Full Frontal Politics free speech from a phone sex operator

“The ability to distinguish between fiction and reality is, I think, an important indicator of sanity, perhaps the most important. And it looks like the Australian legal system has failed on that score.”

-Neil Gaiman (“The word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters…”)

The world is becoming more dangerous for fiction. No, scratch that–more dangerous for ideas.

Australia, I’m talking about you. While those in adult industry production, and those involved in protecting sexual free speech, know Australia has never been a porn haven (although they do produce an awful lot of the best), this one made even my jaded activist jaw drop:

An Australian Supreme Court judge convicted a man of possessing child pornography. The images in question were stored on his hard drive: explicit cartoon images modeled after Bart, Lisa, and Maggie, child characters from long-running cartoon The Simpsons, apparently having sex with their parents (also cartoon characters). Google “free hentai” a few times and I’m sure you’ll come across the same type of image–I know I have.

This type of image–a parody–is actually considered protected fair use under U.S. copyright law. In this case it would probably also be at risk of being found obscene.

“If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted,” Justice Adams said in his judgment. “Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar.” Let’s back that one up. “If the persons were real.” I’d say that’s an important distinction.

If the persons were real, every episode of South Park would be considered a snuff film. If the persons were real, Homer Simpson would be guilty of child abuse. If the persons were real…

“But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were ‘markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being,’ the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.”

(Did you catch that one? Everyone gets to be considered people nowadays; zygotes, Republicans, even cartoon characters. Everyone but those gosh darn sex workers.)

“Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images are depicted of ‘real’ children.

However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could ‘fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children.’”

(“Simpsons rip-off is child porn: judge”)

Okay. Let’s put our niche porn marketing hats on here and shine the red light of reason upon this logic. Someone who is looking for cartoon photos of The Simpsons characters is probably not fueling the demand for genuine child porn that does involve the abuse of children. Shock-value cartoon porn simply doesn’t tend to cross over to the screams and pain of gory reality. Many–most I’ve talked to–viewers of cartoon porn and hentai prefer it because they’re trying to get away from the gray areas of gory reality. Let’s ignore, for a moment, the obvious slippery-slope leap of logic used here and assume, for a moment, that it’s possible for fiction to inspire its viewers to enact crimes portrayed therein.

“Wow, Bart is having sex with Marge! Hm, maybe I should coerce my nine-year-old son into sex. Or talk some guy or gal on the internet into sending me some pictures of their kid in the same situation.”

Let’s ignore the patently ridiculous nature of this idea…

“Carrie set a school on fire with her brain! That must mean it’s okay for me to use pyromania as a valid way to express my righteous rage against bullying and alienation.”

Let’s ignore the fact that repeat viewings of tentacle rape pornography have left me strangely unlikely to force an octopus into a nubile, big-eyed young woman’s hoo-hah. Or, to be more realistic: that repeat viewings of fictional depictions of cartoon violence and force–including sexual violence and force–still have not caused me to molest schoolgirls on the train, rape extremely tan blonde women at gunpoint, attempt to coerce my male friends into reluctant yet strangely arousing “forced” bisexuality… Okay, that last one I have attempted, but in all fairness I was buying the drinks.

As the good Mr. Gaiman says, sane people can distinguish between fiction and reality. They know what is appropriate in real life and what is only a thoroughly twisted fantasy.

“Dreaming permits each and every one of us to be quietly and safely insane every night of our lives.”

-Charles William Dement

I’m very lucky. I get paid to spin tales of my twisted fantasies. (Much like authors and artists, but with slightly more pay and slightly less social acceptability. It’s a tradeoff. Which begs the question–are all our attempts toward sex worker rights contributing to flooding of the market and erosion of stigma-inflated wages? I digress…) My id is healthy and well-exercised. It makes a difference. A properly (and safely) “fed” sadist is much nicer to be around.

Ideas and their fictional expression must never become illegal. We all need a place to be quietly and safely insane.

More on this censorship case (and related):

• “Put down that pencil, you’re under arrest…” (Renegade Evolution)
• “Can comics be pornography?” (Daisy’s Dead Air)
• “Why defend freedom of icky speech?” (Neil Gaiman’s Journal)

• The FBI Meets With Adult: 1 (XBiz)
• Citizen journalism website seeks sex-trade worker to cover Pickton trial (Canadian Press)
• Porn Sites Start Adapting to Wii (1up.com)
• Indications of a Slowdown in Sex Entertainment Trade (New York Times)
• Sex Offenders Fill Geriatric Wards of U.S. Prisons (NPR)
• Sex-Crazed Teens, Porn and Booze Bunk: 2006’s Worst Science Journalism (PNN Online)
• Massachusetts Lawmakers Advance Proposed Gay Marriage Ban (Boston.com)
• First same-sex union celebrated in Switzerland (Advocate.com)
• Do X-rated Web Sites Merit Scarlet Letter? (The Plain Dealer) *

* For more information on the voluntary Restricted to Adults label, visit RTALabel.org.

