I am not now, nor have ever been, a moral relativist.

[alixtii]

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.

Comments

[slashfairy.livejournal.com]

oh, well said! well said indeed! *applause* may i link?

[fairestcat]

This is the best single post I've found that articulates how I feel about this whole situation. Thank you.

The difference between what's legal and what's moral and ethical is something a lot of people seem to forget about these days and that scares me a lot.

#5

[amyheartssiroc.livejournal.com]

I don't really see how not wanting kids to read porn means you hate women.

[thirdblindmouse.livejournal.com]

Misogyny? I don't know about that. But singling out sex as a restricted topic displays a hugely skewed sense of priorities. At least in the case of the MPAA ratings, misanthropic even, if you consider the implied comparisons and rankings (beating someone is more acceptable than having consensual sex with them?). To avoid associating ourselves with those "values", I'd be very happy we refrained from using the MPAA's terms (don't they have those trademarked, or something? I thought I remembered some controversy).

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

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.

"Not work safe" covers a much wider territory than NC-17, though. In terms of fanart, anything rated PG-13 through R through NC-17 could be NSFW depending on the workplace (in some places, just two people making out would be frowned upon, regardless of whether they're naked or not). That said, as someone who frequently websurfs in campus libraries, I appreciate cut tags and warnings for art a lot.

In terms of fic, how about something like "Contains Explicit Sex", which is essentially what NC-17 is used to mean?

[cesperanza.livejournal.com]

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.

I think it is, and I've decided I really hate them--they're bad (and sloppy enough) for film, but the sliding of film to text leaves us all saying things that we wouldn't, I think, "really" say if we meant it, i.e. that people under 17, or 14, shouldn't be allowed to READ certain stuff. As a marker for commercial film, yes, fine, maybe; it's also harder to just walk out of a film than it is to put a book down, i.e. if you're in over your head in a movie theatre, it's not the same as getting in over your head in a book, because reading is a participatory act to a greater extent than watching a film is. But I'm really against this metaphor we've decided on that says this is appropriate for text.

[ignazwisdom.livejournal.com]

This is a beautiful, brilliant post, and I think you've explained your arguments really well in the comments (especially #5). I'm going to be thinking about the last issue for a while; I like Elspeth's suggestion of "explicit" as an alternative.