I "get" that you don't "get" the idea underlying the First Amendment

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

And I don't care. Folks who don't "get" it by now are just lousy people. It's like explaining to some wing-nut for the tenth time that Obama wasn't born in Kenya... at some point you realize they are highly resistant to "getting" it, and that is what it is. Write 'em off. Hopeless cases..

Unfettered, even dangerously unfettered speech and expression is America's one great remaining political idealism contribution to the world.

We jail everyone. We shit on workers. We murder people right and left. Our whole government is owned by corporations. We blow up anyone around the world who makes us nervous. We spread democracy through murder. We are a bunch of anti-intellectual religious kooks who have fallen behind in many ways.

After a remarkably bold idealistic start, we have been over-taken by most first-world governments in so many things... healthcare, wages, wars, environment, etc.. We don't lead the world in many of our ostensible ideals any more except in our extremely uncomfortable level of Freedom of Expression.

In terms of who is ahead of whom, our current level of freedom of thought is ahead of most of the rest of the first-world. (It is all relative. The question isn't how free we were in 1910, but how free we are relative to our comparable fellows today.)

We can draw cartoons of Mohamed, deny the Holocaust, write fan fiction about Eric Cantor having sex with Mister Spock... because the government cannot be trusted to censor shit. Not this government. Any government, past, present, future or hypothetical.

This is America's only remaining unique positive ideal.

So OF COURSE to some crackpots this one thing we have... this one area where we are BETTER than the bulk of the rest of the world is something to cry about.

Well, authoritarian stooges are authoritarian stooges, and are the enemy.

So there.

[font color=green]An addendum, re: the "1st Amendment isn't an absolute right as defined by the Supreme Court" argument... yes. That is absolutely true. It isn't, and in the past it was even more restricted. And precisely the same is true of voting. Now, does that strike anyone as a sensible argument for disenfranchising more people? I assume not.

[tkmorris]

1. Exactly so

[EOTE]

2. Nice. K&R.

I so often get discouraged when I hear people suggest that because America has so many faults, that our freedom of speech can't be such a great thing. Like you, I think it's the one thing that makes us at least somewhat exceptional. Take away our freedom of speech or even erode it and we're nothing.

[geek tragedy]

3. what about Citizens United? nt

[Enthusiast]

121. Citizens United was narrowly decided by a far right wing supreme court majority.

Money does not equal free speech and corporations are not people. Citizens United was a dire mistake.

[randome]

4. What about libel? Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater?

Bullying people into suicide?

There are no absolutes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[X_Digger]

7. Where did the OP say it was absolute?

That looks like a mighty fine straw man you have there.

[randome]

8. "Unfettered, even dangerously unfettered speech and expression..."

Sounds like an absolute to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]P-E-P! Kellogg's PEP! The Sunshine Cereal![/center][/font][hr]

[X_Digger]

9. I don't read it that way, and the OP's endorsement of our historical level of freedom of expression-

.. would tend to back that up.

If you want to avoid the OP's point and nitpick word choice, feel free to miss the forest for the trees.

[X_Digger]

17. You'll have to ask the OP, but I see quite a few who endorse..

.. restrictions on speech and expression when it comes to:

-religion (cheers for burqa bans, cheers for schools banning overt religious displays on kids, etc)
-"hate" speech (to be determined by the poster / situation, but including banning display of the confederate flag, neo-nazi crap, etc)
-porn (nuff said)
-video games

And that's just off the top of my head.

[hfojvt]

26. and some people

even think there should be campaign finance limiting my ability to buy speech.

Damnable authoritarian stooges.

They are either with us or against us.

[stevenleser]

65. Money is not speech. Corporations are not people. nt

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

217. No, but money can BUY speech

Also, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), said that at least in the case of contributions to political campaigns, money is speech.

[onenote]

234. Fortunately, that is not the current (or future) state of the law.

I'm not saying that corporations and natural people should have the same first amendment rights. They shouldn't just as not all individuals have the same first amendment rights. Felons and minors both have restrictions on their first amendment rights that don't apply to other classes of speakers.

However, if corporations had no first amendment rights, the NAACP would have lost the Claiborne Hardware case and been subjected to damages for organizing an economic boycott for political purposes. The NY Times could have been fined and/or enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers. Any movie theater that is operated, for perfectly valid reasons, by a "corporation" would be unprotected if it presented a movie that contained non-obscene material that offended the sensibilities of local authorities. The examples are legion.

The problem with CU wasn't that it found that corporations are "persons" for the purposes of the first amendment. The problem was that the court refused to recognize the legitimate grounds for distinguishing the scope of the first amendment rights as applied to political speech by a corporation versus political speech by an individual.

And yes, the spending of money to faciliate speech is protected by the first amendment. Unless, of course, one is willing to accept the idea that the government cannot forbid you from writing and publishing a book, but can prohibit anyone from paying you for a copy or prohibit you from accepting any money for a copy.

[lark]

53. How about whistleblowers?

That's where there are SIGNIFICANT variances of opinion on this site. There are quite a few that think that whistleblowers against this admin. should be jailed, but applauded when the whistleblowing is against a Repug. admin.

[X_Digger]

55. I am for whistle blowers, no matter who they embarrass.

That applies to government and private business.

Exposing corruption is one means of keeping power in check. (Among a whole host of others- transparency being another big one in my book.)

[JDPriestly]

79. Me too.

[lark]

108. I'm with you on that!

[Enthusiast]

122. Me too..........nt

[randome]

61. I think the disagreement is what constitutes a whistleblower.

Whistleblowing needs to mean more than stealing documents and running to a foreign country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]P-E-P! Kellogg's PEP! The Sunshine Cereal![/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

73. Agreed, AND the disagreement is about whether a country can specify a method for whistleblowing.

We have one. It wasn't used.

[randome]

107. You're right, Snowden had his 'safe haven' with the whistleblowing laws already on the books.

I think he, himself, wasn't that certain of what he stole. What was it, 58,000 documents? He may be disappointed that nothing much has come of his 'revelations'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[greiner3]

200. "He may be disappointed that nothing much has come of his 'revelations'."

Uhhh, I can't make out if you are being snarky with your posts on this topic.

With that in mind, ARE YOU SERIOUS?

[grasswire]

204. you're talking to a cog, there nt

[JDPriestly]

81. It's very simple, randome.

Whistleblowing means warning the public about a wrong or danger to the public that the person blowing the whistle or taking the documents to a foreign country discovered was happening or being caused in and being covered up or kept secret by his employers.

We know that cigarette manufacturers knew they were selling a poisonous, addictive product thanks to a whistleblower.

We know about the NSA spying and potential for blackmail and other criminal conduct on the part of the NSA because of several whistleblowers.

I am grateful to whistleblowers. We cannot have freedom or anything approaching a democracy unless we protect whistleblowers.'

And because of the nature of their activity, which is revealing truths that the whistleblower deems constitute public dangers of a serious nature and are hidden from public view, we have to protect whistleblowing even when our law says it is illegal and even when we don't agree that the information about which the whistle was blown is very important.

Whistleblowers are our canaries in the mine shaft. Listen carefully to whistleblowers. They are the bravest amongst us. Do they make mistakes? Don't we all? But whistleblowers are the nobility of democracy.

[randome]

103. The only thing Snowden 'warned' us about was the metadata collection.

Which was already known. Everything else that takes place on foreign soil or on foreign citizens does not fall under our Constitution. That doesn't make what the NSA does right but it certainly doesn't make it wrong, at least from a legal perspective.

Just because someone calls himself a whistleblower doesn't mean he/she receives a 'Get out of jail free' card. The only way to determine if an individual is a whistleblower or not is to conduct the whistleblowing in a public court of law, not from a safe haven in Russia.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

156. As the OP points out, Tea Baggers are hopeless.

[Enthusiast]

123. +1 a whole bunch.......nt

[lark]

104. Why?

I see no reason for these distinctions and bet most of the people here wouldn't either except they don't like this admin. being embarassed and are willing to excuse them for any action, even if it's something they would normally hate.

[randome]

110. If you have no definition of what constitutes a whistleblower...

...then anyone can steal something and then say, "You can't arrest me! I'm a whistleblower!" And then concoct some bizarre explanation to justify their actions.

Obviously you need to define what a whistleblower is. That's why we have expanded whistleblower laws and procedures to follow. If it's not always clear, that's what a jury is for.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[lark]

220. Interesting that you never asked for a definition of whistleblower.

If you had, I'd have given it, it's not hard. Whistleblower is anyone who reports on their employer doing something they shouldn't - period the end. Snowden is a whistleblower, regardless of your personal antipathy and vitriol.

[randome]

16. Free speech is great. Who is there to argue that?

Or is this another Snowden/Porn/Chivalry thread?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]P-E-P! Kellogg's PEP! The Sunshine Cereal![/center][/font][hr]

[X_Digger]

19. If you haven't seen those wishing to put their thumb on the scales of the 'balance'..

.. then you haven't been reading the same threads I have.

See a couple posts up (#17).

[hfojvt]

28. our historical level of freedom of expression

includes sending Eugene Debs to prison for speaking against US entry into WWI and a Supreme court opinion comparing THAT speech to "yelling fire in a crowded theater".

Justice Hugo Black, though, was a 1st Amendment absolutist. But the vote on Schenk v. US was 9-0 in favor of the US restricting Schenk's free speech right to oppose the war and the draft.

"'History,' writes Bokonon, 'read it and weep.'"

[X_Digger]

34. Yet cooler heads prevailed. Fancy that.

Sure there have been missteps along the way, but does that negate the premise? Of course not.

[hfojvt]

40. actually it does

it negates the premise that "the Constitution mandates absolute freedom of speech" because historically, it NEVER has.

[X_Digger]

42. And who (other than Justice Black, apparently) has endorsed that position?

Not me, certainly.

Keep your fingers out of my mouth- I don't know where they've been. My words come out just fine without your help, thanks.

[JDPriestly]

86. Historically, we permitted slavery and racial discrimination. We aren't stuck in history.

That is the dynamic nature of democracy. We allow ourselves to learn.

After we saw the horrific repression of speech in NAZI Germany and the Soviet block after WWII, we realized that limiting speech in any way is incompatible with freedom, even with maintaining a moral society. That realization, that experience taught us that, to the contrary, our Constitution does mandate absolute freedom of speech or very close to it. It is essential to maintaining a decent society. All other freedoms including the freedom to learn and change depend on freedom of speech and its corollary, freedom of the press.

The experience of WWII and the Cold War made the difference in our attitude toward free speech.

Further, the men who wrote our Constitution, the inspired men of the late 18th century were of the Enlightenment. They admired and read JD Priestly, Voltaire, and the many other iconoclasts who used the freedom of speech they had to break the idols of the religions and autocracies of their time. Without freedom of speech, science is at risk. So is innovation.

Don't mess with freedom of speech. You might find yourself living in a society that is very stupid and very uncomfortable.

[hfojvt]

105. I might find myself where?

Somewhere other than this enlightened paradise?

Okay, I fold.

I am not saying we are stuck in history, only arguing against those who apparently think our history includes first amendment absolutism.

[JDPriestly]

162. R.A.V. a Scalia decision

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) was a United States Supreme Court case involving hate speech and the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A unanimous Court struck down St. Paul, Minnesota's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, and in doing so overturned the conviction of a teenager, referred to in court documents only as R.A.V., for burning a cross on the lawn of an African American family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

Here is the decision.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0505_0377_ZO.html

[WinkyDink]

52. Because "even dangerously unfettered" is ambiguous wording to you?

[Vattel]

106. Lots of dangerously unfettered speech is protected by the first amendment.

I believe that was what the OP intended to suggest.

[Orsino]

11. I think the OP used the term carelessly.

If speech weren't often dangerous to the powerful, we wouldn't need a First Amendment protecting it. However, when abused, speech can be dangerous in ways that hamper the rights and safety of the less powerful.

Fettering speech with regulation is proper, when there is a net gain in liberties.

[randome]

18. It's always a balancing act, sure.

And it is one of America's enduring contributions to the world at large.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]P-E-P! Kellogg's PEP! The Sunshine Cereal![/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

87. I strongly disagree:

Fettering speech with regulation is proper, when there is a net gain in liberties.

You talk of balancing, but who is qualified to do that balancing?

Regulation of speech today is defined as limiting time place and manner. Those aspects do not really limit the content of the speech and they should not. The content of the speech, if political or religious, is to be unfettered by regulation. Whether you can paint your opinions on the van of another person is a matter for regulation. (You can't because in doing so you would trespass on the rights and property of another, obviously.) But the content of your speech is pretty much up to you.

[Orsino]

88. Content of speech is regulated, too. n/t

[JDPriestly]

101. Not of political or religious speech.

[Orsino]

222. Even those.

The FBI and Secret Service will be happy to disabuse political and religious zealots who stray into violent rhetoric.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

218. Yes and no.

It cannot be libelous, it cannot be incitement to riot (My opponent is a traitor, let's hang him!), it cannot be a call for the violent overthrow of the government.

There are legitimate restrictions on all sorts of speech, political speech should not be sacrosanct.

[Orsino]

221. Yes. n/t

[JDPriestly]

77. You can also be liable for libel or slander.

But we still have more right to free speech than any other country.

Germany comes close to us but censors, for example, NAZI speech. At least they used to censor NAZI speech.

There is an unfortunate movement here to punish hate speech although for the most part, hate speech and the famous, crying "fire" in a crowded theater are very, very rarely viewed as crimes to be punished by law unless associated with actual violence. And when cases do come up, the actual criminal act and not the speech aspect is what determines the outcome.

So, yes. We are just about the greatest country when it comes to free speech. And we have lost out in every other area.

When I was a girl in high school back in the 1950s, we were taught that we were better than the USSR because we could travel freely, no questions asked. Now, since GWBush, we can no longer make that claim.

I always cooperate with Homeland Security because I know that the poor fools who have to do that job are just trying to feed their families, but the process is an insult to the men who fought and died for our freedom. It's a crying shame. We still have free speech, more than just about any other country (maybe Canada or Australia come close?), but the NSA even has its greedy, oppressive eye on that. "Freedom of the press? What press? Who are they to think they can print the truth about us? We'll show them." Your friendly NSA privatized contractor's employee.

[randome]

95. Outlawing hate speech, zero tolerance laws, minimum sentencing 'guidelines'.

All of those should go.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

97. In my view, yes.

[zeemike]

25. There are laws to cover the damage the exercising go your freedom causes.

And taking away your rights to prevent the law being broken is stupid...and authoritarian in it's nature.

[randome]

35. Anyone has the freedom to break any law they want, even murder.

But the purpose of most laws is to prevent egregious behavior in the first place.

Most of the rest of the world does not follow our examples.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]P-E-P! Kellogg's PEP! The Sunshine Cereal![/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

89. How in the world are you defining "freedom"?

Because the law prohibits you from breaking it. The law prohibits you from murdering.

If you break certain laws that prohibit you from breaking them, you go to jail or prison and LOSE YOUR FREEDOM. The price for breaking those laws is to lose your freedom.

So how can you say that anyone has the freedom to break any law? That makes no sense. The point of the law is that you are not free to break it and if you do break it you will lose your freedom. Please.

[randome]

94. I was pointing out the corollary to zeemike's post.

He said we could break any law about free speech, we just have to attend to the consequences afterwards.

The same thing can apply to any law. Because laws prevent nothing. They only serve as a deterrent.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

99. Yes. But, notably, he price for breaking many laws is losing your freedom.

[zeemike]

111. No that is not what I said.

I said there should be NO law against speech, but that if you did cause harm with it you should suffer the consequences of it...the wrong is in the harm not the speech.

[randome]

112. But the 'harm' in a country of 300 million people cannot be reliably determined...

...until a jury hears the case. It's not practical. With as many hate-filled citizens as we have, there should be no expectation that a majority of us will behave responsibly without laws to serve as a deterrent.

The country is too large, the populace is too great.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[zeemike]

118. That is sure some negative attitude you have there.

That the whole country are just children that have to be controlled by big daddy or mommy and cannot be trusted.
Well I don't see it that way at all, and neither did the writers of the constitution thankfully.
They understood that power corrupts absolutely and they did not give that power to control what people thought and said to the governemnt...if they had you could go to jail for saying God dammit, because it offended the God fearing people...and was hate speech.

[zeemike]

109. No the purpose of the law is to prevent harm to others.

Or cause them financial harm...it has nothing to do with preventing or controlling your personal behaviour...or at least it is not supposed to in a free country.
And the reason for the first amendment was because the rest of the world did not allow free speach...and they thought it was a crime, and so do I.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. Yelling fire in a theatre is usually not merely legal but praiseworthy.

Nine times out of ten, when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theatre, it's because they think the theatre is on fire and want people to get out to safety.

Most of the time they're right; even when they're not it's nearly always an honest mistake.

The only time we should even be *thinking* about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is when it can be proved that the shouter didn't actually believe the theatre was on fire (in particular, the jury thinking that they *should* have been able to work out that it wasn't is not relevant).

[LittleBlue]

6. Well said

It's like dealing with climate change deniers.

[MyNameGoesHere]

12. Unfettered speech is great

means folks can run their yap and say anything. Yeah us! I tend to think of it as "laughing man" speech. Who is "laughing man"? Well he walks up and down the streets near where I worked. He just laughs and laughs and laughs. He can do it unfettered. No one tries to stop him and most people tune it out or stare at the sidewalk. But there he is everyday laughing and laughing. I have to ask myself what is so damn funny? And why does it matter? Oh well time to run down to the sandwich joint and pay my dues. Cheers laughing man.

[Progressive dog]

13. I don't get it

Most of the American people don't get it. The world doesn't get it.
Your examples of "unfettered free speech" are all pretty close to hate speech. If you think it makes America great because you can deny the Holocaust and even believe that speech is "idealistic", then you might want to rethink your priorities.

[JDPriestly]

93. I do not believe that the government should censor hate speech unless it is associated with a crime.

That is because determining what is or is not "hate" or "hate speech" is subjective.

We used to have the saying, "Sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but words can never hurt me." That is an important lesson to learn. Words do not really cause your hurt. It's the feelings behind the words, the hate itself that causes your hurt. And the best way to deal with that is to remind yourself that you are too good to be hurt and also to engage in the act of challenging the veracity of the hate speech. Hate speech is generally false. So, the person who objects to it has to meet the challenge of demonstrating that the hate speech is fales.

Also, the hate speech merely reflects the hate in the heart of those who use it. You can only change that hate in the heart if you let it show itself and then counter it in a loving way. Our courts are already full of people being charged with petty crimes. We don't need to also punish speech. We have enough people in prison.

[Progressive dog]

125. I still don't get why not censored hate speech is only thing the OP

thinks makes America special. That was my point, not the nuances of hate speech.
I don't believe that I suggested putting anyone in prison.

