The Responsibility of Free Speech

Free speech does not mean the right to scream "Fire!' in a crowded movie theater. The matter has been decided in courts of law and in the court of public opinion. [It comes under the doctrine of reckless endangerment.] In both arenas, the backers of unlimited free speech have lost.

Free speech does not mean the right to physically threaten someone. Again, the matter has been decided in courts of law and in the court of public opinion. In both arenas, the backers of unlimited free speech have lost.

Similarly, there are several other items where the individual right of free speech is subject to limitations. The items include sexual harassment, information protected under government security rules, information protected under private security rules [e.g. confidentiality agreements,] slander and certain uses of obscenity.

Most reasonable people accept the above stated limitations on free speech for obvious reasons. If a person attempts to exercise 'free speech rights' where no such rights have been determined to exist, then that person does not help free speech and, in fact, undermines the rights of others to have free speech rights.

It is obvious that an individual who deliberately causes others to lose free speech rights is wrong both morally and practically.

If free speech is to remain as a right, responsible individuals need to exercise care in the use of free speech.

If an individual tries to publish a Literotica story involving the violent rape of a five-year-old girl by an adult male, then that individual is a danger to the entire Literotica community. Such child pornography is not a permitted use of free speech. It does no good to argue that such a story should be allowed, courts of law have decided otherwise in many, many cases. In such a case, the would be author is endangering not only his/her free speech rights, but also the free speech rights of authors everywhere.

On the other hand, responsible exercise of free speech gives authors defensible examples to use as arguments against censorship. People are going to seek out and read erotic literature and they have been doing so for literally thousands of years. Thus, erotic literature that obeys the laws limiting free speech is a positive force for an organization such as Literotica.

There is nothing the opponents of free speech like better than a good example of a case of free speech run wild. Such a case can be shown to a court or even to the general public and cited as a reason why censorship is needed. Going 'outside the lines' when the lines have already been decided in courts of law is not just useless, it is damaging to the concept of free speech.

If an author writes a story where a character in a story uses profanity to a degree that one would expect of a person of the type being described, it is probably a good and defensible use of profanity. In fact, the use of profanity by characters has been steadily expanded over the years by people writing good stories where the characters used the profanity such characters would be likely to use in real life. However, if the characters in a story simply scream profanity at one another, such use has been determined by courts of law not to be protected free speech and does harm to those who want free speech.

If an author can write a towering work of literature where a 16-year-old girl has sex with an adult male and the sex and the age of the character are organic to the story, then such a story is risky, but might expand free speech rights. If a simple 'stroke' story involves the same 16-year-old girl sex with an adult male, then that story will hurt free speech rights. There is no imaginable story where a six-year-old girl has sex with an adult male where that story will do anything except hurt free speech rights.

In general, a real literary masterpiece allows certain ideas to be expressed under free speech where the ideas can expand free speech. Run of the mill stuff is much more likely to impede, rather than expand free speech.

Certain areas of erotica, while not specifically illegal under current court decisions, may be considered very high risk areas. Things like torture, sex with four footed animals, 'golden showers,' and physical violence are examples of high risk areas.

Again, If an author can write a towering work of literature using certain of the high risk items, perhaps the risk is justified by the possible expansion of free speech right. However, a very pedestrian high risk story will very likely harm free speech, rather than help free speech.

In summary, the responsible individual needs to consider not only his/her free speech rights, but also the free speech rights of others who write stories on the edge of what is currently permissible. The erotica genre is currently on the edge.

If an individual thinks he/she has written a true masterpiece that may expand the limits of free speech, well and good. However, since the author is risking the free speech rights of others, the 'masterpiece' should be thoroughly reviewed by people with expertise in the area. Only after a very substantial majority of the people involved agree that the work is indeed a masterpiece and the risk is worthwhile should the work be attempted to be published.

A responsible individual does not risk the free speech rights of others to try to expand his/her own free speech rights without a careful, informed review of the situation beforehand.