One Life Take Two: voluntary vs. involuntary

I just read a post by "An Editor" at One Life Take Two that says:

I understand that he is now being asked to curtail his writing. This strikes me as unfortunate, as creative artists should not have to limit themselves and their freedom of expression in order to meet the requirements of a court or an unhappy former spouse, requirements that might fluctuate from case to case. Certainly a writer of his proven ability should be allowed to write freely. I don’t want to imagine an America where literature devoid of fiber is the unavoidable result of being forced through a sieve of censorship and repression.

Yet Jefferson himself posted this:

When the custody case began, I voluntarily closed my blog’s previous content and now post on matters concerning the ongoing case.

To my untrained legal eye, it is one or the other. WHO is asking him "to curtail his writing?" If someone specific, like a judge, is doing so, I would very much like to know (I mean that sincerely, and will update this post if that is the case).

And further, no one is making him do so. It's his choice, as he writes, just as it was to put his writing on the Internet in the first place. I don't know who this anonymous editor is, but I wish I did because I think their hyperbolic words are nothing I want any part of. I think it's very very easy to toss around words like "censorship," but I'd call on thinking people, especially those who care about words and how we use them, to think about what the use of those words mean. That last sentence by "an editor" (I think the use of anonymous posts in support of this case is...interesting, since anyone or, well, no one, could be "an editor") is one that I do not comprehend.

Because this case has been cropping up frequently in discussions about sexuality and the Internet, such as at SXSW, and because people who I share various communities with have posted in support of Jefferson, I wanted to reiterate my position; I have no official opinion on his custody case because I do not have all the facts and don't think it's my place as someone far outside of the case to have an opinion. I do not think the case is 100% about sexuality, though I do think it is in part about sexuality. To me, that is a major distinction. To that end, I don't think bisexuality or kink or alternative consensual sexuality should be a reason for someone to lose custody. I just think this case is far more complex than that.

I wanted to make it clear that I am NOT a "Friend of Jefferson" and I do hope that there is room within the sex positive community for diversity of opinion on this case.

Lastly, to remind you, I'm a "bitch" who has never slept with Jefferson.