[JDPriestly]

155. What do you think makes America special?

[Progressive dog]

207. You are confused about what

I don't get.

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. k&r

[jberryhill]

15. It's an area where we are "DIFFERENT" than the bulk of the rest of the world

But being doctrinally rigid about it, while decrying "authoritarian stooges", is a study in cognitive dissonance.

Canadians and Europeans somehow manage to muddle along under their oppressive laws relating to things like holocaust denial and various other lines of discussion they have deemed unproductive. Has this caused any particular problems for them? I don't know.

But an unwillingness to question one's own assumptions and merely to consider oneself "better" for doctrinal rigidity is not something typically considered not to be "authoritarian".

Do I prefer our difference? Certainly. So before you go lumping me into your "enemy" box, out of some apparent need to make that kind of black/white distinction of others, do consider that I have indeed personally litigated First Amendment cases. But I'm not blind to the fact that my preference is, in part, an accident of birth and having been raised in this culture. I've had fascinating discussions with perfectly fine attorneys from other countries who consider our solicitude of folks like the KKK, lest we fall into totalitarianism of some sort, to verge on a paranoid obsession. Their experience has led them to a different conclusion about the outcomes of putting up with that sort of thing.

[JDPriestly]

96. But we put up with it because we recognize that deciding what speech is OK and what is not

is subjective.

The Pope would decry speech that I, raised as a Protestant, consider to be wonderful.

I have been reading a lot recently about the Crusades against the Cathars and the Albigensians. Those are historical examples of the repression of speech on the part of the Catholic Church that went to an extreme. In fact the experience of the wars of religion, the rise of free religious thought, the Enlightenment and the reaction against the repression of the Inquisitions are what inspired our Founding Fathers to protect the right to free speech and religion.

So I think we are absolutely right to have a pretty absolute freedom of speech. We could not have such a peaceful society in terms of the coexistence of various religions and ethnicities if we did not have a pretty comprehensive freedom of speech. Notably, the United Kingdom has had a lot of home-grown terrorism while we have had little. That is partly because we do not harass people on the basis of their ideas, religion and speech as much as they do in the UK. (Based on my experience living there some years ago.)

[jberryhill]

113. I fully understand our position on this

I don't know who you believe you are trying to persuade of what.

Yes, it is subjective. There are other folks who believe that it is possible to be aware of the hazards of subjectivity without being completely boneheaded about it.

Slippery slope arguments can be applied to all sorts of situations. Everyone uses them. "Why, if we let the government decide whether I can sell food with shit in it, the next thing they'll be doing is telling me what I can and can't eat. Eventually, they'll just hook up a feeding tube at birth, and feed me whatever they decide I'm allowed to eat."

Absolutely, in the US, everyone who lives in a town with only one African American in it has the Constitutional right to assemble as a group on public property adjacent to his home and shout "Nigger!" at the tops of their lungs all day long. As Americans, we are dedicated to upholding that right.

Perfectly intelligent and progressive people in other countries have a different view of that matter.

But calling them "enemies" in the course of upholding some sort of absolute value, while in the same breath decrying "authoritarians", strikes me as amusing.

[hfojvt]

20. "just lousy people"

Okay, you like having, and declaring, lots of enemies.

"authoritarian stooges"

Ah, and what is an authoritarian? Because somebody who strongly declares "I am right and anybody who disagrees is the enemy (and also mentally defective)" sounds pretty darned authoritarian to me.

I'd again quote the passage on "first amendment balancing" but I am sure you'd just reject it out of hand in favor of absolutism. Your mind is made up and you have no interest in hearing from a lesser intellect with a different opinion or point of view.

[LanternWaste]

21. I think what many people don't understand is that while we are free to say or write what we wish to

I think what many people don't understand is that while we are free to say or write what we wish to, we are not free from the consequences of those words.

I think many people (maybe I should have written 'authoritarian stooges' rather than people, however my petulance level is not that great) believe speech should be free of consequence.

[Dr. Strange]

71. That confusion does pop up surprisingly often.

Free speech--in the first amendment sense--means speech which is free of governmental interference. It does NOT mean speech which is free of "social" consequence (as anyone who has ever called their boss an asshole can attest to).

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

219. There is also the point that while you are free to say essentially anything you want

No one is under any compulsion to publish it.

[Yavin4]

22. I'm all for the 1st Amendment, but...

"writing fan fiction about Eric Cantor having sex with Mister Spock" goes one step too damn far. Mr. Spock is a cherished fictional character who is the epitome of logic and reason. Eric Cantor is a snail-trail of a human being.

That stuff should be banned.

[RC]

29. Mr. Spock is a cherished fictional character?

You take that back. He is real. I have seen him on PBS even.

[Javaman]

38. You mean you missed that episode of Star Trek entitled "Spork"? nt

[redqueen]

23. I "get" that you don't "get" that shaming consumers of sexualized violence doesn't mean banning

your precious, precious rape porn.

I also "get" that you don't "get" the idea that the countries which ban such noxious shit don't have the First Amendment.

Yep, groups like the KKK are free to publish hate speech against ethnic minorities. They can publish images intended to glorify the degradation and humiliation of ethnic minorities.

And people of good conscience can and should shame them for it. People of good conscience can and should - and will - continue to call out the people who champion such regressive, harmful crap.

Violence against women is a pandemic. Some of us are working to end it, and calling out an industry that profits from the rape, abuse, and exploitation of women - and which serves to reinforce sexist and misogynist views about women - is going to continue. And its going to get louder, whether you like it or not.

(Please note: Many women who agree to perform certain acts but not others are raped in porn studios all the time. Others are not even consenting to be filmed. If you aren't aware of this fact you are not paying attention.)

[stevenleser]

36. Slut shaming is never OK. Imputing what you consider a negative sexual practice to someone is ugly

particularly when there is no basis for the accusation.

This is almost certainly creating a hostile environment for that person. Any DU attorneys would have to chime in but its also possibly actionable as libel. It's not true, its damaging and you obviously intend malice.

[redqueen]

37. So, because you failed to get me PPR'd for saying that people post MRA talking points here,

you're trying a new angle now?

Please quote the part where I posted anything that's "actionable as libel".

And "slut-shaming" is as ignorant and harmful a term as "sex-positive". It'd sure be nice if DU had more active feminists, knowledgeable about current events and information... but we all know why that isn't the case.

[stevenleser]

39. You said "Your" meaning the OP's "precious, precious rape porn". OP has never said they consume that

And yes, in the majority of the circumstances where you accused people of posting MRA talking points, you were way off base, and yes, accusing someone of acting like someone in a hate group, when they are not and not even close, which is exactly what you did and intended to do, deserves a PPR. I would extend that to anyone baselessly accusing someone of being a Neo-Nazi or in the KKK or any other group.

And now, you make another baseless and nasty accusation against someone. Saying that the OP consumes rape porn by saying "Your precious precious rape porn" should be PPR worthy.

I have no idea why you think it is OK to make such nasty and over the top accusations against people.

[redqueen]

43. Yeah.

You're so obviously not too familiar with the way libel works.

It is sad how much effort you put into minimizing harmful MRA propaganda and defending those that post it here. But hey, whatever. It's a free country.

[stevenleser]

48. I'm very familiar with the way it works.

Because of the 1st amendment and the emphasis on freedom of expression here that you are coincidentally also trying to trample upon, it's hard to prove either libel or slander so you would probably skate on that.

Whether the kinds of nasty and baseless accusations you make against people on a semi-regular basis should be allowed to continue by the admins is another matter.

In the interests of transparency, if someone has not indicated they consume a particular kind of porn and you or someone else accuse them of that to try to shame them, which seems to be one of your preferred underhanded methods of trying to win porn arguments, I am going to alert every time and I am going to pm the admins every time. I hope others follow suit for the ones I don't see. That is completely unacceptable behavior IMHO.

[hfojvt]

49. well the OP IS apparently concerned that

some "lousy people" might think it is okay to ban rape porn and are too stupid to understand that it is absolutely not okay to ban rape porn.

If the idea of banning rape porn breaks your heart, and makes you declare those who would do so as "the enemy", then apparently rape porn is pretty precious.

Unless somebody is making some sort of slippery slope argument. First, they came for rape porn, and I didn't object because I am not into that shite. Then they came for Grand Theft auto, and I didn't object because I don't play that game. Finally they came for my Back in Black CD and there was nobody left to object.

Which is kind of a silly argument. A little bit like saying "first they put murderers in prison, and I did not object. Then they put rapists in prison ..." Like any sort of restriction or law is going to lead, inevitably, to the end of ALL freedom.

But, of course, I am a guy who, if I had absolute power, would gather up every copy of "the chicken dance" and put them on a rocket ship that would be blasted into the sun. But that's just me.

[stevenleser]

50. No, sorry, not even close. If someone does not indicate they have a particular sexual practice and

you accuse them of that to try to win an argument that is despicable behavior.

And besides that, its an indication you've got nothing. In fact, it says that because you've got nothing you've resorted to a particularly nasty variety of ad-hominem attack.

Just so you know, if someone did admit to some sort of legal behavior, it would still be slut shaming which I am not in favor of either and I think it wrong. But to impute behavior to someone that they have never said they engage in is beyond the pale.

