uncooked thoughts on this LJ business

[my_daroga]

I can't help but think that "freedom of speech" and self-policing are two separate issues. I support the idea that unreasonable dictates from on high squelch free thought and should be questioned. But why does it follow, then, that we should absolve ourselves for all responsibility? Can't we want free and safe space to express ourselves and reserve the right, as individual communities, to express disgust with certain practices?

In plain speech, can we fight against censorship and also decide that we don't support certain forms of pornography? Why can't we say, "This should not be forbidden, but neither do I find stories of sex between adults and pre-adolescents acceptable in my space"? Or any other set of standards a community as a group want to apply.

Or is it just too hopelessly messy to have ethics and standards when we're talking about the limits of speech? Because no matter what they are, someone else will think those standards too harsh or too liberal, and clearly even asking whether we can apply "standards" implies that the speaker considers herself the ultimate authority. (Not something I intended, and I very much regret that.) Is it a contradiction to find anti-pro-ana stances hypocritical, but not think Junie B. Jones (to quote a recent metafandom post) porn is right? This is just an example. I am not trying to argue the validity of either of those statements. Only to discuss whether we can make both.

I expect I'll regret not writing this better. I just haven't the patience right now.

Edit to clarify: No, I do not like the behavior of LJ/6A over the past few weeks. I am decidedly *not* arguing that we shouldn't be worried, or that LJ should be able to ban any content that is not illegal. I am merely pointing out what is, for me, a nebulous ethical territory we should think about.

Edit after metafandom: I expect I'll regret it even more now, as my post has clearly left itself open to the interpretation that I might be advocating that only my own personal standards are valid. This is not at all what I intended. I merely used examples I felt were typical, in order not to be so vague as to be useless. Perhaps I could have said the opposite: "Perhaps we can call the anti-porn people hypocrites, but can't we also argue about the validity of pro-ana sites too?" All I really want to ask is whether we can ask LJ to allow us safe space for discussion and also dictate, for our own journals and communities, what material we deem appropriate. I personally think the answer is yes. What I am against is retaliatory action which only strikes at others the way fandom has been struck at.

Comments

[realcdaae.livejournal.com]

Yes. I find that nearly always in these things, one lot argues against censorship of [something], and someone always comes in to support that by saying "see, there are these way worse things, you should go censor them instead!" It starts as pointing out an inconsistency in policies or actions, and ends up with a witch hunt against the latter group.

And I'm sometimes torn, of course, because I generally think LJ should censor/forbid as little as possible, but there are always certain things I find truly sick and think they jolly well should suspend people for. I mean, I doubt there's anyone who doesn't want them to get rid of any genuine child porn they find.

[my_daroga]

Of course not. But once you introduce that possibility, someone else is going to call hypocrisy; or start trying to censor something else in retaliation.

And I think it would be easy for someone to call "hypocrisy" on anyone who was pro-free speech, but anti harmful stuff. Which is too bad.

[sushis.livejournal.com]

"I doubt there's anyone who doesn't want them to get rid of any genuine child porn they find."

But, that simply *isn't* hypocricy, because child porn (involving actual children) is illegal because of the exploitation inherent in the production of child porn (ie, the abuse of an actual child.) The *primary* harm isn't the hypothetical, e.g. : "oh, a pedophile might see it, get turned on, and feel inspired to molest a child." (I think perhaps that's what a jury might consider in an obscenity trial, and that's not a concern just with photos of child abuse.) All claims about the "badness" of any particular act of expression, other than a direct request or order to harm another specific person, are based on hypotheticals about the bad things the speech *might* trigger in the reader or viewer. Actual child pornography is a record of harm that's already happened, and may be ongoing, putting it in an entirely different moral category, imho.