---

給不想看完文章的人：

懶人包：尼爾蓋曼認為，法律是個大鈍器，不會分辨你覺得可以接受跟不可接受的東西。


所以一旦限縮言論，不管你喜歡、不喜歡的言論都會遭殃。


想保護你喜歡的東西只有連你討厭的東西一起保護才行，因為法律就是這樣運作的。


****


（以下為這篇文的說明）



文長，如果大家願意看完，我會很感謝。如果不想看完也沒關係，我把重點用黃字標起來。


這是一篇非常好的文章，作者是Neil Gaiman，知名的奇幻作家，代表作為《美國眾神》系
列，他也是漫畫Sandman系列作者。


本文ACG點：《Samdman》系列漫畫書、美國的漫畫法律辯護基金會。


簡單講一下，為什麼Neil Gaiman要寫這篇文。


2006年的時候，美國有一位鄉民Christopher Handley，他住愛荷華州，因為涉嫌從日本進
口「內容令人反感的卡通圖像」被捕(wiki是說有些是在COMIC LO上刊載的作品)


詳情參見：https://reurl.cc/RW267Z


而美國有專門替漫畫辯護的基金會(Comic Book Legal Defense Fund)就替這位鄉民辯護。(
美國代理H漫知名代理商Fakku也是這基金會的成員)





（說明結束）





原文網址：


https://bit.ly/3OwNh7c


WHY DEFEND FREEDOM OF ICKY SPEECH?

為什麽要捍衛噁心的言論自由？

作者：Neil Gaiman


(蓋曼大神開頭說明)


This is a bit long. Apologies. I'd meant to talk about other things, but I start
ed writing a reply this morning to the letter that follows and I got a bit carri
ed away.

這篇文章有點長。抱歉。我本想談談其他事情，但今天早上我開始給後面的信寫回信，就有
點忘乎所以了。


***

（蓋曼大神的讀者來信）


I have questions about the Handley case. What makes lolicon something worth defe
nding? Yaoi, as I understand it, isn't necessarily child porn, but the lolicon s
tuff is all about sexualizing prepubescent girls, yes? And haven't there been lo
ts of credible psych studies saying that if you find a support community for a f
etish, belief or behavior, you're more likely to indulge in it? That's why socia
l movements are so important for oppressed or non-mainstream groups (meaning eve
rything from the fetish community to free-market libertarianism) -and why NAMBLA
 is so very, very scary (they are, essentially, a support group for baby-rapists
.)







The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted r
ape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not
 worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic? It is, after all, more than
 possible to imply and discuss these issues (ex. if someone loses their virginit
y at 14, and chooses to write a comic about it) without having a big ol' pic of
14 yr. old poon being penetrated as the graphic. I also think there's a world of
 difference between the Sandman story-which depicts child rape as the horrific t
hing it is (and, I believe, also ends with a horrific death for the pervert, doe
sn't it?) and depicting child rape as a sexy and titillating thing. I think ther
e is also a difference between acknowledging children's sexuality, and pornograp
hy about children that is created for adults. Where on this spectrum does someth
ing like lolicon fall? And, again, why do you, personally, think that it should
be defended?




(註2：Sandman，本文作者Neil Gaiman所著漫畫書系列)


Thanks for reading my ramble, and for being accessible to us, and engaged in thi
ngs like CBLDF. Mostly, they are a fantastic org., but I'm really on the fence w
ith this case...

Jess

感謝您閱讀我的隨筆，感謝您與我們保持聯系，感謝您參與 CBLDF (註3)等活動。大多數情
況下，他們是一個很棒的組織，但我對這個案子真的很猶豫......


Jess（蓋曼大神的讀者）





***

***

蓋曼大神的回應：


Let me see if I can push you off the fence, a little, Jess. I'm afraid it's goin
g to be a long, and probably a bit rambly answer -- a credo, and how I arrived a
t that.


Jess，讓我看看能不能幫助你做出選擇。恐怕這將是一個很長的答案，而且可能會有點漫無
邊際 -- 一個信條，以及我是如何得出這個信條的。


If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are g
oing to have to defen the indefensible. That means you are going to be defendin
g the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or lik
e or want said.


