Neil Gaiman writes "Why defend freedom of icky speech?"

[Kurska]

Sic...

"And in each case I've mentioned so far, you could rewrite Jess's letter above, explaining that only perverts would want to read Lady Chatterley, or see images of women being abused, or read Lost Girls or the works of Robert Crumb, and mentioning that if only one person was saved from a hug from a creepy uncle, or indeed, being raped in the streets, that banning them or prosecuting those who write, draw, publish, sell or -- now -- own them, is worth it. Because that was the point of view of the people who were banning these works or stopping people reading them. They thought they were doing a good thing. They thought they were defending other people from something they needed to be protected from.

I loved coming to the US in 1992, mostly because I loved the idea that freedom of speech was paramount. I still do. With all its faults, the US has Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment states that you can't be arrested for saying things the government doesn't like. You can say what you like, write what you like, and know that the remedy to someone saying or writing or showing something that offends you is not to read it, or to speak out against it. I loved that I could read and make my own mind up about something.

(It's worth noting that the UK, for example, has no such law, and that even the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that interference with free speech was "necessary in a democratic society" in order to guarantee the rights of others "to protection from gratuitous insults to their religious feelings.&quot

So when Mike Diana was prosecuted -- and, in 1996, found guilty -- of obscenity for the comics in his Zine "Boiled Angel", and sentenced to a host of things, including (if memory serves) a three year suspended prison sentence, a three thousand dollar fine, not being allowed to be in the same room as anyone under eighteen, over a thousand hours of community service, and was forbidden to draw anything else that anyone might consider obscene, 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... that was the point I decided that I knew what was Obscene, and it was prosecuting artists for having ideas and making lines on paper, and that I was henceforth going to do everything I could to support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Whether I liked or approved of what Mike Diana did was utterly irrelevant. (For the record, I didn't like the text parts of Boiled Angel, but did like the comics, which were personal and had a raw power to them. And somewhere in the sprawling basement magazine collection I have Boiled Angel 7 and 8, which I read back then to find out what was being prosecuted, and for owning which I could, I assume, now be arrested...)"

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

Way longer and I cut a part out the middle that seemed the most interesting. Hit up the link for more.

A bit old, but I only discovered this recently. I'm curious how DU would react to this. Can fiction ever be a crime? What happens when we make it so? By making it so for some subject matter do we not admit that all fiction exists legally only at the pleasure of the larger society?

How does this idea apply to material that is truly horrific, like written and drawn depictions of underage sex? Can such things even be described in the written word? If they can be what is really the line between pornography and say a coming of age story that involves sex? Most importantly, who makes the decision?

And what of material that is obviously sexual and regarding an illegal topic. Should a book that contains a clearly sexualized depiction of a murder be banned? If you took silence of the lambs and made it clear that Hannibal Lecter was getting off on the kills and so was the author, should the author be thrown in jail?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. 'I'm curious how DU would react to this.'

Well, first, as my own tiny piece of DU, I will, yet again, point out that I have yet to see anyone on DU actually call for book bannings, much less criminalizations. What I have seen is, as Neil Gaiman pointed out, is employing the remedy of "speak(ing) out against it.", mainly by simply giving the context in which a given work pushes (as does all media) society in a direction that is dysfunctional.

[Kurska]

3. I've seen people absolutely advocate banning fictional depictions of rape.

I tend to think of media as more a reflection of society. Anything ugly was always there, it is just we have an incredible ability to actually record such ugliness now.

My personal opinion at least.

The fact is, America is an exception to the rest of the world for a lot of this stuff. Good or bad, we're pretty unique.

[thucythucy]

8. Could you post a link

to people on DU calling for a legal ban of fictional depictions of rape?

I've seen people argue that filming and then posting or otherwise distributing a recording of an actual rape is (and should be) a crime, but I haven't yet seen anyone on DU advocate banning fictional accounts of rape.

But maybe I've missed something?

