
Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?  - uros643
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
======
kwantam
Gaiman 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
I take umbrage to this creepy uncle being named "Dave".

~~~
zerokyuu
Well, even if we only save one child from being raped, molested or killed by a
Dave, isn't calling uncle Daves creepy worth it?

(/sarcasm)

------
mseebach
He 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
And 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
I 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.

------
mikeryan
Its 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...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030202548.html)

~~~
thaumaturgy
So 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.

~~~
kenjackson
The 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.

~~~
alanh
> _If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people._

And yet the various flavors of creationism (all equally absurd by measures of
science) have convinced half of the U.S. of their validity.

~~~
kenjackson
I generally don't find creationism offensive. While I don't believe it, I'm
not offended by it. And I think that's true for most people. It's certainly
not the type of thing that ever comes up in free speech arguments. I can't
think of any atheist I know (although I'm sure some exist) who want
creationism banned in speech or writing.

~~~
barefoot
Agreed. I'm a fairly strong minded atheist and I find creationism offensive.
At the same time I would defend to the death the right for creationists to
have free speech.

~~~
eftpotrm
I could understand why one might find the _teaching_ of creationism offensive,
but what is offensive about other people holding wrong opinions? I'm sure we
each think the other holds several; I'm not offended by the error I perceive
you might be making.

------
warrenwilkinson
Here 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
I 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.

------
julian37
This 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

~~~
cookiecaper
A 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
I 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.

------
numlocked
Mencken 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

------
RickHull
> _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
Historic:

"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)"

------
CaptainZapp

      If 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.

------
parfe
I 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>

------
ChuckMcM
I 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
Who has made the argument that skipping commercials violates a corporation's
First Amendment rights? Can you provide a link?

~~~
evgen
It 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
Those are _copyrights_ , not First Amendment rights.

------
sp4rki
_Even 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."

------
ubasu
Related pg citation:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html>

~~~
sriramk
Unrelated note - is it just me or does PG less write less and less these days
on non-startup related topics?

------
tobylane
"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.

------
scotty79
Enjoying 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
I 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.

------
stretchwithme
Because 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
I 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.

------
gadders
And 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.

~~~
araneae
And 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.

------
ctdonath
Test of principles: does your approach to the 1st Amendment apply equally to
the 2nd?

------
frankydp
Speech 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
Popular 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
This 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
Except 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.

------
gtech
Great argument, but it's way too long winded.

~~~
chwahoo
While 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.

------
Stormbringer
Interesting 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).

~~~
jackvalentine
You 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-ban...](http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has-australia-really-
banned-small-breasts/))

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.

~~~
Stormbringer
I've been doing research, and although I have found blog pieces claiming what
you are saying, they also say things like this:

 _"The Australian Classification Board (ACB) has confirmed to Somebody Think
Of The Children that a person’s overall appearance is used by the Board to
determine whether someone appears to look under the age of 18 in a film or
publication.

…

Asked whether breast size was considered by the Board when determining age,
McDonald said he had no further comment to make."_

and also, according to wikipedia:

 _"Restrictions on the “X18+” category of videos were tightened[10] in 2000
including the restrictions on portrayal of fetishes, and of actors who appear
to be minors, including women with a small bra cup size, after failed attempts
by the Howard government to ban the category entirely, and then replace it
with a new “NVE” category which would have had similar restrictions."_

regarding the cartoons:

 _"In December 2008, a man from Sydney was convicted with possessing child
pornography after sexually explicit pictures of children characters from The
Simpsons were found on his computer. The NSW Supreme Court upheld[8] a Local
Court decision that the animated Simpsons characters "depicted", and thus
"could be considered", real people; however the conviction does not extend to
other Australian states and was based on solely the pornography laws within
NSW. Many have mistaken this as a Federal nation-wide ban which does not
exist.[9] Controversy arose over the perceived ban on small breasted women in
pornography after a South Australian court established that if a consenting
adult in pornography were 'reasonably' deemed to look under the age of
consent, then they could be considered depictions of child pornography.
Criteria described stated "small breasts" as one of few examples, leading to
the outrage. The classification law is again not Federal or nation-wide and
regards only South Australia.[10]"_

I had a look at some publicly available legal/governmental stuff, e.g. this
briefing paper:

[http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications....](http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/289C584B88554BCBCA2574B400125787/$File/Child%20pornography%20law%20and%20index.pdf)

Interestingly, from the statistics at the end, over half of the criminal cases
in SA were for producing child porn (s. 63(a) Produce child pornography), but
exactly two thirds of the convictions were for possessing child porn (s.
63A(1)(a) Possess child pornography).

Possession was four times more likely to result in imprisonment than
production. Possession was 3 times more likely to result in a suspended
sentence than production.

I'm absolutely amazed by this. Basically the cops caught a bunch of people
producing kiddie porn, and then the courts let them go, whereas possession of
porn means you get the book thrown at you. Honestly I would have thought it
was the other way around.

It seems (from the briefing) that the legal justification for this slant is
that producing child porn harms 1 child, whereas to possess a large collection
of child porn is to participate in the harm of thousands of children.

This legal doctrine is particularly interesting (and hard to justify) in the
case of cartoons/manga, because there is no actual child being harmed in those
cases (though there is justifiable concern about actual movies of real abuses
being 'cartoonised' in order to get around restrictions).

In summary:

The actual laws around this are much murkier than I originally thought. Much
is left up to the discretion of the censors on a case by case basis, there
have been previous attempts to ban small cup sizes (as far back as 2000 or
possibly even earlier), there has been a trend towards larger cup sizes in
australian porn because of pressure applied by the censors, and the censors
refuse to rule out anything to do with cup size. States have different rules
than Federal, and in many cases (as in the simpsons character debacle) what
happens in a State court may be mis-attributed as being the rule at the
Federal level.

Moreover, if you are accussed of possessing kiddie porn in Australia they will
throw the fucking book at you (so don't do it (!!!!)). Whereas actually
producing kiddie porn in Australia earns you nothing more than a slap with a
wet bus ticket in most cases.

I find your accusations and subsequent downvoting rude and baseless. You may
not like the sex party, but they are one of the few organisations in
Australian politics devoted to transparency in government (for their
particular hot-button issue anyway).

Given that there are documented attempts by the Australian government to ban
small cup sizes in porn dating back over a decade, I find their accusations
much more plausible than your own.

