I am now depicted as a former good-guy lawyer, i.e., a “First Amendment lawyer,” who lost his halo, fell in with bad company…and…revealed his lack of wit by ignoring the Free Speech Mafia and suing an Internet saint. – Charles Carreon
One of the most rewarding results of my increasing internet presence has been the opportunity to make the acquaintance of other well-known bloggers and public figures who use their platforms to fight for what they believe in; had I realized there were so many I would’ve started blogging back in the autumn of 2004, when I first really began to explore the whole internet thing beyond the confines of a few commercial and informational websites. But despite my tardy arrival, I’ve been accepted into the community of those who care enough about human rights to devote considerable amounts of their own (uncompensated) time to the struggle, and to my great amazement and delight I have discovered that a larger fraction of them than I had previously imagined are lawyers.
The observation that whores and lawyers have a great deal in common is not a new or especially clever one; we both charge for our time, care professionally about people we may not like very much personally, etc. Nor are lawyers themselves oblivious to the resemblance; in fact, I think a majority of those who have joked about it to me over the years were themselves lawyers. The similarity extends to the fact that both professions have their goodies and baddies, their ethical and fair practitioners and their sleazy rip-off artists, their honest professionals and their opportunists who view their respective trades as little more than a means of larceny. But I’m ashamed to say that until I started reading and corresponding with lawyers who care deeply about civil liberties, I believed them to be a very small minority; I still can’t make a credible estimate about what fraction of all lawyers they might represent, but I suspect it’s not dissimilar to the fraction of whores who are honest and competent. As one might expect, most of them are attracted to criminal defense, and for reasons that should be obvious many of those with whom I’ve had the most contact are especially interested in free speech and the other rights guaranteed in the United States by the First Amendment.
From the time I was old enough to understand what censorship was, I’ve considered it loathsome in the extreme; it’s bad enough that busybodies want to tell other people what they can do, but telling them what they can think or say crosses over the line from garden-variety control-freakishness to full-blown mental illness. At one time, would-be censors were merely a very vocal minority in the US, but in recent years they’ve become far more numerous and powerful, even to the point where many who could be expected to fight them (such as journalists) are instead joining them, effectively declaring themselves mental incompetents who need to be told by their “betters” what they should be allowed to see and hear. The most common excuse nowadays (beside the nebulous “national security”) is the imagined emotional fragility of women and children; we are repeatedly told that speech or images some people don’t like must be censored to “protect” their delicate psyches from discomfort.
But the more offensive something is, the more important that it be protected, even if we disagree with it ourselves; because this is counterintuitive to so many people nowadays, it’s vital that those of us who understand it work together to defeat any and all efforts to suppress speech. This makes us seem rather fanatical to some, while others whose attempts at censorship are vigorously opposed may go as far as to cast us as members of some sinister cabal (in the exact same way prohibitionists malign sex worker activists by pretending we’re members of an imaginary “pimp lobby”). Hence today’s title, thoughtfully provided by Charles Carreon (whose attempts to censor every critic of his attempts to censor a popular cartoonist are already the stuff of legend). Carreon represented a website who tried to use a creative (that’s a nice way of saying “assholy”) interpretation of trademark law to censor said cartoonist (Matthew Inman, AKA “The Oatmeal”) and make a profit in the bargain, but was defeated (that’s a nice way of saying “buried”) by said “Free Speech Mafia”, who represented Inman pro bono (that’s a legal way of saying “for free”).
Nor was this an isolated case; the blog Popehat has a regular feature called “The Popehat Signal”, by which it asks for pro bono help for bloggers and other worthy individuals threatened by such lawsuits (and as far as I know always gets it). Furthermore, I have been personally involved with seeking such help from this so-called “Mafia” on two separate occasions. In one, a popular sex worker rights podcast was threatened by a mainstream media corporation; I explained the problem to attorney Marc Randazza of The Legal Satyricon, and he was able to quickly smooth things over at no cost to the activists. In the other, I myself was threatened by a certain large internet-based corporation I’ve written very disparagingly about in this blog on several occasions; I turned immediately to Kenneth White of Popehat, who took care of things so expeditiously I didn’t even have time to get worried (again, at no cost to me). These men and women (and many others in the First Amendment Lawyers Association) don’t spend their time fighting censorship for the glory, and it certainly isn’t for the money; they do it for the same reason so many other activists fight attempts to infringe individual liberties, namely because it’s the right thing to do. And if that makes them some kind of gangsters, you can consider me a moll.
Hey, Charlie Carreon may be an arsehole, but his wife still runs a great website.
I had takedown threats made against me by Australia’s most notorious criminal prosecutor, Mark Tedeschi QC, for a page accurately detailing his part in framing an ALP councilor for the murder of an ALP state parliamentarian (written by a now exonerated victim of one of his earlier frame-ups).
I got advice from an Australian branch of the Free Speech mafia and was told he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on. What was on the site easily passed the Australian criteria of ‘truthful’ and ‘in the public interest’.
Did no good.
My ISP said if I didn’t take it down they’d pull my plug, despite receiving letters from two prominent legal academics with specialisation in libel law that I was legally safe.
