lightcastle

I have to go and see if I can finally get TekSavvy to get my internet to work, so I don't have time to discuss this at length, but Pandagon has launched a rather interesting debate on censorship. (The linked post actually spins off the debate in the comments of this post about the John Stagliano trial.

Amanda comes down firmly on the "do not censor" side of things, and that is certainly my gut reaction. At the same time, I'm not a free speech absolutist. I do think there can be legal penalties for certain kinds of speech. I've always been less worried about hate speech laws than some. (As with all laws, it depends how they are written and how they are enforced.)

At the same time, as a Canadian, I know very well that obscenity laws in this country were used to target queer literature (or indeed anything remotely out of 'mainstream porn') far more often than anything else. As an American, I was raised with a visceral distrust of censorship and an idealized notion that free speech - specifically political and artistic speech - is crucial to the health of a democracy.

I'm leaving aside the "is porn bad for you" argument for the moment and basically assuming the argument that a particular type of porn amounts to hatespeech against women. That makes it, specifically, a political statement, and then what does one think of censoring that?

Again, my gut says no, but I'm far from solid in this stance. Could perhaps opening things to civil legislation (thus making it not criminal but subject to redress) be an option? Are the unintended consequences too great?

I don't actually know and can't sort through it now, but am always interested in hearing what intelligent people have to say.

Did the Supreme Court of Canada just outlaw talking to children on the internet?

A Supreme Court of Canada ruling has expanded the definition of Internet luring to include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child -- even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim

[...]

"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime," [said Mark Hecht, of Beyond Borders, an organization that lobbies against child exploitation]