Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
journal.neilgaiman.com
Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
1–10 of 107 posts
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#2> with the local police ordered to make 24 hour unannounced spot checks to make sure Mike wasn't secretly committing Art in the small hours of the morning...
Classic
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#3I think Neil does an excellent job of capturing the essence of the first amendment. I don't think we do enough to protect peoples right to 'not read' however.
edit: While I clearly remember this coming up in at least one of the cases involving DeCSS where a defendant made the argument that their use of DeCSS didn't infringe copyright because they were restructuring the DVD to not play the copyright notices and ads before the copyrighted movie would play, and the MPAA's counter argument that such a change violated the movie studio's 'commercial speech' rights such that the they had produced the DVD and made certain promises to people who had paid consideration and that changing the product like that involved changing the copyrighted work as a whole. The MPAA likened it to re-arranging the order of the scenes in a movie. However searching for a citation in the usual places has yet to yield a docket id, so I withdraw the following statement :
"The whole 'commercial speech' doctrine where a company has an first amendment right to which is violated by me skipping their commercials on a DVD doesn't sit well with me at all."
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#4Interesting stuff, probably more appropriate for slashdot, reddit or 4chan or something like that than hacker news.
I will note that Australia (if I understand it correctly) recently decided that all cartoons are kiddie pron. So if you see a cartoon depiction of two people in their 80s getting it on technically you are considered a sex offender.
Also, they recently decided that all pictures of flat chested women (A cup) are kiddie pron, though I am not aware that they have made any arrests over this (they did claim in the last couple of weeks to have made a lot of arrests and broken up a child pron ring with links to 'Europeans' or something equally dangerous and scary - hopefully no one got hit with the blunt stick that is these two obscenely stupid bits of legislation).
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#5> with the local police ordered to make 24 hour unannounced spot checks to make sure Mike wasn't secretly committing Art in the small hours of the morning... Classic
Historic:
"The Reichskulturkammer forbade artists such as Edgar Ende and Emil Nolde from purchasing painting materials. Those who remained in Germany were forbidden to work at universities and were subject to surprise raids by the Gestapo in order to ensure that they were not violating the ban on producing artwork; Nolde secretly carried on painting, but using only watercolors (so as not to be betrayed by the telltale odor of oil paint)"
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#6I think Neil does an excellent job of capturing the essence of the first amendment. I don't think we do enough to protect peoples right to 'not read' however. edit: While I clearly remember this coming up in at least one of the cases involving DeCSS where a defendant made the argument that their use of DeCSS didn't infringe copyright because they were restructuring the DVD to not play the copyright notices and ads be…
Who has made the argument that skipping commercials violates a corporation's First Amendment rights? Can you provide a link?
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#7Related pg citation:
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#8Its 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...
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#9Interesting stuff, probably more appropriate for slashdot, reddit or 4chan or something like that than hacker news. I will note that Australia (if I understand it correctly) recently decided that all cartoons are kiddie pron. So if you see a cartoon depiction of two people in their 80s getting it on technically you are considered a sex offender. Also, they recently decided that all pictures of flat chested women (A c…
In the US, that would end with a few small-breasted women suing for discrimination against their right to free expression, and winning. The headlines during that case would be truly Fark-worthy.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#10Interesting stuff, probably more appropriate for slashdot, reddit or 4chan or something like that than hacker news. I will note that Australia (if I understand it correctly) recently decided that all cartoons are kiddie pron. So if you see a cartoon depiction of two people in their 80s getting it on technically you are considered a sex offender. Also, they recently decided that all pictures of flat chested women (A c…
You are very very badly informed about what you're attempting to tar Australia with. The "A cup breasts = child pornography" meme was started when a fringe political party with no seats in either houses of parliament made a press release to that effect, which was picked up by the typically loathe to fact check anything Internet. (http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has-australia-really-ban...)
As for comics, I've never even heard of what you assert and presume it similarly false. Child pornography in this country is defined differently in different jurisdictions, however the word "minor" is used in all of them. Comics depicting 80 year old pensioners getting steamy would never fit those definitions.
This kind of low-quality meme regurgitation you have displayed has no place on HN.