I have a bad tendency to want rematches for fights I've had, and I'm restraining myself now from posting this to my fanfic journal and bringing up the Why You Shouldn't Write In This Genre I Have Come Up With A Moral Justification For Disliking battles that so often recur in media fandom.
Now moral suasion is not law, and I think people ethically have the right to write long essays about why writing, say, hobbit/Man slash (commonly known as 'interspecies') necessarily leads to real-world pedophilia; my ethical response is to ignore them or to disagree with them, and this essay reminds me of one of my primary reasons for disagreeing (besides a lack of proof for such equations as "writing interspecies indicates pedophiliac tendencies" let alone "writing interspecies causes pedophiliac tendencies"). No matter what genres I may hate, someone else hates mine; if we start running people out of fandom for writing X or Y genre, soon who will be able to write anything at all? Even G-rated gen has its passionate detractors. What's immoral or unethical is not neccesarily what's illegal, so something can be legal but immoral, but in this case I think the argument applies both legally and socially.
That's not actually the first thing I thought of when I read this essay, though.
As a big ol' First Amendment absolutist, I've always thought that the whole "icky speech must be protected, too" thing isn't just a side effect of freedom of expression, it's central to the concept.
Yeah, some speech is downright awful, and deserves to be ignored. But that doesn't mean the government has any business preventing people from saying (or writing) it. For one thing, I want to know when people believe awful, appalling things so I can do my best to provide counter-examples. Suppressing speech doesn't kill bad ideas, it just drives them underground to fester and spread. Cultural infections, like physical ones, die off when exposed to light.
Yes, this means I tend to side with the small-l libertarians on the question of "hate speech" (as opposed to hateful actions, which I'm all for suppressing). It's not always a comfortable position to be in, but I don't demand that my own ethics make me comfortable.
On this, as you doubtless can guess, we agree completely. Speech which offends us, mildly or profoundly, need not be respected but must be tolerated. Anything less, and we are on the side of the censors.
And that's no place for this very radical, small-l libertarian. :-)
My first thought was "WOW! I didn't know Neil Gaiman had written something based on Judges 19! (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=judges%2019;&version=31;)"
When I was 12 or so I read the entire Bible in my parochial school's Religion Class. I read fast, so while others were studying I read on ahead.
Being 12 and pubertal I really enjoyed Song of Solomon. I was scandalized by Judges, not least the Benjaminite version of the Rape of the Sabine Women and the story in Judges 19. I realized that that Biblical people lived in a different milieu, with very different philosophies, so adopting the Bible as a literal textbook for how we should live nowadays (something I was hearing in church and in religion class) could be a bit problematic. (Although, considering how victims of sexual violence are sometimes still treated here, let alone elsewhere... but I digress.)
speaking of both religion and freedom of speech, i find the current state of things in the washington state house kind of pleasing. the guy who sued to put a nativity scene there (there had been an allegedly nondenominational xmas tree, then one year also a menorah, so he sued to get a nativity there as well) is, in fact, totally in favor of the atheists who put a secular holiday greeting in the lobby there as well.
I don't see that "Religion is just myth" is a holiday greeting. I see it as an inflammatory and provocative statement designed to antagonise. But then, I am neither particularly religious nor particularly secular, and I can see where a Christian might derive some satisfaction from forgiving people for trying to pick a fight, so I guess it's okay.
ah, i just realized i didn't post the link with a picture of the placard. The top is a holiday solstice wish, and below that is a statement of their faith, which includes the quoted phrase but is not limited to it.
i am delighted, however, to see the guy who sued for the nativity agreeing that the state building should be open to other faiths besides his own.
My thanks to you (and thnidu) for this link. Aside from its theoretical points, I really got a kick out of the very pragmatic "if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." The Holocaust and freedom of (pornographic) speech - an odd juxtaposition in some ways.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fanfic battles
Now moral suasion is not law, and I think people ethically have the right to write long essays about why writing, say, hobbit/Man slash (commonly known as 'interspecies') necessarily leads to real-world pedophilia; my ethical response is to ignore them or to disagree with them, and this essay reminds me of one of my primary reasons for disagreeing (besides a lack of proof for such equations as "writing interspecies indicates pedophiliac tendencies" let alone "writing interspecies causes pedophiliac tendencies"). No matter what genres I may hate, someone else hates mine; if we start running people out of fandom for writing X or Y genre, soon who will be able to write anything at all? Even G-rated gen has its passionate detractors. What's immoral or unethical is not neccesarily what's illegal, so something can be legal but immoral, but in this case I think the argument applies both legally and socially.
That's not actually the first thing I thought of when I read this essay, though.
Re: Fanfic battles
Yeah, some speech is downright awful, and deserves to be ignored. But that doesn't mean the government has any business preventing people from saying (or writing) it. For one thing, I want to know when people believe awful, appalling things so I can do my best to provide counter-examples. Suppressing speech doesn't kill bad ideas, it just drives them underground to fester and spread. Cultural infections, like physical ones, die off when exposed to light.
Yes, this means I tend to side with the small-l libertarians on the question of "hate speech" (as opposed to hateful actions, which I'm all for suppressing). It's not always a comfortable position to be in, but I don't demand that my own ethics make me comfortable.
Re: Fanfic battles
Re: Fanfic battles
Re: Fanfic battles
And that's no place for this very radical, small-l libertarian.
:-)
My First Thought
When I was 12 or so I read the entire Bible in my parochial school's Religion Class. I read fast, so while others were studying I read on ahead.
Being 12 and pubertal I really enjoyed Song of Solomon. I was scandalized by Judges, not least the Benjaminite version of the Rape of the Sabine Women and the story in Judges 19. I realized that that Biblical people lived in a different milieu, with very different philosophies, so adopting the Bible as a literal textbook for how we should live nowadays (something I was hearing in church and in religion class) could be a bit problematic. (Although, considering how victims of sexual violence are sometimes still treated here, let alone elsewhere... but I digress.)
Now I really want to read Neil Gaiman's version.
no subject
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008457064_apwaatheistdisplay1stldwritethru.html
i love examples of "let's just get along and agree to disagree" actually working.
no subject
no subject
i am delighted, however, to see the guy who sued for the nativity agreeing that the state building should be open to other faiths besides his own.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Ann O.