In a comment on the "GetUp!" blog I accidentally pasted the text of an earlier post on this blog (in addition to the copy I intended to paste).
In response to this comment I was challenged about the validity of the analogy I drew between access to child pornography and rape
Jon, you wrote:
'We don't force drunk men in the presence of scantily clad women to be chained to a pole because rape is illegal. We prosecute actual transgressions of the law.'
I want to point out that being in the presence of scantily clad women does not cause men to choose to rape, or have any influence over a choice to rape. Rape is about power. That analogy is inappropriate in a number of ways.
Firstly, any viewing of child pornography is harmful- it results in the creation of more child pornography.
Secondly, relating sexiness to rape does men and women (and sex!) a disservice.
Thirdly, it would be a good thing if child pornography could be blocked by technical means, as this would remove a market for something that is infinitely cruel and harmful.
It is very clear that this will not be achieved by filtering the internet and the governments idea is incredibly stupid and unhelpful.
However analogies like the above are not helpful either.
I responded with another comment in which I laid out the analogy explicitly.
| freedom to enjoy sexiness | <-> | freedom to enjoy uncensored access to the Internet |
| rape | <-> | access to child pornography |
| physically restrain all men to prevent some men raping sexy or vulnerable women "because" they are there | <-> | censor the Internet for everyone, to prevent some accessing child pornography "because" it is there |
| most men don't rape | <-> | most internet surfers don't view child pornography |
| freedom to enjoy sexiness does not license rape | <-> | freedom to enjoy uncensored access to the Internet does not license access to online child pornography |
| prosecute actual occurrences of rape | <-> | prosecute actual access to child pornography |
| treat all men as rapists who cannot be trusted to not rape | <-> | treat all Internet surfers as pedophiles who cannot be trusted to not view child pornography |
This post discusses these points more discursively.
> I want to point out that being in the presence of scantily clad women does not cause men to choose to rape, or have any influence over a choice to rape. Rape is about power....
Agreed. Likewise, in my analogy, freedom to access the uncensored Internet does not cause people to view child pornography. The freedom to use an uncensored Internet does not license access to child pornography any more than the freedom to enjoy scantily clad women licenses rape.
> Firstly, any viewing of child pornography is harmful- it results in the creation of more child pornography.
I never claimed that access to child pornography is harmless. Indeed, in my analogy, accessing child pornography is equivalent to rape. Access to child pornography is harmful. Rape is harmful.
> Secondly, relating sexiness to rape does men and women (and sex!) a disservice.
There is a (perverted) relationship between sexiness and rape. Likewise there is a (perverted) relationship between freedom to access an uncensored Internet and online access to child pornography.
But, again, one does not license the other. There is no license to rape in the existence of the freedom to enjoy sexiness just as their is no license to view child pornography implicit in the freedom to access to an uncensored Internet.
Freedom to enjoy sexiness is good. Freedom to access to an uncensored Internet is good. Neither rape nor access to child pornography is justified under any circumstance.
We don't presume that all men are rapists even though some are. We therefore do not pre-emptively deny all men their liberty (by chaining them to poles) even though there is a risk that some of them will rape in the presence of the temptation of sexy or vulnerable women. Likewise we should not impinge upon the liberties of all people by creating a censored Internet because some people may abuse that freedom to view child pornography.
An unconstrained man is no more free to rape a vulnerable woman than an unconstrained net surfer is to view child pornography. The lack of a restraint is not license to offend, nor should it be, in real life or online.
With my analogy I was also trying to highlight the fact that in real life we deny liberty to sanction actual abuses of the law, not potential abuses.
Let's be clear, viewing child pornography is a crime. Rape is a crime. Neither is justified under any circumstances. However, we don't chain men up because rape is possible. We chain men up if they rape.
The same should be true with the Internet and child pornography. Prosecute actual use of the stuff. Don't interfere with everyone else's access to the Internet because some people might abuse that freedom to view child porn.
> Thirdly, it would be a good thing if child pornography could be blocked by technical means, as this would remove a market for something that is infinitely cruel and harmful. It is very clear that this will not be achieved by filtering the internet and the governments idea is incredibly stupid and unhelpful. However analogies like the above are not helpful either.
If there was a drug that rendered all men incapable of rape, would it be a good thing if we forced all men to consume it? Surely it is better that we respect men who, by choice, do not rape and punish those that do.
Denying the freedom to act responsibly is denying freedom itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment