Neil Gaiman On The Freedom Of Sexual Speech
An excellent blog post by Neil Gaiman on why it’s worth defending freedom of speech, even when the speech in question may strike you as creepy or dangerous.
In this case you obviously have read lolicon, and I haven’t. … [Y]ou seem to want lolicon banned, and people prosecuted for owning it, and I don’t. You ask, What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material 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.
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2674
This is a point of conflict for me. I agree with what he’s saying, but the fact that lolicon is seen as harmless by a lot of people bugs the hell out of me. I role play online, and some of it is sexual. Some of it involves pedophilic scenes (although I never have done them and never would). I’ve seen people who write these kinds of scenes so often that they’ve become desensitized to actual pedophilia; there’s at least one, maybe more, actual pedophile amidst the pretend ones. When said pedophile talks about actually giving webcam shows of his eight year old daughter, not everyone takes pause at it. The material they use to play these scenes isn’t entirely the problem – they might play them whether they had pictures to help them along or not – and I acknowledge that, but it’s a contributing factor. I know some people that just open up a hentai site, look around and decide that they’re going to role play every type of fetish they see on there, no matter how awful, unrealistic, etc. etc. etc.. I know the point of the quote isn’t to defend material that fetishizes pedophilia (because under a law banning it, maybe a story that, say, details a pedophilic act for the purposes of character building, might come under scrutiny, I guess), but I do see it defended a lot, and it really bothers me.
Why is it someone’s God-given right to get shamelessly aroused by absolutely anything that’s set in front of their eyes? Why is sexuality an area where nothing is wrong? I’m not saying “He got a boner while thinking of an underage girl once, put him in jail,” but I do think it should be discouraged. There’s a line. I put it at sexualizing people and things that don’t understand what’s going on.
(By the way, I’m not sure where this falls under the respect clause. I’d like to think pedophilia doesn’t qualify as a “kink” to be respected, but I’m definitely not the type of person who’d know. Delete at will, I guess.)
In the words of Terry Prachett, there’s a big difference between “We got the man what did it.” and “We got the man what looked like he was gonna do it.”
It can be said that the second one sounds appealing if you want to protect everyone, especially, in this case, children, but when you come right down to it, all you have is a law that lets anyone go to jail for being suspected of maybe committing a crime some day in the future.
I don’t want to go to jail because it’s in someone else’s personal interests to send me to jail for a crime I’m considered being capable of committing.
The most pernicious form of child abuse is the use of children as sword and shield in the pursuit of political gain and the gratification of self righteousness. Such abuse has reached the level of insanity when felony charges are brought against children who “molest themselves” for taking their own pictures. It is also an abuse of the child when we claim to save the child by limiting its own future expression of thought as an adult.
Child abuse occurs when an action is taken against a specific child, not when someone puts pen to paper.
The Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo, is attempting to build a career by destroying the net, and anything else within reach. He has determined that no matter what happens he will not end up like Elliot Spitzer — taken out for his sexual proclivities. Cuomo is whipping up support amongst the so called moralists who would ban the 100,000 Usenet groups because some 88 of them MIGHT have had child porn on them. Mr Cuomo also wants all file transfers to be somehow “checked” for child pornography.
In short, Cuomo is the barbarian who ran a sword through Pythagoras, willing to destroy anything for his own convenience.
Jamie, I think you’ve entirely missed the point of this post.
Right thinking folk everywhere disapprove of sexual crimes exploiting children. That’s not at issue, nor will it become on on this blog.
It’s much less universally agreed that mere thinking about the same crime “should be discouraged”; many people agree with you, but (a) it’s not easy to do, (b) it has a totalitarian air about it, and (c) there’s no evidence whatsoever that even if you could, you’d reduce the incidence of crimes we all abhor. In fact, the research (as Neil G. gestures at) seems to go the other way.
Nor is it clear why drawing pictures of a taboo fantasy should be worse that maintaining that same fantasy. The whole “desensitizes” thing is a theory often heard, supported by anecdotes like yours, but it’s impossible to assign causation; were your roleplayers desensitized by the roleplaying they did, or did they do the roleplaying because this was already their fantasy? You can’t know.
What you’re missing, though, is the danger in your assertion that “there’s a line”. That’s the problem; until you get to actual acts that do harm to others, there is no line. Every argument you have used could also be used to suppress (for example) rape fantasies, which according to the research (even Nancy Friday found it!) are common and enjoyed by millions of men and women alike.
And that’s just the next step on the slippery slope. Once you accept the flawed premise that some kinds of thought and artistic expression cross a “line” that puts them beyond the pale, you divide all your potential allies into squabbling camps who fight about where the line is instead of resisting the prudes.
And that’s why I said up top that I thought you’d entirely missed the point of the post. Neil G. was arguing that you’ve got to stand up for the stuff that creeps you out, because that’s the only way to defend the precious freedom to think, to fantasize, and to make and enjoy the art that’s vital to your world. And your response, in essence, boiled down to “But this one category of stuff creeps me out!”