I censored it in such as way as to make it even more critical of Tedeschi (and probably libelous) but had to remove the relevant factual statements he had challenged. I never heard from him again and the ISP let my modified pages stay up.
That’s not the only example of when I’ve been effectively censored simply because organisations or people around me refuse to stand up to bluffs.
This is a problem where a more reliable ISP can’t be found readily. In some nations it’s usually not a problem. The Streisand effect for the ISP (who may become widely known as asshats for denying hosting for non-libelous material) also tends to limit the behavior somewhat.
For example, the USA has strong free speech protections in law, and relatively weak libel law compared to many other nations, as well as certain legal protections for ISPs. ISPs typically cannot be liable for libels posted by their customers.
There are other nations where ISPs stand strong against such nonsense as well. If it is not illegal where you are to use foreign hosting, you might consider a foreign ISP to host the material.
I’m confused. Surely such a page could be hosted somewhere other than her(?) own ISP, right? Unless they were demanding changes to something hosted by a third party, which seems unlikely. It seems to me that the simplest solution would be to just move to a webhost that isn’t staffed by retards — in another country, if necessary.
I was using the term ISP loosely to mean web hosting provider. Probably too loosely. So, yes, web hosting provider seems to be the issue. And yes, web hosting can be anywhere.
Almost sounds like Tedeschi & Co. are supporters of seditious libel where the truth is no defense. But then I figure a large percentage of career prosecutors are probably self-righteous arseholes with very tiny er, uh, BRAINS. You know, the kind they most likely think with.
It is incredibly sad that nowadays many people believe it is right and proper to censor something because in makes them personally uncomfortable.
How can they be so blind to the fact that it is almost inevitable that something they themselves like and support disgusts someone else?
Thank you for the headsup and resource list. I had no idea people opposed freedom of speech in the adult entertainment realm. I think it’s time for a disclaimer page…
Censorship, even of material I consider vile, makes me itch. It grants to the State a power with which the State should not be trusted. I do make a distinction between actual censorship (denying someone the right to say or publish what he pleases) and declining to fund something one finds objectionable. Andres Serrano has an absolute right to display a crucifix submerged in urine and call it ‘art’. He has no right to demand that the public, which includes a large number of people who will find such ‘art’ offensive, pay for him to do so. The National Endowment for the Arts should not pay for anything that offends anybody who actually pays taxes … and, yes, I do realize that that renders it totally impotent and useless. There is simply no justification for it.
Nobody has a right to live un-offended. Nobody has the right to demand money from the public purse to exercise their First Amendment Rights.
Those who advocate Censorship apparently cannot imagine a day when they will not be the ones exercising the power. That makes them dangerous imbeciles. Those who cry ‘Censorship’ when told to hire their own hall or pay for their own printing are simply the same sort of fools from the opposite direction.
“pay for your own speech, deadbeat” is a diversion from the fact that public is forced to pay for censored speech, which which will be defended as a promotion of “culture”
You’re for ending both right? Both subsidized speech and censored speech correct?
SPOT ON! Get rid of the NEA!
I also consider censorship “vile” … and oppose all forms of it. I think though, that there are other important distinctions that should be pointed out with free speech and, some of them aren’t so black and white …
– Libel
– Defamation
– Public disclosure of private facts and information
Sort those out – I’m no lawyer. The damage that these do to government officials and big corporations really doesn’t get me that excited – is that bad? However, I have seen the damage that these can do to individuals in the workplace. Right now I’m dealing with a young lady who came to me for advice because people are spreading rumors concerning her and illegal drug use. Why’d she come to me? Because of my experience in the Navy with EO issues and the fact that the “drug usage” she’s accused of concerns STEROIDS – and she knows I’ve dealt with those allegations for almost two decades. Fuck, the government has taken enough of my blood in steroid testing to fill up two cases of 50-ounce 7-Eleven “X-Treme Big Gulps” – and I have always come back completely clean – because I am, and always have been – completely clean. I’m a big guy – and this is my retirement job – I could give two fucks what some fat beta-male schlump says about me – but this gal is right out of college starting her career and trying to make her way in the world – and it’s wrong the way she’s being treated by her supervisors and co-workers – she doesn’t have the “don’t give a shit” factor that I have.
My advice? Demand a steroid test – just I like I always do and threaten a “grievance” if they don’t give you one. When it comes back negative – simply inform the supervisory chain that any further mention of the word will result in an immediate “grievance” being filed. They HATE grievances.
By the way … off topic … but shit … nursing licensing boards are fucking FASCIST!! I was working the bar the other night and very nice girl (nurse) who checked herself in for “rehab” four years ago for abusing “Adderall” struck up a conversation with me. The Adderall hadn’t impacted her work but the nursing board found out she checked herself in for rehab and put her on a probationary program where she is tested for almost all drugs on a monthly basis. She JUST got suspended for six months because they found she had used ALCOHOL. No – not on duty … they have a new test THAT DETECTS ANY ALCOHOL USEAGE FOR UP TO THREE FUCKING WEEKS!!
WTF people!?
When it is a crime to reveal crimes by the executive, the executive is a dictator in all but name.
