Test of principles: does your approach to the 1st Amendment apply equally to the 2nd?
Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
81–90 of 107 posts
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#82Even if we only save one child
What about the children that will suffer because a potential child rapist that was was in check because of his lolicon use now has no material to direct his fantasies towards and now needs to look for the real thing? Really, as long as no one get's hurt, what is it with people wanting to shut down everything they regard as obscene or offensive to them when they know that their view is merely an opinion and there are millions of people that think differently?
Ohh think of the children, do we really want our future (our children) to live like robots being told what they can and can't do, what to read and what they can't, where to go and where it's forbidden? It's sad that everything that has to deal with sex is always attacked without mercy by the 'Association of Housewives and Househusbands with nothing else to do with their Time'. Seriously let people live their live's as long as they're not hurting anybody else in the process, and while we're at it, let's defend free speech...
"you only realise how wonderful absolute freedom of speech is the day you lose it."
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#83And in other news, Apple have removed the "Gay Cure" app from their app store.
Clearly a stupid, offensive app, but it looks like "icky speech" to me.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#84Gaiman 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".
Well, even if we only save one child from being raped, molested or killed by a Dave, isn't calling uncle Daves creepy worth it?
(/sarcasm)
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it involves, say, a high-ranking general giving loads of top-secret military information to the enemy, it's likely that not giving away such information is part of his job description, and that he is in breach of contract. Now, the law might not like punishing breach of contract with long-term imprisonment (or whatever the penalty for treason is), but you could probably work something out--e.g. if he breaks contra…
you are right - the essence of freedom of speech is not that all speech should be allowed all the time and everywhere, but that "speech regulation" has to be decentralized via voluntary contracts between property owners
But.... that seems to be the US approach to any of a number of issues, allow legal freedom and private contracts to restrict. However all too often there seems to be no practical alternative to the restriction for many, so what value does the theoretical freedom really have?
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#86Gaiman 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…
> 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? And on the other hand, what if leaving these naked bodies in a comic saves TWO children? Would you trade one for two to satisfy your dislike of pictures on paper?
...and that's why the (fallacious) argument works, because the next step is to put a "price" on misery, and very few people, mostly involved in aviation or insurance, are willing to do that.
So, the person crying out for reason feels ashamed, and the person asking for a ridiculous zero-tolerance solution feels righteous. Again.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I generally don't find creationism offensive. While I don't believe it, I'm not offended by it. And I think that's true for most people. It's certainly not the type of thing that ever comes up in free speech arguments. I can't think of any atheist I know (although I'm sure some exist) who want creationism banned in speech or writing.
Agreed. I'm a fairly strong minded atheist and I find creationism offensive. At the same time I would defend to the death the right for creationists to have free speech.
I could understand why one might find the teaching of creationism offensive, but what is offensive about other people holding wrong opinions? I'm sure we each think the other holds several; I'm not offended by the error I perceive you might be making.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speech is far from free, period. As it should be. All sorts of things that don't deserve to be protected by Freedom of Speech. For example, treason often takes the form of selling out your country with information- which is just Speech after all.
If it involves, say, a high-ranking general giving loads of top-secret military information to the enemy, it's likely that not giving away such information is part of his job description, and that he is in breach of contract. Now, the law might not like punishing breach of contract with long-term imprisonment (or whatever the penalty for treason is), but you could probably work something out--e.g. if he breaks contra…
The case of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater can be handled similarly: Customers agree not to do that sort of thing as a condition of being allowed into the theater, and if they break that, then they are guilty of trespass.
Not that I disagree with your premise, but an issue with this is that people like to see punishment that fits the crime - I'd expect public outrage over a misdemeanor prosecution for an infraction that may result in loss of life.
As a matter of fact, I have seen many fire alarms in large buildings with a sign that says something like "$NNN fine for spurious triggering of this alarm".
Those fines are actually due to local ordinances. As such they are an example of government imposition on individual freedom in order to protect the public, and are a bit of a counter-example to your point.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Speech is free, period. There is situations when one fundamental right conflicts with another fundamental right. Your statement is that the fundamental right of free speech must always take precedence. I see how fundamental right of a child for the privacy of his/her body [ note: a child can't give an informed consent to waive the right ] can be given priority over somebody else's fundamental right for free speech.…
note: a child can't give an informed consent to waive the right I don't think the consent argument holds water. We force children to do things without their consent all the time. We make kids go to school. Corporal punishment of children is legal in most states, both by parents and teachers. Children usually don't consent to such things, but we do it them anyway. Sorry for nitpicking one thing out of your comment, bu…
It's not an argument, it's a fact of law.
There are certain activities that, by various state and local laws, require consent. Entering into a contract or getting married, for instance. A minor legally cannot consent to these things.
That doesn't extend to everything a child may do or be forced to do.
Re: Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
#90And in other news, Apple have removed the "Gay Cure" app from their app store. Clearly a stupid, offensive app, but it looks like "icky speech" to me.
Actually, that news was what made me think of submitting this in the first place. I was struck by the applause from some people towards Apple for rejecting the app, but I kept thinking that Apple doesn't deserve to be congratulated for the latest rejection any more than for the previous ones. Because really, you'd be praising the very same grip that Apple has over iOS's software ecosystem which in other cases infuriated you. The same process is responsible for outcomes you like, and outcomes you don't. The question remains: what do we actually think of the process, and what do we do about it?