Fiction... [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

One of the things that LJ bans is "content that encourages or advocates hate crimes, the abuse of children in any form, or rape". I'm interested in what fiction should and shouldn't be banned. Should any fiction that advocates crime be banned? I have some opinions on this, but I thought I'd see what you lot think. Note that the question here isn't "should anyone write it", but "should it be banned". Riding a bicycle without amber pedal reflectors (if it was made after 01/10/1985) is illegal, so I take that as an example of a pretty innocuous crime...

[Poll #1035568]
ETA: I mean banned in the broader sense, not "not allowed on LJ". I'd hoped the first option made this clear.

←

→

There are 19 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Should any fiction that advocates crime be banned?

What does it mean for fiction to "advocate" crime? That the character who commits the crime is sympathetic (very subjective!), and/or does not suffer any retribution? That the author actually speaks directly to the reader ("... and this, dear reader, is why you should ride a bicycle without lights")? Either/both/neither/something else?

Your terminology changes throughout the post, too: from "advocate" to "condone" to "glorify". I think they're all quite different things.

[link] [reply]

I wasn't really thinking of fiction where the author talks to the reader, but more where a character does the act in question and enjoys doing so (and probably escapes overmuch retribution for so doing). I accept that I could have been clearer (and more consistent!)

[link] [parent] [reply]

By that metric, David Eddings's Tamuli series advocates / glorifies casual murder (or summary capital punishment for highly sub-capital crimes, if you prefer to look at it that way). The knights are forever doing "Elenish things" to (for example) luckless border guards who they only really needed to get past, and who would probably have been more than happy to run away or surrender if given the choice. I don't think that would really justify banning the series on moral grounds (although one could probably find a quorum for banning a fair amount of Eddings on literary grounds :-).

[link] [parent] [reply]

I actually find that a good example. Lots of fiction shows killing people in roughly that light. And it may cause social problems, but I don't think the film's actually saying "go out and kill people".

So how you understand "glorifying" or "advocating" really is crucial. Fiction could show something positively, but not necessarily actually advocate *doing* it -- eg. most violent movies, and some child abuse could fit in that category :( OTOH, fiction certainly *can* advocate things, I don't think Animal Farm is just talking about totalitarianism/Stalinism, I think it's saying "stop it if you can". (Of course, preventing repressive totalitarian regimes is not illegal and is very good, but you see the point.)

Eg. I didn't see "Death of a President", but I think Bush being assassinated was a metaphor or wish-fulfilment, not actually wanting it done. And shouldn't be banned. But if it had actually encouraged people to go and kill him, that would be advocating murder and *is* illegal.

So, I think the difference between the two is not just the difference in the crimes, but that I can't imagine someone talking about cycling without pedal reflectors almost certainly doesn't have an agenda, but the child abuse fiction might.

Of course, there are other potential reasons:

* The effort spent enforcing pedal-reflectors in fiction probably isn't worth it
* But preventing child abuse in fiction even if it only has a small reflection in reality, could be worth it because the results can be so bad
* But that only applies if someone is writing about it, but not actually saying you should do it (even if they want to), but that that itself is likely enough to cause problems, which may or may not be true...

[link] [parent] [reply]

I don't think "glorifying" (which your poll is about) is the same as unequivocally "advocating".

[link] [reply]

I think I'm uncomfortable with the premise of the question, namely that fiction can "glorify" or "advocate" an action. It can depict people within the fiction performing the action, or approving of it, and it can give the impression to a literary critic that the author might have approved of it too, but I think I'd want to see an extremely cut and dried case before I'd be willing to consider a piece of fiction to be so obviously disguising a real-world polemic in favour of a bad thing that bannings should even be considered.

Apart from anything else, it would have to specifically be advocating illegal performance of the act, since banning advocating the legalisation of things would be particularly awful. If it were merely expressing the author's generalised view that they didn't think there was anything wrong with it, without specifying whether people wanting to do it should do it illegally, campaign for legalisation, or still not do it but at least not feel quite so bad about it, I don't think that would be cut and dried enough for me to go banning things.

[link] [reply]

Ho hum,

j4 said it already. That's what I get for pausing in mid-comment to do some work :-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Work? work? Priorities, man!

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think you've also got to draw the distinction between "banned on LJ" (which is how I interpreted it, despite the wording of the first option), or "made illegal". I don't think fiction should ever be made illegal, but I'm quite happy with private companies deciding they want to ban certain types of fiction in online communities.

[link] [reply]

I meant banned in the broader sense, rather than "banned on LJ".

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ah, result changed then.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The penalties for one is significantly different to the penalties for the other. One isn't going to be sent to jail for a notable number of years for illegal cycling.