“…xxx should not pay for anything that offends anybody who actually pays taxes…”
One could say this about everything the government does, and I have a feeling that you would, too. But no government would be able to accomplish anything under those constraints. No roads, no buildings, no defense or space program, no universities, no public health, etc, at least not for anyone but the wealthy. In a pluralistic society we can never be expected to agree about anything!
I’m not an artist, and in fact as a scientist by training and practice, I’m not even sure that I have the ability to comprehend the aesthetics behind much that is deemed art. But “governments” — formal or de facto — have always supported the arts, generally to a much, much larger tune than the puny $$s invested by ours today. Without that support, many of the wonders of the world would not exist.
Well, remembering that I am a Crank, I’m by no means convinced that a State that did next to nothing would be a bad thing.
That said, there is some real justification for building roads. Art is a luxury good. As I understand it the NEA was created to fund art that the Great Unwashed wouldn’t but on their own, for their betterment. This is exactly the kind of paternalistic arrogance that gives Progressives a bad name.
Other governments supporting the arts with tax dollars isn’t a valid justification. That’s the old “majority is always right” argument – just packaged differently.
There’s a few Nazi artists out there with some cool drawings of Hitler dining on Jewish flesh like a cannibal – let’s subsidize them yeah?
Hell – why did we put the Mohammed movie maker in Jail? We should have subsidized him so he could do a full-fledged feature film in 3D!
http://www.newsmax.com/HerbertLondon/London–national–endowment–arts–Obama–funding/2010/08/04/id/366569
If you want to subsidize the arts – then find a way to subsidize ALL sides equally – including Conservatives … when’s the last time I saw a jar of fetus being held by a statue of a late term abortion provider with a big smile on his face and a swastika on his arm … subsidized by the government? Right – and I’ll bet most here would say it should never be subsidized … “Okay for me .. but not for thee” huh?
Arts aren’t like highways.
anyfool, we tax payers should have a choice in how our money is channeled by the government. For example, I would gladly tick off the box for roads. Defense? Probably not, only because our military is way too big and does way too many things around the world that it shouldn’t be doing.
Public art? I would have to see the art first. Maybe, maybe not.
Like this individual tax payers can choose to pay taxes for what they want and for what they don’t want or they are opposed to on ideological grounds, they shouldn’t have to pay for.
Pacifists for example should not have to have their money channeled into warfare.
Public funding prohibitions are less benign than they appear.
I don’t know about the arts, but in medicine it’s a death blow.
For instance: no stem cell research on public’s dime. Well it was actually no stem cell research at any institution that receives public funding. Which ruled out every hospital in the US which can legally conduct clinical trials.
So every time someone says: “no public funding for offensive xyz” I think about the dozens of patients that died after W declared their treatment off limits.
My wife left immunology research after that. Too damn painful.
So if you want to censor it, just own up to it rather than backdooring it thru a “shouldn’t fund” argument.
I used to think it was enough to be zealous about protecting the stuff that “everybody hates.” Usually that kind of stuff isn’t commercially viable, it won’t survive in the marketplace and can’t be profitable. Or, if political speech, it won’t sway any but a small group of fanatics.
As I grew older, though, I realized it wasn’t this marginal, fringe speech that was either most at risk or most in need of protecting. No, it’s stuff that is commercially or politically viable, that has enough mainstream appeal to be profitable or persuasive that I feel is most at risk. that’s because that’s the stuff that the system tries to push into the fringe, to force into the fringe.
The thing is, I care if stuff I might actually be interested in is suppressed. In Britain, for example, there are two campaigns, “Lose the Lad Mags” and “No More Page Three.” This is an attempt to change British culture, to deliberately make it more puritanical and more anti-sex. It’s a more serious attack on speech then someone trying to suppress a small vanity book of poems dedicated to Hitler or whatever.
If the government decides to pay for art, then they should be content-neutral about it; rejecting grants based on objective circumstances (“We ran out of money before your application reached us for this year…”) rather than the subjective (“I think this is horrible, and we’re not paying for it.”)
Unfortunately, politicians seem to love artwork for large public projects, and will probably keep paying for it, despite public protests. (Anyone for demolishing Indiana’s “Love” sculpture, or Columbus airport’s ‘Brushstrokes in Flight”? C’mon, who’s with me here!)
Perhaps the only way to deal with this is to be more clever than the censors. In the first post, I’m sure that Mark Tedeschi QC, has political enemies. Find them, and make sure they know this is a hot-button issue for him. They’ll take care of the rest.
“If the government decides to pay for art, then they should be content-neutral about it”
The “government” doesn’t pay for squat – you and I do, through our taxes. Therefore you and I should have a say in how our money is channeled.
You and I do have a say in how our money is channeled. Write your congressman (member of Parliament, sub-chieftain on the council, whatever), think about who you vote for.
Not enough? Well, you’re not the only one writing nor the only one voting. You’re one of many. If you don’t find writing to your congressman/parliamentarian/sub-chieftain/whatever and voting enough, then start making efforts to sway public opinion.
