Neil Gaiman on why it’s important to protect all kinds of speech:
You ask, What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you’re going to have to stand up for stuff you don’t believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don’t, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person’s obscenity is another person’s art.
Because if you don’t stand up for the stuff you don’t like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you’ve already lost.
Go read the whole thing. It’s an informed and considered response to what I think are legitimate concerns. It’s tough defending art you think is distasteful, but it’s the only way to defend art you think isn’t.
The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is headquartered right across the street from where I work. I really should send them my resume and volunteer…
Generally, I agree with you and Mr. Gaiman, but I disagree that the issue is only about speech that’s “distasteful.” There certainly is some art that’s just unpleasant, and it should be protected. But I am leery of an “absolute freedom of speech,” as Mr. Gaimain says. That’s not what we have now, and it’s not what we should have; there are instances of speech go beyond distasteful and actually cause harms. Speech that reveals private information about a person, for example, or speech that is designed to harass and hurt should be prohibited. It’s a fine line and a good discussion to have.
That’s why things like harassment are themselves crimes. If someone abuses the freedom of speech to commit a crime, the protection enjoyed under the First Amendment does not extend to that as well. I don’t think Gaiman is advocating the same kind of absolutism you’re afraid of. In the case to which he’s responding, for instance, he quite rightly points out that actual child pornography should not be protected because actual children are hurt in its creation. Any claims to “artistic merit” would be well beyond the point, since the material itself is so objectionable on other grounds.
In the examples you raise, especially the reveal of private information about a person, the line can become much finer. When the intent is malicious, slander or harassment let’s say, it’s not so difficult. But what about a reporter who reveals information in the interest of the public right to know? (Here I’m thinking about more “substantive” news, but I’d have to extend that protection to entertainment paparazzi as well, however distasteful I might find them personally.) What about whistleblowers?
I agree, it can become a fine line sometimes. But I don’t think the line should be drawn by what any one person or group of people find objectionable on artistic grounds.