Also, does "advocates" in this context mean "encourages"?

[link] [reply]

If the fiction genuinely glorified child-abuse or cycling without reflectors I'd be in favour of it being banned.

But I don't think it would be very easy to write fiction that glorified such stuff, and certainly don't agree that the kind of fiction people seem to find objectionable glorifies crime.

[link] [reply]

I agree with the people who say it depends on what we mean by "glorifying"/"advocating".

And even then, I'm not sure it's a cut and dried case...I really feel like the world needs to spend more time figuring out why someone would write a piece of fiction like that in the first place, and why someone would then go and read fiction of that variety written by someone else.

I've read various books (even disregarding the likes of fanfiction) which could be possibly interpreted to advocate all sorts of unseemly and illegal things, and yet can easily be obtained from Waterstone's or a public library (in fact, one of the most messed up and disturbing stories I ever read wasn't NC17 rated fanfiction, but Sorceress by Brigit Wood, which I was able to borrow from my local library when I was 14 or so without anyone questioning me).

I suppose whatever you do, you're not going to stop someone from writing what's in their brain, no matter how much you loathe it - and you might have big problems stopping it from reaching public circulation as well (I'd cite the Marquis de Sade as evidence, but I admit my historical knowledge of him is mostly based on that movie with Joachim Phoenix in). But I'm not sure how that should impact on whether it's banned or not, cos the more that sort of material is condoned, presumably the more desensitised to it people become...

And so I utterly fail to reach a suitable conclusion on what my opinion is. Way to go, Eni.

[link] [reply]

I'm glad that several people have already made the point about glorifying vs advocating :) But yes, it's a common tactic of people wanting to ban fictional material to claim that the material inherently promotes/advocates/incites criminal activity (e.g., the Jane Longhurt petition to ban "extreme porn" started off with "extreme internet sites promoting violence against women").

Even as far as actual advocating hate, violence, etc, laws against these seem to be a controversial issue (e.g., the recentish religious hatred laws). I find it odd that when the same arguments are used for criminalising fiction, there seems to be if anything far less controversy.

[link] [reply]

I've answered the poll definitely, but have certain, er, uncertainties even so! I have no wish to change our laws on free *speech*, and limitations on it (shouting "Fire" wantonly in crowded buildings, inciting racial hatred or urging people to attack gays etc.) But my view on written fiction which may encourage such illegal acts seems different. This feels inconsistent, but I'm not sure how (or whether) to resolve it. I've read fiction about a variety of illegal acts (notably American Psycho) where there was no clear disapproval from the author, just a neutral account of acts; I've also seen online texts which were definitely glorifying racist or homophobic attacks and murder. While I found the latter quite obnoxious and rather worrying, I can't quite bring myself to say that no one should be allowed to write such things or make them available to others. Fiction is surely an appropriate medium for exploring human ideas and feelings, whether socially acceptable or not. However, what if a BNP meeting involved someone reading such a text aloud to a group of supporters? Would it / should it become illegal on being uttered? I really don't know.

[link] [reply]

I remember reading about people writing to their MPs about something that happened in fiction - The Archers - as if it had been real. Possibly the action they were writing about would have warranted this if it had happened in RL, but a few people clearly could not distinguish fact from fiction.

So, I think that a few people could be influenced in some way or another simply because they can't draw a distinction between fiction and RL, but I can't condone banning fiction for that reason. As soon as a wide swathe of fiction is forced to follow the party line, the necessary protections that result from freedom of speech are seriously compromised.

In fact, the more that people are prevented from saying and writing things we seriously disagree with, the more afraid we all should be.

[link] [reply]

I'm another person who wants to quibble with your terminology.

I think if fiction really was *glorifying* child abuse, I'd like it to be banned. But simly having child abuse in a story, or a child-abuser, or rape scenes, is not glorifying child abuse.

Quibbles aside, not-having-pedal-reflectors may potentially be harmful to others if you cycle on dark streets and have no lights and wear black, or something. Chid abuse *is* harmful to the child. This is where I feel that the cases differ.

(I might note that there are some sorts of sex with older and younger participants which even if they were illegal, I woudln't consider chld abuse, but that's kinda a different matter)

[link] [reply]

1) as a "non-facist" i think all bans on literary content are pretty detestable
2) the reason your amber pedal analogy doesnt work for child abuse is becase the US government hasnt made it illegal to take pictures of amber pedals, or to solicit people to by your amber pedals, or to profit from or be related to the amber pedal business at all.

the other two, rape and hate crimes i think are mostly case they dont wanna get sued.

[link] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25 1
26	27	28	29	30	31

Matthew's Journal

Fiction...

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

October