In Which Neil Gaiman is Awesome

[highlyeccentric]

Go read Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech over at the Gaiman blog.

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.

The CBLDF will defend your First Amendment right as an adult to make lines on paper, to draw, to write, to sell, to publish, and now, to own comics. And that's what makes the kind of work you don't like, or don't read, or work that you do not feel has artistic worth or redeeming features worth defending. It's because the same laws cover the stuff you like and the stuff you find icky, wherever your icky line happens to be: the law is a big blunt instrument that makes no fine distinctions, and because you only realise how wonderful absolute freedom of speech is the day you lose it.

Also from that Gaiman post, Access to porn decreases incidence of rape. Even I can tell it's not what you'd call a scientifically clinching study, but it's a nice balance to all the unproven 'porn causes rape' type articles.

Comments

[anachronisma.livejournal.com]

While I fully understand and agree with Mr. Gaiman's position on defending the indefensible when it comes to art, it is unfortunately it is pretty well-understood that a demand for pornography encourages human trafficking. (Much in the same way that an expectation of prostitution creates a demand targeted in "destination" sites in Europe, for example, anywhere the World Cup is being held). It is a huge problem in South Africa in particular, where child predators kidnap or trick children, then violate them on camera and sell it in Europe.

I had to write a paper on human trafficking in South Africa, and that bit of information, which made it into my paper but I don't recall the source (I can dig it up if you're really interested, I think it was from the IOM or the UN) but it was definitely one of the most disturbing things I've ever read about. Ever. (Followed pretty closely by the targeting of albinos in Tanzania for ritual killing so their body parts can be used in witchcraft potions and that this is a growing human trafficking problem).

I'm against pornography in general because of the connection to human trafficking and coercion, which is well-established in a lot of studies by NGOs and offshoots of the UN.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

It is a huge problem in South Africa in particular, where child predators kidnap or trick children, then violate them on camera and sell it in Europe.

Then we have a problem with that MEDIUM of pornography and the methods used to produce it, not necessarily the concept of pornography itself.

I'm against pornography in general because of the connection to human trafficking and coercion, which is well-established in a lot of studies by NGOs and offshoots of the UN.

That's a slippery-slope argument, I'm afraid. You're making a jump between pornography depicting adults and pornography depicting children. One is legal and one is not. Pornography depicting adults (and by that I assume we're talking filmed or perhaps photographed pornographic pieces involving live actors, rather than comicbook porn or literotica) is OFTEN made in illegal or immoral circumstances, and OFTEN contains and disseminates attitudes to gender and sex which are wrong, distasteful and/or immoral. It OFTEN produced in circumstances where the (usually female) actors are not in an economic or social position to give full and reasoned consent. But it isn't always, and it doesn't have to be. People like Erika Lust (http://www.lustfilms.com/blogEn/erika-lust/) specialise in making 'feminist porn', in which you know the actors are paid above board, and are treated respectfully by the filmmakers, and the films themselves are said to be aimed at women, non-misogynist, etc. Haven't seen any myself, so I can only go on word of mouth here.

Child pornography can never be considered moral. Filming or photographing minors in order to produce porn for an adult audience can never be anything but wrong, and child trafficking for that purpose doubly so.

But when you say 'the demand for pornography encourages human trafficking' in the child porn industry, you're assuming that child porn falls into the same category as porn involving ostensibly-consenting adults. Do any of the studies you've read suggest that, on the consumer end, a demand for pornography consistently winds up at child pornography? Unless that is the case (which I very strongly doubt), then what we have is a demand for child pornography which is contributing to sex-related human trafficking.

It wouldn't surprise me if there is also a trade in persons of the age of consent for the production of black-market porn as well, however. In that case, I can sort of see where you're coming from.

However, since it is established that there is a demand for porn, and there's actually nothing you can do to cut off that demand, it seems to me that the best way to reduce the demand for black-market porn and porn which is produced in abusive circumstances has to be to promote ethical porn, feminist porn, literary porn, comic-book porn, whatever else we have which answers the demand for porn without impinging on the rights of any human being.

[anachronisma.livejournal.com]

You make a couple good points because my comment was too vague. (Too many hours in the lab. argh.)

The point I meant to make is that a demand for pornography featuring both legal adults and children is being met by black market pornography featuring the victims of human trafficking. Some people correlate the general expectation of pornography as a "no consequence" form of sexual pleasure with the abuse of children for use in black market pornography (this certainly is true with the related case of prostitution); I just used only the example of child pornography and child abuse because it's what was on my mind after I read the article. Both men and women of legal age are being abused sexually and not compensated financially, as well as children.

There are differences between the two, obviously. Leaving aside the issue of child sexual abuse for monetary gain and what to do about it, pornography featuring consenting adults is, as you pointed out, not always illegal (it depends on where you are and what is happening inside the pornography, and it can be illegal to own it but not to make it, etc.). But it seems to be a lot like the problem with legalizing prostitution, if prostitution is legal somewhere, this is an ideal place for black market pimps to traffick women to feed the need as the demand for prostitutes universally exceeds the number of people willing to enter the trade and acknowledged as legal under the law in cities where it is legal, as those places become "sex tourism" spots (Kevin Bales talks about this in relation to Thailand a bit in his book "Disposable People").

It's a double-edged sword, many people feel making prostitution legal would decrease the number of trafficked women, but it actually just makes prosecuting pimps and traffickers who operate illegally harder. Such problems extend to black-market pornography, especially on the internet. Most people do not ask if the porn they're viewing was made with consenting adults; they just assume it was. Can you hold someone responsible for purchasing and viewing what is essentially slave porn (what some people want to do with johns who buy sex from trafficked women)? How do you regulate the international porn industry?

[owlfish]

It's a double-edged sword, many people feel making prostitution legal would decrease the number of trafficked women, but it actually just makes prosecuting pimps and traffickers who operate illegally harder

I was under the impression that taxation and licensing helps ensure legality of prostitution while minimizing trafficking. But then I haven't read studies on it (i.e. the Netherlands).