“But the more offensive something is, the more important that it be protected, even if we disagree with it ourselves”
If I find something offensive it is not important that it be protected *by me*. Those who are into it can protect. There’s no way in hell I would take time out of my very busy life, to fight for something I find offensive. That makes no sense whatsoever.
“because this is counterintuitive to so many people nowadays”
Not just nowadays, but always. Fighting for “values” that one does not share on behalf of people one does not share those values with, is something that is indeed counter intuitive.
“it’s vital that those of us who understand it work together to defeat any and all efforts to suppress speech. ”
If by “work together” you mean I should take time away from my life, my family and everything and everyone I hold dear to join the cause of people who may espouse values that I oppose, I have to ask, “why?”
In my view people can put on their own big girl and big boy panties and fight for their own causes. Its not my responsibility to fight for someone’s right to call me a “motherf*cker”. That makes no sense whatsoever.
“From the time I was old enough to understand what censorship was, I’ve considered it loathsome in the extreme; it’s bad enough that busybodies want to tell other people what they can do, but telling them what they can think or say crosses over the line from garden-variety control-freakishness to full-blown mental illness. ”
I don’t tell people what they can or cannot do. For the most part I don’t give a rat’s ass what they do as long as it does not harm me or those dear to me. However, porn, which is supposedly protected under “free speech” is indeed something that crosses over the line from garden-variety control-freakishness to full-blown mental illness.
The comment pasted below taken from another website is illustrative of how pornography invades the personal spaces of those who not only do not solicit it, but have to go out of our way to pay for something that we do not want to see!
tony says:
October 25, 2011 at 8:49 am
BS. Good parenting can prevent this? Our 8 yr old son stumbled on porn although I had paid for filters on my iPhone through ATT but they neglected to tell me the filters don’t work when using WiFi. Crazy. He typed in an innocent search on YouTube then saw a lot before bringing me the phone. I was mortified. It was two men anal. Like my kid needs that to be the first idea of sex he experiences. I have very open communication w my kids and talked to him about it. I assumed this would e the end of it. BUT it sparked his interest and he has attempted to search for more. I tt him again n again. He seems to get that its wrong but turns around and does it again. I have filters on all our computers but he is older now and friends at school don’t. My problem with porn is how easy it is to access. Pop ups and emails. All soliciting porn. If I’m looking for it then fine but it shouldn’t be looking for me.
____
Taken from the comments section of randazza.wordpress.com
No. Porn doesn’t “invade” anything; it’s inanimate. And I find it curious how all this “invasive” porn only seems to find people who are pro-censorship, yet people like me literally ALMOST NEVER run into it.
” And I find it curious how all this “invasive” porn only seems to find people who are pro-censorship” yet people like me literally ALMOST NEVER run into it.”
Strawman. Who said anything about “censorship”?!
Nowhere do I see the word eve mentioned in that man’s comment.
And there’s no need to be “curious” about that anymore because commenter explained, very clearly, how his son ran into.
I’ll share with you how I have as well;
I was searching for a regular movie online beside my very young nieces and nephews. There are several sites online where regular movies of several genres can be accessed so I went to one of those sites to see if they had the movie I was looking for available, and they did.
HOWEVER, on the side of the screen were advertisements for “live web cam chats” and there were boxes of pictures of women, (only women mind you, not men) posing with their bare asses sticking up in the air.
Surrounded by children, looking for a regular film on a regular film site, and there we all were confronted with pornography.
So THIS is what we are talking about.
Who forced those porn images onto my and my nieces and nephews eyes UNSOLICITED and …. WHY?
People who want to sex chat on live web cams know how to access them, so why this invasion on those of us who have absolutely NO INTEREST in seeing some strange womens’ asses?
Do you have any insight into why this is?
I was searching for a regular movie online beside my very young nieces and nephews. There are several sites online where regular movies of several genres can be accessed so I went to one of those sites to see if they had the movie I was looking for available, and they did.
Where were you looking for movies? Netflix? Hulu? Amazon?
Or were you by chance looking up torrent sites, which are of dubious legality and deprive artists of income by bypassing the normal payment structures?
You cheat and try and find movies without paying for them, and then profess outrage when your law-evading activities bring up porn too.
The hypocrisy, it burns.
so you’ve censored me? touche!
analytical thinking is not most people’s strong suit. i would be interested to see some honest opinions about my posed questions and points.
Censored? No. This is my place, not a public one, and you’ve just done the equivalent of walking into a house party with muddy shoes and started insulting all the guests. You may think of this as being sent to “Time Out” or the Penalty Box, unless those metaphors are too common, white and Western for you.
I also suggest you read “House Rules” and “How Not To Get Your Comments Posted” before continuing.
Here’s a short excerpt from the latter:
Maggie, I apologize if I came across as rude. That is not my intention. I do wish to have a discussion about this in a civil and respectful way.
“It is not censorship to say “I won’t allow such-and-such in a space I control”; it only becomes censorship when some powerful entity tries to prevent anyone from accessing that material in their own spaces.”
Yes I agree. The reason why people use terms like “invasive” wrt online porn is because, quite frankly, that is the way that porn shows up here.