[hfojvt]

62. in this case

I happen to be on the side that says "rape porn is vile and disgusting and often illegal"

If somebody jumps on the other side with "omigod, rape porn cannot be banned" (as the OP apparently did, being absolute about the 1st Amendment) then rape porn apparently IS "precious" to them, whether they actually consume it or not. They are apparently up in arms and ready to fight for the absolute right of others to do so. Well, just WHAT makes THAT battle so important to them? Do they NOT seem to be fighting like they have a dog in that hunt, somehow? If not, then let them disavow it.

[stevenleser]

64. No, again, that's not the way it works. You clearly havent thought this through.

What you are defending is uncomfortably close to the accusations of 'N-lover' being thrown at white people marching through the streets of Selma with Dr. King and the marchers.

It's uncomfortably close to "J-lover" being hurled at folks protecting the rights of Jews.

It's uncomfortably close to people being called the typical slurs for being LGBT for sticking up for the rights of LGBT people.

Is it the same? No, but it is uncomfortable close. Sticking up for rights for people to be or do whatever legal thing doesnt make it OK for others to hurl accusations that you are that or that you do that.

Is that disgusting behavior really the kind of thing to which you aspire and think should be OK on DU?

[polly7]

70. +1000. That's exactly how I see it too, and it's dishonest, insulting and

desperate. If you can't make an argument without attributing the most hideous things possible to someone who's never said it ... you really haven't got much to offer, yourself.

[hfojvt]

82. "uncomfortably close"

For you, maybe. I am pretty comfortable with it, maybe because my dog is hunting on the other side.

Sticking up for X simply DOES, apparently, make X precious to you.

Why would I think it is an insult to be called a "lover of jews or blacks or LGBT people" since in the three cases you mention, I actually WOULD be a lover (or a person who cares) about those people as PEOPLE who have human rights.

Supporting the human rights of some group is NOT a slur in the same way as supporting the right of people to get their rocks off watching rape porn is. You really want to equate those two?

See now, you just accused ME of aspiring to DO something when all I did was defend the right of somebody else to do it. Suddenly I am a slur-lover, eh?

[stevenleser]

90. Close enough. You are defending an ad-hominem, slut-shaming accusation based on no evidence

Again, OP hasn't indicated that they consume ANY porn let alone rape porn.

All because the OP believes in free speech not only in this arena, but universally.

If you can't see how horrifically screwed up that is, I truly feel sorry for you.

[hfojvt]

100. "I truly feel sorry for you"

that is not an ad-hominem argument?

If you don't see X the same extreme way I do, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Feel free to make a large contribution to the Hfojvt re-education fund. Contributions are NOT tax deductible.

[Tumbulu]

189. This is how I see it as well

It must be precious to them.

And this really upsets me.

[Katashi_itto]

84. +1000

[BainsBane]

128. In a thread about the First Amendment

You threaten to sue over speech. The irony.

[Tumbulu]

191. I am ready to leave DU over this outrageous

Love of violent porn continuously espoused by some few who endlessly go on about 1st Amendment rights ignoring the human rights of so many in the population many of whom, including me, find it incomprehensible that criminal behavior filmed for commercial profit is somehow glorified and protected.

Really, haven't you been reading all of these vile discussions? Do you honestly think that the marginalized people who are filmed being abused are really ok? Where is OSHA? How many million women and girls are enslaved?

Are you seriously not disturbed that so many on DU defend their right to purchase and enjoy watching people be hurt for sexual gratification?

This is so demoralizing and disappointing and I feel as though I may need to stop considering myself a liberal.

[polly7]

66. Link?

"I "get" that you don't "get" that shaming consumers of sexualized violence doesn't mean banning your precious, precious rape porn."

Where did that poster say anything of the sort?

[stevenleser]

75. Not only didn't the OP ever say they consumed rape porn, they've not said they consume ANY porn

as far as I can recall.

But, here is the accusation that it's the OP's "precious, precious rape porn"

Defending free speech in general gets an accusation that they consume rape porn.

That is a low to which DU should never go.

[polly7]

76. Oh, it's gone much lower, unfortunately.

Same people, same tactics.

But you're right, DU is, and should be better than this.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

135. precious, precious rape porn, huh?

You're a very angry person, but you won't be abrogating the First, no matter how much you might like to.

[BainsBane]

139. She's an angry person?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

160. Looks that way, yes.

[Tumbulu]

190. Well said

Thank you.

[Betsy Ross]

24. To many our free speech

Is a bigger threat than our war machine.

[JaneyVee]

27. Actually, there are many forms of unprotected speech. SEE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

[NewJeffCT]

68. Thanks for the link

good information

[Tuesday Afternoon]

115. +1

and how it is conflated on here that regulating an industry is a violation of 1A.

This OP makes as much sense as saying:

"I "get" that you don't "get" the idea underlying the Second Amendment
And I don't care."

REGULATION OF AN INDUSTRY IS NOT A VIOLATION OF 1A.

if you think it is: ergo you argue for Laissez-Faire of 2A.

Don't take away Your Porn? No one is trying to take away Your Porn.

Don't take away my Gun! No one is trying to take away My Gun.

Both industries are businesses that can and should be regulated.

Doing either/both is not a violation of either amendment but, is a social democracy trying to do the best for the most.

I really hope this is my last post on this subject.

How on earth?

Only on DU can both porn and guns become boring subjects.

[former9thward]

30. The first amendment of today is not the same in most of our history.

There used to be great restrictions on our speech for most of the country's history and courts upheld them. Lincoln shut down newspapers who opposed him, including the Chicago Times. He defied court orders to release opponents. In WWI Wilson threw people in prison who opposed the war. And he got away with it. Union and other pickets had prohibitions against picketing. Starting in the 1920s there were a series of Supreme Court decisions that started a trend until the late 60s. Slowly the courts recognized the free speech that we have today and government finally got on board. But for most of our history the first amendment had a completely different meaning.

[NewJeffCT]

67. +1

well said.

[elleng]

31. 'The Supreme Court has addressed pornography more often than almost any other issue of

comparable specificity, and small wonder why—the Court has read an implicit obscenity exception to the free speech clause, giving it the unenviable responsibility of interpreting an unstated 18th-century definition of obscenity two centuries later. And the more the Court has attempted to define obscenity, the more complex that definition has become.'

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/qt/Supreme-Court-Pornography-Cases.htm

[AlbertCat]

32. It says "Congress shall make no law....."

But that doesn't mean your employer cannot fire you for undermining his company with a bad rap... or scaring away customers and such.

Or that you cannot sue someone for libel or defamation of character. Indeed the things like "you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded room if there is no fire...." is a law to protect others, not to curb your freedom of speech.

[Squinch]

33. Let's not forget, between the cries of "Liberty!" that this argument is about rape porn.

Rape porn.

Where a certain percentage of the depictions are actual rapes or coerced performances, and you don't know from looking at it whether you are watching consenting adults or an actual rape.

Which means that for those who consume rape porn with any frequency, the chances are that at some point, they were watching actual rape as entertainment. They must be so proud.

So, uh, you sure you want to be shouting "yay us" over that?

To be sure, some here do. Do you really want to join them?

[cthulu2016]

41. That is some old-school "not getting." Bravo.

It appears that you honest to God cannot even comprehend what a principle even is. And that is scary to behold. You really think this is "about" some genre of porn? No, it is not.

You might as well be pointing out that people who support the 4th or 5th Amendment are assisting some people guilty of monstrous and staggeringly heinous crimes.

Do you really want to be supporting the 5th Amendment for distasteful defendants?

Yes. That is what "support" means.

[LanternWaste]

44. I imagine that for many people, that same principle is simply a mask to hide a specific point.

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I imagine most people are able to comprehend what a principle is. I also imagine that for many people, that same principle they accuse others of missing is simply a mask to hide a specific point they may lack the courage to state...

[Squinch]

144. Yes. I certainly do think this is about some genre of porn. Namely rape porn.

That's what this argument is about. That is what started this whole shit storm.

And a certain proportion of rape porn depicts actual rapes. This isn't speech. It's actual rapes. Those are crimes.

It appears that you honest to God cannot even comprehend that this argument is not about speech. It's about rape. That's a pretty big thing not to get. Bravo to you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. The OP does point out that the 1st Amendment covers Holocaust denial

and I think that's an appropriate comparison to consumption of rape porn - morally reprehensible, and more likely to be bigoted or violent than a normal person, but the US ideal is to allow freedom of expression, and only make it illegal when an act is shown to have been done, rather than when there's a likelihood of it. But other countries do ban Holocaust denial and hate speech, and I think it is reasonable for governments to say there's a public interest in such bans, and of watching rape porn.

[WinkyDink]

54. Ignorance and/or deliberate lying is protected.

[Squinch]

143. But the crucial difference is that Holocaust denial does not subject more people to the Holocaust.

Rape porn, as it stands today, is a cause for trafficking and rape.

Big, big difference. If someone could prove to me that there are no unwilling participants in rape porn depictions, I wouldn't care. We all know that there are unwilling participants and real rapes.

And if someone denied the Holocaust by engaging in the behaviors that were employed by the Holocaust, I would be among those calling for the ending of that too.

This is not speech. This is trafficking and rape.

[stevenleser]

147. There is no evidence of causation for either and people concerned about it for both.

The reason Germany outlaws holocaust denial and Nazi hate speech is partly that yes, they are concerned with preventing a resurgence of Nazism. There are many who doubt that the law would prevent that if it were going to happen anyway but that is part of the reasoning.

[Squinch]

148. The rape porn genre includes depictions of actual rapes that are sold for entertainment.

[stevenleser]

151. Possibly. I'm willing to take your word for it on that. But the discussion was causation.

I don't believe porn causes attacks on women.