如果你接受--我也接受--言論自由很重要，那麽你就必須捍衛無法辯護的東西。這意味著你
將捍衛人們閱讀、寫作或發表你不說、不喜歡或不想發表的言論的權利。


The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions betw
een what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made.


法律是一個巨大的鈍器，它不會也不會區分你認為可以接受的東西和你認為不可以接受的東
西。法律就是這樣產生的。


People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyo
nd them and getting into trouble.


從事藝術創作的人們通過超越自由表達的界限，找到了自由表達的界限，並因此陷入困境。


LOST GIRLS, by Melinda Gebbie and Alan Moore is several hundred pages long. I po
sted the full-length review I did for Publishers Weekly here. Describing Lost Gi
rls, I said,

Melinda Gebbie和艾倫-摩爾（Alan Moore）合著的《Lost Girls》長達數百頁。我在《出
版商周刊》上發表了長篇評論。在描述《Lost Girls》時，我說：


The boundary between pornography and erotica is an ambiguous one, and it changes
 depending on where you're standing. For some, perhaps, it's a matter of whateve
r turns you on (my erotica, your pornography), for some the distinction occurs i
n class (i.e. erotica is pornography for rich people). Perhaps it's also somethi
ng to do with the means of distribution – internet pornography is unquestionabl
y porn, while an Edwardian publication, on creamy paper, bought by connoisseurs,
 part works bound into expensive volumes, must be erotica.
and I went on to say, of Lost Girls,
It's the kind of smut that would have no difficulty in demonstrating to an overz
ealous prosecutor that it has unquestionable artistic validity beyond its simple
 first amendment right to exist.
(Which is the kind of thing you put in a review suspecting that its real purpose
 may be, one day in the future, to persuade a prosecutor that the case is alread
y lost, and not to bother.)




我接著說，《Lost Girl》這種淫穢作品不難向過於熱心的檢察官證明，它除了擁有第一修
正案規定的存在權利之外，還具有無可置疑的藝術價值。

(你把這種東西放在評論中，就是懷疑它的真正目的可能是在未來的某一天，說服檢察官案
件已經敗訴，不要再費心了）。


***

（以下為我個人的一些補充）





（說明結束）


***


I was born the day of the conclusion of the Lady Chatterley trial in England, th
e day it was decided that Lady Chatterley's Lover, with its swearing, buggery an
d raw sex between the classes, was fit to be published and read in a cheap editi
on that poor people and servants could read. This was the same England in which,
some years earlier, the director of public prosecutions had threatened to prosec
ute Professor F R Leavis if he so much as referred to James Joyce's Ulysses in a
 lecture (the DPP was Archibald Bodkin, who also banned The Well of Loneliness)
, in which, when I was sixteen and listening to the Sex Pistols, the publisher o
f Gay News was sentenced to prison for the crime of Criminal Blasphemy, for publ
ishing an erotic poem featuring a fantasy about Jesus.





When I was writing Sandman, about eighteen years ago, I had thought that the Mar
quis de Sade would make a fine character for my French Revolution story (I loved
 the fact that at the time he was a tubby, asthmatic imprisoned for his refusal
to sentence people to death) and realised I ought to read his books, rather than
commentaries on them, if I was going to put him in my story. I discovered that t
he works of DeSade were, at that time, considered obscene and not available in t
he UK, and that UK Customs had declared them un-importable. I bought them in a B
orders the next time I was in the US, and brought them through customs looking g
uilty. (You can now get De Sade in the UK. The arrival of internet porn in the U
K meant that the police stopped chasing things like that.)