Yeah. We know. It creeps me out too. But for as long as you remain mired in the delusion that fantasies and art are OK to suppress if they cross imaginary lines in your head, you remain part of the problem at which Neil G.’s blog post was aimed. The whole point, which you either missed or disagree with, is that we’ve got to defend, not acts, but thoughts and art, that creep us out, because it’s the only way to defend our own right to fantasize freely and to express our fantasies, in the face of hostility from those who would prefer to suppress every facet of sexual speech.
There is a simple quote by Voltaire, that sums this up as well:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
You can substitute think, draw, act, etc….but the bottom line, pardon the pun, is that once there is a line, it can never be erased. In the case of lolicon, it wasn’t too long ago, humanity speaking, that younger was better, because the average life expectancy was in the mid 30’s. It was not uncommon for teens and preteens to be married off, if for no other purpose to continue the family name. While that view is not held anymore, except by a few, I refuse to accept a “line” in the sand of life. I agree with the quote. Once you suppress anything, you lose everything.
Great post by Gaiman (I think I’ll also link to it from my blog, it’s a vitally important point), and I second what you say about about ‘missing the point’.
Free speech is an absolute; as soon as it’s abridged, it’s no longer free. How you or I may feel about lolicon isn’t the issue; the issue is that banning it takes away a right that is fundamental.
I agree completely with Neil Gaiman (whose work I love), and with you and the others. I consider myself something of a First Amendment fanatic, on exactly the grounds that NG describes so well: the Law is a blunt instrument. Useful for many purposes, but not for making fine distinctions.
That said, is there a need to make those finer distinctions? And are there ways to do it? I would say yes to both.
The First Amendment protects explicitly racist speech as much as it does sexually offensive speech. But in many circles, uttering explicitly racist speech gets you looked at like you crawled out from under a rock (and should return there). People start avoiding you. You get dropped from blog-rolls. If you start approaching the line of taking racist action, people start warning you that this is a line, and criminal charges are on the other side.
In my opinion, this is perfectly appropriate.
Speech, even offensive speech, is protected against the Law, and the power of the State, but not against social pressure, and shame.
Eros Blog is a delightfully sex-positive site. Some people might disagree, finding it offensive, and they are welcome to stay away and not link to it. There are undoubtedly seriously offensive sites on the Internet. The best way to respond is not through the Law, but by not linking to it. The worst punishment for a web site is no visitors.
This includes not naming a site if you find it offensive. The simple step is not to link. The more aggressive step is to contact your own associates who might have linked to it, and urge them to remove their links. But pointing to a site and describing it as out of bounds is advertising it to all of your readers, some of whom might find it tempting.
Social pressure is a more discriminating instrument than the Law. It has the power of a community behind it, not the power of the State. It is not censorship to express individual disapproval of content, or even to organize your many friends so they all express their disapproval. And you can make that disapproval effective by ensuring that it doesn’t advertise for what you dislike.
“The best way to respond is not through the Law, but by not linking to it.”
That’s a pretty fair description of what Google is doing. And yes, it’s effective.
Like I said, I understand the point of the post and agree overall that the law should have nothing to do with it. However, arguments like this do often lead to a logic that no thought is wrong, and no fiction is wrong, no matter what its purpose. By the law, this is correct. I’m just tired of the idea that one’s personal morals and the law should be 100% equal, or you’re being unfair.
Personally, I consider myself asexual (which, I understand, may lead to questions about why the hell I read/sometimes post here, but they’d take too long to answer) and therefore can’t speak with any authority on what sexual fantasies entail, and what links they do or don’t have to in the flesh activity. I’ve written some pretty sexually violent role play, but I have never identified myself as the character in that role play (and a lot of players do; their characters are often just glorified versions of themselves). In fact, I always play a male role, mostly because I find men more interesting to write about, but also because chat rooms are a whole hell of a lot more peaceful and respectful when I’m under a male name.
This would have to be something that’s explained to me, I guess. What’s the difference between a sexual fetish and, say, having a song you think is the greatest song in the world? I react the same way to a great song as I do a well-written sexual RP. Does the lack of distinction mean the sexual nature of the fascination depends on the subject of said fascination, and not the way it makes someone feel, or. . .? This has always confused me. I’ve had a LOT of fixations over the years, and as I’ve grown older some have included sexual material–but not once have they been linked to a desire to have sex.
