Free speech, hate speech, what speech?
So, over at Psychfic, there's an interesting discussion going on about whether or not slash should be archived on the site. Privately owned, operated, and funded by an individual who has chosen not to archive slash, Psychfic has come under attack in the past by those who view the exclusion as discriminatory. Whether or not it is discriminatory is debatable - indeed, has been debated - and I naturally threw in my own opinion, as I am an opinionated (yet internally divided) sort. For the curious, my opinions are here and here. (I should also point out: the site doesn't put a moratorium on ANY gay characters being written into a story - if a character from the show is canonically gay, it would be ridiculous to change that; and original characters can have whatever sexual orientation the author so chooses. The owner of the archive views slash, in this context, as two characters canonically portrayed as 'straight' deciding in fanfiction to have sex/engage in a romantic relationship with one another.)
This post isn't about whether or not slash should be archived at any particular site. It's actually about what I noticed while reading through the comment threads - trends I noticed in the discourses of those who did and those who did not support the system administrator's decision to create a het & gen community with a strictly enforced R rating (meaning no explicit sex at all).
The majority of the supporters stated that they appreciated the offering of a 'safe' place, where they would not have to be constantly on guard, constantly watching to make sure that they weren't going to stumble across a story that seemed gen until the very end, where two characters would spontaneously start making out with one another. One supporter who is also a well-known author on the site also stated that she enjoyed being able to write close male friendships without receiving reviews along the lines of, "OMG their love is so pure." It was a relief to not have to face the possibility that her work would not be read past her intentions - it was a relief not to have to face the fact that what she wrote, others would view as pre-slash or UST - because the site very clearly did not host such fanfiction. Barthes said, "The author is dead," but in an interactive model such as this site employs - and indeed, an interactive model which most writers who publish themselves on the internet employ - the author does have the opportunity to engage with his/her readers on a very personal level; and so I regard this concern as highly valid. I wouldn't want someone to read a story I wrote about a parent-child relationship and think I was writing incest when really I was just writing family dynamics. The constant reiteration on the part of the supporters was that of having a 'safe' place, a zone in which they could exert control over their reading environment - because, as many pointed out, not all slash fanfics come with warnings as to pairing or rating, though they should, much as het and gen fanfic should also come with warnings.
Of course peppered in with honest and heartfelt support were nuggets of what could potentially be viewed as hate-speech, unwitting or deliberate; but so too was this present in the discourses of a few of those who were advocating the inclusion of slash fanfic at the site.
A few of those advocating the inclusion of slash fanfic took a highly adversarial stance, stating in effect that they had the moral high ground because they did not disciminate based off of sexual orientation - stating that the rules on the site were unconstitutional and unjust, a sign of the lack of progress in the liberal sensibilities of those who had chosen to remain on the site and continue to support it. (For the record: I remain on the site. I continue to support it. I have my reasons, and I believe that they are good ones; if anyone wants to talk about it, I'd be glad to.) These individuals responded to critiques of their arguments by going on the personal offensive, as if they and not their arguments had been attacked - a natural reaction, if an incendiary one. The supporters of the site apologized for any miscommunications that might have evolved in the debate, and the fervor died down a bit.
What I found fascinating about all this was that each side took the stance of the discriminated, albeit in differing ways, and that each side employed speech that teetered on the edge of hatespeak.
Neil Bissoondath has a scathing opinion on the 'minority figure'; he states that of course people always want to operate from within the zone of the marginalized because it means that "the life you lead is not your fault"; you have the high ground of having been brutalized, metaphorically if not literally, and whatever you say concerning the issue at hand has immediate relevance because you said it. It isn't remarkable that many minority groups themselves discriminate against other minority groups, or discriminate against the group they have been socially/culturally placed within. There is such a thing as an anti-Semitic Jew, a homophobic gay individual, a misogynistic woman. Such is the pathos of contemporary humanity. And so it similarly shouldn't be surprising that all conversants in a debate automatically seek to find the most disadvantaged position from which to speak - because such a position legitimizes them, makes the fact of their speech so much more significant - they are speaking out, speaking against, performing assertiveness. They are not pushing down, they are not trampling upon others' rights, they are not saying 'I am automatically right'. And they are. On both counts, they are. They are speaking out just as they simultaneously trample. They use the performance of one act to cover the subtlety of another.
When a supporter says, "I don't mind if there is slash fanfiction - I just don't want to see it, I just don't want to stumble across it unknowingly, I just don't want to be part of it," the explicit statement is, I'm not trying to stop you from reading or writing what you want to read or write, just don't ask me to be a participant in your community, and the implicit statement is, Stay in your place, where I can see you - know you and identify you and stay far far away from you, and make sure you stay far far away from me.
When an advocate for inclusion says, "The fact that you don't allow slash fanfiction is discriminatory and wrong, and i find your decision highly offensive to both me and the community I identify with," the explicit statement is, You've hurt me; you've denied my legitimacy and taken away from my empowerment, and the implicit statement is, I don't want to hear how you feel 'safe'; my community is here and we're not going away and we demand you acknowledge us and host us and support us, because to do otherwise is to perform an act of hate.
The implicit message in each is: I am the wronged party here. I am only trying to create an environment that promotes the qualities I find ideal.
The supporter doesn't want to think about how denying the archival of slash fanfic is akin to discrimination in any shape or form (though my personal opinion is that the site in question is not homophobic). The advocate for inclusion doesn't want to think about how in demanding said inclusion the much-spoken-of sense of 'safety' that already exists within the community will be destroyed.
