How far should free speech protection extend?

[vison]

No demographic is more important than any other, true enough. And fancy language (sorry, nerdanel) only serves to obfuscate.

But the numbers game means that bigger numbers mean "more important" as far as dealing with the problem.

That's the way it works. It will be the way it works until men stop beating and assaulting and raping and strangling and abusing women.

Anyone who is the victim of violence deserves the same treatment in law, etc. But that's not the issue here.

[Holbytla]

Just musing here. If memory serves, it seems to me that in crimes of passion, and especially murder, the percentage that the perpetrator is in a relationship with the victim is something like 85 or 90 percent.
And if eighty percent of murders and crimes of passion are committed by men, doesn't it stand to reason that men are more prone to physical violence?

[yovargas]

Fascinating post, nel. Genuinely thought provoking as you bring up several interesting points I'm not quite sure I've ever thought about. But I'm not sure it quite negates GBG's point. We could say "domestic violence against women is wrong" and try to push our culture in a direction where that is as universally believed as possible, But couldn't we hope to achieve ultimately more meaningful results by pushing our culture towards "domestic violence is wrong - ALWAYS" (or something along those lines)? While each of the "sets" you mentioned will likely, as you have insightfully pointed out, have to deal with different issues from the results of domestic violence, that does not change or negate the root issue being that domestic violence is unacceptable, period. Which I think was GBG's original point: sexual exploitation is unacceptable regardless of gender so there's no need to bring up gender in the condemnation of that exploitation.

[Frelga]

Yov, it may be true for the purpose of Internet discussion but in dealing with the problem in actuality, it is important to diagnose the problem correctly. To do otherwise would be like saying, "all headache is painful, whether from concussion or a brain tumor." Certainly they are both bad and dangerous, but we need to understand what causes it before it can be treated.

[Alatar]

Well I play computer games and occasionally/regularly watch porn. Please feel free to aske me any questions as I consider myself a "Subject Matter Expert" as they say in business!

Okay, I'll bite. Based on your experience, which if either would you be more concerned about exposing your children to, sexually explicit porn, or extremely violent video games?

I would take a mature approach to the subject. My kids already play what could be classed as "extremely violent" video games. Now, personally, I wouldn't class them as such. To give an example, I would consider killing someone with a sword to be a far more violent attack than the "relatively clean" death of a gunshot wound to the head. Yet in video games, swords are classed as "fantasy violence". I agree with this. There's something inherently unreal about swordfighting, whether it be swashbuckling in Prince of Persia or a lightsaber duel in a Star Wars game. In pretty much any game I have ever played, the violence has never felt real, nor is it intended to.

If I play a racing game like Grid, there's a detailed damage model that allows my car to become more wrecked if I slam it into a wall. The handling of the car gets worse, I may lose speed, and in worse case scenarios be forced out of the race due to damage. I raise this because the effects of violence in video games never have this level of realism. Even in games where the enemy has a "life" bar, they continue to attack as ferociously the second before they die as when they are in full health. Nobody ever grabs their arm where you just cut it, or drops their sword. Nobody begs for mercy before death. There's simply no attempt at realism in the depiction of violence, aside from accurately rendering real weapons and uniforms in games like Call of Duty.

Now, the same is true of Porn. Last I checked nobody ever delivered me Pizza and then had a threesome with me and my wife. Its fantasy, same as video games. Having said that, I have to think it serves some sort of purpose. As much as we all would like to think our kids will talk to us in depth about everything sex related, its probably not gonna happen. I saw my first porn movie a good 5 or 6 years before I first had sex and it served as a useful instructional manual. Nothing in the movies would ever show you the mechanics. In fact, its probably fair to say that sexual depictions in movies are far more unrealistic than porn, because, well, its simulated. Not only that, but its simulated in a way that's deliberately false. Sex as we'd like to imagine it, as opposed to the actuality of fumbling round with trousers round ankles, trying to get condoms out of your wallet. Of course, both are equally unrealistic, but between them they build up a general sense of what's involved that leaves the average male feeling less convinced they're going to make a complete mess of their "First Time" and be a laughing stock.

Of course, there are extremes in both. There's porn I wouldn't watch myself, never mind let my kids watch it. The same with games. Something like "Manhunt" for example. This is a game where you play a serial killer and involves stalking your victims, killing them in a variety of ways, and even giving you the option of urinating on them. I kid you not. There's no question in my mind that this crosses the line. However, there's plenty of people who would draw that line earlier than I would.

