Laws Controlling Speech

[nobody@neva.org (Neva Remailer)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Tim May wrote:
>What I said was that the judge(s) in the Paladin case had committed a
>capital crime. Saying, for example, that OJ committed a capital crime
>is not uncommon, so why should judges be exempt from similar
>opinions?

Laws prohibiting speech are notoriously difficult to define and to
enforce impartially.  They quickly evolve into a blank check for the
authorities.  (Note that even if these laws didn't have this property,
Monty Cantsin would oppose them.)

OJ is fair game because the authorities would like to see him in
prison.  The judge is not fair game because he is a judge and this is
a list with a bad attitude.

The wonderful thing about language is that it is infinitely malleable.

You could write a play in which a prominent character was a bear.
Sounds harmless, right?  In 1969 in Czechoslovakia, this is how people
wrote unfriendly plays about the Russians.

Child porn is notoriously difficult to define.  A few years ago there
was a case in which a convicted child pornographer or molester (my
memory fails) was paroled.(1.) One of the conditions was that he was
not to have any child pornography.  Later, he was found with a
videotape of children in bathing suits and his parole was revoked.
The children were not involved with any sexual acts, however, the
judge decided that the motion of the camera was overly suggestive.

A few years ago I saw an ad for soap in which cute little girls were
cast in the roles that lovely adult women usually play.  To most
people, this was an amusing and even charming advertisement.  But,
were similar footage found in the hands of a child molester there
would be serious legal consequences.

Pornography in general is not so hard to define.  If the material in
question is enjoyed by working class people and is inexpensive to
purchase, then it is pornography.  If the material is enjoyed by
wealthy or "cultured" people, hangs in a museum, and would be
expensive to purchase, then for the most part it is Art and not
pornography.

Let's take Michelangelo.  Here is an artist who seldom portrays women.
(I know of no instance, actually.)  When the image of a woman was
unavoidable to the work, he used male models anyway.  (The Sibyls in
the Sistine Chapel are a good example.)  It is quite obvious that a
large proportion of his work is, in fact, homoerotic in nature.  Yet,
it has been promoted for centuries because it was primarily enjoyed by
ruling elites.  For that matter, consider the centuries long
fascination with images of Christ and the Saints undergoing various
tortures.  Clearly homoerotic in many cases and juxtaposing images of
pain and death with sex.  Remove the religious imagery, and anybody
found painting or possessing such work will generally be relegated to
the fringes of society.

When speech is regulated, the meaning of the speech is defined by
whether the speaker is in favor with the authorities.  This is well
understood by the people who propose and pass these laws.  Their
intention is not only to suppress bad ideas, but to liberate the
government from the annoying inconvenience of obeying the law, most
especially (but not exclusively) with regard to the government's
political opponents.

And, as we all know, this issue is particularly insidious when it
comes to laws prohibiting free encrypted speech.  The art of
steganography has reached the point where anything can be "shown" to
be a secret message of some kind.  Should it be decided to truly
enforce these laws, it will be done by letting the cops off the leash
to do whatever they please to whomever they like.

(1. Why we parole child molesters so we can imprison drug users is
beyond me.  It has every appearance of complete insanity on the part
of the authorities.  Or, I suppose, it could mean they don't really
care about kids in spite of all their talk on the subject.)

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBNGqXXpaWtjSmRH/5AQFhMwf9FU/DU9+iMtflw+CZ0XW3enz+FdC14DzI
GD+SIUPm3aBO+MJQHh1ScWNb2ShWVWxMCycHOcKyUhYpAvH2d/oqz6/2Feq2Aw8E
0Oxcg0djy5zri1nZtwTW7QQ2qGOfKyUq+2qJFX3aFFxAMjE2yT5uwvwBRNucPwYC
zR40/b5oMJEndp47KUTjnCfbCFmwG2vHZe+3hM6vfm+07zcaRUOJsMgGjsAkTi4I
/Rtg4Bxd7L+3AVs8k+ZpJoN7A9ipoOvWGUeXH+s+uwWhS62PtC9DY29sg5f4mG+j
qxtCNg14TjfIEiaqjcW3/jm9rk/gFhBiT8f24Aseof2v+T+g0qI5Iw==
=zihd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----