[Kurska]

9. I don't write it down post numbers or usernames.

I've 100% seen it though. Happened during the great rape porn wars awhile ago.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Here's one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4051882

[thucythucy]

24. I appreciate the link

though it seems rather more nuanced to me than calling for an outright ban. The poster, as I understand it, would "have no problem" seeing rape porn banned, but sees how such a ban might be problematic in that it could spill over and have unintended consequences. As do very many strictures having to do with "speech."

Anyway, as I say, I appreciate the link.

Personally, I'd have to see specific examples of what it is we're discussing, along with the context in which such "fiction" is being viewed or read. I doubt for instance that most people would have trouble prohibiting rape porn being viewed at a public junior high school, in effect "banning" it in such a context. And I haven't seen a whole lot of criticism of German laws against publishing obviously anti-Semitic or Holocaust denial material--even if "fictionalized"--given the particular history and tragic consequences of anti-Semitic hate speech in Germany. So in those instances I can certainly see an argument for "banning."

On the other hand, I haven't seen anybody calling for a ban of "Lolita" or "Tropic of Cancer"--not on DU, anyway. Though ToC might be a bit much for your average junior high school kid. Hell, I still can't make my way through "Naked Lunch" -- partly it's the writing and subject matter, partly because I'm familiar with the story of how William Burroughs got away with killing his wife. Wouldn't want to see it banned, though.

In general I'm uncomfortable with absolutes. No "ban" of any "fiction"--maybe. Maybe not. Also depends on what sort of "ban" we mean. Even fiction writers have to be wary of the libel laws, yes?

[alp227]

10. A fact is, speech influences thoughts & behaviors.

Guess what? The costs of fictional depctions of rape (influencing those who commit sexual assault) outweigh the benefits (entertainment for innocent people), right?

[Kurska]

12. First off, I'd really like proof that not banning it increases rapes.

The cost is admitting that fiction can be be legally censured. In reality, it is to strip all fiction of the an innate protection under freedom of speech. It requires us to admit that fiction is only legally allowed to exist with the approval of society.

[SwankyXomb]

17. Way to completely miss Gaiman's point

[mythology]

39. Japan has some incredibly graphic porn and has a much lower rate of sexual assault than the U.S.

Granted this is reported sexual assaults, but in Japan it's 1.2 per 100,000 where in the U.S. it's 28.6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

The evidence of porn as a catalyst for spurring rape is inconclusive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography

[nomorenomore08]

61. What exactly do you mean by "fictional depictions of rape"?

Are you actually suggesting banning written works? Or only visual ones?

[alp227]

68. Lots of countries have obscenity laws that restrict written OR visual sexual abuse.

Which is why for instance the "RapeLay" video game has been banned in some countries. As far as I'd advocate, I'd just say that mainstream retailers like Amazon refuse to carry certain works that appear to glorify sexual abuse.

[nomorenomore08]

69. Thanks for clarifying. I guess "glorify" is really the key word there.

While I still wouldn't advocate censorship, even in this instance, I would have no problem with people dismissing or condemning a written work of no literary merit which seemingly exists for the gratification of sexual predators.

[nomorenomore08]

59. What they were probably referring to is "rape porn" that's indistinguishable from actual rape.

Because, sickeningly enough, there's a fair amount of real rape/torture footage out there.

Hence the necessity of "No one was harmed..." type disclaimers, such as those used by Kink.com.

This has nothing at all to do with the written word, or even clearly fictional feature films.

[Louisiana1976]

2. I don't think fiction should be a crime in the great majority of circumstances. As for depictions of

underage sex, I would say it depends on how young "underage" is. If it's sixteen or seventeen it would be a coming of age story that involves sex, but not if the youth is twelve or thirteen. I'd draw the line there.

[daleanime]

5. So, yes?

There is fiction you think should be illegal?

