Why defend freedom of icky speech?(journal.neilgaiman.com)
journal.neilgaiman.com
Why defend freedom of icky speech?
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
3 コメント
I don't really view banning things because they "could lead to more undesirable behavior X according to this study". I'm getting sick of the lack of personal responsibility that is democracy bleeding into every aspect of life. The Bill of Rights is there to PROTECT us from such mob rule knee-jerk reactions. I don't know what they teach in civics class but our society is not as rock solid stable. It is a precarious balance between the will of the majority and the rights of the individual.
I love Gaiman, and have ever since my first reading of "Sandman", and it's a beautifully written diatribe on the importance of the first amendment, but I've always viewed the issue as more of an encroachment issue first and foremost, and less to do with distrust of the law, though I suppose they're intimately related.
I just always feel like any block of censorship pushes the bar inward upon us. And while it's of course natural for people to not want to see the things that disgust them, what censorship does to our rights on the whole is far more disgusting to me.
It's intriguing to see the sorts of things that were once banned, or considered 'way too inappropriate' for human consumption... and how some of them have transformed into required reading for education.
I just always feel like any block of censorship pushes the bar inward upon us. And while it's of course natural for people to not want to see the things that disgust them, what censorship does to our rights on the whole is far more disgusting to me.
It's intriguing to see the sorts of things that were once banned, or considered 'way too inappropriate' for human consumption... and how some of them have transformed into required reading for education.
Indeed. If there exists some speech that is unprotected, you can always argue that the fringes are also unprotected. Using this inductive reasoning, you can cover the rest of speech.
Unless, of course, the citizenry fights back. The public needs to understand that in the terms of free speech, the government and corporations is not its friend, but its foe.
Unless, of course, the citizenry fights back. The public needs to understand that in the terms of free speech, the government and corporations is not its friend, but its foe.