3 ms·

>If it was truly meant to enunciate a particular opinion, then that same opinion could be expressed in clearer, more verbal ways. Any opinion can be expressed

>If it was truly meant to enunciate a particular opinion, then that same opinion could be expressed in clearer, more verbal ways. Any opinion can be expressed in clearer ways - and indeed many opinions in artworks can too. >The crux is that the opinion itself isn't censored, but that does not mean that one has carte blanche as a choice of medium to express it Some would say that porn is the best method to express their opinions and ideas. For instance, if I may want to express what I find sexy, a picture is worth well more than a thousand words. Sometimes, I may opt for a (pornographic) thousand words. There is immense complexity in at least some pornography, and some feminist philosophers would contend that porn is the best medium (on a variety of metrics) to convey the idea that women should be subordinated. I don't agree with that reading, but there a many points of view. >So can the kind of murders committed therein. The idea is that porn also expresses ideas and opinions, not that porn is pure and good by light of doing just that. Murder is also expressive, but it causes harm. Whether porn causes harm is very contentious.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Some would say that porn is the best method to express their opinions and ideas. For instance, if I may want to express what I find sexy, a picture is worth well more than a thousand words. Sometimes, I may opt for a (pornographic) thousand words. There is immense complexity in at least some pornography, and some feminist philosophers would contend that porn is the best medium (on a variety of metrics) to convey the idea that women should be subordinated. I don't agree with that reading, but there a many points of view. And some would say the assassination of a politician is the best way to express many political ideas. Again, if you wish to follow this logic consistently, you must essentially abolish the concept of crime. > The idea is that porn also expresses ideas and opinions, not that porn is pure and good by light of doing just that. Murder is also expressive, but it causes harm. Whether porn causes harm is very contentious. So indeed — you make a distinction on whether it cause harm or not, not on whether it be an opinion or not. Is it now your claim that one only enjoys freedom of opinion if the powers that be consider the opinion, or the means by which they are expressed, not harmful?
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >Is it now your claim that one only enjoys freedom of opinion if the powers that be consider the opinion, or the means by which they are expressed, not harmful? In a roundabout way, yes. But it is not left to "the powers that be", but a process involving evidence and rigorous reasoning. It's also important to distinguish "mere hurts" from harms. Some potential "harms" we may argue should be prioritized lower than free speech, much in the same way the potential harms of a drunk person on others are prioritized lower than the right to drink (or even produce) alcohol. You pointed this out yourself; there are many ways to express many opinions, but their expressions can run up against other rights, or at least cause other harms. It's a balancing act, not a settled question. I may also trust the state more to recognize the harm of killing than I trust it to recognize the harm of some other forms of expression. "Oh, so you believe this now?" isn't a gotcha in a complex process where many different interests need to be considered, and all of us have different views on what society should look like. The law on murder in most countries is extremely complex, with various tiers and problems. Even that is up for debate - England and Wales has a much criticized "mandatory life sentence" and pretty much one tier of murder. So no, I don't have the answers, but good-faith discussions may bring us closer.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> Some would say that porn is the best method to express their opinions and ideas. For instance, if I may want to express what I find sexy, a picture is worth well more than a thousand words. Sometimes, I may opt for a (pornographic) thousand words. There is immense complexity in at least some pornography, and some feminist philosophers would contend that porn is the best medium (on a variety of metrics) to convey the idea that women should be subordinated. I don't agree with that reading, but there a many points of view. And some would say the assassination of a politician is the best way to express many political ideas. Again, if you wish to follow this logic consistently, you must essentially abolish the concept of crime. > The idea is that porn also expresses ideas and opinions, not that porn is pure and good by light of doing just that. Murder is also expressive, but it causes harm. Whether porn causes harm is very contentious. So indeed — you make a distinction on whether it cause harm or not, not on whether it be an opinion or not. Is it now your claim that one only enjoys freedom of opinion if the powers that be consider the opinion, or the means by which they are expressed, not harmful?

claudiawerner 6y ago
>Is it now your claim that one only enjoys freedom of opinion if the powers that be consider the opinion, or the means by which they are expressed, not harmful? In a roundabout way, yes. But it is not left to "the powers that be", but a process involving evidence and rigorous reasoning. It's also important to distinguish "mere hurts" from harms. Some potential "harms" we may argue should be prioritized lower than free speech, much in the same way the potential harms of a drunk person on others are prioritized lower than the right to drink (or even produce) alcohol. You pointed this out yourself; there are many ways to express many opinions, but their expressions can run up against other rights, or at least cause other harms. It's a balancing act, not a settled question. I may also trust the state more to recognize the harm of killing than I trust it to recognize the harm of some other forms of expression. "Oh, so you believe this now?" isn't a gotcha in a complex process where many different interests need to be considered, and all of us have different views on what society should look like. The law on murder in most countries is extremely complex, with various tiers and problems. Even that is up for debate - England and Wales has a much criticized "mandatory life sentence" and pretty much one tier of murder. So no, I don't have the answers, but good-faith discussions may bring us closer.