[X_Digger]

28. Interesting how so many posters seem to be dancing around that proposition without saying so. n/t

[Warpy]

4. If fiction can be a crime, Ayn Rand would have died in prison.

As for written and drawn child predator sex, it might provide an outlet now served by abusing actual children and photographing the abuse. Men with that sexual loose screw but enough empathy not to want to hurt a child might find it adequate, supplementing their fantasy life.

[Kurska]

6. I'll give credit to you for actually going there.

That is a rather unpopular opinion to say the least.


The great unanswered question about really dark sexuality. Those who find murder, rape and children attractive to me, how many people have these urges and never act on them? And why don't they?

[Igel]

7. Had she stayed in Russia and written what she did

she probably would have.

Many did.

Others did as they were told. The father of one of my dissertation committee members obeyed and was mediocre at what the politicians said he had to write. He knew he was betraying his "muse". He finally drank himself to death.

My dissertation advisor was a faculty member in Russia and what he worked on was denounced as bourgeois. He was given an option: He could renounce his field and report on other faculty members or he could go into internal exile. He considered himself lucky to simply escape with exile to a 3rd tier school in a backwater. He was sent to a university in Estonia.


As for censorship, there's a proverb: The law isn't written for the righteous. The only reason you need laws that are based in morality (as opposed to things like "don't run red lights," a purely logistical issue) is to provide guidance and allow punishment of people who are morally ill-formed. This might be those whose brains have some chemical imbalance because of developmental flaws or some sort of toxic chemical or those who have been abused.

"Laws without morals are in vain."

[hifiguy]

21. She should have been jailed for crimes against the English language.

Rand's prose was so infinitely awful as writing - her vile worldview and ideological mendacity aside - that it's a wonder she was ever read in the first place.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Hate speech can be defined, banned and fairly prosecuted...every other Western nation knows how.

[Kurska]

15. So you support jailing people for expressing their opinions?

Dance around that characterization if you want to, but that is ultimately what you're saying ought to be done.

I'm a gay man and I can take all the "gays will burn in hell for all eternity" or the "you're a sinful deviant who should be thrown in jail" or even "you're a perverted monster and the world would be better off if you're dead". Those are just words.

What I find more offensive is the action where the government gets to decide what we say or think.

[Fred Sanders]

34. You exaggerate, free speech is already limited in many ways, it is matter of drawing the line.

Volksverhetzung (German: "incitement of popular hatred&quot is a concept in German criminal law that bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population. It often applies in, though it is not limited to, trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. The German penal code (Strafgesetzbuch) establishes that someone is guilty of Volksverhetzung if the person:[1]

in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population

..................

Although freedom of speech is mentioned by Article 5 of the Grundgesetz (Germany's constitution), said article basically protects any non-outlawed speech. Restrictions exist, e.g. against personal insults, use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations, or Volksverhetzung. It is a common misconception that Volksverhetzung includes any spreading of Nazism, racist, or other discriminatory ideas. For any hate speech to be punishable as Volksverhetzung, the law requires that said speech be "qualified for disturbing public peace" either by inciting "hatred against parts of the populace" or calling for "acts of violence or despotism against them", or by attacking "the human dignity of others by reviling, maliciously making contemptible or slandering parts of the populace".

Volksverhetzung is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if the incitement of hatred takes effect on German territory—that is, the seditious sentiment was expressed in written or spoken German and disseminated in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 Paragraph 1 Alternatives 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).

[Kurska]

40. Again, you support imprisoning people for up to 5 years for expressing an opinion.

The law you evoked clearly does that, so that must be what you support.

I'm jewish and I recognize holocaust denial, though idiotic beyond belief, is simply an incredibly flawed opinion and stance on an issue. You think it is okay to throw people in jail for unpopular opinions, not actions such as assaulting a minority, merely voicing an opinion.

I find that idea, and the level of control that other people must be able to exercise over every human being in that society to enforce, far more frightening than some idiot advocating a historical position that has been utterly rejected and discredited.

[alp227]

43. Why are you conflating incitement of hatred and expression of opinion? nt

[Kurska]

44. You can't have a hateful opinion or even vile opinion? Don't hide behind the terminology.

Yes holocaust denial is incitement to hate, but it is also just an opinion. If you ban it, you say society has the power to restrict people from expressing certain opinions.

[alp227]

45. If it causes harm to an entire class of people, the opinion is subject to opposition. nt

[Kurska]

46. Not "opposition" legal sanction enforced by the government, including prison.

That is what we're talking about. Again, don't hide behind kinder sounding words. If that is your position you ought to own.

Who exactly gets to decide what opinions cause harm to a class of people and what do you mean a class of people? Do we also get to to throw people in jail for expressing negative opinions about the poor? Hell, how bout the rich?

If you're going to dismantle the right upon which all other rights are based, you really ought to have a solid plan to go about it.

[X_Digger]

47. Quite a bit of mealy-mouthed doublespeak, isn't it?

I always find these kinds of discussions informative- the hidden authoritarians can't help themselves and end up letting the mask slip, ever so little.

[Kurska]

48. But, freedom of speech is just so doubleplusungood isn't it?

Can't have that.

[hifiguy]

81. Yep. This is the issue

where the mask always slips. Rather a lot in most cases.

[Fred Sanders]

83. No mask. Only logic and dealing with reality. Flights of fancy I have no problem with, imagination

like yours is an asset as well.

[dsc]

52. there are a great many people who sincerely believe that advocating for gay rights

harms people by making them choose to live a harmful life style. There are many others who believe advocating for pro choice harms babies by increasing abortion. I could go on.

[X_Digger]

56. Nonono, only things that WE DON'T LIKE will get banned, don'cha'know?!? ;) n/t

[hifiguy]

80. Define "cause."

Proximate? Incidental? Direct? Indirect?

"Causation" in the law is NOT a simple concept.

[Fred Sanders]

84. That is why we have lawyers and judges and why laymen make poor consultants.

[hifiguy]

85. Just to clarify

I am a lawyer and was taught my First Amendment by Laurence Tribe and Steve Shiffrin, two of the most distinguished scholars that field of law has ever seen.

[Fred Sanders]

87. The law evolves over time, as hate speech law has evolved. Continuing education is valuable.

I would urge you to read the German hate speech law, they are the world experts and they should know all about it.

I always respect the opinion of experts and the teachings of collective experience over my own.

[hifiguy]

88. IMO the "hate speech" laws are

Somewhat less troublesome in that the well-drawn ones - at least in the US - focus on specific incitement to "imminent lawless action." That is generally in line with traditional 1st Am jurisprudence. Such laws need to be very narrowly drawn and applied as well as being strictly scrutinized by courts.

[Fred Sanders]

90. Absolutely. Very strictly construed and narrow by the courts, which has indeed been the experience.

[Fred Sanders]

86. He needs to separate the notion of allowing vile speech but not hate speech that is intended to cite

hatred towards a defined group of folk and the implied incitement of violence...if one read the law in Germany, which is not restricted to any one peoples or event, he would understand, if one wanted end to.

Tricky stuff, but the rule of law is always tricky stuff.

What we need are experts in the law, if only we had some of those folk in charge.

[hifiguy]

51. German history makes that country

a special case, for obvious reasons, I think.

[Kurska]

55. I don't believe so.

Even as a Jew who lost relatives in the holocaust, I still support an absolute right to disgusting opinions like holocaust denial.

Granted that doesn't include the right to not be called crazy or not be excluded from any clear thinking public circle, but throwing someone in jail for it is a bridge too far.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Just imagine the laws that would spring up in Southern states banning the mocking of Christianity

if it were possible to pass such laws in the United States.

The evangelical prosecutors down there would be falling over themselves in the race to be the first to put someone in prison for "blaspheming the Christian religion".

