Mencken said it better: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
- HL Mencken
Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
41–50 of 107 posts
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#42Its funny I had a similar argument with someone last week (2 weeks ago?) when the Westboro Baptist's won their supreme court case [1]. Speech is free, period. Once you try to put any restrictions on then the whole thing isn't even a slippery slope, its a frictionless cliff. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03...
Not really. Speech is far from free, period. The law recognizes a wide variety of restrictions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United... for a few. For a view that "There is no such thing as free speech" see Stanley Fish, etc.. http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-Febr...
There's also the good ol' Free Speech Zones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
"You can say what you want, but we tell you where to say it."
EDIT: That being said, the US still has a very high bar for freedom of speech.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#43Gaiman does a reasonable job with this argument, but in my mind fails to address the most pernicious thought in the letter: The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic? This kind of argument comes up all the time in mostly unsupportable "save the child…
I take umbrage to this creepy uncle being named "Dave".
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#44Its funny I had a similar argument with someone last week (2 weeks ago?) when the Westboro Baptist's won their supreme court case [1]. Speech is free, period. Once you try to put any restrictions on then the whole thing isn't even a slippery slope, its a frictionless cliff. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03...
So what, then, is the difference between my calling your phone number multiple times and leaving harassing messages ("You're going to hell! Fag!"), and what the WBC does at semi-private gatherings, like funerals? I don't disagree with the justifications behind protecting speech, even (and especially) things that I find reprehensible. However, I think it's a bit of a lie to say that law doesn't have fine lines or dist…
The difference?
The difference is a small, but visible and under appreciated line between free speech and verbal assault.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#45I don't have a platitude for why we need to defend speech. My only argument has ever been that my icky speech today is your essential speech tomorrow. By the time you think something needs to be censored is beyond the line of where you could still rationally discuss the idea.
If you think the government should suppress an idea the only reason must be that you personally cannot reasonably consider the concept. Banning a subject because you cannot fathom talking about it means you must be willing to impose your internal and personal morals on others, by force if necessary.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#46ONLINE STORE:
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30
Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15
New era cap $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20
accept paypal and free shipping
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#47Great argument, but it's way too long winded.
While he could have stated his point more succinctly, what made the article notable was how he used his personal experiences to make the point. You can google and pull up dozens of takes on the first amendment that come to a similar conclusion, but this article was interesting for providing an account nuanced by Neil Gaiman's first-hand experience.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#48Here is what free speech means to me. I have the suspicion that others might disagree, but it's a starting point: Free Speech means that law shouldn't punish communication. If you write a hate filled article then free speech protects you from lawyers. It does not force your employer to continue employing you, your neighbor to continue smiling at you, or your grocer to continue to sell food to you. It means government…
I agree. Just because I advocate direct response instead of firing employees whatever possible doesn't mean I am in favor of imposing it by law.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#49This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes (which I suppose was made in the context of the "devil's music" scare of the 1970s/1980s):
"There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you do something we'd all love one another."
--Frank Zappa
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lines in law, where they exist, tend to be fuzzy, rather than fine. Now with that said freedom of speech is a special law. And obviously one that cuts both ways. But a key reason why the law should largely exist untampered is that even if you say something I think is offensive, I can rely on a few things: 1) If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people. 2) If it's absurd those people it would convince, prob…
> If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people. And yet the various flavors of creationism (all equally absurd by measures of science) have convinced half of the U.S. of their validity.
but that is their right to believe what they wish. If they want to believe whole-heartedly in Norse mythology, that is their right to do so. It only becomes an issue once they impose their beliefs on others. It can even be thought that atheism is a religious belief in itself. It explains all the things religion does in a unique way.