[Squinch]

152. The rape porn genre includes depictions of actual rapes being sold for entertainment. nt.

[stevenleser]

153. I read it the first time and that still has no bearing on our conversation. nt

[Squinch]

157. Filming actual rapes doesn't cause harm? Interesting position.

[stevenleser]

163. Nice try at moving the goalposts. No. I accept the underhanded tactic as your surrender in this

conversation.

[Squinch]

170. Have fun with that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

209. It is illegal to sell that.

It is illegal to make that. It is illegal to rape.

It is NOT, however, illegal to ACT (ie, simulated) that scenario out and film it. As long as there are two consenting adults. Porn is not some unfettered, unregulated industry. There's a shit ton of stuff they have to go through to make and legally distribute a film.

[Squinch]

229. I can't decide if your post is funny or sad.

[MadrasT]

45. Here we go again with this tedious "argument".

Show me where the First Amendment says "You can say whatever the hell you want... and also be free from criticism".

Free speech also means FREEDOM SPEAK OUT AGAINST SPEECH YOU DISLIKE.

[jberryhill]

57. +1

There is an odd stance which holds that anything legal should be the object of social approval, and some folks tend to confuse legal and regulatory management of behavior with social management of behavior.

If one is willing to put up with social disapproval, that's fine. But there are some folks who think the legal system gives them "rights" against social disapproval.

Take, for example, the conflation of "discrimination" and "racism" in the GOP Rosa Parks tweet.

Civil rights are about freedom from discrimination. Anyone can be as racist as they want, but there are legal boundaries on how that racism may find expression in the form of discriminatory treatment. Is it illegal for anyone to BE a racist? No. But it is illegal for them to premise certain types of action on that racism.

[stevenleser]

80. Don't agree with the first two paragraphs but the last two are an important reminder

and really good stuff.

I don't think anyone here thinks the legal system gives them rights against social disapproval but I could be mistaken. I certainly don't think that.

But the discussion of the conflation of discrimination and racism is some pretty good stuff.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

116. well said.

[Tumbulu]

192. Very good point!

[FairWinds]

47. I don't see a lot of "unfettered speech and expression"

People are afraid to speak out - for a variety of reasons.
You can't even get tenured professors to speak forthrightly.
This is NOT the "home of the brave" - I wish it were.

[WinkyDink]

51. "even dangerously unfettered speech and expression".... Not exactly. We outlawed incitement to

riot, libel, slander, threatening the Executive Branch and Congress, etc.

But THE LAW ACCEPTS criticism of others' speech. GET THAT????

[BainsBane]

56. This may come as a shock, but the 1A protects speech from government

It doesn't mean you don't get to have your bullshit criticized. What you are objecting to is someone else's First Amendment rights, which tells me free speech means squat to you. What you mean is don't dare criticize my sense of entitlement because I am more important than workers, women, and everyone else I refuse to think about. That is made obvious by the fact the OP you are so outraged by explicitly said she wasn't talking about banning. So this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It's really about why it is people feel so sanctimonious about their own sense of entitlement.

[ismnotwasm]

58. Is this another fucking porn thread?

I get that I have that word on auto trash, because I get that discussion is fucking impossible. I also get a total lack of fucking understanding of what sexual privilege is or means.

Ooooh. The authoritarian enemy. Scary

[polly7]

102. I know, right?

This thread doesn't seem to concentrate on porn, but more on freedom of speech.

Unlike these (just a few from the last week). Did you ask the same of them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024120341

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024130037

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024118896

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024110231

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024110214

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024104107

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024101560

[el_bryanto]

59. That's right - people should have freedom of speech to say things that I agree with

But of course they shouldn't say anything I disagree with!

Bryant

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

60. Well said

[redgreenandblue]

63. Except that speech is no where near free in the United States.

True, there are no laws in the books that specify punishment for speech. And yet, you can and will lose your job, face harassment, threats or physical violence by strangers or even be arrested for speech given the proper circumstance. American society has channels through which it can utterly destroy people, psychologically economically or even physically, for unpopular speech. That there are no official laws enabling censorship does not mean it doesn't effectively happen anyway.

I think it is not far fetched to argue that some places which actually censor things such as holocaust denying by law have lower effective levels of censorship throughout their society than the United States does.

[BainsBane]

69. This isn't about free speech

It's about the precious porn. As SCOTUS has ruled, speech is money. The speech they value--in this case porn--is protected because it generates a profit.

[D23MIURG23]

72. K&R

[TBF]

78. Righteous rant -

and it's about all we have left as you so accurately point out.

[BainsBane]

140. Only it's not about the First Amendment

It's about denying the rights of others to speech that criticizes porn. The OP he is referencing explicitly said she didn't advocate banning. What they mean here is if you criticize my privilege in any way, your speech is illegitimate and I'll create a strawman about my "freedom" vs. authoritarianism.

[TBF]

141. Ah, more going on -

thank you for the back story.

[JVS]

83. I see a lot of not getting it in this thread, and that makes me sad.

For truly it is those who would censor other people, who do the most grievous violence to Lady Liberty.

[DirkGently]

85. No one thinks the First Amendment is absolute.

I "get" the First Amendment. I think most people do. But most people also understand that "free speech" is a complicated right that can't be trotted out to short-circuit all discussion of every kind of expression there could ever be. It doesn't work that way, and never has.

If we are once again plunging into the "Nasty Porn, Freedom or Threat?" waters, the general principle of free speech just isn't enough to conclude anything.

We we need a little nuance here.

First, the First Amendment is great. It IS a core a principle that America is rightfully proud of, but

No one thinks it's an unfettered right. It's not.

There are, and always have been, limits based on actual HARM.

- Can't make certain threats.
- Can't expose certain state secrets.
- Can't print or speak false statements harmful to reputation (and not be sued for it)
- Can't incite imminent violence.
- Can't speak so as try to start a fight (and claim it was free speech)

So, respectfully, the Very Bad Porn vs. The First Amendment dumbs things down way too much. Unless you have people actually making the "ban whatever I don't like" argument, which I don't recall seeing here much.

Here's what's going wrong with this debate.

1. The "critics" aren't all talking about bans and censorship.

That's the same stupid conflation the extremes of gun control debate keep coming down on. No right is unlimited, and every regulation or limitation on a right is not a high-speed slippery slope to a ban. We limit EVERY RIGHT.

Carefully.

Backing up though, Constitutional protections mean absolutely zero if you're talking about

- Criticzing
- Protesting
- Shaming
- Labeling / warning


2. When you do get to actual regulation, we have mountains of it already, on theories that some "artistic" or entertainment expressions can do actual harm to either the participants in creating it, or the consumers of it. Largely this has to do with children, but the PRINCIPLE is not, and never was, that expression in all its forms, and no matter how "dangerous" cannot be touched.

We can, do, and should regulate porn. Sorry. And it's not -- necessarily -- authoritarianism or "censorship" or any of that.

No one thinks that.

Everyone understands -- right? -- that one of the issues with "rape porn" is the problem with determining whether an actual sex act is consensual or not once it's being filmed for profit, right? So it's not an aesthetic issue, but more like child porn, where the people being filmed are being hurt BY the production. Not okay, and not free speech under any rationale.

I had thought fully realized physical depictions of rape were already illegal here, for just that reason, but apparently that's not the case. I don't think a ban would be the slightest bit inconsistent with the First Amendment.

But the rest of this discussion is really where the meat is -- the parts about gender privilege and exploitation -- It's not possible to reduce that to Censorship -- Yes or No?! There's more being raised than aesthetics or prudery, and there is more that might be done than bans or censorship.

If we have to have 10,000 threads about this stuff, let's bear in mind it's much more complicated than Free Speech vs. Dirty Stuff on the Internet, and reducing it all to that just shows an unwillingness to think past knee-jerk poo-flinging.

The real crackpottery here is reducing ever discussion of the possible harms of any form of expression to "They're comin' for your pornz!" as though that were the only conceivable thing to be discussed.

We're smarter than that.

Right?

Carry on.

[ismnotwasm]

92. Thank you

I glad I haven't trashed this thread yet just because I got a chance to read your beautiful reply.

To the trash it goes, however

[stevenleser]

98. Perhaps, but political speech and consensual intimate behavior by adults in private are intrinsic

parts of free speech and freedom of expression.

Take either one away and the rest of the free speech you think you have is meaningless.

That's why on the one side you can accuse any elected official of the most heinous things even if you know it isn't true without a care of libel or slander. Even though I don't take political discussion nearly that far, I understand why it's important to have that protection.

On the other side, I have no interest in being in a state where the government tells consenting adults the kind of sex they can have. Similarly with the political argument, even though my particular practices are so tame and mainstream as to never be in danger of being made illegal, I understand why it's important to have that protection.

And no, I don't believe that folks arguing against porn don't also want their position enshrined in law. Folks who engage in the kinds of heinous debate practices that some of these folks are engaging in aren't going to be satisfied with "making folks think about it". They want a complete ban on porn. That's obvious to anyone paying attention.

[DirkGently]

129. So you are the arbiter of what the "other side" really means?

Someone who disagrees with you could argue you want women raped on film for the amusement of others, and do not care whether they are "consenting adults" or not. That's one risk of endorsing rape porn, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Building strawmen to burn accomplishes nothing.

I don't know why you brought this up, but you've got some of your law wrong. You most certainly cannot safely libel or slander public officials. It's just harder for them to win a suit because of the Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" ruling. They have to show you knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.

As for private consensual sexual conduct, that's not a free speech issue. It's due process.

Setting aside for a moment what you think you know about what other people are secretly arguing for, which again, is not a basis for argument, it IS possible to object strongly to aspects of certain kinds of pornography without hiding a secret agenda to ban things. Examples I've seen raised here are cultural and artistic concerns about the prevalence of objectification, especially of women, depictions of women enjoying abuse, and the "dirty whores" memes, for example.

These are valid arguments. You can't dismiss them on the theory they only lead to bans and you can't have bans. It might be that these issues boil down to "bad art," or it may be something more. But it's hardly an assault on free speech to point out what's wrong with it.

Then there is the specific "rape porn" issue, which includes a practical concern regarding the possibility of masking literal physical harm to the people involved; in other words, the difficulty of ensuring that acts designed to look exactly like rape are not rape, and that the "consent" you speak of is not manufactured. In no industry or commercial endeavor does "free speech" ever overcome the ability to regulate to protect people from physical harm. That has nothing to do with freedom of expression whatever.

[stevenleser]

130. Are any of us on DU the arbiter of anything? What kind of ridiculous argument is that?

And your argument goes from specious to straw man without missing a beat.

If you have nothing to offer on this discussion than to try to claim free speech advocates like the worst kind of sexual practices you can think of, you have nothing.

[DirkGently]

132. You understand I was mocking your argument, right?

It's only you trying to argue by insisting you know what others secretly wish.

Surely you are not so obtuse that you took my mockery of your strawmanning as new, fresh strawmanning.



Please don't respond if you're not going to bother reading first.

[stevenleser]

133. I know you were doing everything except coming up with anything substantive and non-fallacious

Which I can understand because there is no response to what I wrote. It's factual. You dont like it but there isnt any rebuttal because I'm right.

[DirkGently]

136. Substance like correcting your two misstatements of the law?

I'm starting to question your good faith here.

- You claimed anyone with concerns about certain types of porn secretly wants a ban. That's silly strawmanning, but you apparently won't let it go.

- You misstated how defamation law applies to public officials to support your position.

- You misstated the type of Constitutional protection that applies to consensual sex.


So I again have to turn it around. Do YOU have a substantive response? Can you back up your misapprehensions of the law, or justify arguing on the basis that anyone who disagrees with you is a secret porn banner?

[stevenleser]

137. Is that what you think you posted after your non-sequitur subject and straw man opening?

Very simple response. Please cite a case where a sitting elected official in the United States in the last 20 years successfully sued someone for libel or slander.

[DirkGently]

138. Well yes, you got the law wrong both times. What else?

The strawman thing you keep trying to salvage was yours. You claimed everyone with critques or concerns about porn is a secret banner. That's ludicrous, and that is an actual strawman.

I pointed out what such a ludicrous argument would look like if it were turned on you, and you ... what?

If you're going to continue to pretend I did what you did, then we both know you're just screwing around here, which is the problem I was trying to get at in the first place. You're not thinking. You're fighting.

Seriously. Do you actually not have any thoughts on this? If so, why are you are arguing?

THINK, or just stop it.

[stevenleser]

146. LOL, no I didn't and no you didn't. That would require a link to case law, which you don't have. nt

[DirkGently]

164. Sheesh. You actually need a link to Times v. Sullivan?

Try Wikipedia. This is kidstuff. You don't have the faintest idea how the First Amendment works, do you?

Don't get me wrong -- you don't have to know case law, if you'll just please, for the love of Pete, make an honest argument here.

And yet rather than accept my invitation to reply thoughtfully to a complex topic, you're still trying to flame your way out with silly argumentative tactics.

1. You said everyone who criticizes porn is a secret banner. That's both dishonest and illogical.

2. You claimed you can't be sued for defaming public officials, which is simply not the law.

3. You claimed consensual sex is a free speech issue, which is likewise not the law.

And now you're still trying to claw my eyes out instead of engaging in any kind of rational discussion of what bothers people about extreme porn, what effects it might have, or what we might do about it?

And yet your prime complaint higher in the thread is that those you disagree with don't argue honestly.

YOU aren't arguing honestly. You are fighting without substance, without merit, and without integrity.

WHY?

[stevenleser]

198. You've never read that case have you? It completely proves my point. Its nearly impossible for

public officials to sue for libel or slander and win. Times v Sullivan as much as states that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

[DirkGently]

199. That wasn't your point, and that's not what it says.

No one thinks that. It's just a different legal standard, which is not remotely what you claimed. Yes, I've read Sullivan and Gertz, and all the rest. You have not.

But that's okay -- argue from logic, or intuition.

Just tell me why you can't see a rational objection to extreme depictions of, for example, women being victimized and demeaned.

Set aside your assumption that all criticism is an attempt to ban everything and lay it out.

Or don't. I think your past battles on the topic may have poisoned your ability to discuss the topic.

[cthulu2016]

114. No, you do not get it. You flatter yourself that you do, but do not

I don't think a ban would be the slightest bit inconsistent with the First Amendment.

And water-boarding is not torture. And some of your best friends are the first amendment.

Whatever.

I get that you do not get it.

[DirkGently]

119. Do you have a substantive response?

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

One reason I plunged into this, of many, threads falsely conflating free speech and concerns about certain types of pornography is that I respect your thinking, cthulu. You seem to understand a lot of legal concepts and are capable of powerful analysis.

And you respond to my long-winded attempt to call for nuance with a "talk to the hand" type post? I didn't mean to put you in a defensive posture.

What are your real thoughts on this?

Do you not acknowledge, for example, that we do not permit actual physical harm under free speech theories?

So, to take one small piece of what I was trying to communicate, do you argue that we should dismiss a concern that we can't readily discern an actual rape from from a fully realized sex act staged to appear to be rape?

Can we ban "pretend" child porn, where the actor seems to be underaged, but is claimed not be?

[redqueen]

127. Can we ban "pretend" child porn, where the actor seems to be underaged, but is claimed not be?"

Just highlighting that question so that more people will see it. It's been discussed here before, wouldn't want interested parties to miss the chance to chime in.

[DirkGently]

134. Maybe that's what's already illegal.

I had thought both real sex acts depicted as rape and real sex acts depicted as involving underaged sex were illegal.

The logic is the same -- if you are filming real act, and the object is to make it indistinguishable from a real act that is a crime, you have an instant problem on your hands.

I see a lot of people with a lot of justified passion about these issues, and a few who want to scream and drown out all thought because they think they have a lock on an absolutist civil liberties point of view that doesn't even really apply. It really does look like gun control talk.

It's too bad. A lot of smart people here could have much more interesting, in-depth conversations if some didn't see the entire issue in such simplistic terms.

[Ms. Toad]

210. You can't seriously mean there are colors beyond black and white -

It's too bad. A lot of smart people here could have much more interesting, in-depth conversations if some didn't see the entire issue in such simplistic terms.

That has long been a frustration of mine - which I butt into in nearly every substantive conversation I try to engage in here.

[cthulu2016]

172. Sorry

Let's say I said, "I don't think people of Chinese ancestry should be able to vote," and then buttressed it by noting that women didn't used to be able to vote, and that we still don't let children vote, and that felons many places cannot vote.

The right to vote has never been unlimited, right?

Would that argument cause you to respect my "no Chinese!" argument any more than you did at first blush?

Sorry for the dismissal. It wasn't personal. I just don't have any patience with anyone arguing for the reduction of existing expressive freedoms.

[DirkGently]

173. I don't love the title of my post.

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 07:35 PM - Edit history (1)

What I'm trying to get at isn't, in my opinion, about the First Amendment.

I think where the debate gets derailed is people not acknowledging that there is some daylight between the general proposition that we protect speech, love it or hate it, and a) making sociological critiques and b) activities that may begin as art, but become so extreme that literal physical harm is involved.

"Rape porn," specifically, to me involves a level of threatened harm that clears First Amendment concerns. If we can't tell whether someone in a film is being brutalized by or without consent, there is a problem, because there is a demand for film of real rape, and that is illegal. If we can't tell the difference, we can limit the expression.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

117. Bravo!! Deserves it's own OP.

[Enthusiast]

120. Right on!..........nt

[Rex]

124. Lenny Bruce would approve of this message.

nt.

[Agnosticsherbet]

126. The First Amendment is about more than freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

But Apparently the the part covering the establishment of religion, freedom of the press, the right of people to assemble, and the right to petition the Government never approach the "dangerously unfettered" level.

Even Freedom of speech has often been iffy. Remember the Free Speech Zones set up by former President Bush. I do not recall anyone being censured over that, so there are some fetters in place over free speech just waiting for someone to need them.

[FairWinds]

131. If speech is so "unfettered" and free . .

why aren't you folks posting under your own names?
As A.J. Liebling pointed out . . .
“Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.”

[jberryhill]

145. "Yet some people want to throw a giant entitled tantrum"

Tantrum-throwing is an activity protected by the First Amendment.

Anyone is entitled to express their disapproval of anything.

[LanternWaste]

149. I used to describe people who disagreed with my opinions as "throwing entitled tantrums" also.

I used to describe people who disagreed with my opinions as "throwing entitled tantrums" also.

But then I soon realized after my ninth birthday that the petulance of third grade doesn't really cut as we get older, and does little other than advertise us as without substance other than emotion.

(Insert distinction with a difference here)

[LanternWaste]

176. I'd guess I would have rationalized and deflected too when called on it.

I'd guess I would have rationalized and deflected too when called on it.

