This is one of those areas that I sometimes struggle with intellectually. I am a huge believer in freedom of speech. I take a stance that is absurdly liberal and think plenty of things should be on TV that are disallowed, that government should (by and large) stay out of speech, art, and anything related. That being said, I cannot separate out my disgust of sex acts involving children and the people who want read/see them.
To address a specific point made in the article. There are definitely studies that indicate that experiencing art depicting violence engenders violent thoughts in people. There are also studies showing the opposite. To the extent that I've looked at the topic I've seen more results indicating that what you read/see/hear will affect you rather than not. (One specific study that comes to mind is a study of "aggressive associates" in neutral words. A person experiences a video clip of something violent -and yes, there's a control group that sees something tame - and are then asked to define words. The words are neutral. The scientist says "Mug" and the subject either says "threatening someone for their wallet" or "Where I put my coffee.")
Even as I bring up this point, I know that I can be logically defeated. Despite these studies, I do not believe that violence should be censored from movies. I still support freedom of speech in the face that it can be "harmful" to a person's mind. But I just can't defend a person's right to publish explicit acts of sex with a child.
When it comes down to it, most of us have to draw a line somewhere. Do you agree that people should not be allowed to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Do you agree that a person who uses racial slurs during a violent crime should be charged with an aggravated version of that crime? (A person who uses racial slurs during a violent crime is charged with a “Hate Crime” which carries a harsher sentence.) These ARE issues of freedom of speech, but there are pragmatic or moral reasons why restrictions on speech have been put in place.
I, myself, cannot fathom a reason why it should be legal to yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater. And yet, it is a person speaking and could be asserted as part of an artistic endeavor. Whether or not depictions of child sex acts can harm someone is still debatable and certainly less direct. However, it is a point on which I prefer the more conservative view (something I never thought I’d say).
I understand that there is reason to look at my views of depictions of child sex acts and call me a hypocrite. However, if you want to avoid being a hypocrite you must also defend a person's right to say anything, anytime, including yelling fire.
In short my argument is this: All people, included myself, are hypocrites to some extent on some topics. I have no problem with my dual stance of defending freedom of speech and believing that such depictions should be illegal.
IMMA PUT ON MY DEBATE HAT!nemoidFebruary 15 2010, 04:25:36 UTC
IMO the main reason that child porn should be illegal is for the protection of children. If nobody is being victimized, I don't think it should be a crime. Yeah there's some twisted stuff out there, but from what I read this guy was a harmless otaku who amassed thousands of manga books, only a small portion of which being lolicon. There was no evidence that he had viewed any real child porn. He wasn't a child's sports coach or an elementary school teacher or something else to give him "SuperSkeevey Points" - just a bloke with odd tastes.
I have recently read about "moral pedophiles" who are very aware that their urges are wrong and don't act on them, but have them nonetheless. Such a person is not a criminal. They would probably be able to find help through psychological work or "chemical castration", something which sounds much worse than it is. (fun fact: one of Timothy Leary's early LSD experiments was successfully converting a gay man who wanted to be hetro, hetro.) BUT in my view, people are allowed to fantasize about whatever they want. Because even though not everyone fantasizes about the gross stuff this guy did, I think everyone AT LEAST fantasizes about things that could get them considered "a pretty big jerk" should they become known. As a culture, being institutionally forced to hide our fantasies doesn't do us good IMO.
It may be difficult to find value within the works, but in my opinion all human creation has potential value simply by providing a window into the mind of the creator. Gaiman referenced Marquis de Sade, a man whose work was long thought of as being obscene without even the slightest hint of merit. It still elicits reactions from readers BUT his work has since gained considerable cultural significance. (I have not yet undertaken the reading of 120 Days of Sodom but AFAIK it is pretty much JUST a list of the most obscene things people can do.)
Under the current interpretation of the first amendment, speech is limited by things which create a "clear and present danger." Hence, shouting "'fire' in a crowded theater to incite a panic." Similarly, the reasons why you are not allowed to threaten someone's life, commit slander, etc. are understandable. Hate crimes having a harsher sentence than normal crimes makes sense since the "hate crime" concept was created in order to create an institutional preventative measure against various horribleness (ie genocide, cultural terrorism). Lolicon is illegal because... it's icky? I see no way it can be considered truly harmful.
