9 ms·
Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?
- RickHull 16y ago> 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
- oihujyfgthyjuik 16y agoHistoric: "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)"
- ChuckMcM 16y agoI 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."
- DavidSJ 16y agoWho has made the argument that skipping commercials violates a corporation's First Amendment rights? Can you provide a link?
- ChuckMcM 16y agoEric Goldman (blog.ericgoldman.org) did a number of roundup pieces around first amendment defenses against prosecution under the CAN-SPAM laws, and the one of the arguments set forth by the MPAA in its defense of the DMCA was that its commercial speech rights were violated by people who could use DECSS(sp?) to unencrypt their DVDs and just watch the video content without the commercials. I'll see if I can find the case id and post a link.
- evgen 16y agoIt is not quite the same thing, but close enough that someone might be able to make a legal leap... There are/were services that would make edits of existing films to take out the "naughty bits" and repackage them for sale as a family friendly edit of the original film. These derivative works were not authorized by any of the original copyright holders and the censoring services lost the case (Clean Flicks of Colorado, LLC, et al. v. Steven Soderbergh, et al.) This particular case probably hinged more on how the first sale doctrine worked for digital works, but there were copyright issues raised and the judge did find that the edits were not protected by any fair use claims. From censoring out tits to skipping commercials is a jump, and this would probably only be applicable to making and distributing copies of dvds that cut out any of the annoying warnings/ads/"coming attractions" (e.g. adding this ability to players or distributing the edits and jumps via an additional channel would not be covered) but it is a precedent to consider...
- DavidSJ 16y agoThose are copyrights, not First Amendment rights.
- Stormbringer 16y agoInteresting 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).
- HedgeMage 16y agoIn 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.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jackvalentine 16y agoYou 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-banned-small-breasts/ 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.
- 16y ago
- ubasu 16y agoRelated pg citation: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- sriramk 16y agoUnrelated note - is it just me or does PG less write less and less these days on non-startup related topics?
- mikeryan 16y agoIts 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/2011/03/02/AR2011030202548.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03...
- thaumaturgy 16y agoSo 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 distinctions.
- lwat 16y agoFunerals are public, or at least the WBC is on public ground when they protest at funerals.
- kenjackson 16y agoThe 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, probably already believe it. 3) With freedom of speech I can argue the point prior to irreversible damage. Now there are some cases where freedom of speech don't apply and those are generally cases where the three points above don't apply. For example, the classic of yelling "Fire" in a crowded room. Someone else yelling, "there is no fire" is not likely to be heard and even if "Fire" is seemingly absurd, most people may not discard due to potential harm. Yada yada. But outside of cases that violate the above, the law should stand. Otherwise the consequences, shutting down opposing speech, will almost certainly be worse.
- mseebach 16y agoHe sums it up very concisely in the very last paragraph: And also that I think that prosecuting as "child pornographers" a 16 and 17 year old who were legally able to have sex, because they took a sexual photograph of themselves and emailed it to themselves is utterly, insanely wrong, and a nice example of the law as blunt instrument.
- ErrantX 16y agoAnd the inherent problem is that there are a frightening amount of people who think that kids doing things like that are "morally reprehensible" and that such a prosecution is for the good of all. The even more frightening thing is that there are public prosecutors with this view.
- dochtman 16y agoI actually find it much more frightening that many public prosecutors (at least in the US, where they are elected) may not hold that view, but think it'll get them elected.
- gtech 16y agoGreat argument, but it's way too long winded.
- chwahoo 16y agoWhile 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.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- frankydp 16y agoSpeech is not free it cost many people many things, and my friends do not die to protect unquestionably wrong speech. I believe most of the people that think of right and wrong in such a black and white way have never in their lives had to choose right or wrong when it meant something other than hurt feelings.
- jaysonelliot 16y agoPopular speech doesn't need defending. If you don't believe in the freedom of "unquestionably wrong" speech, then you don't believe in freedom of speech.
- frankydp 16y agoThis is the same premise style argument in reverse. Save one child and such. Disagree with one part and your completely against. My statement is that freedom of any kind including speech is not black and white.
- jaysonelliot 16y agoExcept that it isn't. You're suggesting that there's an absolute concept such as "wrong" speech, and that you're somehow capable of defining and legislating that.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- warrenwilkinson 16y agoHere 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 won't persecute you. It does not mean everyone else must treat you the same way as they did before you said anything. It also does not mean people have to listen to you, or that you've a right to use others property to deliver your message.
- yuhong 16y agoI 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.
- kwantam 16y agoGaiman 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 children" heart string--tugging arguments (and others), and it is a dangerous and nasty kind of argument that should always be addressed. "If we only save ONE child, shouldn't we do X?" is equivalent to "let's just assume that even the tiniest positive outcome has more value than any possible negative ones." This isn't really an argument at all; it's a premise concerning the relative values of various outcomes, masquerading as an argument. Moreover, it's stated in a way intended to shame anyone who disagrees with it. "Even if we only save ONE child", "even if we only stop ONE terrorist", and their ilk smack of dishonesty and intellectual laziness. Sound public policies require careful consideration; arguments such as these are mental roadblocks, nothing more.
