Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

Gaiman does a reasonable job with this argument, but in my mind fails to address the most pernicious thought in the letter:<p><i>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?</i><p>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.<p>"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 <i>premise</i> 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.<p>"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.

He sums it up very concisely in the very last paragraph:<p><i>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.</i>

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].<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030202548.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03...</a>

Here is what free speech means to me. I have the suspicion that others might disagree, but it's a starting point:<p>Free Speech means that law shouldn't punish communication.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.

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):<p>"There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you do something we'd all love one another."<p>--Frank Zappa

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

&#62; <i>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...</i><p>Classic

<p><pre><code> If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. </code></pre> While this may seem obvious, this is <i>precisely</i> the point.<p>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).<p>Arguments against bigoted -, racist -, fanatical -, etc. speech should be won on the merits of the argument and not with the sledgehammer of the law.<p>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.

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.<p>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.<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc</a>

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.<p>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 :<p>"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."

<i>Even if we only save one child</i><p>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?<p>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...<p>"you only realise how wonderful absolute freedom of speech is the day you lose it."

Related pg citation:<p><a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html</a>

"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<p>"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.<p>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.

Enjoying lolicon will turn you into child rapist like enjoying FPS turned me into ruthless murder.<p>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.

Because the freedom to do what the majority approves of is not why we need freedom.<p>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.

I like the Swedish approach:<p>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]<p>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.

And in other news, Apple have removed the "Gay Cure" app from their app store.<p>Clearly a stupid, offensive app, but it looks like "icky speech" to me.

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

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.

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

Interesting stuff, probably more appropriate for slashdot, reddit or 4chan or something like that than hacker news.<p>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.<p>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 <i>'Europeans'</i> or something equally dangerous and scary - hopefully no one got hit with the blunt stick that is these two obscenely stupid bits of legislation).