J.T. Benjamin of ERWA fame has a great idea:

Mind your own fucking business.

“…And what is this theme? How must we respond to the Holy Terrors’ War On Whoopie? Four words.

Mind Your Own Business.

It’s firm. It’s assertive. It’s simple. It’s “Get The Government Out Of Our Private Lives.” It’s Freedom. It’s Liberty. It’s All-American.

It’s Ann Landers saying, “Dear Concerned: M.Y.O.B.” It’s Hank Williams singing, “Why don’t you mind your own business, so you won’t be minding mine.” You can’t get more All-American than Ann and Hank.

Of course, regarding child pornography and sexual assault, we all need to crack down, but when it comes to monitoring the sex lives of consenting adults, we have to say just four simple words.

Mind Your Own Business…”

(“From the Dec-Jan edition of ERWA,” All Worked Up And Then Some)

Up for a rant? Read on…

Sexual freedom in the U.S. rests on three things: the separation of church and state, the First Amendment right to free speech, and the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. (Some pro-forced pregnancy judges believe that the 4th doesn’t imply a right to privacy; you read it and tell me. Without a right to privacy, why would any search be unreasonable? It’s the violation of that recognized, everyday right that makes certain searches unreasonable.)

The separation of church and state is necessary to our continued sexual freedom because a sex-positive religious faction has yet to take political power in the U.S. Sex between any given number of people (1 or greater, and if you think about it, you damn well can be between yourself. It’s not bad grammar, it’s a jilling euphemism, dammit.) is/was considered the domain of morality – public morality (back to the 4th again) – and thusly regulated by religion, law, and law influenced by specific religious traditions.

Traditionally, the chief justification for blue laws and other laws restricting sexuality was that blurred boundary between religious doctrine, public morality, and semi-secular legislation. Of course now cultural and religious attitudes are changing and that justification doesn’t hold the weight it used to. That’s why the Religious Right and the pro-censorship left have turned to “for the children” scare tactics and pseudoscience to push their anti-sex and/or anti-porn agendas.

The idea that the state cannot legislate morality isn’t fully rooted in this country and without that guideline, the free exercise of sexuality doesn’t exist, legally, while church doctrine passes as legislation.

If we lose that, we’re fucked. In the ass. Hard. No lube and no reacharound.

Sex and religion belong together, but tell that to the moral majority.

The First Amendment is every pornographer’s best friend and we all know it. Without the right to free speech, I can’t make a living say half the fun, nasty things I do over the phone or in my blogs. Without the right to yell “Theater!” in a crowded fire or speak out against a fricking irritating Shrubbery there is no right to porn. Period. Every threat to free speech threatens your free porn privileges.

That’s hitting us where it hurts.

But it’s the right to privacy guarded by the Fourth Amendment (I won’t say guaranteed by; it’s guaranteed in the same way any person’s dignity should be, by birth) that truly protects all avenues of consensual sexuality and reproductive rights (including any combination of sexuality and money you can think of, at least in some counties). The idea that whatever happens between informed, consenting adults is okay, even if you’re offended, is as J.T. Benjamin pointed out grounded in privacy rights. The idea that it isn’t really anybody’s business who you’re fucking is the one that gave unmarried people access to birth control. Your health choices and issues are between you and your doctor, right? They thought so when they re-legalized abortion.

Georgia would rather fuck you than let you fuck yourself. No sex toys for you, my friend. The erotica and porn you’re permitted to see, or make… it all comes back to privacy and whether or not you have the right to do what you want when no one’s watching and no one’s getting hurt in ways they’re not into.

Labors of a Digital Pimp was featured on Fleshbot a couple of days ago; if you missed him then, you’ll want to check him out now. He’s had excellent coverage of the Alito nomination process and how it could impact the average surfer’s porn viewing (free speech = free porn; less freedom of speech equals less freedom of expression for smutmongers, equals less free porn). What I really like is how easy he makes it to get involved in the process and that he points out just how much less likely politicians would be to go after porn if fans of adult entertainment weren’t ashamed to stand up for it.

His last point is his best: “And it is clear: Pornography is not Obscenity. The Rove machine, and other cultural warriors have done everything they can to blend those boundaries, and it is time to take back those terms and reframe the debate based on law, not smirking, adolescent innuendo from the religious extremists…”

Make no mistake about it, this is a cultural battle, and the “other side” is in it for the long haul. It cuts across party lines: neither red nor blue has a monopoly on individual liberty or the right to read, purchase, and produce works of fiction and fantasy. There is a strong push right now toward believing that ideas are harmful. No creatively sexual society can thrive when those guys are unopposed (and our society is pretty damn creatively sexual).