Example, I followed your link to Cliterati and read your article Buttons, Bags and Banknotes. On the side of the screen was text that read “Here’s the thing no one tells you about sex: It changes. The same moves and tricks that brought you and your partner pleasure in your 20s and 30s aren’t necessarily going to work in your 50s and beyond (20 Aug 2013) […]”
That sounded like it would be informative and so I clicked on the text, expecting to be led to an article about human sexuality and how it changes as we age. But when I clicked on it my eyes were bombarded with very explicit pornographic images which I was not prepared for, was not desirous of seeing, and did not seek out intentionally.
That’s what I would call “invasive”. You may use a different word for that, but at the end of the day, I got unwittingly exposed to graphic porn images, yet again, when not looking for them.
So my question is: what do you see as a fair, ethical and legal way to stop this?
I think an opt-in option for internet consumers who want to access porn is a good idea.
When purchasing internet service, one can be given the “porn access opt-in” option and such material would be available to them at a price.
For those of who do not opt-in, then those images will be nowhere on our screens. I guess at such a time as clicking on a link that one was led to believe would be text but instead is graphic porn images, well, the link would then just not work and I would not be exposed to porn.
That is my idea. I’d like to hear yours.
When there is freedom of expression, it is up to you to be careful. The example you gave was clearly sex related and there was a strong possibility that “adult” images of one kind of another might be involved.
If you want to avoid such events, don’t click on blind links and use Google search with the “safe search” options on.
As a practice I never click on banners and ads (most of which my ad filters remove anyway) – not because I might be offended, since almost nothing can offend me, but it is simply a good idea on the Internet.
Porn, “glamour”, and salacious material in all its forms provide a significant portion of advertising and site revenue on the net. If there is to be a blocking scheme it should be on an “opt out” basis and those opting out should pay an additional fee for the service.
Hard to believe that advertisements on a site called “Cliterati” might possibly be of an adult nature.
After all, he’s been EXPOSED to porn! It’s like herpes! He’ll never be rid of it!
Hi Sasha!
It was not of an “adult” nature but rather of a pornographic nature. I was hoping for an adult nature – meaning an article written in a clear, concise, intellectually stimulating manner, based on science and good reasoning, with some sharp analysis.
What I got was opposite to that.
As I was not previously familiar with Cliterati, I had no idea that links on their site would lead me to pornographic images. I don’t see why I should assume that just by the name of their site.
Hi V.W.!
“Porn, “glamour”, and salacious material in all its forms provide a significant portion of advertising and site revenue on the net.”
– Yes. The way they could provide even more revenue is through the “opt-in” option, which of course would be a fee based service, creating more revenue.
” If there is to be a blocking scheme it should be on an “opt out” basis and those opting out should pay an additional fee for the service.”
– No blocking scheme, but rather an addition scheme. It would be blocked by default and for it to be added then a fee would be paid for that additional service, thereby generating more revenue.
I read recently where a politician in the UK proposed this very idea.
Let’s see if it works out. As Bert wrote below, technically there are some intricacies to be considered.
Oh great. So the rich can have porn but the poor can’t. This may be the first time I’ve seen a proposal which would restrict the poor from obtaining free material. Amazing.
You know, I almost never have this thing happen, where I’m looking for something innocent and porn jumps out at me. And it isn’t like I don’t have pornish cookies on my computer; I actually look at quite a bit of porn. But when I’m not looking for porn, it’s rare that I find myself looking at it unexpectedly.
Something which does happen, and which bugs the shit out of me, is that I in fact will be looking for porn, and I’ll find it, and pop-ups will start happening. The bothers me not because I find the material in the pop-ups offensive (it’s usually milder than what I sought out, often a woman in her underwear or topless typing, in bad light), but because it’s taking time, bandwidth, etc. away from what I’m trying to look at. I have to pause the video of the naked invisible Japanese schoolgirl while I deal with this pop-up of a topless woman in bad lighting typing, and when I go to close the window, I get a sort of “error message” which asks me if I’m sure I want to leave the page. Um, yes. I never wanted it in the first place.
There’s nothing in your proposal which deals with that, just something that lets YOU charge ME money for material which now is available for nothing but time and a bit of aggravation.
Sorry, but there is no right not to be offended. Not on the street, and not on the internet. But even if there was:
It is not technically possible to make the internet work the way you want. But even if it were:
Everybody has a different definition of what is offensive. But even if they didn’t:
Computers basically can’t understand pictures at all, and are very weak at understanding text. Computers cannot distinguish an offensive use of a word, such as breast or pussy, from an inoffensive use. But even if computers could recognize dirty words reliably:
People will make up new words.
I once watched my 13 year old daughter and her friends in a supposedly kid safe chat room. The chat room blocked a long list of “dirty” words. The kids soon discovered that certain words just “disappeared”. They made a game out of identifying all the blocked words and inventing substitutes using various techniques, such as similar sounds, obvious misspelling, visually similar character shapes, etc. Within a couple of days they were exchanging emails with a substitution list that had grown to over 100 words and phrases. They spent time collaboratively editing the lists and arguing about the best substitutions. This was all effortless fun for them.