Lines have to be drawn. But everyone has to draw it for themselves. Some of my favorite books (Ulysses, Naked Lunch) have been considered obscene. And I have movies in my DVD collection that can turn even liberal stomachs (Pink Flamingos, Salo). I do have lines drawn - I don't want to see cartoon porn of kids getting raped by farm animals. But if this guy does, let him - it's not harming anyone. (Real porn of kids getting raped by farm animals is obviously another story.)
Re: IMMA PUT ON MY DEBATE HAT!efrafan_refugeeFebruary 15 2010, 05:39:40 UTC
A couple of responses to this.
I was referring the the depiction of child sexual acts in general. Not the specifics of this guy. I don't know enough about the situation to judge exactly what happened there. I'm surprised at last part of your first paragraph. It sounds like you are saying you might reconsider this if the person had a professional connection with children.
There are plenty of people out there who have urges they know to be wrong. They do not act on them. I am not saying that these people are criminals. I am not suggesting that hiding one's fantasies is the best route to psychological well-being. I am saying that commercializing and distributing depictions of children having sex reduces the stigma associated with such acts and decreases a person inhibitions towards such acts.
You bring up the wording of the constitution. It is a malleable document that can be changed. I do not think we should use it's wording as justification in and of itself. Saying that you can accept limits to freedom of speech because something presents a "clear and present danger" is accepting a limitation on freedom of speech. It doesn't make sense to me to say that the limitation already in the constitution is obvious and good but anything else is beyond consideration. Moreover, the clear and present danger is a subjective estimation. Our courts have guidelines they follow as to what they consider to fulfill this criterion in other instances of its use (self-defense) but it is still a subjective estimation on behalf of the judiciary. It was my understanding of the original entry that the position taken was "laws should be concrete, never subjective."
You also touch upon a point that is the truth behind this entire argument. You mention the reason for the existence of Hate Crimes. This exists because we, as a society, have decided to give out harsher punishments based on the motivation of a crime. We can never really know why other people do what they choose to do unless they tell us. This is the exact problem with censorship. What separates Ulysses from Lolicon is the intention behind them. Unfortunately, there isn't a good way of defining this in legal terms. I have no problem with I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.<\U> (Maya Angelou's autobiography which contains a short but horrifying account of her own rape at a young age.) I do have a problem with depictions made to cater to deviant sexual desires. I believe that the way the laws currently stand adequately expresses this difference.
Re: IMMA PUT ON MY DEBATE HAT!nemoidFebruary 15 2010, 06:21:09 UTC
I wouldn't reconsider if they guy "had a professional connection with children." I'm simply illustrating that this guy does not seem to be a sexual predator or anything, which he is basically going to jail for being.
And if someone can read these depictions WITHOUT any obvious weakening of inhibitions, as this man seems to have illustrated as possible, I see no legal concern. And as Neil Gaiman also pointed out, there is evidence that the proliferation of porn has lead to a DECREASED rate of rape in the country. In Canada, social scientists recently discovered that all men have looked at porn. But we are living in an era of historically extreme female empowerment. Basically AFAIK, there is no evidence that pornography leads to increased criminal activity. A study on the effects of lolicon on peoples has not been done AFAIK (it would be morally forbidden within this country) but to me it sounds analogous to claims about violent video games. Supposedly, playing FPS games leads to a "desensitization" and "weakened inhibitions" inspiring such gamers to shoot up schools. Well I've played Doom, Wolfenstein, Duke Nukem 3D, et al. and I consider myself PRETTY DANG NONVIOLENT! I have no desire in ever owning a gun or taking a human life. I've had existential crises from killing insects or accidentally hitting deer. This is a little different but I don't think media consumption necessarily dictates actions. And actions are what constitutes a crime.
Also the concept of "clear and present danger" comes from Schenck v. United States, not the Constitution itself. A case I personally disagree with the conclusion to - he was a socialist sentenced to six months prison for distributing leaflets encouraging men to resist the draft, upon release he killed himself. Although admittedly, it is generally unconnected to obscenity; major rulings in that area came later.