Thank God we have the First Amendment.

[Kurska]

19. People always imagine it as some "utopia" where only their opinion is protected

Never do they seem to realize the sword that wounds others harms the wielder as well.

[SwankyXomb]

20. So free speech for everyone

except the kinds of speech you don't like. Got it.

[DonCoquixote]

26. do they?

It is not that hate speech is valuable, it is that everone can define criticism as hate Speech, or do you want half of DU sent to Jail because certain people define any criticism of Israel as "anti-semitic?"

[Codeine]

36. And this is one of those rare instances

where I honestly believe those nations are all wrong and we are right. I am absolutely against the banning of speech, "hate" or otherwise.

[LittleBlue]

73. They are wrong to do so

And that's why I absolutely love our amazing constitution.

Thankfully we will always have the freedom to speak our minds, even if those ideas are repugnant.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Awww, that pesky 1st Amendment

I know, so irritating.

[hifiguy]

18. I used to manage an sf/comicshop in the 1990s

and Neil was a good friend of Greg the owner, and I met/chatted with him on many occasions. Neil visited often for signings or while on one of his book-hunting expeditions to Minneapolis. He's a wonderful, witty, incredibly intelligent and thoughtful guy, possibly the most well-read person I have ever met, and a writer of singular gifts.

I agree with him 100%, and this is as fine a statement of First Amendment principles as I have ever heard anywhere from anyone:

&quot T)he only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom TO OWNmaterial 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."

[conservaphobe]

22. My strong belief in the freedom of speech is perhaps the only absolutist view I have.

Even providing me with strong evidence of how certain speech is detrimental to society would not be enough for me to go along with banning it.

[Codeine]

37. That sums up my view as well.

I'm generally against the notion of American Exceptionalism, but I honestly believe that when it comes to free speech we got that shit right.

[Matrosov]

23. Hate speech should not be covered by the First Amendment

It's well established that the First Amendment does NOT grant absolute freedom of speech.

Shouting fire in a theater or making bomb jokes at the airport is forbidden because it is dangerous.

Having eight-year-old girls engage in sex acts and filming it is forbidden because it harms the children.

In other words, the First Amendment does not apply to speech which could be deemed irresponsible, and I'd argue that homophobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, and other forms of hate speech, are irresponsible.

[Kurska]

25. Just about anything controversial could be described as hate speech in relation to someone.

Think about that for a moment. Whose going to decide what actually is and how much you'd be willing to trust them.

[Matrosov]

58. Emotion vs logic

There is no logical argument to be made against homosexuals, African-Americans, women, and so forth. Hate speech comes from a place of emotion.

On the other hand, I could explain how, say, the policies of the GOP hurt minorities, the poor, etcetera, so I would argue that does not qualify as hate speech, because it comes from a place of logic.

[hifiguy]

27. I hate to be pedantic but the Justice Holmes quote tht

everyone always gets wrong is "falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." Being informed that the theater was actually on fire would be a responsible warning.

And for a primer on First Amendment theory and practice, which you seem to have some serious issues with, I recommend the works of Professors Laurence Tribe and Geoffrey Stone. Read these articles by Professor Stone to begin with:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2192&context=wmlr

and, particularly

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/77.easter/Easterbrook-Hudnut-Stone.pdf

[Codeine]

42. Hate speech absolutely is protected by the First Amendment.

Show me a case where the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

[Matrosov]

57. Indeed

I simply argued that it should not be protected by the First Amendment

[Throd]

60. Who defines what speech is hateful? Be careful what you wish for.

[nomorenomore08]

62. +1000

This is really the crux of the matter.

[hifiguy]

89. It always is and no one

ever dreams that an imprecise law could be turned on them.