- iamdave 16y agoI take umbrage to this creepy uncle being named "Dave".
- salvadors 16y agoIndeed. It is of course entirely possible to prevent all crime by locking everyone up in solitary confinement at birth. This would save not just ONE child, but all of them, from rape or attempted rape etc., so surely this must be worth it?
- numlocked 16y agoMencken 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
- parfe 16y agoI 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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc
- dsghrtjty 16y agoONLINE STORE: ====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )==== ====== ( 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 )==== ====== ( 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 )====
- julian37 16y agoThis 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
- angus77 16y agoI haven't heard that one, but there's a similar one in the Frank Zappa Book about the song "Montana". He wrote a song about dental floss, yet people's teeth didn't get cleaner.
- cookiecaper 16y agoA song can't possess someone and make them do something, but it's a juvenile and ridiculous argument to claim that the media we take in doesn't effect us in some way. After all, we use it because we like its effect; maybe it's relaxing, like jazz, or exciting, like a fast-paced video game. But either way humans are learning beings, and everything we see and hear is filed away and used as reference later. It is almost impossible to turn this off. Speech shouldn't be censored but individuals should choose wisely what they decide to surround themselves with. Thought is father to the deed and the media is actually about implanting ideas and emotions in people -- we should choose carefully that which we let through.
- krig 16y agoI can't tell what point you are trying to make. Is this a convoluted argument for censorship? Are you claiming that there is a direct link between the content of media and the behavior of people? That's a pretty big claim, if so. If not, then what, exactly, is your point? Everyone chooses what to surround themselves with. Perhaps it would be better if people didn't choose quite so narrowly to only listen to the voices they agree with, and try to diversify their surroundings/inputs a bit more. If we all paid a bit more attention to the cultures and interests of other people, perhaps we'd be less inclined to distrust and dehumanise others. I apologise if I'm assuming/misunderstanding things, but I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to argue for here. Watching horror films evidently doesn't make people do horrible things, so any link between the content of media and its effects on people can't be that simplistic.
- CaptainZapp 16y agoIf you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. While this may seem obvious, this is precisely the point. Freedom of speech is only valuable when you're willing to accept disgusting, offensive, gross and revolting speech (within limits, i.e. inciting violence comes to mind). Arguments against bigoted -, racist -, fanatical -, etc. speech should be won on the merits of the argument and not with the sledgehammer of the law. This is, of course, not totally black and white and it's not an absolute. If you, however, value this freedom it should go a very long way before laws can be employed to stiffle such speech.
- stretchwithme 16y agoBecause the freedom to do what the majority approves of is not why we need freedom. The lives allegedly saved by suspending liberties should be weighed against all the lived taken by the dictators, who are made more likely as we eat away at the foundations necessary to establish our rights.
- hessenwolf 16y agoI like the Swedish approach: Certain restrictions on freedom of speech exist, notably regarding hate speech against any group based on ethnicity, race and creed, and since 2002 also against sexual orientation. Some notable recent cases are Radio Islam and Åke Green.[citation needed] Saying that all speech has to be completely free no matter what is a bit fundamentalist. Stuff in the real world is grey, not black or white.
- scotty79 16y agoEnjoying lolicon will turn you into child rapist like enjoying FPS turned me into ruthless murder. You have to be biologically screwed in the head to rape children or kill people for pleasure. I don't know why people create an impression that average Joe could enjoy 8 year old kid if given a chance.
- khafra 16y agoI subscribe to the theory that people who assume everyone's a potential child rapist are generalizing from a single example; either someone close to them, or themselves.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- scotty79 16y agoI hope not because that would imply that way more people is so biologically screwed in the head than I'd like to believe. I think it's just because children are so precious that people get all irrational and panicked.
- ctdonath 16y agoTest of principles: does your approach to the 1st Amendment apply equally to the 2nd?
- sp4rki 16y agoEven 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."
- gadders 16y agoAnd 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.
- uros643 16y agoActually, 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?
- araneae 16y agoAnd this is exactly why an open device like Android is so much better. The problem is that what speech is "icky" depends on the person, and if you ban "icky" speech then you'll be banning all sorts of things others do not find icky. Apple has also removed apps that were basically soft-core porn. But for me, a "gay cure" app is far more offensive than a "girls in bikinis" app, but other people clearly feel the exact reverse. When you reduce the world to speech which no one finds offensive, then you find yourself using Newspeak, in which you can't communicate meaningfully at all because every offensive thought and image has been eliminated.
- tobylane 16y ago"The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made." Neil Garman "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. ”— Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers. I call bullshit. I agree, defend freedom, but it's the same with terrorism, if not worse. There has to be intervention to judge it. Somehow that seems to be done better than say the software patent system. Terrorists are being held, or watched, by ways that shouldn't be legal, because what they did isn't illegal, just so very near. Immoral text/images, software patents and terrorists actions all have blurry lines we will take some time to sharpen.