The thing about hate crimes is not really analogous to this though. In a hate crime, a crime is still being committed. Because someone writing "HEIL HITLER, DEATH TO JEWS" on a Synagogue is doing much more harm to a community than someone writing "HAVE A NICE DAY." The crime goes beyond vandalism, to the realm of terrorism. If a white supremacist group lynches a black person, it sends shockwaves through the black community moreso than a "typical" murder. More harm done to society = greater legal punishment. This makes sense.
But drawing/publishing/reading/selling/buying comics are all NON-CRIMINAL activities. It does not harm society in any way I can tell.
OKAY I am up WAY TOO LATE and need to get to bed. BUT FREE EXPRESSION IS MY BFF!
Re: IMMA PUT ON MY DEBATE HAT!efrafan_refugeeFebruary 15 2010, 07:54:37 UTC
There is no study that directly links viewing art and illegal action. In point of fact, there never can be. It would never pass by a review board. Imagine trying to persuade an IRB that you wanted to try and engender violent action in a person. We must rely on inferential data (studies of correlation, related topics, etc). Studies that attempt to link the watching of pornography with a reduction in rape are also inherently unreliable. Such studies have all been survey and have significant confounding variables. They are based on surveys where (completely made up statistics coming) 1 in 100 guys admit to watching porn in 1980 and 1 in 60 guys admit to watching porn in 2005. Crime statistics released by the FBI say there were 1,000 rapes in 1980 and 500 rapes in 2005. (Now ends the fake statistics). These studies then say, "we find support that porn reduces rape." The truth of the matter is a lot of stuff happened in that time frame. Attributing the reduction in rape to an increase in porn viewing is not unassailable science.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, neither side will be vindicated by science. There is no ethical way to do it.
I think I am not being clear as to why I brought up the hate crime or yelling fire thing. It is not for a direct metaphor. Let me try and rephrase.
Freedom of speech exists with certain reasonable limitations. Not being able to yell fire is censorship. It is censorship we can all get behind and understand the reasoning for, but it is censorship nonetheless. My intention in bringing this up is to dislodge the argument that freedom of speech is untouchable. As long as you accept the existence of these exceptions then the argument must be framed in terms of what limitations are acceptable and what limitations are too much.
I am also up way too late. I do not see going to sleep in the near future though. Boo.
Re: IMMA PUT ON MY DEBATE HAT!nemoidFebruary 15 2010, 09:40:02 UTC
I agree the porn/rape correlation is not solid evidence. But you claim the opposite to be true; that viewing "obscene" materials inspires harmful behavior. There's no evidence for this. Such studies HAVE been done with violent media, the tests being considered ethical due to the fact that folks consume it anyway. But AFAIK they show no direct link between media consumption and behavior.
While certain forms of censorship do exist, I can tolerate a law designed to potentially [i]directly[/i] protect someone. This law does nothing but create more victims of the legal system. In my book, that makes it unjust. Is it "too much?" Well it might be "too much" for you or I, but I try not to make value judgments on the media consumed by others. It's impossible to stay judgment-free obviously, but at least I can try to recognize alternate forms of media as being worthy of existence. To quote the hackneyed but relevant axiom, "one man's trash is another man's treasure."
To say that a certain media is both harmful and ENTIRELY without value is a pretty serious claim. To say that it is then the government's duty is to actively enforce the prevention of this material from reaching the public is similarly serious claim.
My reasoning is that everything should be legal unless there is a good reason for otherwise. I also trust individuals to live their own lives properly, when left up to their own devices. "The government is not your mommy" and I don't think it should be the role of law to monitor what people read. "Obscenity law" is an outdated concept from earlier times, I think we've culturally evolved beyond the need for such restrictions. Once you claim otherwise, it's a long, slippery-slope back to six-hundred years ago when owning a Bible that wasn't in Latin was punishable by death.
(Hey welcome to CLUB INSOMNIA! It is almost 4:30 and I am now WIDE AWAKE.)
