedom given to them to submit things without first having them screened. If they were to get away with this, then the website would quickly develop a reputation for allowing copy written material to be stolen and misrepresented, and the website would lose members very quickly, as they cease to post their artwork here for fear of having it stolen by someone. There are other harms caused by art theft too, such as the frustration the original artists experience when they see things into which they have poured hours of effort and care taken and misrepresented as someone else's work. This is just one example, but the same is true of all other ways in which people can abuse the freedoms they have been afforded by this website. Ultimately, abuse of freedom hurts the entire community through decline of reputation and/or membership, and it hurts individuals through exploitation or direct affront.

So from this it is clear to see that the use of the term 'freedom' in these arguments has become exceptionally muddled and confused, to the point that those who are fighting to defend it are accused of destroying it instead and vice versa. DeviantART permits its members to have a considerable level of freedom, albeit not uniquely so, and asks almost nothing in exchange, only that the users comply with a simple and generally quite sensible set of rules. The users who go about breaking those rules, and thereby abusing the freedoms given to them, cause considerable damage to the rest of the community in both actuality and future potential, as do the Rejecters who defend them. Supporters, on the other hand, preserve the freedoms the community has by helping to enforce the rules, which were established to preserve those very freedoms in the first place. In the end, it can only be concluded that the real defenders of freedom are the administration, the moderators, the Supporters, and the members of the community who help them all.