Bless your little heart.

[LanternWaste]

182. And good luck with your irrational hysteria

And good luck with your irrational tantrums and hysteria..

(Six of one, half a dozen of the other... and both as relevant as the other)

(insert additional petulant rejoinder here for self-validation.... three, two, one...)

[chervilant]

206. "Naked boobie pics"

tells me all I need to know about you, standing in the quicksand of your patriarchy-driven sense of entitlement. Women's breasts are the most objectified human body parts, and so sexualized that my niece has to retire to public restrooms to feed her baby. How sad that you don't understand that objectifying women for your own sexual gratification is demeaning yourself first.

I would love to see our species' erotica evolve beyond patriarchal power imbalance and sexism. How wonderful to be able to enjoy graphic depictions of consensual, erotic sex. I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime...

[chervilant]

216. Your defensive and obfuscating

post does not alter my perception of you one iota.

[chervilant]

236. "Actually, I don't care..."

or "I don't care, actually..."

[chervilant]

241. Poor wee mannie...

It's okay to be wrong (and, not even remotely funny).

[Warren DeMontague]

243. Not gonna answer the question, huh?

Not hugely surprising.

Well, pass this along.

http://www.nursingfreedom.org/p/state-breastfeeding-laws.html

[sibelian]

225. "How wonderful to be able to enjoy graphic depictions of consensual, erotic sex.

I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime..."

You guys are just away in your own little world, aren't you?

[chervilant]

235. Oh, goodie,

another condescending, dismissive post. Why am I not surprised?

[DirkGently]

154. Where are these "porn yowlers?"

Obviously this OP is another entry in the ongoing DU porn wars -- which I admit I try to scrupulously avoid -- but I've yet to see anyone "yowling for the government to protect them from nekkid pitchers."

And I've probably been biased because of what I perceive as thinly veiled feminist-hatred on the part of the noisiest "free speech" yellers. And my "scare quotes" indicate BULLSHIT, if that's not clear.

On the other side, I've seen people repulsed by rape porn and the degradation of women raise social and legal concerns swiftly surrounded by a small cadre of shallow-thinking amateur Constitutional scholars who appear to smell a whiff of feminism that needs stomping out.

To the extent people make it clear they don't want bans, someone just accuses them of secretly wanting bans. First response I got in this thread said exactly that. Then, to the extent someone raises social issues about gender or exploitation, there's no intelligent reply whatever; just a fussillade of 4Chan-ish spluttering about freedom of speech and the need to "let people make poor choices."

This is shallow, unthoughtful stuff.

Rape porn? Literal physical acts, that would be rape -- that are rape -- if not for a theoretical consent which can likely never be verified?

Talking about that is some kind of ... nun-ish hooting about nekkid pictures? Har har? That's all the analysis we can muster on DU?

So .. there's not a legitimate concern of physical harm? We can't contemplate something might be wrong there? If a kid's working in a factory, we assume coercion. If a fire door is locked in the factory, we call foul. But an industry feeding a taste for hurting women, and creating "art" indistinguisable and interchangeable with rape falls right in there with political speech?

Beyond bans and physical threats to women, why would we not be open to a sociological discussion of the the rancid porn culture that revels in depictions of women as the willing objects of abuse?

We can't have that conversation AT ALL because derp derp Free Speech and all criticism equals a secret agenda to ban everything?

Obviously a lot turns on what part of which conversations people are reacting to, but I've been seeing a whole different segment of really poor argument and shallow thinking than whatever you and the OP are reacting to.

[DirkGently]

166. "Apes DO read philosophy, Otto.

They just don't understand it."

Yes, the "You can't criticize rape porn because First Amendment" is derp.

It's not thoughtful or clever or wise. It's a crude attack on thought by people who don't themselves understand the principles they claim to be talking about.

You want to dive into the First Amendment and tell me how it protects rape porn -- go right ahead. It'd be a big improvement.

[DirkGently]

174. You dismissed my comment without substance.

... after I went to great pains to explain exactly what *I* was objecting to, which is the facile dismissal of any sociological or legal objection to extreme pornography on the assumption that it's always per se protected speech.

I don't think there would be any Constitutional objection to banning depicting real sex acts as non-consensual in film.

No different than disallowing "pretend" child porn, which I think is already the case (but I'm not looking it up right now).

[DirkGently]

201. I'll happily debate the law if you want.

Warren, you're another favorite poster of mine, and I can't quite fathom why you see this particular topic in these terms. Again, maybe you're proceeding from a context of past arguments I haven't seen.

And again, I do not see the entire topic as a question of what can be banned. I think that's a facile conclusion needlessly shutting down a much broader topic.

But I can certainly wield First Amendment law with pretty much anyone if need be. It's not what the people barking that anything goes seem to believe.

[DirkGently]

214. I have that reflexive response re: freedom of expression too.

I see a couple of ways of looking at what's being discussed that differentiate it from simple censorship.

1. Again, of course, we talk about objectionable culture or art or exploitation without anticipating outlawing it. No one should be making Rob Schneider films at this point, but we allow Rob to live, because he is a good man that simply can't make a good movie to save his soul.

We can condemn horrific depictions of depredation, exploitation, objectification of women, and so on, AND contemplate their effects, without proposing to broadly criminalize them. We can also explore the relationship between art and culture and consider if we need safeguards or limitations that stop short of "bans." We do this already, so it's a little disingenous to suppose we can't talk about it without sliding down the slippery slope of totalitarian censorship.

2. Direct harm. And I'm getting this from my apparent past misunderstanding of what the law already provided. This is not perceived harm to the recipients of objectionable material, but to the participants. Although people talk about child pornography laws as though they were based on moral objections to the content, the real, unassailable basis is that the making of such imagery harms the subjects.

I see a clear issue with real sex acts -- as opposed to simple dramatizations -- which would be a crime but for some invisible assurances, such as the "actor" being of age, or the "rape victim" having given consent. I see a profound risk in permitting an industry in which there is a well-known demand for "real" imagery of human abuse and suffering to simply say they had permission or checked an ID.

More, though, I'm seeing a much broader interpretation of what people can "consent" to in this context than liberals generally recognize. What ABOUT exploitation? We don't think workers can "consent" to unlimited working hours or below minimum wage pay, or dangerous working conditions.

We recognize that power dynamics render theoretical consent, even of adults, meaningless in some circumstances. But for some reason, there's no problem with a fundamentalist free market view of the sex industries?

We wouldn't let an employer hire someone to work construction without a hardhat, or handle toner cartridges with their bare hands, so why must we let the free market work out whether someone consents to what would otherwise be brutal sexual assault?

I see a big disconnect there. How far does the "consenting adults" notion go? Can be people agree to be genuinely beaten, scarred, or dismembered on film?

I think some are confusing the ideas of what "consenting adults" do with each other privately out of desire, and what we allow employers to pay people to do. I also think there is an underlying tradition -- perhaps not consciously recognized by all -- that women in particular can be paid to be degraded sexually with "no harm, no foul."

[LanternWaste]

177. It protects your screeching and hysterical temper tantrums too.

"I said the 1st Amendment protects the right of Nazis to march. Which it does..."

It protects your screeching and hysterical temper tantrums too. Which is does.

[LanternWaste]

183. No need to imagine hysteria when one see it.

"Imagine how loud I would be if I..."

No need to imagine cackling, screeching, irrational hysteria when one see it.

[Tumbulu]

195. Thank you so much

You articulated so beautifully what I have observed and it has been painful to watch.

Thank you.

[chervilant]

205. Most excellent post!

Beyond bans and physical threats to women, why would we not be open to a sociological discussion of the the rancid porn culture that revels in depictions of women as the willing objects of abuse?

We can't have that conversation AT ALL because derp derp Free Speech and all criticism equals a secret agenda to ban everythng?

A small, and persistent, group of men on this forum (and occasionally two or three women--if they're being honest) seem unable (unwilling?) to admit that most porn objectifies and exploits women (and children). Their intensely defensive, often sanctimonious, screeds defending porn (and accusing feminists of being "prudes" who are trying to legislate what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms) are sadly illustrative of the continuing damages wrought by patriarchy.

[DirkGently]

211. I think that's what I'm reacting to.

I see broader protections for expression than a lot of liberals, but in other contested areas -- hate speech for example -- we still seem to be able to discuss it without devolving into people accusing others of being mindless prudes bent on censorship or what have you.

But this particular discussion appears to be handicapped by exactly what you are saying -- a subterranean battle between perceived feminists and a small core that is really just hostile to any talk about female objectification or entrenched gender-based power structure (patriarchy, et al).

And then we have otherwise well-meaning defenders of civil liberties who I think are just skimming and assuming it's all about people wanting to impose traditional moral or aesthetic objections on others -- not seeing, or not willing to see there's a lot more meat on the theoretical bone than whether people don't like "naked pictures."

I'm going to slip away here at some point -- others have a deeper grasp of what's at stake -- but I wish we could all take a step back, and that those with an entrenched opposition to the whole concept would take a breath and allow for the possibility of some debate with more detail and sensitivity than the overworn issue of whether we're going to "ban" broad ranges of imagery or "entertainment."

Let's talk about harm. Let's talk about toxic culture and the feedback loop between disturbed mindsets and industries built to feed the worst of human impulses. Let's talk about exploitation. We can acknowledge we ALL value civil liberty and still realize that's not the end of discussion.