Ugh, I went on a tangent. Sorry. I meant to expand on my first paragraph. The logic I used can obviously be used again to defend blatantly bigoted behavior, but that’s certainly not how I mean it. I do think that one is allowed to draw an ‘imaginary’ line where child abuse (and animal abuse) are concerned, because children and animals aren’t equipped to comprehend a sex act like adults are. I don’t say this just because they’re cute or anything; I’d say the same for someone who was, say, physically of age but retained the mentality of a child (as in, retardation, not a perception of immaturity). I’ll repeat, though, that I don’t believe this is the job of any overbearing authority. I do think individuals should be allowed to discourage the sexualization of children (as Beard was saying) without being called Nazis, thought police, etc. etc. etc.. I personally believe rape fantasies are different because the fascination comes from the psychological conflict involved, and the sort of suffering a thinking adult can go through. . .which sounds pretty terrible, really, but fascination with misery is obviously common. You only need to look at what magazines sell and what shows people watch to see that.
As I said, I of course have no authority whatsoever to apply that reasoning to anyone else with rape fantasies. But when I want to read or write graphic depictions of rape, that’s where I’m coming from–and that’s why things like that involving a child would be of no interest to me.
If Google were an individual, even an influential blogger, then that behavior would be a perfectly reasonable expression of personal values. The problem is that Google’s position with essentially a monopoly on the search market puts it into a quasi-governmental role. It should acquire additional responsibilities to the society as a whole, but that doesn’t seem to be working well.
Don’t ban what creeps you out; because you give others the tools and the justification to ban your shit that you enjoy but creeps them out.
For instance there are those that are creeped out at the idea of women showing their faces uncovered in public … but you think its normal.
And study’s show that having an outlet other then really doing it in real life releases the tension so it doesn’t happen, I.E Violent video games calm angry people down.
And with all its fascination with young girls in porn Japan’s pedophilia is surprisingly low compared to more puritanical cultures who have sky hi pedophilia rates.
The more people realize that the Law should not = morality the better. In America (as opposed to a theocracy), our laws are for giving people as much freedom as they can handle without infringing on someone else’s freedom.(broadly speaking)
In response to Jamie pondering the difference between run-of-the-mill fascination and sexual fascination:
I think a fascination is sexual when brief or prolonged contemplation/interaction with the subject causes physical, sexual, arousal in the fascinated person. Sexual Fetishes, traditionally defined, can be about anything that is not innately sexual (Shoes! Sports Cars! Really Big Rocks!) that the person with said fetish finds sexually arousing. So, fascinations can be about anything. I don’t think a fetish is made by what the subject of fascination is, but the nature of response. (but, since sexual RP is overtly sexual, i don’t think it could be considered the object of a fetish.) So, conceivably, there are
1) non-sexual fascinations of non-overtly-sexual things (I love that song!)
2) sexual fascinations of non-overtly sexual things (Fetish, e.g. red high heels)
3) non-sexual fascinations of overtly sexual things (e.g. a straight woman admiring a provocatively sensual female nude, or a person fascinated by bondage on a ‘what can the body put up with?’ but not aroused by it)
4) sexual fascination of overtly sexual things (need i explain?)
What counts as overtly sexual (as opposed to suggestive) is sometimes a grey area (chest hair?), but it’s usually clear when one uses common sense and a basic knowledge of one’s cultural conventions
If there’s a lack of distinction for you between how you respond to a good song and a well-written sexual RP it could be that as much as you enjoy RP it doesn’t physically arouse you. I don’t know what you specifically mean when you say you’re ‘asexual.’ If it means that you don’t become physically sexually aroused over anything, that may be the source of confusion over what people mean.
There seems to be an assumption among those who would restrict art and free speech, that some sexual things cannot be depicted or written about in a non-sexual way. It’s like they don’t think category 3 exists at all. I’d assert that one CAN appreciate the beauty of a nude, even a sensual one, without being aroused (i.e. in a non-sexual way, not a repressed way). Though, i imagine some people are so strongly sexual beings that they aren’t personally capable of doing this. Maybe when you raise such a person in a sexually repressive environment they turn into the sort of troll that wants to ban and restrict all things sexual.
“If it means that you don’t become physically sexually aroused over anything, that may be the source of confusion over what people mean.”
That’s exactly what I mean, thanks for the post. I hover somewhere around 3, but I think my fascination is in how people react to various types of sexual attention, more than strictly bodily limits. It colors my sexual morals, I think.
An Australian judge appears to have ruled that cartoon characters are people under obscenity law. That viewing cartoon characters who apparently have not reached the age of consent is child molestation against the image.
“CARTOON characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.
In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.
Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.”
http://www.news....html
Left unstated seems to be whether or not depictions of the young of other species engaged in sex amounts to child molestation, nor was a mechanism described for determining the age of consent for other organisms. I have to assume this ruling applies to all organisms in that there a method described for the actual speciation of particular organisms. Personally I would not consider any of the Simpsons characters to meet the criteria for belonging to the species Homo sapiens sapiens, but I wouldn’t believe that the judge fell within the bounds of the sapiens descriptor either.
Does this ruling apply to plants? How would a bee visiting a flower be charged — a life term would be the undoubted result for the depiction of cross kingdom bestiality by minors.