Re: IMMA PUT ON MY DEBATE HAT!efrafan_refugeeFebruary 15 2010, 17:16:03 UTC
In my original post I pointed towards a study that indicated that watching violent content affected how and how much you thought about violence. This is as far as any study can carry the experiment. Some have tried to run studies creating a causal link between media consumption and violent behavior; I am not aware of any study that was able to finish their experiment. I brought up this point originally because Neil Gaiman puts forward the idea that pornography creates an outlet for fantasy and prevents the need for a real world outlet. I was pointing out that from the studies I've read the opposite appears to be true. Again, just like the study he was referencing, this is not a direct causal study as no one has found a way to ethically do that.
BUT... we've now reached the point in the argument that I referenced before:
"Even as I bring up this point, I know that I can be logically defeated."
My personal belief is that the government really shouldn't be censoring anything. I hate the idea of the government telling us what we can and can't see. I would make the serious claim that this particular medium is both harmful and entirely without value. I don't know that I can truly side with government taking responsibility for monitoring it.
The last paragraph you lay out is where my personal philosophy of anticensorship meets the murky waters of reality. I like to hold to the belief that if everything is legal that not everything will be made. Just because a corporation can produce and distribute something doesn't mean they will. Unfortunately, I've been proven wrong again and again on this point. Cigarettes are still produced (not advocated they should be illegal by the way) despite only being little tubes of poison. Corporations have this ability to ignore the morals and ethics of their industry and say, "Well, there's an audience so I'll make it." In the end, I don't think it should be illegal, I just wish people were better human beings.
To address a specific point made in the article. There are definitely studies that indicate that experiencing art depicting violence engenders violent thoughts in people. There are also studies showing the opposite. To the extent that I've looked at the topic I've seen more results indicating that what you read/see/hear will affect you rather than not. (One specific study that comes to mind is a study of "aggressive associates" in neutral words. A person experiences a video clip of something violent -and yes, there's a control group that sees something tame - and are then asked to define words. The words are neutral. The scientist says "Mug" and the subject either says "threatening someone for their wallet" or "Where I put my coffee.")
Even as I bring up this point, I know that I can be logically defeated. Despite these studies, I do not believe that violence should be censored from movies. I still support freedom of speech in the face that it can be "harmful" to a person's mind. But I just can't defend a person's right to publish explicit acts of sex with a child.
When it comes down to it, most of us have to draw a line somewhere. Do you agree that people should not be allowed to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Do you agree that a person who uses racial slurs during a violent crime should be charged with an aggravated version of that crime? (A person who uses racial slurs during a violent crime is charged with a “Hate Crime” which carries a harsher sentence.) These ARE issues of freedom of speech, but there are pragmatic or moral reasons why restrictions on speech have been put in place.
I, myself, cannot fathom a reason why it should be legal to yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater. And yet, it is a person speaking and could be asserted as part of an artistic endeavor. Whether or not depictions of child sex acts can harm someone is still debatable and certainly less direct. However, it is a point on which I prefer the more conservative view (something I never thought I’d say).
I understand that there is reason to look at my views of depictions of child sex acts and call me a hypocrite. However, if you want to avoid being a hypocrite you must also defend a person's right to say anything, anytime, including yelling fire.
In short my argument is this: All people, included myself, are hypocrites to some extent on some topics. I have no problem with my dual stance of defending freedom of speech and believing that such depictions should be illegal.
Reply
I have recently read about "moral pedophiles" who are very aware that their urges are wrong and don't act on them, but have them nonetheless. Such a person is not a criminal. They would probably be able to find help through psychological work or "chemical castration", something which sounds much worse than it is. (fun fact: one of Timothy Leary's early LSD experiments was successfully converting a gay man who wanted to be hetro, hetro.) BUT in my view, people are allowed to fantasize about whatever they want. Because even though not everyone fantasizes about the gross stuff this guy did, I think everyone AT LEAST fantasizes about things that could get them considered "a pretty big jerk" should they become known.
As a culture, being institutionally forced to hide our fantasies doesn't do us good IMO.
It may be difficult to find value within the works, but in my opinion all human creation has potential value simply by providing a window into the mind of the creator. Gaiman referenced Marquis de Sade, a man whose work was long thought of as being obscene without even the slightest hint of merit. It still elicits reactions from readers BUT his work has since gained considerable cultural significance. (I have not yet undertaken the reading of 120 Days of Sodom but AFAIK it is pretty much JUST a list of the most obscene things people can do.)
Under the current interpretation of the first amendment, speech is limited by things which create a "clear and present danger." Hence, shouting "'fire' in a crowded theater to incite a panic." Similarly, the reasons why you are not allowed to threaten someone's life, commit slander, etc. are understandable.
Hate crimes having a harsher sentence than normal crimes makes sense since the "hate crime" concept was created in order to create an institutional preventative measure against various horribleness (ie genocide, cultural terrorism).
Lolicon is illegal because... it's icky? I see no way it can be considered truly harmful.
Lines have to be drawn. But everyone has to draw it for themselves. Some of my favorite books (Ulysses, Naked Lunch) have been considered obscene. And I have movies in my DVD collection that can turn even liberal stomachs (Pink Flamingos, Salo).
I do have lines drawn - I don't want to see cartoon porn of kids getting raped by farm animals. But if this guy does, let him - it's not harming anyone. (Real porn of kids getting raped by farm animals is obviously another story.)
WOOOOO LONG COMMENT.
Reply
I was referring the the depiction of child sexual acts in general. Not the specifics of this guy. I don't know enough about the situation to judge exactly what happened there. I'm surprised at last part of your first paragraph. It sounds like you are saying you might reconsider this if the person had a professional connection with children.
There are plenty of people out there who have urges they know to be wrong. They do not act on them. I am not saying that these people are criminals. I am not suggesting that hiding one's fantasies is the best route to psychological well-being. I am saying that commercializing and distributing depictions of children having sex reduces the stigma associated with such acts and decreases a person inhibitions towards such acts.
You bring up the wording of the constitution. It is a malleable document that can be changed. I do not think we should use it's wording as justification in and of itself. Saying that you can accept limits to freedom of speech because something presents a "clear and present danger" is accepting a limitation on freedom of speech. It doesn't make sense to me to say that the limitation already in the constitution is obvious and good but anything else is beyond consideration. Moreover, the clear and present danger is a subjective estimation. Our courts have guidelines they follow as to what they consider to fulfill this criterion in other instances of its use (self-defense) but it is still a subjective estimation on behalf of the judiciary. It was my understanding of the original entry that the position taken was "laws should be concrete, never subjective."
You also touch upon a point that is the truth behind this entire argument. You mention the reason for the existence of Hate Crimes. This exists because we, as a society, have decided to give out harsher punishments based on the motivation of a crime. We can never really know why other people do what they choose to do unless they tell us. This is the exact problem with censorship. What separates Ulysses from Lolicon is the intention behind them. Unfortunately, there isn't a good way of defining this in legal terms. I have no problem with I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.<\U> (Maya Angelou's autobiography which contains a short but horrifying account of her own rape at a young age.) I do have a problem with depictions made to cater to deviant sexual desires. I believe that the way the laws currently stand adequately expresses this difference.
Reply
Reply
And if someone can read these depictions WITHOUT any obvious weakening of inhibitions, as this man seems to have illustrated as possible, I see no legal concern. And as Neil Gaiman also pointed out, there is evidence that the proliferation of porn has lead to a DECREASED rate of rape in the country. In Canada, social scientists recently discovered that all men have looked at porn. But we are living in an era of historically extreme female empowerment. Basically AFAIK, there is no evidence that pornography leads to increased criminal activity. A study on the effects of lolicon on peoples has not been done AFAIK (it would be morally forbidden within this country) but to me it sounds analogous to claims about violent video games. Supposedly, playing FPS games leads to a "desensitization" and "weakened inhibitions" inspiring such gamers to shoot up schools. Well I've played Doom, Wolfenstein, Duke Nukem 3D, et al. and I consider myself PRETTY DANG NONVIOLENT! I have no desire in ever owning a gun or taking a human life. I've had existential crises from killing insects or accidentally hitting deer.
