From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 25 Jul 92 03:45:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul24.212058.9607@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>     (Note: The first part of this article appeared 
>     with somewhat different wording a few months ago 
>     in soc.feminism.)
>
>Most discussions of censorship start out with the assumption
>that it is possible to practice it.  I think that, except
>in the sense of the overt, simple act of force in suppressing 
>speech, it is not.  Consequently, even if Dworkin, McKinnon,
>and other fans of censorship were right in some theoretical 
>sense, I think the implementation of censorship is a waste of 
>time in that it cannot possibly achieve its object, which 
>must be the abolition of certain kinds of thought.

Dworkin, MacKinnon et al. are not interested in the abolition of certain
types of thought but of certain kind of actions, and they do not
maintain that there is a clear and distinct boundary between speech and
action.

In describing Dworkin, MacKinnon et al. as "fans of censorship" you
accept the terms set by their opponents.  This is that Dworkin/MacKinnon
are advocates of censorship whereas their opponents are defenders of
free speech.  It's been shown in this thread, however, that the interest
in free speech by such institutions as Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, the New York Times, et al., while real
to some extent, is not disinterested.  Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler
all have an interest in selling magazines.  Freedom of electronic data
interchange assists corporate sponsors of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation in meeting their goals, whence the support of the EFF by
Lotus and others.  And so on.

Dworkin, MacKinnon et al. are to some extent supporters of censorship
partly because of the truly pathological levels of violence in our
society, violence which BEGINS in words and which is often directed
against women.  Much of this violence against women arises because of
the insane expectations of relationships created by magazines like
Playboy and Penthouse.  However, Dworkin and MacKinnon have never
advocated across the board censorship, simply censorship of pornography
and of hate speech.  What they advocate is consistent with accepted
legal doctrines concerning pornography and "fighting words", they only
wish to render these doctrines more pointed and more supportive of the
groups that have been specifically targeted by porn and fighting words.

>
>The reason for this is that censorship has to include in its
>structure the very thing it seeks to repress.  The simplest
>case of this is the famous command not to think of a one-
>eyed camel; the corresponding act of censorship would be the
>prohibition of speaking of a one-eyed camel.  Every act
>enforcing this prohibition would, _per_se_, carry out the 
>very action it sought to prevent.

Laws against hate speech may make passing mention of Nazi regalia.  But
this is not likely to disturb anyone.  Even laws against porn do not
have to excite.  Perhaps you're thinking of the Meese report which did
manage to be pornographic because old fatboy went overboard and included
all sorts of explicit illustrations.  However, Dworkin's accounts of her
victimizations excite pity, the reverse of hateful emotions; and
MacKinnon's almost Germanic pedantry excites boredom at its worst
(despite its value), not anger or sexual arousal.



>
>It is the same with other forms of censorship -- the 
>censorship of sexual or of violent material, for example.  
>The censorship sets up a structure in which the thing 
>prohibited is the central idea which lies behind every act 
>of enforcement.  The result is (in the case of censorship 
>of erotica) to sexualize everything on the boundary 
>between what is censored and what isn't, because _the_ 
>_boundary_points_to_the_center_.  That is why, in the 
>Victorian era, it was considered rather improper for a 
>woman's ankles to be displayed, at least if she were of 
>a certain class.  The ankle became sexually inspiring
>because it indicated the calf, which was hidden; the
>calf, the knee; and so on.  Sometimes, people felt the
>need to cover the legs of tables, and call them limbs!
>

You don't say. This is the old "steam engine" theory of sexual
repression.  It has some validity.  However, for many men, venting rage
and having sex leads not to relief but to addiction to sex and violence.
This is probably the result of the way in which our society is
structured, in which personal behavior is "free" but economic and
political arrangements are insanely rigid.  So maybe in the past the
"steam engine" theory had validity which it nowadays lacks.

Addicts in successful recovery often report that they think of the
object of their addiction every single day and they welcome these
thoughts.  These thoughts, it is said, "keep the memory green."  Perhaps
we need Dworkin and MacKinnon to remind us of the way in which women are
victimized.  Perhaps here, too, silence=death.

>
>The prohibited erotism becomes, so to speak, the shadow or 
>dark side of everything said within the reach of the 
>prohibition -- and the more that is said, the more 
>messages that are sent, the more probable it is that the 
>prohibited is implicit in the permitted.  The repressed 
>does not have to return; it simply hides behind the 
>unrepressed and becomes part of it. 

This has validity.  However, you appear to assume that Dworkin and
MacKinnon want us to be silent about sex, and violence against women.  I
should think they want the opposite.  Dworkin is quite explicit about
the ways in which she was victimized.  They DO wish to attenuate
discourse about sex and women from a male point of view; one of
Dworkin's writings is titled "Against the Male Flood."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal