Neil Gaiman on Free Speech

[Universe Prince]

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said. The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made. People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble. [...] The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible. [...] Still, you seem to want lolicon banned, and people prosecuted for owning it, and I don't. You ask, What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person's obscenity is another person's art. Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.

[kimba1]

very good point and i do want lolicon banned.
I`ll just have to live with my guilt.
I never even heard of that word til this article.
but i can`t argue against the writer of good omens

[Xavier_Onassis]

Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.

=============================
Is this actually true?

Germany banned Nazi symbols, writings and paraphernalia from 1945 on. How, exactly, has this suppressed freedom of speech there for the last 63 years?

I do not think that it is true that if spreadeagled women are not allowed to be printed in color and full detail on the cover of the NY Post or Time magazine or whatever, that all freedom of speech is in jeopardy.

Lolicon seems to be a Japanese obsession, and I do not think that it is a threat to much of anyone in the US, but like NAMBLA it is not something that anyone can consider particularly constructive to society.

[kimba1]

north american marlon brando look alikes

I don`t much care for them too

I gotta thank southpark for that one

[Universe Prince]

Germany banned Nazi symbols, writings and paraphernalia from 1945 on. How, exactly, has this suppressed freedom of speech there for the last 63 years?

Seems to me the answer is in your statement.

I do not think that it is true that if spreadeagled women are not allowed to be printed in color and full detail on the cover of the NY Post or Time magazine or whatever, that all freedom of speech is in jeopardy.

Of course not. But then what women, not allowed by whom, for what reason? You have made a simplistic argument.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Germany banned Nazi symbols, writings and paraphernalia from 1945 on. How, exactly, has this suppressed freedom of speech there for the last 63 years?


Seems to me the answer is in your statement.

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on Today at 05:06:58 PM

I do not think that it is true that if spreadeagled women are not allowed to be printed in color and full detail on the cover of the NY Post or Time magazine or whatever, that all freedom of speech is in jeopardy.


Of course not. But then what women, not allowed by whom, for what reason? You have made a simplistic argument.

=====================
The point is that complete liberty to print anything anywhere is not necessary for the maximum liberty of the press of the sake of a harmonious and progressive society.

I do not think that suppression of the Nazis in Germany has been a bad thing for German society. After all, Naziism got something like over 20 million Germans killed and most of the county leveled.

The particular spreadeagled women, I forgot to say, would be naked, young and attractive and their pictures printed to sell newspapers, of course.

Printing pictures of naked people is not the same as printing exposés of corruption. The appearance of the naked human form is not a secret to anyone as the latter might be, nor does printing it accomplish the goal of improving it. Sex and photos of sex are also not a secret to most mature people

I can imagine lolicon without actually having seen it. Not that I would spend much time doing so. So banning it is not likely to result in a repressive government, in my opinion.

[Universe Prince]

The point is that complete liberty to print anything anywhere is not necessary for the maximum liberty of the press of the sake of a harmonious and progressive society.

No one is arguing for the liberty to print anything anywhere.

The particular spreadeagled women, I forgot to say, would be naked, young and attractive and their pictures printed to sell newspapers, of course.

Printing pictures of naked people is not the same as printing exposés of corruption. The appearance of the naked human form is not a secret to anyone as the latter might be, nor does printing it accomplish the goal of improving it. Sex and photos of sex are also not a secret to most mature people

That is hardly a reason to ban it. So far you've made only weak and vague arguments.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think that sex magazines should be banned, but neither should they be accessible to young children. It would be useful if someone did a survey to determine whether lolicom was, in fact the cause of aggressive pedophiles committing criminal acts. The same is true of other types of pornography, especially the violent types.

[Universe Prince]

I don't think that sex magazines should be banned, but neither should they be accessible to young children.

Good for you. When you find where someone was arguing the contrary, let me know.

It would be useful if someone did a survey to determine whether lolicom was, in fact the cause of aggressive pedophiles committing criminal acts. The same is true of other types of pornography, especially the violent types.

If you'd read the whole thing, you'd have found the link to this: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/rape-porn-and-criminality-political.php.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Interesting that there are five times as many rapes in Alaska as in West Virginia. Perhaps it has something to do with the difference in society. In Alaska, people live with fewer relatives, and often families may work these things out without resorting to the cops.


So, if it is conclusively proven that porn LOWERS the violent sex crime rate, should the government distribute it for free as a public benefit? Suppose it is shown that fewer subscriptions to Hustler and similar magazines  would cost a third as much as jailing sex offenders, then could it be considered a law to lower expenditures and therefore taxes?

[kimba1]

I keeping thinking of a qoute from star trek -trouble with tribbles
kirk-too much of anything (even love) can be harmful
not an exact qoute but close

nobody knows this but I like porn
but I`ll admit even too much porn can be bad also.
it just like religion ,too much of it will get somebody hurt

[Xavier_Onassis]

Too much porn is mostly just a waste of time as I see it. I doubt that it affects everyone in the same way, as most other things people do and read affect different people in different ways. Alcohol does not turn most people into alcoholic, after all.

[kimba1]

I know the real price of too much porn
it`s not going to sex crimes
it`s way sadder and embarrassing
it`s people knowing what your into after your dead.
I know 2 people who died
one with his friends and family going to his house and seeing huge colloection of porn tapes & magazines
the other his son & daughter seeing a vast archive of porn in his computer.

penn gelitte has stated when he dies he want to makes sure his computer is destroyed
people like porn,but people don`t like others knowing what porn they like.
in san francisco the stores has a wide mix of interest
but in the suburbs it get very specific
I was in redwood city I see mostly teen themes in the store.
you can learn the interest of a town by the vid demands

[Henny]

I know the real price of too much porn
it`s not going to sex crimes
it`s way sadder and embarrassing
it`s people knowing what your into after your dead.
I know 2 people who died
one with his friends and family going to his house and seeing huge colloection of porn tapes & magazines
the other his son & daughter seeing a vast archive of porn in his computer.

penn gelitte has stated when he dies he want to makes sure his computer is destroyed
people like porn,but people don`t like others knowing what porn they like.
in san francisco the stores has a wide mix of interest
but in the suburbs it get very specific
I was in redwood city I see mostly teen themes in the store.
you can learn the interest of a town by the vid demands

I would think that after you're dead you won't really care what other think about your porn preferences. The only reason to care about what people think of your fetishes after your death is the concern about "ewwww factor" the surviving loved ones have to live with.

[kimba1]

when your dead you`ll not care,but before your dead you`ll want somekind of selfdestruct device on your computer that activate when you don`t use it for a certain amount of time.
or the very least a powerful encryption so only you can access it
the coolthing about computers today is it such easier way to store it.
what would fill a garage ,now fills a shoebox in dvds
not that I would know this.