Quote:
Originally Posted by desertgrandma
If you aren't outraged by this......if you can't see the difference between something that "offends" and something that is totally unacceptable, you are part of the problem.
|
Of course I'm outraged by this. I've already gotten yelled at once for what I said about spammers, so I'm not going to even start on what I think should happen to pedophiles; I'd probably get banned for that one. But that isn't the issue.
The issue is what words we think shouldn't be said. What words are too dangerous for other people to read (and it's never "I'm not going to read that"; it's always "nobody else can read that"). I'm a bit of an extremist here: I don't think anyone should be in the position of deciding that there are such words, or what they are.
For example, there is right now in Uganda a bill (I don't think it's a law yet) which makes homosexuality punishable by death. Look at that again: DEATH. If you're gay in Uganda, you can be imprisoned for years right now, and if this bill passes, the government can kill you. They have decided that they are find homosexuality so offensive that it's worthy of execution. As much as I dislike "slippery slope" arguments because they're often not grounded in fact, it is indeed a short step from "you can't talk about it" to "you can't do it". So where do we draw the line? And who draws it?
Let's say that all right-thinking people agree that you can't write books advocating pedophilia. On the face of it, that seems reasonable. We could probably get 99% of the people out there to agree with that (and most of the other 1% would be people like me, not pedophiles). Now, what about gay rights? There are a lot of people who think the way the government of Uganda thinks. Look at the books that are removed from libraries and schools because of those people. They're already deciding what other people should read. Is that where the line should be drawn? What about your favorite conspiracy theorist ... maybe the crazy rainbow lady ... and the books
they don't think people should read. Do they get to draw the line?
That's what I have a problem with: giving someone the right to decide, especially based on public opinion, what books I'm allowed to buy or read. Some people say I shouldn't be able to buy books on pedophilia. Well, that's no issue to me, because I've never wanted to, and I'd probably wash my brain out with bleach if the thought ever crossed my mind. But what happens when they say I shouldn't buy books on whatever
else they happen to dislike? Those people in Uganda, for instance, would seem to be more outraged by homosexuality than by pedophilia; I'm sure we could point fingers at people in certain religious groups whose actions, at least, show that they feel the same way. Do they get to decide? What about the people who think I shouldn't have access to books about evolution? Or books that disparage their favorite political party? Or books that say their religion (or lack thereof) is a crock?
When we draw the line *here* and say "books about pedophilia are bad, but books about gay rights are good" we open the door to people who want to move that line. People who will move the line to the other side of whatever THEY happen to dislike. And that's not a position I want to be in.
Pedophilia is illegal. We have penalties for people who engage in it. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it doesn't make it go away. But saying what books people are allowed to read starts a precedent which may, in the end, lead to something far more dangerous than pedophilia. It leads to China and Uganda and our own past. I am far more terrified by having pressure groups decide what I can read than the occasional sicko who is already violating numerous laws reading a book that tells him it's okay to be sick.
Again: Where do we draw the line? Who do we allow to draw it? If it's okay to pressure Amazon to not sell this book, is it okay for people (sometimes the same people) to pressure their public or school library not to lend a book they dislike? We'd like to think that "Amazon can't sell a book on pedophilia" and "My school district can't own a book on gay rights" are two totally different things ... after all, one's about something illegal and the other's about something legal (except not in Uganda), right? Except ... they're not.
Something else to think about
: there are worse things than pedophilia. Murder, for instance. You can never recover from being murdered. Check how many different versions of the
Anarchist's Coookbook can be found on Amazon. Aside from the fact that some of the "recipes" will kill you if you try them, that book explains how to murder people. But you can buy it. Should we ban that, too? It's advocating the worst crime there is. Except maybe mass murder. Better ban
Mein Kampf too. And there are people who say the Bible is a blueprint for mass murder; the Canaanites came out on the short end of the stick, after all. Should we ban that? Where do we stop?
And that, I think, is the bottom line: Where do we stop? When we say "other people can't read this book because I disagree with what's in it" -- whatever that content may be -- then we're starting a juggernaut rolling that may not go where we want it to. I think that's a very, very bad idea.