The attempt to keep kids from using dirty words backfired and had the effect of improving the kids knowledge of dirty words.
Bottom line, if you find yourself wanting to control what other people are saying, you should reconsider and stop. It will be a lot less frustrating.
Hi Bert!
Yes, there are definite technological intricacies to be worked out. A British politician recently advocated for this idea. Let’s see if it gets implemented and how they work around the technicalities you describe above.
I am going to answer this at length, so I’m going to ask you to be patient; it will appear in the column two weeks from today (that is, September 4th).
Thanks Maggie!
You would probably get more replies to your questions if you didn’t behave like a whiny entitled brat.
And by the way, it’s touché with an acute accent. ALT+0233 on a Windows computer.
Since you’re such a “culturephile” I thought you’d prefer not to insult the French by misspelling their words. Can you do that?
And here is the elephant in the room of freedom. Distasteful and uncomfortable speech.
As long as you aren’t forced to partake, and it does not slander or libel, let it be.
Hi Freegirard!
If that is in context to the above posts by myself and Bert, Bert was the one who brought up the speech (in the form of text) part. I was talking about graphic porn images. Two different mediums.
“As long as you aren’t forced to partake”
I provided a few examples of forced viewership of such images. I have more examples but for blog commenting purposes, a few suffice to illustrate (heh) what I mean.
I am sorry Culturephile, but I am with one of my heroes, Justice William O. Douglas on this one: I don’t have to see it, it is protected by free speech. Prior restraint, which you are advocating, is wrong. If you don’t like what you see, go to another site, or install porn blockers on your computers. When it is accessible, it is up to you to not access it, not the government to prevent me or anyone else from being able to access it because it disturbs you.
It might similarly surprise you to learn that many, many people who are politicians or work in and around politics genuinely care, and went into the field to make the world a better place. Being a politician is one of the most uncertain, conditional jobs there is.
I find “free speech” defenses of porn ridiculous.
The purpose of free speech is simple – in a free (utopian,I know) society, the government governs with the consent of the governed. But consent is meaningless if it is not informed consent. If information and opinion about the government – its laws, its institutions, its actions, its officers – is supressed, then the society is not free.
Porn has got nothing to do with this. Its in the same basket as drugs and skydiving – it’s something that people like to do. The reason it ought not be supressed is not structural, as in the case of free political speech, but because people like to view it and make money from making it. Its suppression is excellent evidence that the laws do not reflect the will of the people. But it’s not in the same category as the freedom to – for instance – publicise what the secret family law courts did to your life.
Can’t edit: sould have said: “If information and opinion about the government is supressed, then the society *cannot* free.” By ‘cannot,’ I don’t mean merely “so difficult that it’s infeasible”, I mean it in the sense of “logically precludes”. By the very nature of what political freedom is.
“Free speech” doesn’t just mean “free speech about politics” or “free speech about the government.” So yes, keeping porn legal is a free speech issue, even if the nekkid people aren’t talking about TARP or Obamacare or such.
Is too.
“But that’s not an argument! It’s just contradiction!” ~Monty Python
I’m not entirely sure what this means. Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing by simply saying “is too,” or my argument amounts to “is too,” or…
Maggie talks about both government and sex here. That she includes sex at all makes it porn in the eyes of many who would suppress what she has to say. So porn and political speech do have some overlap.
I think I’ll stop now until I know whether we’re agreeing or not.
Sex and politics definitely do overlap. Control over sex is what those in power have always aimed for.
In order for something to become mainstream and eventually accepted by society, it must first be discussed and be part of popular culture. It it is illegal to describe sexual acts anywhere other than in medical and legal texts, then this becomes impossible. For instance, although sodomy remains technically illegal in many places, it has become “normalised” through porn and mainstream entertainment. The acceptance of sodomy (which in some definitions includes oral sex) is critical if homosexuality is not to be made illegal by the back door. (Not sure if I intended that pun).
Since no one has ever been able to adequately legally define porn, banning it leaves the field wide open to the restriction of freedom of speech and even private action – sexting, home videos, photograpy, biographies, etc.
As for the Internet, it is incredibly rare for someone who is not on a site that is at least suggestive of sex to get porn pop ups. I surf for porn all the time, but by using the right browser configuration and ad-blockers, I almost never get pop-ups or re-directs that I didn’t want. It isn’t hard and costs nothing except a little effort. Also, proper definition when doing searches helps avoid the “oops” factor too. Type “breast cancer” instead of just “breasts”, and “power tools” rather than just “tool”, and of course, “kittens” instead of “pussy” or you will get exactly what you asked for.
I was saying that that’s what your argument amounted to. Now that you have amplified your answer a bit: the fact that some people think that discussing the laws surrounding prostitution to be porn does not make “Cum Guzzling Sluts IV” something that a constitution should protect under the rubric of “free speech”. The whole point of a constitution is to set up a framework under which governance can occur.
Thank you for expanding.