[politicat]

29. All humans have uncomfortable thoughts. Artists explore & unpack them. Thinking isn't criminal.

I do not believe everything I think. Most people don't. Those few who do... Sometimes we call them psychotic, sometimes sociopathic, sometimes narcissistic. Being unable to recognize that some thoughts are not to be acted upon, or not to be invested in, or just false is a sign of serious instability.

Personally, I have written some horrific scenes in the process of building my fictional worlds. I've written rapes from the perspective of both the aggressor and the victim; I've written murders from the perspective of the perpetrator and a witness; I've written extortion, coercion, con games. I've written structural racism and sexism. I've written war and rebellion. I've written characters who consider themselves to be political dissidents, and whose opponents consider them traitors if not terrorists. I've written about the intense sensual emotions of young characters and the intense, sensual emotions of the elderly who long for the ability to experience their sexuality. I've written gay, straight and bi characters, in positive and negative relationships. I've written about religious abuse, parental abuse, manipulation. I've written grievous injuries and torture.

I've also written hope, love, faith, responsibility, tenacity and bravery. I've written recovery and resilience, grief and guilt and shame. I've written of vengeance and justice, and the difference between the two. I've written about victory and peace, and what divides those, too. To get to these latter in fiction, I've had to go through the former. What some readers consider necessary to the force of nature that is story, others consider gratuitous. In fiction, the characters have to earn their victories, and they have to think, live, try, fail and work to succeed; my opinion of "earned" is not the same as my readers' definitions, and may have nothing in common with someone else's. In fiction, I, and every other artist, can explore the thoughts and motives and history that causes war and death and abuse and destruction without enacting them. We can unpack the foundations of malice and evil to understand why it happens, and maybe, figure out how to bend the arc of history and society a little more towards justice. Artists are incrementalists, but to make the incremental improvement, we have to mine into the darkness.

Do I like all of the fiction that depicts cruelty and suffering and tyranny? Nope. I don't have to. I will never again read Heart of Darkness or All Quiet on the Western Front or Johnny Got His Gun. Those books hit hard and left wounds, but I'm a better person for the experience. Nor do I have any interest in revisiting Lady Chatterley's Lover or Lolita. But both were useful for understanding the type of minds who aren't me.

I would much rather that everyone in the world who feels powerless, or needs to dominate, or cause harm could do so with marks on paper or electrons on screens. No one should fear making such marks. Thinking doesn't make it so.

[daleanime]

32. ........

In the same vein I would suggest "Grave of Fireflies", a beautiful, moving film that I will never watch again.

[politicat]

33. /nods vigorously.

That one, I wanted brain bleach.

Thanks.

[daleanime]

66. Thank goodness that I watched it alone....

don't mind saying that I bawled like a baby.

[Blue_Adept]

54. And Barefoot Gen

I find that one to be even harder to watch than Grave of the Fireflies in a lot of ways.

[daleanime]

63. Damn, that's on my list to get to....

is it worth the pain?

[Blue_Adept]

78. It is, but you'll definitely feel the pain.

I've watched Grave of the Fireflies a few times over the years. I could handle Barefoot Gen only once.

[nomorenomore08]

64. As a fellow fiction writer, I want to say I really appreciate this post.

P.S. Do you have anything out in publication, by any chance?

[politicat]

70. Thanks. Art must have room to breathe.

Work visible that I'm willing to link to on an open forum... Um... Sort of.

I do have some semi-pro shorts, flash fic and ePub that contribute to my bank account, but I keep those separate from my academic and major genre work. (Pseudo work and for hire.) They're semi-useful for track record/resume, but I try to keep my online self, my academic self, those pseudos and my pro-sale selves separate. I consider that my craft building.

On the pro-sale side, I've got a series of five, with functional drafts for 6-10, that is deep in process, but no paper in my hot little hand, and the hangup seems to be slotting for production schedule/the risk inherent with such a long series. Since it's finished (except for a little rework late in book 4/early in 5) it can be fast-tracked, which is both good and bad in the industry -- each book is functionally stand-alone, but heavily dependent, meaning it's best if all five can come out in quick succession, but funding 2-5 depends on 1 doing well, or promoting them as a package, which is pricy.