I have had to start ignoring the PEGI ratings on games because I find them so useless. Example: Prince of Persia is rated 16+ because of "extreme fantasy violence". By this they mean that when you kill one of the zombie ghosts with your magic sword after running along the wall in a floating castle, there's a splash of blood. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. If my kid can't tell the difference between that and reality, its not the computer game's fault. Likewise, a Star Wars game was rated 16+ because it allows you to use the "Force Choke" power that Darth Vader used in the first 5 minutes of Star Wars. You know, the most family friendly movie ever.

In short, I would prefer my kids weren't exposed to Porn until they're old enough to understand it, but realistically speaking, with the internet at their fingertips and the inability to supervise them 24/7, here and in their friends houses, its a losing battle. The likelihood is that within a year of them finding out about sex, they'll have watched two real people having real sex on a computer. And in some ways that's probably more healthy than the misconceptions and frank ignorance that most of us had through our teenage years.

As for video games, they're no more violent than Tom and Jerry cartoons for the most part. Of course there are exceptions, but frankly, the I find the whole anti-video games lobby to be laughable. Its almost always exposed as ignorance and political posturing.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Firstly, you have narrowed the focus to domestic violence, but if you would care to examine which demographic is most likely to be the victim of general violence, I believe you would find that it is the young male.

That's true, but really irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are talking about sexually-related violence, and by any objective measure, the vast majority of sexually-related violence is directed at women (even allowing for the fact that there is more directed at men than some believed).

You are quite correct to pull me up, Voronwë. I must try harder to curb my tendency to veer off at a tangent.

Saying that, I think it is important to recognise that, not only is it surprising how prevalent reported sexually-related violence towards men is, the practice of men not reporting such violence because of accompanying stigma distorts the gender proportionality. The raw statistics hide an uncomfortable truth; the degree to which sexually-related violence is directed at women is skewed by contrasting disclosure rates.

The chasm between the genders is not so great as supposed.

Just musing here. If memory serves, it seems to me that in crimes of passion, and especially murder, the percentage that the perpetrator is in a relationship with the victim is something like 85 or 90 percent.
And if eighty percent of murders and crimes of passion are committed by men, doesn't it stand to reason that men are more prone to physical violence?

One factor involved with murder in a "crime of passion" domestic violence situation is the relative physical strength of the actors. Men, being generally more powerful than women, are more likely to cause serious, or mortal, injury. Thus, women victims are more likely to die, or be seriously injured, than men victims.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Al, thanks for the thoughtful and extensive response to my question. I appreciate it.

[yovargas]

Yov, it may be true for the purpose of Internet discussion but in dealing with the problem in actuality, it is important to diagnose the problem correctly. To do otherwise would be like saying, "all headache is painful, whether from concussion or a brain tumor." Certainly they are both bad and dangerous, but we need to understand what causes it before it can be treated.

But the point that brought all this up wasn't about this. It was "what kind of sex is harmful to expose kids to". And the answer to that is not gender specific. It can become gender specific when you then ask "what kinds of harm can it cause" but it seems to me that should be the second step, not the first.

[Frelga]

Well, if you want to backtrack that far, then you are correct, technically. The conversation has moved to the actual incidence of domestic for a bit.

Thing is, you also have to ask what depiction of sex a child is likely to encounter. At least in mainstream - movies rated R, say, that children are barred from - you are overwhelmingly more likely to encounter imagery geared to straight men and female characters whose only purpose is to serve as eye candy and a prize for the male. Heck, that's what PJ's Arwen was. Sure there was lots of male hawtness but it was incidental to their actual job as heroes. I can't offhand think of any of them appearing in see-through clothing to make out with a (fully-clothed) girlfriend, and generally exist solely to make her feel better.

Nor are you likely to see some of the hottest male actors paired off with an old, fat or at all unattractive woman except as joke. And yet the opposite is routine.

[Primula Baggins]

The old formula (urban legend but try it—it works) for "correct" relative ages of a male star and his female trophy: divide the male's age by 2 and add 6 years. This obviously goes to objectification and the well-known fact that movies almost never include sexual women pas their mid-forties (their "correct" partners would be 80 ).

[axordil]

I'm going to stick my neck out and say cultural influence isn't the only game in town when it comes to the depictions of relationships in media. Evolutionary hardwiring is in there too, like it or not. My fantasies about Helen Mirren notwithstanding, a woman's attractiveness is tied to her fertility, and thus has a "best by" date, as far as male hindbrains are concerned. A man's attractiveness isn't so clearly tagged to such a narrow timespan.

The fight against our inner chimps isn't always pretty.

[Túrin Turambar]

The fight against our inner chimps isn't always pretty.

I read somewhere that human courtship can basically be summarised as women using signs of fertility to draw high-status men and men using signs of status to draw fertile women. Basically how it is with the other great apes (although there are some interesting biological differences between them and us when it comes to sex).

I propose a split thread, anyway. There’s a fascinating discussion to be had on this topic.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The SCOTUS has ruled in the Snyder case, affirming the appeals court ruling throwing out the judgment against the Westboro Baptist Church and Phelps. The decision was 8 to 1, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority decision, and Justice Alito the lone dissent. Justice Breyer wrote a concurring decision. It appears that the court failed to adopt the compromise position that Breyer seemed to be advocating at the oral argument. I'll probably have more to say once I've read the opinions, which can be read here.

[nerdanel]

I came to post about this, and you beat me to it. Essentially, from the early news articles, the Court seems to have taken the absolutist First Amendment line which I have previously advocated. I am happy about the vindication of the underlying principle. I do see free speech this expansive as a fundamental and distinctive American value. However, I share the near-universal repugnance for the Phelps church's message.

It is unlikely that I will have the opportunity to read the opinion for 10-12 days, so I will be most delighted if V has the chance to provide a summary of its highlights.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've read the opinions. The basic thrust of the majority opinion is that this was speech on a public matter, made at a public place (the protesters did not actually enter the funeral area), and the fact that it was particularly upsetting to a private individual can't vitiate the special protection accorded by the First Amendment to such speech. Breyer basically just emphasizes that the holding should be taken as a narrow decision applying to the specific facts of the case. Alito (in his usual pugnacious New York tone) argues that it is really speech directed at a private individual that should not be accorded First Amendment protection. Alito's argument does not really hold up, and while my sympathies are with Snyder and his family, and completely against Phelps and the Westboro Church, the principle upheld is a sound one and I agree with the decision. The fact that it was such strong majority, encompassing the most liberal, the most conservative (arguably, although Alito could certainly give Scalia and Thomas a run for their money for that title) and the most moderate justices, is quite compelling.

[anthriel]

With very, very gritted teeth, I would have to say this is the only right decision.

But I loathe the people who would inflict such pain on those already suffering.

[Primula Baggins]

It may not be a totally negative thing for the victimized families, to see how many complete strangers including masses of bikers also show up to shield the family from sight of the "church" protesters. And the decent people vastly outnumber the "church" gathering.

Yes, they help draw attention to the Westboro people, but the only alternative would be to let them victimize innocent families. Which is part of the general loathsomeness of those people: they count on other people's decency to feed their publicity machine (and provide them with chances to file lawsuits, which is their big source of revenue, from what I hear).

[nerdanel]

With very, very gritted teeth, I would have to say this is the only right decision.

Within our paradigm, yes, because we (constitutionally) hold free speech as an absolute value. But it isn't the only right decision within every paradigm: throughout much of Europe, free speech is viewed as much more of a qualified right - one that can be curtailed if the speech is overly hate-filled or hostile (among other things). In some of their decisions, they define themselves in opposition to our absolutist model, and so too I have come to understand my valuation of free speech in opposition to theirs. Within our paradigm, the cure to free speech is more free speech; the cure to hateful and mean-spirited speech is kind-hearted, good-spirited speech; and the solution to problematic ideas is promulgation of better ideas. It's funny how a vindication of our ideals, as in this decision, can simultaneously make me feel proud to be an American, and ashamed to share that title with the particular speakers in question.

[anthriel]

It may not be a totally negative thing for the victimized families, to see how many complete strangers including masses of bikers also show up to shield the family from sight of the "church" protesters. And the decent people vastly outnumber the "church" gathering.

Thank you for the quotes around "church". These people are not representative of anything resembling a church. They are slugs of the worst sort, and make me itch for a good salt shaker.

But your point is well made, and dovetails into something I was thinking earlier. What the Westboro slugs are doing is wrong on every moral level possible. But it is not wrong legally <she says, with gritted teeth>.

Legal condemnation is not the only condemnation possible, though, or effective. Standing up against them, standing in their way, does have the unfortunate effect of highlighting them and their slimy ways. However, it also reinforces the values that we as a community hold as important. Sometimes we need a challenge to discover what we will and will not endure.

It's funny how a vindication of our ideals, as in this decision, can simultaneously make me feel proud to be an American, and ashamed to share that title with the particular speakers in question.

Very well said. I wholeheartedly agree. We are not perfect, and there are Americans with whom I share absolutely no values. But when the ideal is held steadfast, and individuals will step up to help their countrymen in time of need, then I am proud of our country.

[Holbytla]

Wasn't there a state, city or town that enacted new legislation about protests at funerals and having to be a certain amount of feet away?