This is a little different but I don't think media consumption necessarily dictates actions. And actions are what constitutes a crime.
Also the concept of "clear and present danger" comes from Schenck v. United States, not the Constitution itself. A case I personally disagree with the conclusion to - he was a socialist sentenced to six months prison for distributing leaflets encouraging men to resist the draft, upon release he killed himself. Although admittedly, it is generally unconnected to obscenity; major rulings in that area came later.
The thing about hate crimes is not really analogous to this though. In a hate crime, a crime is still being committed. Because someone writing "HEIL HITLER, DEATH TO JEWS" on a Synagogue is doing much more harm to a community than someone writing "HAVE A NICE DAY." The crime goes beyond vandalism, to the realm of terrorism. If a white supremacist group lynches a black person, it sends shockwaves through the black community moreso than a "typical" murder. More harm done to society = greater legal punishment. This makes sense.
But drawing/publishing/reading/selling/buying comics are all NON-CRIMINAL activities. It does not harm society in any way I can tell.
OKAY I am up WAY TOO LATE and need to get to bed. BUT FREE EXPRESSION IS MY BFF!
Reply
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, neither side will be vindicated by science. There is no ethical way to do it.
I think I am not being clear as to why I brought up the hate crime or yelling fire thing. It is not for a direct metaphor. Let me try and rephrase.
Freedom of speech exists with certain reasonable limitations. Not being able to yell fire is censorship. It is censorship we can all get behind and understand the reasoning for, but it is censorship nonetheless. My intention in bringing this up is to dislodge the argument that freedom of speech is untouchable. As long as you accept the existence of these exceptions then the argument must be framed in terms of what limitations are acceptable and what limitations are too much.
I am also up way too late. I do not see going to sleep in the near future though. Boo.
Reply
Such studies HAVE been done with violent media, the tests being considered ethical due to the fact that folks consume it anyway. But AFAIK they show no direct link between media consumption and behavior.
While certain forms of censorship do exist, I can tolerate a law designed to potentially [i]directly[/i] protect someone. This law does nothing but create more victims of the legal system. In my book, that makes it unjust.
Is it "too much?" Well it might be "too much" for you or I, but I try not to make value judgments on the media consumed by others. It's impossible to stay judgment-free obviously, but at least I can try to recognize alternate forms of media as being worthy of existence. To quote the hackneyed but relevant axiom, "one man's trash is another man's treasure."
To say that a certain media is both harmful and ENTIRELY without value is a pretty serious claim. To say that it is then the government's duty is to actively enforce the prevention of this material from reaching the public is similarly serious claim.
My reasoning is that everything should be legal unless there is a good reason for otherwise. I also trust individuals to live their own lives properly, when left up to their own devices. "The government is not your mommy" and I don't think it should be the role of law to monitor what people read. "Obscenity law" is an outdated concept from earlier times, I think we've culturally evolved beyond the need for such restrictions.
Once you claim otherwise, it's a long, slippery-slope back to six-hundred years ago when owning a Bible that wasn't in Latin was punishable by death.
(Hey welcome to CLUB INSOMNIA! It is almost 4:30 and I am now WIDE AWAKE.)
Reply
BUT... we've now reached the point in the argument that I referenced before:
"Even as I bring up this point, I know that I can be logically defeated."
My personal belief is that the government really shouldn't be censoring anything. I hate the idea of the government telling us what we can and can't see. I would make the serious claim that this particular medium is both harmful and entirely without value. I don't know that I can truly side with government taking responsibility for monitoring it.
The last paragraph you lay out is where my personal philosophy of anticensorship meets the murky waters of reality. I like to hold to the belief that if everything is legal that not everything will be made. Just because a corporation can produce and distribute something doesn't mean they will. Unfortunately, I've been proven wrong again and again on this point. Cigarettes are still produced (not advocated they should be illegal by the way) despite only being little tubes of poison. Corporations have this ability to ignore the morals and ethics of their industry and say, "Well, there's an audience so I'll make it." In the end, I don't think it should be illegal, I just wish people were better human beings.
Reply
Leave a comment