Ideally, that one would be primarily ebook and built on a nonlinear reading model, sort of like a choose your own adventure, since it has several major threads that can be read either by following the chronology, or via the parallel paths of the protagonists, or via the structural mysteries, but that is an even bigger risk for publishers than taking on a quintology.

I've got a ready to go stand alone that is shopping, but it's not remotely my normal market so hard for me to package and promote, so I may just self-ebook it and if it pays for its own toner and paper (I edit on hard copy), I'll call it good. A ready first of a second series (unrelated to the enormous one) is also shopping, others in 2 or 3 draft that aren't ready to go out the door yet.

Some of that draft work is available. PM if you're interested and I'll send you the links. (I also beta for others and offer mine for beta.)

Academic: two contributing investigator, six major criticism papers and my original contribution to the field goes before my board in December, with my first PI to peer review and publication in late 2017 or early 18, assuming we stay on schedule. Also, several warning flags on patient literature and a black box. If I ever rate a major obit, it will probably be for this, not my fiction.

[BainsBane]

30. Freedom of speech also extends to criticism of such speech

To pretend such critiques amount to banning is to demonstrate contempt for free speech and to fail to understand that such freedoms extend not only to themselves and those who think exactly like them.

When I see people respond to critical ideas with canards of banning or jail, I know they are threatened by speech that doesn't promote their own class, race, gender, and/or sexuality. Naturally they have no awareness that their own rights aren't absolute and universal. Privilege depends on lack of awareness or refusal to acknowledge the existence or rights of the other.

[hifiguy]

31. Of course it does.

But not every criticism is valid or even worthy of the time it takes to dismiss or refute it. If I say, to use a non-controversial example, that J.S. Bach was a terrible Romantic composer or that Richard Wagner was a gawd-awful Baroque composer I may well be correct. The important bit is that I have missed every conceivable pertinent point about music, which completely moots the value of the proffered "criticism" and I would only expose my own profound ignorance by saying something that disconnected from reality.

The right to be heard is not the right to be taken seriously. Hubert Humphrey said that, IIRC.

[BainsBane]

35. In your opinion

Which is influenced by your subject position. If, for example, you don't see something as racist or misogynist doesn't mean it isn't. If I, for example, don't see something as homophobic doesn't mean it isn't. Who we are influences how we view society, including it's cultural messaging. Some are more aware of certain messaging than others.

My point in my previous post has been repeatedly denied on this board. I don't know if you were around when someone's repost of a Rude Pundit blog entry was hidden by a jury. All hell broke loose. People were certain HOF was responsible, which I don't believe is the case since no one I know was the alerter or on the jury. Nontheless, people wanted a scapegoat and turned to the familiar one. Freedom required posting bigoted, misogynistic, and homophobic slurs, and it also required banning people who objected to such language in order to preserve "freedom of speech." The complete irony of it all was entirely lost on those making the argument.


My sense is that when people have always held a position of privilege--whether race, class, gender, sexuality, cis, or ableism--or have identified with that privileged group, they often have no awareness of the extent to which their views are bound by their own subject positions. That can be changed. People can learn to interrogate their own assumptions, but many, perhaps most, refuse to do so.
.

[daleanime]

38. Of course....

there's a difference between "stuff like this should not exist" and "stuff like this should not be allowed".

[Kurska]

41. It isn't a canard when there are examples of it in this very thread.

I've seen the very idea expressed on DU. Yet you seem to be of the opinion that no one holds that opinion, when in many places of the world it is indeed banned and people are thrown in jail for it.

Oh and your rights are the exact same as mine. I would never give you anything more or anything less.

[BainsBane]

49. Links?

Post numbers in this thread?

