On Free Speech and Censorship
This is something that I posted on a writers' forum a while back, on a thread discussing censorship of written expression. Two aspects of this question were discussed:
(1) What constitutes censorship? Do internet sites have the right to establish terms of service that prohibit certain types of content? How should society deal with material that people find objectionable?
(2) Readers individually or collectively bullying authors who posted content that those readers found offensive.
Since there have been more recent discussions of corporate censorship of electronic media erotica (paypal refusing to carry certain content), I thought I would repost my thoughts here.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I feel as if many who have commented here are wrestling with the conundrum that freedom of speech trumps all other considerations, and any abridgment of that freedom carries within it the threat that if some speech can be restricted then it will be impossible to prevent any or all speech from being restricted.
I would like to say that the American "Bill of Rights", in which freedom of speech has been so enshrined, is a POLITICAL document, not a MORAL one. It deals with the balance of power between private citizens and the public institutions which regulate social intercourse. It does not deal with the consequences of speech to the speaker or to the people who hear/read or are otherwise affected by that speech.
The issue of whether or not a person has unlimited right to publish any private sexual or violent fantasy, and place that mental content into other people's view, is not a political one but a moral one. Using the principle of freedom of speech to address this issue ignores the moral consequences of such fantasies, and substitutes a false set of protagonists and antagonists: the individual and his freedom of expression vs. institutions or groups who might try to silence that expression.
Thoughts, speech and actions all have both cause and consequence. To understand the moral implications of any thought, speech (including images etc) or physical action one must understand both the causes and the consequences of that thought, speech or action. Causes are the mental states and the motivations from which the thought, speech or action comes forth. Consequences are the effects that the thought speech or action has - both on the person who did the thought, speech or action, and on any other person whom that thought, speech or action touches.
Plant corn and you will reap corn, plant beans and you will reap beans. Thoughts, speech or actions that arise from mental states of wisdom and compassion, with motivation to benefit self and others, will lead to increase of wisdom and compassion and to the benefit of self and others. Thoughts, speech or actions that arise from mental states of confusion and injury, with motivation to seduce self and others, will lead to increase of these afflicted mind states, and harm to self and others.
It is a common article of faith in democratic societies that "Though I find your words hateful, I will defend with my life your right to say them." This is a perfect snapshot of how the political principle of freedom of speech morphs into a moral stance, the moral stance of defending all speech irregardless of its content. This moral stance looks and feels like tolerance, but in fact it is moral relativism. In modern society, moral relativism is considered by many to be the highest truth and is often equated with tolerance of differences.
But moral relativism - the principle that there is no absolute right or wrong, no final good or evil - is NOT the same as tolerance.
Moral relativism arises from the observation of differences, with the emotional reaction of uncertainty. This leads to the conclusion that there is no standard, all things are conditional, discernment and judgement are illusions. The final consequence is confusion and despair. Or indifference.
Tolerance arises from the observation that no matter how different people may be, all people hope for freedom from suffering and enjoyment of happiness. The emotional reaction is empathy and lovingkindness, and this leads to vigorous effort to see deeply into the nature of oneself and others and the world so that one's actions may bring about true benefit.
From the viewpoint of moral relativism and the principle of freedom of speech it is impossible to judge or restrict any publicized fantasy, not matter what the content may be. Even if it is rape, torture and murder it must be protected. Even if it was created and publicized solely to ENJOY, and invite others to enjoy, the fantasy of causing terror, torment, degradation and death, it must be protected. Even if every fiber of a gentle person's being rebels at such a thing, one's own visceral nausea, that is based on compassion and empathy and decency, MUST BE OVERRIDDEN AND IGNORED so that one can defend the right of another person to fantasize and glorify harm to innocent victims.
But from the viewpoint of tolerance, and the viewpoint of cause and consequence, one has other choices.
From the viewpoint of tolerance one can maintain compassion to all concerned, both the creator of the difficult content and those who read it. One bears in mind that, creator and reader alike, all who are touched by the content are affected by it.
From the viewpoint of cause and consequence, one can examine the content with deep perception. What mental states gave rise to the content? Are these mental states of clarity and kindness? Are they mental states of personal suffering? Are they mental states of enmeshed fascination with inflicting pain and death? What are the consequences of creation of this content? Is it cathartic to the author? Or is it dragging the author deeper into affliction? What are the consequences of reading the content? Are readers brought to deeper feelings of pity and empathy? Or are they just given horrific images that they wish they could unsee? ... Or are they subtly seduced into enjoying the fantasy of harming others because "it's just a story?"
From the viewpoint of tolerance there can be no bullying of any author for his/her content. On the contrary there is positive effort to understand the person and protect his/her wellbeing.
From the viewpoint of cause and consequence there is discernment of what is wholesome and beneficial to the soul and what is harmful. There is a moral choice to promote and advance what is wholesome and beneficial, while seeking to understand and resolve at its source whatever is afflicted and harmful.
For me, tolerance and careful examination of cause and consequence are the tools that I would want to use in order to understand the moral value of a creative work, and what, if anything, should be done about it.
(1) What constitutes censorship? Do internet sites have the right to establish terms of service that prohibit certain types of content? How should society deal with material that people find objectionable?
(2) Readers individually or collectively bullying authors who posted content that those readers found offensive.
Since there have been more recent discussions of corporate censorship of electronic media erotica (paypal refusing to carry certain content), I thought I would repost my thoughts here.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I feel as if many who have commented here are wrestling with the conundrum that freedom of speech trumps all other considerations, and any abridgment of that freedom carries within it the threat that if some speech can be restricted then it will be impossible to prevent any or all speech from being restricted.
I would like to say that the American "Bill of Rights", in which freedom of speech has been so enshrined, is a POLITICAL document, not a MORAL one. It deals with the balance of power between private citizens and the public institutions which regulate social intercourse. It does not deal with the consequences of speech to the speaker or to the people who hear/read or are otherwise affected by that speech.
The issue of whether or not a person has unlimited right to publish any private sexual or violent fantasy, and place that mental content into other people's view, is not a political one but a moral one. Using the principle of freedom of speech to address this issue ignores the moral consequences of such fantasies, and substitutes a false set of protagonists and antagonists: the individual and his freedom of expression vs. institutions or groups who might try to silence that expression.
Thoughts, speech and actions all have both cause and consequence. To understand the moral implications of any thought, speech (including images etc) or physical action one must understand both the causes and the consequences of that thought, speech or action. Causes are the mental states and the motivations from which the thought, speech or action comes forth. Consequences are the effects that the thought speech or action has - both on the person who did the thought, speech or action, and on any other person whom that thought, speech or action touches.
Plant corn and you will reap corn, plant beans and you will reap beans. Thoughts, speech or actions that arise from mental states of wisdom and compassion, with motivation to benefit self and others, will lead to increase of wisdom and compassion and to the benefit of self and others. Thoughts, speech or actions that arise from mental states of confusion and injury, with motivation to seduce self and others, will lead to increase of these afflicted mind states, and harm to self and others.
It is a common article of faith in democratic societies that "Though I find your words hateful, I will defend with my life your right to say them." This is a perfect snapshot of how the political principle of freedom of speech morphs into a moral stance, the moral stance of defending all speech irregardless of its content. This moral stance looks and feels like tolerance, but in fact it is moral relativism. In modern society, moral relativism is considered by many to be the highest truth and is often equated with tolerance of differences.
But moral relativism - the principle that there is no absolute right or wrong, no final good or evil - is NOT the same as tolerance.
Moral relativism arises from the observation of differences, with the emotional reaction of uncertainty. This leads to the conclusion that there is no standard, all things are conditional, discernment and judgement are illusions. The final consequence is confusion and despair. Or indifference.
Tolerance arises from the observation that no matter how different people may be, all people hope for freedom from suffering and enjoyment of happiness. The emotional reaction is empathy and lovingkindness, and this leads to vigorous effort to see deeply into the nature of oneself and others and the world so that one's actions may bring about true benefit.
From the viewpoint of moral relativism and the principle of freedom of speech it is impossible to judge or restrict any publicized fantasy, not matter what the content may be. Even if it is rape, torture and murder it must be protected. Even if it was created and publicized solely to ENJOY, and invite others to enjoy, the fantasy of causing terror, torment, degradation and death, it must be protected. Even if every fiber of a gentle person's being rebels at such a thing, one's own visceral nausea, that is based on compassion and empathy and decency, MUST BE OVERRIDDEN AND IGNORED so that one can defend the right of another person to fantasize and glorify harm to innocent victims.
But from the viewpoint of tolerance, and the viewpoint of cause and consequence, one has other choices.
From the viewpoint of tolerance one can maintain compassion to all concerned, both the creator of the difficult content and those who read it. One bears in mind that, creator and reader alike, all who are touched by the content are affected by it.
From the viewpoint of cause and consequence, one can examine the content with deep perception. What mental states gave rise to the content? Are these mental states of clarity and kindness? Are they mental states of personal suffering? Are they mental states of enmeshed fascination with inflicting pain and death? What are the consequences of creation of this content? Is it cathartic to the author? Or is it dragging the author deeper into affliction? What are the consequences of reading the content? Are readers brought to deeper feelings of pity and empathy? Or are they just given horrific images that they wish they could unsee? ... Or are they subtly seduced into enjoying the fantasy of harming others because "it's just a story?"
From the viewpoint of tolerance there can be no bullying of any author for his/her content. On the contrary there is positive effort to understand the person and protect his/her wellbeing.
From the viewpoint of cause and consequence there is discernment of what is wholesome and beneficial to the soul and what is harmful. There is a moral choice to promote and advance what is wholesome and beneficial, while seeking to understand and resolve at its source whatever is afflicted and harmful.
For me, tolerance and careful examination of cause and consequence are the tools that I would want to use in order to understand the moral value of a creative work, and what, if anything, should be done about it.