Cum Guzzling Sluts IV is protected by default. So for that matter is Kung Fu Decapitations IV, Race Purification IV, Why Obama Sucks IV and Why Obama is Great IV. The protection has to be very broad, or else the power to suppress will be very broad. So basically EVERYTHING is covered by default, and the government has very narrow powers to say “except for that.” The government has to have very good reasons to except something, and they have to prove it. Libel is an example where it has been recognized that there is such a pressing need that libel is now in the “except for that” bin.
Of course, when there is a huge public outcry, they may overstep their authority and they may even get away with it (historic example include various book bans), but that’s default: everything is covered unless the government can prove that it shouldn’t be. Or to put it another way: Cum Guzzling Sluts IV‘s legions of fans don’t have to prove that their favorite movie is covered by the First Amendment, the government has to prove that it is not.
Otherwise it’s too easy to ban Maggie. Yes, it really is, because YOU AND I will not be drawing those lines.
I have been thinking about what distinction I am trying to make. The distinction is that between speech that conveys information, and speech that is an act. The classic example, of course, is yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre.
Speech acts to not tell you something, they *do* something. Insults. “Fighting words”. Porn is not communication – it is images and words that are intended to create sexual arousal. Pretty much by definition: that’s the thing that makes porn, porn.
Speech acts are not protected speech, nor should they be, any more than should punching someone in the face be protected on the basis that it is intended to communicate.
Who gets to decide that?
Judges, obviously. It’s a peculiar (and peculiarly american) notion that the constitution was written by demigods, and that the process of deciding what is right and what is wrong is simply a matter of textual analysis of that document. In reality, life is full of judgment calls, and we employ people named judges to make those calls.
And what should these judges base their decisions on? The Constitution, in the United States, and whatever the law is based on in other countries, usually a constitution or similar document.
Or I suppose he could just go with his gut. Um, no.
Whether the Constitution was written by demigods, prophets, Elves, or drunkards is beside the point. It is the basis for law, so when decisions about law are to be made, it comes down to the Constitution.
The Constitution is a dynamic document, no matter what Scalia thinks. Pornography is in the eye of the beholder, but you cannot claim that your eye is more discerning–in the case of what is good for me–than mine is. Burning a flag is political speech: we may despise it personally, but we must defend to the death the right of an individual to do it. Censorship in any form is allowing the camel’s nose under the tent. We can claim some power to prevent minors from seeing or reading certain subject matter; personally I’d rather show it to them myself and provide a clear explanation of the whys and wherefores to the child, rather than let them rely on the uninformed opinions of their peers.
My opinions on censorship were formed almost 30 years ago when I did a paper for a Constitutional Law class on the censorship opinions of Associate Justice William O. Douglas, who probably defines the term “liberaltarian.” Free speech has never had a more steadfast friend, and censorship a more stalwart foe than Justice Douglas from the instant Earl Warren became CJ.
In the words of Radley Balko:
And please read the first embedded link there especially.
I did skim the link, I found it unpersuasive. The “fire in a crowded theatre” argument is not used in itself to justify particular instances of speech not being protected, but to dismiss blanket “all censorship is bad” arguments. Of course it does not follow that just because not all speech is protected, therefore some particular instance is not. Additional arguments must be made, which I believe I have (the notion that porn is a speech act, rather than being communication).
Most of the rest of the article is a fine example of the “genetic fallacy”. So what if Holmes was a racist and a bigot? It remains the case that shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre is not protected speech.
The most important argument it makes is that if you allow any censorship, then governments may use that power to suppress dissent. This is true. But jus because something is difficult (identifying “speech” that is not speech in the sense of it being protected), doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
If we agree that acts – such as burning the flag – may be protected political speech, a blanket ban on all possible censorship means that nothing may be forbidden if it is purported to be “speech”. I robbed your house as a statement about capitalism. Or, closer to the bone, I shot a whore as a statement about moral values.
There is no escaping fro the need to draw a line between protected speech and not, whatever form that speech takes. We can argue about where that line should be drawn, but I will never agree that any and all speech or actions must be protected under the guise of “free speech”.
I mean here’s another example. Certain patterns of flashing light will trigger epilepsy. Let’s say I own a TV station and decide to play those patterns of light every now and then just for the lulz. Should that act be protected on free speech grounds?
Hopefully, your answer will be something along the lines of “no, because it injures people”.
Well, that’s cool. Like defamation, or “doxxing”, the right to publish does not cover every possible kind of thing that might be published. Some publications are injurous. “Your right to swing your fist stops at my face”.
Fine.
The difficulty is that various people claim that porn is *injurous*. That a person’s moral constitution is a thing, and that porn damages it. Go see “yourbrainonporn.com”.
Now – sure their “facts” may be bullshit. Sure, no porn shouldn’t be banned for the reasons that they advance. But that’s an entirely different kind of question to the question of whether porn should not be banned because censorship.
Why should porn be above censorship (for any reason) and not flashing lights that (definitely do) trigger epileptic fits? The argument “because porn isn’t harmful” doesn’t work, we reply “but what if it were? What if the psudeoscience on YBOP.com were right?” You see the issue? You can’t reasonably argue “censorship is always, necessarily wrong” and then say “except for certain things I don’t like”, because of what the word “always” means.
The argument “because any ban is a slippery slope permitting govt to censor stuff they don’t like” holds more weight, but are you willing to apply that to seizure-indicing strobing on TV (broadcast on my TV channel that I happen to own outright)?
It’s going to come down to a judgement call, not to high-minded declarations of absolute principle.
If you can’t see that burning an object that belongs to ME and damaging or stealing something that belongs to YOU are different, this is a pointless conversation.
Paul Murray, this has already been dealt with a long time ago. I’ll make it nice and simple:
You and I live across the street from each other. We each fly the American flag in our respective front yards. One of us takes the American flag in his front yard down and burns it. Free speech, though somebody might be able to stick you or me (depending on which one of us did it) with a fine for not getting a fire permit or something. Now suppose that whichever one of us though it would be fun to burn his own American flag goes into the other guy’s yard, takes down his American flag, and burns it. And goes to jail. Not for flag burning, but for trespassing and theft. See, it’s not that complicated.
But it isn’t. You might as well ask, “What if looking at porn caused the viewer to spontaneously combust, setting fire to anything flammable within a radius of six metres?” Well, if that were true, then porn could be banned because of its harmful effects on not only the consumer of porn, but on any persons or property within six metres. But that isn’t the case, so you’ll need something else.
Again, it isn’t all that complicated.
@Sailor Barsoom “You might as well ask, “What if looking at porn caused the viewer to spontaneously combust, setting fire to anything flammable within a radius of six metres?” Well, if that were true, then porn could be banned because of its harmful effects on not only the consumer of porn, but on any persons or property within six metres.”
Thankyou.
What you are saying is that “free speech” isn’t a thing in and of itself, that it just comes down to “government shouldn’t make laws against victimless crimes”. You are saying that political censorship is neither here nor there, it’s just that claims that the childrunz are damaged by porn are bullshit.
That being the case, any defence you make of porn on “free speech” grounds is disingenuous. You don’t actually believe in “free speech” at all, just “no harm – no foul”.
I think that free speech is a real thing, that it is important, and that it does apply to flag-burning and doesn’t apply to porn.
Of *course* flag burning damages no-one else’s property, anymore than shouting “fuck the flag” does. The question is – can flag-burning be forbidden on the basis that it truly, deeply, genuinely offends and shocks people.
Your answer is “no, because it hasn’t damaged anyone’s property”. A typically libertarian answer.
First, this would make streaking entirely legal. Hopefully, you agree that it’s cool for it to be illegal to walk around naked.
Second, it allows the local govt to suppress speech on the basis of cleanup costs, or for someone to sue on the basis that it gave them the vapours and necessitated an expensive trip to hospital.
Third, and this is admittedly a bit nebulous, it reduces an essential right to dollars and cents. I just feel that free speech is more important than you do. That it must be *positively* protected, not simply “no harm, no foul”.
My answer is “no: flag-burning is a political statement in a way that streaking is not”. Political speech needs to be protected, and it must be protected not merely as a law, but as part of the *structure* of a democracy, because for a society to be free, the government governs only by the consent of the governed; and consent is meaningless if it is not informed consent.
An often used counter-argument to that is that flag-burning is not “speech” and so isn’t protected. The answer to that is quite simply: is too. Burning a flag in front of a war memorial most certainly is sending a message, which many people disagree with,
The problem, then, is if an act can be protected speech, what other acts can be protected speech? Why isn’t streaking at the ballgame a political act? My reply to that is “well, it’s a judgment call, unfortunately”.
Porn is like streaking at the ballgame.
I suppose what I am saying is that the blanket term “censorship” needs a little nuance, that “censorship” (the banning of any publication or speech) is not the same thing as “political censorship”.
Noooo, I didn’t say any such thing. Please let me put my own words in my mouth or, in this case, on my fingertips. I very much do believe that free speech is “a thing in and of itself.” There are cases where, for reasons of the safety of people who are not prepared to take the risk, that speech can be limited. For instance, if burning a flag at a war memorial caused hospitals to collapse, then it would be reasonable to ban burning a flag at a war memorial, just like it would be reasonable to ban porn if set afire everything for nineteen feet eight and a quarter inches around.
It seems that you are claiming that if I want to claim free speech protection for something, I need to prove that that something is important enough to warrant that protection. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. The way it’s supposed to work is that if I want something to NOT have free speech protection, I have to prove that it’s important enough to overcome the default, which is protected, AND I have to show that the important thing I’m wanting to accomplish can’t be achieved in some less restrictive way.
If it is discovered that burning an American flag with fewer than 50 stars doesn’t cause hospitals or any other buildings to collapse, then THAT should still be permitted. If the people conducting sexual activities in porn will feed sweetbreads to a fire first, then the spontaneous combustion doesn’t happen? Great, then as long as the pornsters will do that, it should be legal.
Protected is the default.
Porn can be political.
“I don’t have to see it, it’s protected by the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.” –William O. Douglas, when asked by Chief Justice Berger’s law clerk why he wasn’t going to watch the film in question in the case of Miller v. Georgia. IMHO, There is nothing else that needs to be said.
Hooray for Justice Douglas! He gets it: protection is the default.