[LittleBlue]

167. Well said. Anyone who says "freedumz" to mock political rights is a spoiled brat

who has never had to live in an undemocratic society.

They don't seem to appreciate that millions have died for this precious right. Would they mock the freedom of expression in front of a Tibetan? I bet not.

Any restriction of that freedom has to be imperative for the preservation of a safe society, and even then we often sacrifice safety for freedom. It is most certainly not to spare blushes over porn.

[Egalitarian Thug]

224. I don't take anyone that calls quotation marks "scare quotes" at all seriously.

It's just another step toward the total collapse of communication because words no longer have any meaning beyond whatever each individual assigns to them, "irregardless" of what the word or phrase actually means (or if it is a word at all).

It wasn't too long ago that ignorance was a shameful condition to be reduced or eliminated with all possible speed. Now, it's become a fashion accessory that must be acknowledged and catered to, in order to avoid making the idiot feel like an idiot.

Any society where anyone with a wide vocabulary is in jeopardy every time she speaks because any ignorant fool can "misunderstand" what was said, cannot continue for long. We've seen people's careers ruined for nothing more than properly using an uncommon word to convey a specific meaning in front of the wrong ignoramus.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

150. Not a fan of your writing style

[gollygee]

165. How many people here at DU have said they want to ban porn?

I have said, as have some others, that we have concerns about some porn and it's impact on society, but I said, and I seem to recall others say, that we don't think it's right to ban porn. Because of the First Amendment.

Do you think that we are violating your First Amendment rights by discussing porn, even if we don't want to ban it?

[DirkGently]

171. Right. It's the gun lobby response all over again.

What's with that? Anyone pointing out that maaaaybe we have a problem with too many guns, or too many bullets, or too many shootings, is immediately swarmed as a gun grabber and smothered.

Come on, DU. That is not what civil liberties mean. It's just lazy.

YES, people can make objectionable art. YES, progressives reject untethered moral objections to things.

BUT, there is more going on here than grandmothers offended by dirty pictures.

We're not smart enough to comprehend that maybe we need to address, or at least discuss, why there is an industry built around making imagery indistinguishable from film of women being raped?

This isn't political speech. It's not even hate speech. It's physical harm.

We should be able to discuss it at a higher level than whether the general concept of pornography is legally viable as a whole or not.

[Tumbulu]

193. Exactly the same- good point

And the way this argument has gone on on DU for so long is so very disheartening.

[quinnox]

168. K&R, completely agree! It is the one thing Americans can still take pride in

I'm a huge fan of this principle, and have even been accused of bringing it up too often to defend various things in the past here at Du - "Damn, bringing up freedom of speech, again??" - Yup, I love to bring it up often. I bring it up so much precisely because of things like what the OP says.

And yes, there are authoritarian stooges who try and pick at it with trivial arguments, always missing the forest for the trees, but that is par for the course.

[LanternWaste]

178. We can't take pride in the thirteenth amendment?

"It is the one thing Americans can still take pride in.."

We can't take pride in the thirteenth amendment? Which "authoritarian stooge" told you that?

[Warren DeMontague]

186. It's #1 for a reason.

Thomas Jefferson, with his Nostradamus-like foresight, knew it would piss off generations of control freaks and bible-thumpers.

[Harmony Blue]

188. Jefferson was a visiconary

and way ahead of his time.

[cthulu2016]

212. I'm not sure that being *proud* of the the 13th Amendment makes sense

Pleased? Relieved? Yes. But it is hard to be proud, as a nation, of being the last nation in the euro-cultural world (except Brazil) to abolish chattel slavery.

To me, Pride is more for singular accomplishments that say something distinctive and good about ones self. The idea behind the 13th Amendment was, by the mid-1800s, bare-minimum expected behavior, obvious to everyone in the world but us.

[freshwest]

194. The first amendment means little without ecoomic/social freedom. Only the powerful get a voice then.

The powerless and unpopular are allowed to speak, but not change the conditions of their lives in any meaningful way.

The first is being used to deny others their right to live as they should be allowed, in favor of the religion of the powerful being protected.

The idea of Equality is the only value that America has had and is working to perfect.

Venting is not power.

[Tumbulu]

196. Well said

Thank you.

[Tumbulu]

197. And so exercising my so precious right

to speak I hereby notify all those on DU that normalizing rape, glorifying violence against women, repeating idiotic ideas that anyone enjoys being beat up (but mostly of course these pesky females!) is downright horrible. I sincerely hope that you can get the help that you need.

But know that it is you that needs to get help and a lot of it. Please seek it soon; hoping that the affordable health act can make a difference here.

It is unbelievable to me that so called liberals can proclaim these outrageous things and then try to hide behind amendments.
.

[cthulu2016]

213. Your theory that women are incapable of consent is horrible

If someone consents to something you wouldn't consent to you can dismiss her consent as false because you were put on Earth to tell other women what they *really* think?

Your infantalizing of women as non-autonomous entities that need to run all their decisions by you first is more than disturbing.

[Tumbulu]

238. ? Well what a novel idea, worker safety and human dignity

oh but I forgot- the right to be beat up for someone else's pleasure.

Sorry, my first amendment right is to say that this sort of discussion is delusional and that anyone making it needs medical help.

[sibelian]

228. "repeating idiotic ideas that anyone enjoys being beat up"

You are simply ignorant. Plain IGNORANT.

Your understanding of human sexuality is roughly equivalent to that of a gnat's understanding of the moon.

I've been involved in sadomasochism for years, with men and women, the bulk of my understanding of how to do BDSM safely, with clean negotiation and respect for both partners was from WOMEN.

Go and look up the term SAFEWORD.

[Tumbulu]

237. Oh good grief

name calling now, same old tactic.

It is criminal to beat someone up.

Let alone film it and make money on that film.

[alcibiades_mystery]

208. All true, but with the consequence excluded

The historical consequence of the great contribution of unfettered speech is simple: it doesn't matter what you say anymore. What makes power today different from the old power - which sought to silence dissent (or speech is disagreed with) - is that it power has discovered ways to let speech flow while maintaining itself. Now, anyone can say anything. There is unfettered speech, but no more "dangerous" nor subversive speech. The free speech people have still yet to realize this: they hold a romantic version of "speaking truth to power" as if that does something. Speech was the last great colonization of contemporary power. Where once you had to "watch what you say," now you can, well, say anything.




It doesn't matter a whit. There is no more subversive speech, despite the pretensions of the free speechers. They've been circumnavigated - victims of their own success.

Of course, it couldn't have been any other way. But this is the world we live in today: not a world in which power seeks to limit your speech, but in which power simply allows you to say anything - the more the merrier in fact. All of which makes the "righteous rant" in favor of free speech a kind of silly and obsolete operation. The forces you're fighting against have long ago outflanked and bypassed you.

Wait, wait. Let me guess. I "don't get it." Right.

[Prism]

223. It's not a speech issue

It's an education issue.

The ignorance of human sexuality in the porn threads is boggling, and the ignorant are proud of it. They think that ignorance grants moral superiority. They brag about how little they know.

There's a saying, I'm paraphrasing. "Give me a man who had read a thousand books, and you give me an interesting companion. Give me a man who has read three, and you furnish me with a dangerous adversary."

People unfamiliar with the human spectrum of sexuality are attacking and attempting to "educate" people who are far more familiar and far more experienced with the topics at hand. Does it slow them down? No, it emboldens them. They think anyone possessing of sexual knowledge is scum.

Speech is good, but I have more trouble with the sheer sexual ignorance. It's 2013.

[sibelian]

226. Yes, the fear of the full extent of the human erotic imagination's spectrum is frightening.

Fantasy=reality. I'm finding the responses of some people on these threads truly disturbing, their minds appear to attribute a weird kind of "moral value" to things based solely on how they FEEL about them. It's the mentality of the fricken Dark Ages.

Frankly, I fear for the innocent. If people can't tell the difference between make believe and reality, we're lost.

[Tumbulu]

239. You honestly believe that those acting

are not hurt when they are slapped, beaten, raped, punched, kicked, choked, etc?

The issue is not what you like to watch, but how the actors are treated. And if this is ever a way to treat someone employed. And why would you pay money to support such treatment of a worker?

At least this is my main issue.

I also am stunned that people think it is OK somehow because someone is payed to do it. Ignoring all the data on sex trafficking and assuming that these actors all find this sort of treatment all so sexy and fulfilling.

I am sorry, if I hired someone to injure themselves on purpose workman's comp would be all over me, I would be facing criminal charges, in some states.

Why are the workers in the porn world afforded no such protections.

Why because some people think that cruelty and violence are exiting are we supposed to allow workers to be hurt and injured? You cannot see how someone looking in would consider this outrageously selfish?

It is not a matter of thinking your own actions within your own relationship are wrong. It is the paying of someone to be hurt on purpose that I object to vehemently. And all the name calling will not change this.

[Warren DeMontague]

232. Honestly, I think some of it has to do with DU's peculiar demographics.

I think DU tends to skew... what's the word? Okay, fine: older than certain other corners of the internet.

As such, I think certain traits, like abject horror at the rapidly shifting and changing technological world around us, tend to turn up more frequently.

Just a theory, as they say.

[Poll_Blind]

227. Hundredth rec, checking in! +1

PB

[Warren DeMontague]

244. I wish I had 10 dollars for every time someone argued against consenting adult behavior using

non-consent and/or non-adults.

Here's a clue, logic 101: If it's not consenting adults, it's not consenting adults.


Also, you might want to close your tag. Your name is Green!