![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I am not now, nor have ever been, a moral relativist.
1. Libraries as represented by the ALA oppose filtering. Libraries which filter in order to preserve government funds are indeed giving in to the Man and cooperating with a moral evil--although in very many cases the lesser moral evil, i.e. it's better to give in to the Man in the short term than keep people who need information from it completely (works of mercy get in the way of social action), and this should not be read as a direct criticism of those who have to make this or other difficult decisions. Making it easier for libraries to censor should not be paraded as a moral good, however.
2. Private corporations can censor. Think of a television station--who are the people who make sure you don't say bad words on the air, even if it's cable? Yep, they're called censors. It's not a freedom of speech issue when private entities censor--or rather, it is a freedom of speech issue but not a first amendment issue, and we have don't have a right to freedom of speech from private entities. That said, private entities whose sole function is to provide people with a platform for otherwise undifferentiated communication and still engage in the curtailment of free speech within their area of control may still be engaged in a moral evil. Just because something's legal doesn't make it okay.
3. It is not illegal to make protected speech available to minors on the internet. I could be wrong about this: certainly Congress seems to be passing a new law, and the courts striking it down, every six months or so. IANAL, but my talking point is that it is not illegal, and insofar as it is illegal (which it very well may be this week) the laws making it so are unconstitutional. That's not saying much--I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU and there are a whole lot of laws I think are (or should be) unconstitutional, and for the most part I just have to suck it up and abide by them anyway, because the battle was lost back in 1847 or something. But there's some indication that at least in previous years some courts, including the Supreme Court, have actually agreed with me on this issue. And if this is true, people engaged in certain types of moral evil cannot even have the excuse that it was legally compelled of them.
4. As said in #1, cooperating with moral evil by obeying an unconstitutional law can be absolutely necessary--morally required, even--if you are Rural Village Public Library which absolutely depends on federal funds to give poor children access to reading material. Not so much if you're a million-dollar private corporation out to make a buck. Just saying.
5. Sex being separated from other things which are "adult" (whatever that means), like having a job or caring about politics or falling in love, as something from which children need to be protected is, without a doubt, a form of misogyny, which is a moral evil.
6. I'm wondering if using the terms "NC-17" and "R" to rate fic according to sexual explicitness and other spectra is cooperating with a moral evil. It certainly isn't intended to mean "No children under 17" or "Restricted" when I use them, but that is their etymology and that meaning is out there and there is the (mostly) value-neutral alternative (if less precisely graduated, if you can get less precisely graduated than the MPAA system) "Not work safe" available. I'm thinking no--etymology isn't destiny--but it is food for thought.
2. Private corporations can censor. Think of a television station--who are the people who make sure you don't say bad words on the air, even if it's cable? Yep, they're called censors. It's not a freedom of speech issue when private entities censor--or rather, it is a freedom of speech issue but not a first amendment issue, and we have don't have a right to freedom of speech from private entities. That said, private entities whose sole function is to provide people with a platform for otherwise undifferentiated communication and still engage in the curtailment of free speech within their area of control may still be engaged in a moral evil. Just because something's legal doesn't make it okay.
3. It is not illegal to make protected speech available to minors on the internet. I could be wrong about this: certainly Congress seems to be passing a new law, and the courts striking it down, every six months or so. IANAL, but my talking point is that it is not illegal, and insofar as it is illegal (which it very well may be this week) the laws making it so are unconstitutional. That's not saying much--I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU and there are a whole lot of laws I think are (or should be) unconstitutional, and for the most part I just have to suck it up and abide by them anyway, because the battle was lost back in 1847 or something. But there's some indication that at least in previous years some courts, including the Supreme Court, have actually agreed with me on this issue. And if this is true, people engaged in certain types of moral evil cannot even have the excuse that it was legally compelled of them.
4. As said in #1, cooperating with moral evil by obeying an unconstitutional law can be absolutely necessary--morally required, even--if you are Rural Village Public Library which absolutely depends on federal funds to give poor children access to reading material. Not so much if you're a million-dollar private corporation out to make a buck. Just saying.
5. Sex being separated from other things which are "adult" (whatever that means), like having a job or caring about politics or falling in love, as something from which children need to be protected is, without a doubt, a form of misogyny, which is a moral evil.
6. I'm wondering if using the terms "NC-17" and "R" to rate fic according to sexual explicitness and other spectra is cooperating with a moral evil. It certainly isn't intended to mean "No children under 17" or "Restricted" when I use them, but that is their etymology and that meaning is out there and there is the (mostly) value-neutral alternative (if less precisely graduated, if you can get less precisely graduated than the MPAA system) "Not work safe" available. I'm thinking no--etymology isn't destiny--but it is food for thought.
Re: #5
Well, I'm perfectly willing to call anything NC-17 I've written porn--not to my mother, maybe, but in general--even though I like to think my audience would call me on it if it wasn't woman-positive. But when we begin talking about "porn is this" and "porn is that," then the difficulties in definition begin to become meaningful.
If explicit sexual content is often about men objectifying women, censoring it isn't misogynistic,
*nods* That is, of course, the reasoning between the strange political bedfellows situation we had in second-wave feminism: social conservatives and feminists who disagreed on every other point imaginable were suddenly allied in the fight against porn. A lot of what I see as the difference between second-wave and third-wave feminisms is that the latter recognizes that sexual objectification doesn't always involve men gazing at women, but also women gazing at women, women gazing at men, etc. After all, the majority of sexual explicit stories LJ produces (I think?) are male/male, due to then predeominance of heterosexual women.
But I very much draw on notions like Helene Cixous' "Laugh of the Medusa," in which the radical possibilities of female pleasure are celebrated as potentially liberatory.