註：查泰萊案，這個是在世界創作歷史上非常有名的案例，有興趣可以讀這篇文：

現在你可以讀它了 淫穢vs.文學大辯論

https://reurl.cc/67Gydb


****


The first time I got involved in fund-raising for comics freedom of speech was i
n late 1983 or early 1984 -- Knockabout Comics were having one of their frequent
 battles with UK Customs over what could and could not be imported into the UK.
Some comics contained rude words, sex, or the use of marijuana in them, and UK C
ustoms would seize any comics they objected to, and often other comics in the sa
me shipment, forcing Knockabout to fight long, expensive, court cases to get the
ir comics back. (I remember the outrage when, in 1996, Knockabout imported some
Robert Crumb books to accompany a major BBC TV documentary on Crumb, and UK Cust
oms confiscated the books, forcing yet another court case. I'm pretty sure that
it was over some autobiographical Crumb work which contained drawings of sexual
fantasies including characters who were under 18. As Tony Bennett, from Knockabo
ut said in a recent interview, "The other case was with HM Customs in 1996 over
Robert Crumb’s comics and explicit sexual imagery. We won this overwhelmingly a
s well and Customs were kind enough to write to me after the case setting out a
list of what sex acts might be shown in comics. I haven’t actually framed it bu
t it is a precious document.")





The first time I ever came close actually to sending a publisher to prison for s
omething I had written was about 1986 or 1987, for Knockabout's Outrageous Tales
 From The Old Testament: I'd retold a story from the Book of Judges that contain
ed a rape and murder, and this was held to have contravened a Swedish law depict
ing images of violence against women. The case was only won when the defense poi
nted out that the words were from the King James version of the bible, and that
the images were a fair representation thereof...

(For those of you who are a bit shaky on your Book of Judges, here's an online B
ible version of the scene that caused the prosecution.





(對於那些對《士師記》不太了解的人，這里有引起起訴的場景的在線聖經版本）。


While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surround
ed the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the ho
use, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."


他們心裡正歡暢的時候，城中的匪徒圍住房子，連連叩門，對房主老人說：你把那進你家的
人帶出來，我們要與他交合。


The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be
so vile. Since this mnis my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. Look, here
 is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and
 you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do su
ch a disgraceful thing."


那房主出來對他們說：弟兄們哪，不要這樣作惡；這人既然進了我的家，你們就不要行這醜
事。

我有個女兒，還是處女，並有這人的妾，我將他們領出來任憑你們玷辱他們，只是向這人不
可行這樣的醜事。


But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her
outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at
dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her mas
ter was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.


那些人卻不聽從他的話。那人就把他的妾拉出去交給他們，他們便與他交合，終夜凌辱他，
直到天色快亮才放他去。


天快亮的時候，婦人回到他主人住宿的房門前，就仆倒在地，直到天亮。

When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepp
ed out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of
 the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Get up; let's go."
 But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for hom
e.


早晨，他的主人起來開了房門，出去要行路，不料那婦人仆倒在房門前，兩手搭在門檻上；
就對婦人說：起來，我們走吧！婦人卻不回答。那人便將他馱在驢上，起身回本處去了。


When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, in
to twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.)


到了家裡，用刀將妾的屍身切成十二塊，使人拿著傳送以色列的四境。
(士師記十九章22-29節)


來源：https://reurl.cc/zlQb57   中文和合本聖經線上版本


And in each case I've mentioned so far, you could rewrite Jess's letter above, e
xplaining that only perverts would want to read Lady Chatterley, or see images o
f women being abused, or read Lost Girls or the works of Robert Crumb, and menti
oning that if only one person was saved from a hug from a creepy uncle, or indee
d, being raped in the streets, that banning them or prosecuting those who write,
 draw, publish, sell or -- now -- own them, is worth it. Because that was the po
int of view of the people who were banning these works or stopping people readin
g them. They thought they were doing a good thing. They thought they were defend
ing other people from something they needed to be protected from.





I loved coming to the US in 1992, mostly because I loved the idea that freedom o
f speech was paramount. I still do. With all its faults, the US has Freedom of S
peech. The First Amendment states that you can't be arrested for saying things t
he government doesn't like. You can say what you like, write what you like, and
know that the remedy to someone saying or writing or showing something that offe
nds you is not to read it, or to speak out against it. I loved that I could read
 and make my own mind up about something.





(It's worth noting that the UK, for example, has no such law, and that even the
European Court of Human Rights has ruled that interference with free speech was
"necessary in a democratic society" in order to guarantee the rights of others"t
o protection from gratuitous insults to their religious feelings.")


