7 ms·

It's sad how little progress we've made in terms of freedom of speech and expression. In the 1800s the church was the censorship machine, with sex as the main v

It's sad how little progress we've made in terms of freedom of speech and expression. In the 1800s the church was the censorship machine, with sex as the main vector. Today it's the government, still with sex as the main vector.

SiempreViernes 9y ago
What are you talking about, black people can vote, gay people can marry, but there has hardly been any freedom of speech progress since 1800?
- klokoman 9y ago
  Voting is not speech. Also it's what you aren't allowed to say that changed.
- Afforess 9y ago
  The US has made negative progress on sexual liberation on the whole of history. Prostitution was common and generally legal in the late 1700's and 1800's. The temperance movements in the late 1800's and early 1900's (yes, the same movement that caused the 18th amendment) led to the illegalization of sex work and other vices. America has not yet recovered from this criminalization, despite being one hundred years in the past.
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    Are you seriously saying that prostitution having become mostly illegal is a greater setback to sexual liberation than all the other advances we have made with regards to women’s rights? (For example, women being able to legally resist having sex with their husbands?)
    - code_sloth 9y ago
      Can you read? Seriously?
    - hueving 9y ago
      From a public behavior perspective, yes we have regressed. Women's rights are much better but you can show someone getting violently murdered on TV easier than you can show a tit.
      - SiempreViernes 9y ago
        Look, just such a simple fact women who are raped by their husbands can actually call and expect to be defended is to me obviously much more important than the fact that the tits on some statues are censored when shown on tv.
        random4369 9y ago
        `women are no longer being raped by their husbands` -> `state censorship is justified` Amazing mental gymnastics.
        hueving 9y ago
        Textbook false dichotomy. Freedom of expression is about as related to rape as it is to the right to a trial.
        truj 9y ago
        No. A dichotomy is mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. Since there is no suggestion of such a relationship between women's rights and nudity no dichotomy is presented. Which therefor can't be false.
        hueving 9y ago
        Poster is implying it's a dichotomy by pretending that better women's rights is proof that sexual expression has improved. The implication is that you either admit expression is better because we have women's rights or you admit you were wrong. False dichotomy.
        truj2 9y ago
    - psyc 9y ago
      You sound surprised, but the problem is that you're equivocating on the words sexual liberation. It may sound as though your example is related to sexual and liberation, but the phrase almost always refers to the liberation of the human sex drive from control by the church, the state, and community norms. Edit: You seem to have a problem with the quotes, so I changed them to italics.
      - jonathanyc 9y ago
        I’m sorry, but the post we are replying compares now to the 1700s and 1800s; the modern conception of “sexual liberation” includes freedoms related to marriage (e.g. divorce, premarital sex), and extending this back to the 1700s while not considering things like the obligation of wives to have sex with their husbands is anachronistic and myopic. I’m not sure what your thought exercise about putting quotes around words is supposed to prove; feel free to read, say, the Wikipedia article on the subject. Also, are you seriously saying that my example isn’t a case of community norms?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - eeZah7Ux 9y ago
      You are confusing sex liberation, which is all about how sexuality is vilified or accepted in society, with women's rights. They are both important topics and there can be often overlaps but they are ultimately different topics.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    Denying the progress of sexual freedoms over the last 300 years can only come from an exclusively male/white/adult/heterosexual perspective. Some freedoms that quickly come to mind: the right NOT to have sex (rape within marriage, or of slaves, was legal. Other rape laws were largely unenforced) gay sex, interracial marriage (and sex), sex among teenagers Access to pornography is legal, and vastly easier due to technical reasons than in the past. Women have been recognised as sexual beings equal to men, and their pleasure is no longer ignored. The possibility to have sex and not get pregnant arose and became easier. So did abortion. Norms around age of consent were lowered. Specifically for prostitution: It's a point of heated debate in the feminist community if the liberalisation in, for example, some European countries actually led to better working conditions and less human trafficking. That's why that community, which advocated for legalisation in the past, is now split on the subject. It's just not clear if legalisation was successful.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      > Norms around age of consent were lowered. Huh? I'd say "raised".
      - SiempreViernes 9y ago
        Sure, just ignore that sex wasn't something consenting adults could do unless they where married, whenever that was.
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  Well he did put emphasis on sex. Social norms regarding pornography, sexuality, prostitution and nudity are still depressingly puritanical in the US. I think the ripple effects from being raised to believe sexuality and nudity are shameful or obscene are much greater than we appreciate.
  - SiempreViernes 9y ago
    They are puritanical yes, but they've hardly become more so in the last 200 years. I think it is merely that the law has become more prevalent across the country.
- nukeop 9y ago
  If this is what "freedom of speech" earns us then we're better off without it, it's completely useless or even worse, it seems to set us back.
- noobermin 9y ago
  I believe s/he was using hyperbole. Their general sentiment is at the least this is a set back for the rights and protection of sex workers.
- hueving 9y ago
  Neither of those have anything to do with censorship.
  - SiempreViernes 9y ago
    Being unable to openly express affection upon pain of death seems like a pretty obvious case of censorship.
- whataretensors 9y ago
  Voting became a gameable activity primarily designed to convince the masses they matter. Almost all major decisions are made behind closed doors. Bills like this are always bipartisan yet despised by the public.
- mtgx 9y ago
  > gay people can marry That happened like in the past few years, which is a tiny fraction of the past 2 centuries. And if extremist Republicans get to rule the government for another decade (whether directly or with the help of "moderate Democrats"), then I don't know if that will last either.
nkkollaw 9y ago
In the US..

SiempreViernes 9y ago

What are you talking about, black people can vote, gay people can marry, but there has hardly been any freedom of speech progress since 1800?

klokoman 9y ago
Voting is not speech. Also it's what you aren't allowed to say that changed.
Afforess 9y ago
The US has made negative progress on sexual liberation on the whole of history. Prostitution was common and generally legal in the late 1700's and 1800's. The temperance movements in the late 1800's and early 1900's (yes, the same movement that caused the 18th amendment) led to the illegalization of sex work and other vices. America has not yet recovered from this criminalization, despite being one hundred years in the past.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  Are you seriously saying that prostitution having become mostly illegal is a greater setback to sexual liberation than all the other advances we have made with regards to women’s rights? (For example, women being able to legally resist having sex with their husbands?)
  - code_sloth 9y ago
    Can you read? Seriously?
  - hueving 9y ago
    From a public behavior perspective, yes we have regressed. Women's rights are much better but you can show someone getting violently murdered on TV easier than you can show a tit.
    - SiempreViernes 9y ago
      Look, just such a simple fact women who are raped by their husbands can actually call and expect to be defended is to me obviously much more important than the fact that the tits on some statues are censored when shown on tv.
      - random4369 9y ago
        `women are no longer being raped by their husbands` -> `state censorship is justified` Amazing mental gymnastics.
      - hueving 9y ago
        Textbook false dichotomy. Freedom of expression is about as related to rape as it is to the right to a trial.
        truj 9y ago
        No. A dichotomy is mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. Since there is no suggestion of such a relationship between women's rights and nudity no dichotomy is presented. Which therefor can't be false.
        hueving 9y ago
        Poster is implying it's a dichotomy by pretending that better women's rights is proof that sexual expression has improved. The implication is that you either admit expression is better because we have women's rights or you admit you were wrong. False dichotomy.
        truj2 9y ago
  - psyc 9y ago
    You sound surprised, but the problem is that you're equivocating on the words sexual liberation. It may sound as though your example is related to sexual and liberation, but the phrase almost always refers to the liberation of the human sex drive from control by the church, the state, and community norms. Edit: You seem to have a problem with the quotes, so I changed them to italics.
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      I’m sorry, but the post we are replying compares now to the 1700s and 1800s; the modern conception of “sexual liberation” includes freedoms related to marriage (e.g. divorce, premarital sex), and extending this back to the 1700s while not considering things like the obligation of wives to have sex with their husbands is anachronistic and myopic. I’m not sure what your thought exercise about putting quotes around words is supposed to prove; feel free to read, say, the Wikipedia article on the subject. Also, are you seriously saying that my example isn’t a case of community norms?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - eeZah7Ux 9y ago
    You are confusing sex liberation, which is all about how sexuality is vilified or accepted in society, with women's rights. They are both important topics and there can be often overlaps but they are ultimately different topics.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  Denying the progress of sexual freedoms over the last 300 years can only come from an exclusively male/white/adult/heterosexual perspective. Some freedoms that quickly come to mind: the right NOT to have sex (rape within marriage, or of slaves, was legal. Other rape laws were largely unenforced) gay sex, interracial marriage (and sex), sex among teenagers Access to pornography is legal, and vastly easier due to technical reasons than in the past. Women have been recognised as sexual beings equal to men, and their pleasure is no longer ignored. The possibility to have sex and not get pregnant arose and became easier. So did abortion. Norms around age of consent were lowered. Specifically for prostitution: It's a point of heated debate in the feminist community if the liberalisation in, for example, some European countries actually led to better working conditions and less human trafficking. That's why that community, which advocated for legalisation in the past, is now split on the subject. It's just not clear if legalisation was successful.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    > Norms around age of consent were lowered. Huh? I'd say "raised".
    - SiempreViernes 9y ago
      Sure, just ignore that sex wasn't something consenting adults could do unless they where married, whenever that was.
verylittlemeat 9y ago
Well he did put emphasis on sex. Social norms regarding pornography, sexuality, prostitution and nudity are still depressingly puritanical in the US. I think the ripple effects from being raised to believe sexuality and nudity are shameful or obscene are much greater than we appreciate.
- SiempreViernes 9y ago
  They are puritanical yes, but they've hardly become more so in the last 200 years. I think it is merely that the law has become more prevalent across the country.
nukeop 9y ago
If this is what "freedom of speech" earns us then we're better off without it, it's completely useless or even worse, it seems to set us back.
noobermin 9y ago
I believe s/he was using hyperbole. Their general sentiment is at the least this is a set back for the rights and protection of sex workers.
hueving 9y ago
Neither of those have anything to do with censorship.
- SiempreViernes 9y ago
  Being unable to openly express affection upon pain of death seems like a pretty obvious case of censorship.
whataretensors 9y ago
Voting became a gameable activity primarily designed to convince the masses they matter. Almost all major decisions are made behind closed doors. Bills like this are always bipartisan yet despised by the public.
mtgx 9y ago
> gay people can marry That happened like in the past few years, which is a tiny fraction of the past 2 centuries. And if extremist Republicans get to rule the government for another decade (whether directly or with the help of "moderate Democrats"), then I don't know if that will last either.

nkkollaw 9y ago

In the US..