I know I have been accused of it repeatedly and never suggested that speech be banned. If an odd person or two makes the comment, that is hardly reflective of critique in general. It is an excused to make up for the fact people can't deal with the complexity of actual arguments so they create a strawwoman.

As for my rights: You regularly promote positions that erase my rights. You did so in your OP about "freedom to sell your body for sex." When people fail to ignore the existence of other human beings, that their lives even matter as part of an issue, they make very clear they see them as not only without rights, but as irrelevant to human existence, as in the case of the OP that referred to me and people like me as "imaginary."

That was my point about lack of awareness. People promote exclusionary views that write most of humanity out of their narrow definition of what is allowed to be considered in an issue. They think it justified because ultimately they see us as less, so much of a less they willfully refuse to think about us. We don't promote profit and male entitlement, therefore we must be erased from public discourse.

[Kurska]

50. Post 13 contains a link.

"You regularly promote positions that erase my rights. You did so in your OP about "freedom to sell your body for sex.""

I say I have the right to exchange sex for money if I felt like it. You seem to think me legally giving some guy a blowjob in exchange for 20 dollars somehow makes you have less rights than before. But you throwing me in jail for doing it is a perfect exercise of natural rights.

It really boggles the mind. Actually, me sucking or not sucking some guy's cock for 20 dollars has literally zero impact on your life or well being. I would not be violating your rights by doing that in the slightest.

Or are you saying that I think you personally should be forced to exchange sex for money? Because holy jesus you really missed the point of the OP if you think that.

Either way, I'm glad we could get that cleared up.

[nomorenomore08]

65. This is the other side of it. Criticism =/= censorship.

And even though I'm, by and large, vehemently opposed to censorship, I recognize the difference between the two.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. And criticism of that criticism, and so on.

If one believes the critics and "critiques" have been silenced on the internet- or even on DU- a quick perusal of GD and assorted groups on any given week will demonstrate that not to be the case.

Sometimes those are canards, sometimes they aren't. If, for instance, someone says "no one supports censorship" when not that long ago they were experiencing public paroxysms of ecstasy over a censorship proposal somewhere, it's possible they are being less than genuine on the matter.

[NaturalHigh]

53. That "comic" sounds disgusting.

I'm not in favor of banning it, though. People who want to ban literature that they find offensive don't seem to remember that others will inevitably want to ban something that they find offensive in turn.

[nomorenomore08]

67. As a writer myself, I am absolutely opposed to censorship of fictional works.

When it comes to, say, hate speech laws, I'm more ambivalent - though still overall opposed - but I see no valid reason to ban a written work, nor even a visual work in which no human beings or animals are actually harmed. Mike Diana got a raw deal.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. Yelling Fire at home with family and friends is your prerogative, is your right -

Yelling Fire (for no good reason) in a crowded theater surrounded by complete and total strangers is kinda icky, doncha think ... ?

[Warren DeMontague]

77. The "fire in a theater" example is overused, and widely misunderstood.

Especially when people take it to mean that any speech which might upset or piss off large numbers of people is equivalent to yelling "fire" and as such can be banned.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O'Brien

[Tuesday Afternoon]

79. whatever. good bye.

[LittleBlue]

72. The EU desperately needs a freedom of speech guarantee

I will never view most Europeans as truly free until they no longer fear expressing beliefs publicly.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. The whole point of the 1st Amendment is that it protects unpopular or even icky speech.

I believe the 1st Amendment represents a watershed moment and idea in the fight for liberation of the human mind, and deserves enthusiastic defense and protection.

[hifiguy]

82. Which is just what Madison and

Jefferson intended it to be, as good Enlightenment rationalists.

[nomorenomore08]

92. +2

No argument from me.

[Octafish]

91. Cass Sunstein doesn't like icky speech that casts government in a bad light.

Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal

Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups

GLENN GREENWALD
Salon, Jan. 10, 2010

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Sunstein’s 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story‘s Daniel Tencer.

SOURCE w/links: http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/