(值得注意的是，例如英國就沒有這樣的法律，甚至歐洲人權法院也裁定，為了保障他人 "
宗教感情免受無端侮辱 "的權利，對言論自由的干涉 "在民主社會中是必要的"）。


So when Mike Diana was prosecuted -- and, in 1996, found guilty -- of obscenity
for the comics in his Zine "Boiled Angel", and sentenced to a host of things, in
cluding (if memory serves) a three year suspended prison sentence, a three thous
and dollar fine, not being allowed to be in the same room as anyone under eighte
en, over a thousand hours of community service, and was forbidden to draw anythi
ng else that anyone might consider obscene, with the local police ordered to mak
e 24 hour unannounced spot checks to make sure Mike wasn't secretly committing A
rt in the small hours of the morning... that was the point I decided that I knew
 what was Obscene, and it was prosecuting artists for having ideas and making li
nes on paper, and that I was henceforth going to do everything I could to suppor
t the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Whether I liked or approved of what Mike Di
ana did was utterly irrelevant. (For the record, I didn't like the text parts of
 Boiled Angel, but did like the comics, which were personal and had a raw power
to them. And somewhere in the sprawling basement magazine collection I have Boil
ed Angel 7 and 8, which I read back then to find out what was being prosecuted,a
nd for owning which I could, I assume, now be arrested...)


因此，當Mike Diana因其雜誌《Boiled Angel》中的漫畫而被起訴--並於 1996 年被判有罪



In this case you obviously have read lolicon, and I haven't. I don't know whethe
r you're writing from personal experience here, and whether you have personally
been incited to rape children or give inappropriate hugs by reading it. (I assum
e you haven't. I assume that Chris Handley, with his huge manga collection, wasn
't either. I've read books that claimed that exposure to porn causes rape, but h
ave seen no statistical evidence that porn causes rape -- and indeed have seen c
laims that the declining number of US rapes may be due to the wider availability
 of porn. Honestly, I think it's a red herring in First Amendment matters, and I
'll leave it for other people to argue about.) Still, you seem to want lolicon b
anned, and people prosecuted for owning it, and I don't. You ask, What makes it
worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freed
om to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means yo
u're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, e
ven stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments
that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't, because pros
ecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one perso
n's obscenity is another person's art.





Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for t
he stuff you do like, you've already lost


因為如果你不為你不喜歡的東西挺身而出，當他們來抓你喜歡的東西時，你已經輸了。


The CBLDF will defend your First Amendment right as an adult to make lines on pa
per, 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 n
ot feel has artistic worth or redeeming features worth defending. It's because t
he 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 d
istinctions, and because you only realise how wonderful absolute freedom of spee
ch is the day you lose it.





(And let it be understood that I think that child pornography, and the exploitat
ion of actual children for porn or for sex is utterly wrong and bad, because act
ual children are being directly harmed. And also that I think that prosecuting a
s "child pornographers" a 16 and 17 year old who were legally able to have sex,
because they took a sexual photograph of themselves and emailed it to themselvei
s utterly, insanely wrong, and a nice example of the law as blunt instrument.)





--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 45.144.227.38 (臺灣)
※ 作者: oasis404 2024-02-07 22:50:07
※ 文章代碼(AID): #1bmvYXv9 (C_Chat)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/C_Chat/M.1707317409.A.E49.html

作者 oasis404 的最新發文:

• +16 Re: [新聞] 股東譴責迪士尼 為何我們需要全黑人演員 - movie 板

  作者: oasis404 45.144.227.54 (台灣) 2024-03-26 22:49:15

  49F 16推
• Re: [討論] iwin怎麼燒不起來 - HatePolitics 板

  作者: oasis404 45.144.227.21 (台灣) 2024-02-20 08:37:10

  6F
• +1 Re: [閒聊] 美國如此注重兒少與LGBT不怕得罪阿宅嗎 - C_Chat 板

  作者: oasis404 45.144.227.19 (台灣) 2024-02-15 14:15:11

  9F 1推
• +4 Re: [討論] Re: [問題] iWin到底有無跟臺灣基督教教 - C_Chat 板

  作者: oasis404 45.144.227.47 (台灣) 2024-02-15 06:57:40

  8F 5推 1噓
• +8 Re: [閒聊] 現實限縮二次元色圖有什麼實質效益？ - C_Chat 板

  作者: oasis404 45.144.227.32 (台灣) 2024-02-13 13:50:53

  14F 8推

點此顯示更多發文記錄