Friday, September 29, 2006

Thought Police, OK or not?

From the newsletter of the Free Speech Coalition:
PITTSBURGH, PA -- A federal grand jury has handed down a six-count obscenity indictment against Karen Fletcher, 54, of Donora, Pennsylvania, based only on fictional, fantasy, text materials, which Fletcher wrote and offered for sale on her Red Rose Stories website. The fantasy themes specified in the indictment featured the kidnapping, molestation, torture and murder of very young children. These are not themes likely to create sympathy in jurors. This indictment, along with the recent obscenity charges against fetish film producer Danilo Simoes Croce, of Sao Paulo, Brazil (see X-Press report, „Brazilian Fetish Producer Busted,‰ 9/15/06) is in line with the apparent Justice Department strategy of prosecuting extreme forms of sexually explicit materials; except in this case, by choosing to go after text-only materials, the government has ventured down an even more slippery slope than in its vendetta against photo and film materials. Erotic photo imagery, while a form of expression subject to First Amendment protections, does involve behaviors and actions of models and actors, whereas written fiction, however extreme, however repulsive, is pure fantasy, pure thought. This effort by law enforcement to penalize the sharing and distribution of fantasy comes very close to thought control. The grand jury indictment, rather than the fact that some people share child torture fantasies, may be the scariest part of this story.
"I find it very troubling that a fictional account, somebody's fantasy, could be considered a crime when there is no indication that anybody has been exploited," said Joan Bertin, executive director of the New York-based National Coalition Against Censorship.
"I can't defend this material because I haven't seen it, but I question the role of government in deciding when material, even if most people would consider it over the top, is appropriate for adults to write or read," Bertin said.

... Reading the first part of this, I immediately thought: well of course, she had to expect it, and she deserves it. After all who defends somebody who apparently fantasizes about torturing children?
But then I realized: what about your belief that free speech is absolute?
What about your belief that freedom of thought is absolute?
Where is the victim?
If they can make these stories illegal, can't they make a serious novel illegal, if it includes something sufficiently distasteful?

And after that, where is the exact limit for which thoughts are so distasteful they must be illegal and punished?

4 comments:

  1. compliments again by dummie bush, the wizard of illegal wiretapping, illegal war, illegal occupation of an innocent country, manipulating and treasonous lies agaisn't america.
    let's see.........he's pro-life yet kills iraqis to control their oil, uses terrorism as his lame excuse, forces democracy upon people who clearly don't want it, had plans to attack iraq 9 days after being sworn in..........he is the very essense of evil.
    so..........welcome to 1984! though many do not share the authors fantaziies...........but now they can prosecute over written fantasies? the KGB would be proud.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Slogan for the Brave New World we're headed toward:

    "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I cannot believe you decadent Vesterners allowed George Orwell to publish "1984" vithout him vinning an all-expenses-paid stay in the ice cube factories of Siberia.

    ReplyDelete
  4. More seriously, the recent U.S. laws regarding Guantanamo and stuff inspired me this thought : convict rights are meant, first of all, to protect THE INNOCENT. To ensure that somebody who's only suspected will not be inhumanely mistreated, and convicted in advance by the simple fact of his indiction.

    Besides, what kind of civilization are we, if we declare it okay to be barbaric toward some people "because they deserve it"? How does this make us different from them, who always consider their victims "deserved it" too? It is illegal toward animals for a reason, you know.

    Should we do like Zarqawi, and decapitate with a knife those we deem unworthy of living? I wouldn't do that to Zarqawi himself, if I caught him! Otherwise, I would disgust myself. Lock him away for life, throw away the key, he's harmless for good, end of problem. Let God judge and punish and make him suffer later, since we believe in divine Justice after death! Spite is like dirt : to inflict it, you get yourself dirty too. It's a vicious circle. Would you become a vampire to gain the power to destroy vampires?

    The bottom line is : we can argue till the end of time about whose beliefs are right or wrong. Only actions, not justifications, are undisputable and set us apart from those who are, potentially or definitely, barbaric. Everybody will treat well those they like (in theory!). It is how we treat those we dislike or don't care about that tells who we really are, and may make them reflect. "Love thine enemy"? Hey, it's not just a hippie "spaced out" thing, dude. It is extremely deep and meaningful. We do not treat them well/decently to please them, but to keep our souls unsoiled from savagery. If we stoop to their level, then Evil wins, and everybody is a loser no matter who's finally in charge. Why do you think Christianism spread so widely? Because it gave some amazing new principles that were incredibly ahead of their time.
    (Note : I'm certainly not claiming it was the ONLY intelligent belief, nor that the Church always stayed true to these beliefs.)

    I am reminded of the film "Fortress" with Chris Lambert, a futuristic prison where the DREAMS of the inmates are monitored, and they are punished when they have one that is "not allowed". Punished painfully.

    Total freedom of speech makes me uneasy too. I once read a presumed incest story that was both irresistibly explicit and nauseating. (I couldn't reach the author, "silentalltheseyears", to find out whether it was based on an actual trauma, it WAS very disturbingly convincing.) But one person's fantasy is another one's education.

    At worst, consider it like this : Know thine enemy. The nazis were not incomprehensible extra-terrestrial robot mutants, they were "ordinary" hateful racists who just went too far. Ignoring that fact puts us at risk of falling straight back in the very same horrible error. It can happen again, to you, to me, if we aren't wary of our natural tendancies. Everybody is capable of hating.

    I believe Bin Laden is a blessing in disguise. His shameless hate and violence lets the cat out, and reveals what many hypocrits would love to conveniently conceal : that religion (islam in this specific case), can be and sometimes is hijacked to justify the worst. His hate preachers should be forbidden from "teaching" their crap in religious schools and mosques, especially to the young and trusting minds. But they should NOT be silenced entirely and everywhere (merely driving them undergroud, d'uh!). Let them warn us that there exists such madmen who are ready to murder unknown innocents anytime and anywhere. Knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness.

    To somebody who's able to withstand his nausea, a child-abusing fantasy will, at worst, be a useful insight to how the real criminals think and act. (To the others, just don't read it! Me, I can't stand Barbara Cartland.) Doesn't the police have a special section to read all crime stories and learn from them? In France at least, they do.

    The whackos responsible for the Columbine High School massacre played violent videogame "Doom". Does the game make you violent? I believe it was just a symptom : they didn't become violent because they played it, they played it because they were violent and liked to fantasize about it. Let's not ignore the importance of education, people. Banning Doom will only deprive us from a warning dign. "Grand Theft Auto made me do it"? Sorry buddy, but if you're not clinically psychotic, the only devil that made you do ANYTHING is the one within you, answering to your name!

    Restrict hazardous stuff from those too young and immature to handle it, like porn for the under 15, but PLEASE stop finding excuses for treating the whole adult population as if they were eternally babies in diapers!

    Controlling mere fantasy/fiction is very dangerous. A zombie movie like "Night of the Living-Dead" has no practical interest whatsoever, it teaches nothing, it's just there to give you a good (and cheap) scare. Okay, so it's clear and pure bad taste. Is "nobody in their right mind will miss it" an excuse for forbidding it? Think of the implications! Think of China and the USSR.

    In most muslim countries, reading the Bible or the Gospel is prohibited and may have you jailed. Changing religions for a muslim is assimilated to the crime of apostasy, deserving death under the Charia. Fundamentalism has instated the absolute thought police. I don't want to be like that. I want to give them the opposite example by my sensible deeds, and maybe this'll give the brightest of them the idea to try and make reforms. "Doing like the other does" à la G.W.Bush is no way to inspire amending.

    Peace and goodwill to all mankind. Even the jerks.

    ReplyDelete