Neil Gaiman writes "Why defend freedom of icky speech?"

[thucythucy]

24. I appreciate the link

though it seems rather more nuanced to me than calling for an outright ban. The poster, as I understand it, would "have no problem" seeing rape porn banned, but sees how such a ban might be problematic in that it could spill over and have unintended consequences. As do very many strictures having to do with "speech."

Anyway, as I say, I appreciate the link.

Personally, I'd have to see specific examples of what it is we're discussing, along with the context in which such "fiction" is being viewed or read. I doubt for instance that most people would have trouble prohibiting rape porn being viewed at a public junior high school, in effect "banning" it in such a context. And I haven't seen a whole lot of criticism of German laws against publishing obviously anti-Semitic or Holocaust denial material--even if "fictionalized"--given the particular history and tragic consequences of anti-Semitic hate speech in Germany. So in those instances I can certainly see an argument for "banning."

On the other hand, I haven't seen anybody calling for a ban of "Lolita" or "Tropic of Cancer"--not on DU, anyway. Though ToC might be a bit much for your average junior high school kid. Hell, I still can't make my way through "Naked Lunch" -- partly it's the writing and subject matter, partly because I'm familiar with the story of how William Burroughs got away with killing his wife. Wouldn't want to see it banned, though.

In general I'm uncomfortable with absolutes. No "ban" of any "fiction"--maybe. Maybe not. Also depends on what sort of "ban" we mean. Even fiction writers have to be wary of the libel laws, yes?