Neither side acknowledges how their language borders on hate speech. How sometimes their language walks across those borders to become downright hate-filled.
And I'm left wondering, how often does free speech morph into hate speech? At what point do courtesy and decency leave the scene? And is it better or worse when remnants of said courtesy and decency hover around and cloak the verbal daggers being hurled?
This post isn't about whether or not slash should be archived at any particular site. It's actually about what I noticed while reading through the comment threads - trends I noticed in the discourses of those who did and those who did not support the system administrator's decision to create a het & gen community with a strictly enforced R rating (meaning no explicit sex at all).
The majority of the supporters stated that they appreciated the offering of a 'safe' place, where they would not have to be constantly on guard, constantly watching to make sure that they weren't going to stumble across a story that seemed gen until the very end, where two characters would spontaneously start making out with one another. One supporter who is also a well-known author on the site also stated that she enjoyed being able to write close male friendships without receiving reviews along the lines of, "OMG their love is so pure." It was a relief to not have to face the possibility that her work would not be read past her intentions - it was a relief not to have to face the fact that what she wrote, others would view as pre-slash or UST - because the site very clearly did not host such fanfiction. Barthes said, "The author is dead," but in an interactive model such as this site employs - and indeed, an interactive model which most writers who publish themselves on the internet employ - the author does have the opportunity to engage with his/her readers on a very personal level; and so I regard this concern as highly valid. I wouldn't want someone to read a story I wrote about a parent-child relationship and think I was writing incest when really I was just writing family dynamics. The constant reiteration on the part of the supporters was that of having a 'safe' place, a zone in which they could exert control over their reading environment - because, as many pointed out, not all slash fanfics come with warnings as to pairing or rating, though they should, much as het and gen fanfic should also come with warnings.
Of course peppered in with honest and heartfelt support were nuggets of what could potentially be viewed as hate-speech, unwitting or deliberate; but so too was this present in the discourses of a few of those who were advocating the inclusion of slash fanfic at the site.
A few of those advocating the inclusion of slash fanfic took a highly adversarial stance, stating in effect that they had the moral high ground because they did not disciminate based off of sexual orientation - stating that the rules on the site were unconstitutional and unjust, a sign of the lack of progress in the liberal sensibilities of those who had chosen to remain on the site and continue to support it. (For the record: I remain on the site. I continue to support it. I have my reasons, and I believe that they are good ones; if anyone wants to talk about it, I'd be glad to.) These individuals responded to critiques of their arguments by going on the personal offensive, as if they and not their arguments had been attacked - a natural reaction, if an incendiary one. The supporters of the site apologized for any miscommunications that might have evolved in the debate, and the fervor died down a bit.
What I found fascinating about all this was that each side took the stance of the discriminated, albeit in differing ways, and that each side employed speech that teetered on the edge of hatespeak.
Neil Bissoondath has a scathing opinion on the 'minority figure'; he states that of course people always want to operate from within the zone of the marginalized because it means that "the life you lead is not your fault"; you have the high ground of having been brutalized, metaphorically if not literally, and whatever you say concerning the issue at hand has immediate relevance because you said it. It isn't remarkable that many minority groups themselves discriminate against other minority groups, or discriminate against the group they have been socially/culturally placed within. There is such a thing as an anti-Semitic Jew, a homophobic gay individual, a misogynistic woman. Such is the pathos of contemporary humanity. And so it similarly shouldn't be surprising that all conversants in a debate automatically seek to find the most disadvantaged position from which to speak - because such a position legitimizes them, makes the fact of their speech so much more significant - they are speaking out, speaking against, performing assertiveness. They are not pushing down, they are not trampling upon others' rights, they are not saying 'I am automatically right'. And they are. On both counts, they are. They are speaking out just as they simultaneously trample. They use the performance of one act to cover the subtlety of another.
When a supporter says, "I don't mind if there is slash fanfiction - I just don't want to see it, I just don't want to stumble across it unknowingly, I just don't want to be part of it," the explicit statement is, I'm not trying to stop you from reading or writing what you want to read or write, just don't ask me to be a participant in your community, and the implicit statement is, Stay in your place, where I can see you - know you and identify you and stay far far away from you, and make sure you stay far far away from me.
When an advocate for inclusion says, "The fact that you don't allow slash fanfiction is discriminatory and wrong, and i find your decision highly offensive to both me and the community I identify with," the explicit statement is, You've hurt me; you've denied my legitimacy and taken away from my empowerment, and the implicit statement is, I don't want to hear how you feel 'safe'; my community is here and we're not going away and we demand you acknowledge us and host us and support us, because to do otherwise is to perform an act of hate.
The implicit message in each is: I am the wronged party here. I am only trying to create an environment that promotes the qualities I find ideal.
The supporter doesn't want to think about how denying the archival of slash fanfic is akin to discrimination in any shape or form (though my personal opinion is that the site in question is not homophobic). The advocate for inclusion doesn't want to think about how in demanding said inclusion the much-spoken-of sense of 'safety' that already exists within the community will be destroyed.
Neither side acknowledges how their language borders on hate speech. How sometimes their language walks across those borders to become downright hate-filled.
And I'm left wondering, how often does free speech morph into hate speech? At what point do courtesy and decency leave the scene? And is it better or worse when remnants of said courtesy and decency hover around and cloak the verbal daggers being hurled?