[討論] 尼爾蓋曼：為何要捍衛噁心言論的自由

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)

Neil Gaiman也是這基金會的重要支持者，自然也跟基金會一樣，為這個案例說話，於是就有讀者寫信質疑他為什麼要幫這樣的戀童創作說話，還滿有意思的，我想這文可以回答很多人心中的疑問。

（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 started writing a reply this morning to the letter that follows and I got a bit carried 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 defending? Yaoi, as I understand it, isn't necessarily child porn, but the lolicon stuff is all about sexualizing prepubescent girls, yes? And haven't there been lots of credible psych studies saying that if you find a support community for a fetish, belief or behavior, you're more likely to indulge in it? That's why social movements are so important for oppressed or non-mainstream groups (meaning everything 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.)

我對Handley一案有疑問。是什麽讓蘿莉控成為值得捍衛的東西？根據我的理解，Yaoi 不一定是兒童色情，但蘿莉片的內容都是對青春期前的女孩進行性侵犯，對嗎？不是有很多可靠的心理學研究表明，如果你找到了一個支持戀物癖、信仰或行為的群體，你就更有可能沈迷其中嗎？這就是為什麽社會運動對於受壓迫群體或非主流群體如此重要（指從戀物癖群體到自由市場自由主義的一切）--也是為什麽 NAMBLA (註1)如此非常非常可怕（他們本質上就是嬰兒強奸犯的支持團體）。

(註1：：North American Man/Boy Love Association，中文翻譯：北美男人男童戀愛協會，一個致力於「促使禁止男人與男孩間發生性關係的法律自由化」為宗旨的組織，資料來源：wiki)

The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, 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 virginity at 14, and chooses to write a comic about it) without having a big ol' pic of14 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 thing it is (and, I believe, also ends with a horrific death for the pervert, doesn't it?) and depicting child rape as a sexy and titillating thing. I think there is also a difference between acknowledging children's sexuality, and pornography about children that is created for adults. Where on this spectrum does something like lolicon fall? And, again, why do you, personally, think that it shouldbe defended?

對我來說，問題是，即使我們只讓一個孩子免於強奸或強奸未遂，甚至只是讓一個孩子免於從令人毛骨悚然的戴夫叔叔那裡得到許多不舒服的擁抱，難道這還不值得從漫畫中放棄幾具裸體嗎？畢竟，暗示和討論這些問題（例如，如果有人在 14 歲時失去了貞操，並選擇以此為題材創作漫畫），而不在漫畫中出現一張 14 歲大即被插入的大照片，是完全有可能的。我還認為，"睡魔 "(註2)的故事把強奸兒童描繪成一件可怕的事情（我相信，故事的結局也是那個變態死得很慘，不是嗎？），和把強奸兒童描繪成一件性感、刺激的事情，這兩者之間有天壤之別。我認為，承認兒童的性行為與為成年人創作的兒童色情作品之間也存在區別。像 "蘿莉控 "這樣的作品屬於哪一類？再說一遍，為什麽你個人認為應該為它辯護？

(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 things like CBLDF. Mostly, they are a fantastic org., but I'm really on the fence with 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）

(註3：Comic Book Legal Defense Fund，中文翻譯：漫畫法律辯護基金會，美國的一個非營利組織，成立於 1986 年，旨在保護漫畫創作者、出版商和零售商的憲法第一修正案權利，並承擔法律費用，簡單來說就是保護創作自由那方。)

***

***

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 going to be a long, and probably a bit rambly answer -- a credo, and how I arrived at 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 going to have to defenthe indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like 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 between 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 beyond 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 posted the full-length review I did for Publishers Weekly here. Describing Lost Girls, 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 whatever turns you on (my erotica, your pornography), for some the distinction occurs in class (i.e. erotica is pornography for rich people). Perhaps it's also something to do with the means of distribution – internet pornography is unquestionably 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 overzealous 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 already lost, and not to bother.)

色情作品和情色作品之間的界限是模糊的，它會隨著你的立場而改變。對某些人來說，這可能是一個讓你興奮的問題（我的情色作品，你的色情作品），而對某些人來說，區別在於階級（即情色作品是有錢人的色情作品）。也許這還與傳播方式有關--網絡色情毫無疑問是色情，而愛德華時代的出版物，用奶油色紙張，由行家購買，部分作品裝訂成冊，價格昂貴，則一定是情色。

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）

這裡打個岔，Neil Gaiman有提到erotica(情色)和pornography(色情)，這兩個名詞，這兩個都是跟性有關的作品的統稱，一般來說講到erotica(情色)會認為是「比較有價值的」性相關的作品，像是一些文學作品、裸體照片、雕塑等等看起來比較「高雅」的性方面的作品。而pornography(色情)一般認為是「低俗」的性相關作品，像A片之類的。但就像Neil所說的，情色跟色情之間的界線是模糊的，有些被認為有價值的情色創作，在過去也曾經被當成低俗色情作品。

（說明結束）

***

I was born the day of the conclusion of the Lady Chatterley trial in England, the day it was decided that Lady Chatterley's Lover, with its swearing, buggery and raw sex between the classes, was fit to be published and read in a cheap edition 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 prosecute 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 of Gay News was sentenced to prison for the crime of Criminal Blasphemy, for publishing an erotic poem featuring a fantasy about Jesus.

我出生在英國 "查泰萊夫人案 "審判結束的那一天，這一天，英國決定，《查泰萊夫人的情人》中的髒話、雞奸和階級間的原始性關系，適合出版廉價版小說，窮人和僕人都可以閱讀。就是在這樣的英國，幾年前，如果Leavis教授在一次演講中提到詹姆斯-喬伊斯的《尤利西斯》，檢察長就會威脅要起訴他（檢察長是Archibald Bodkin，他還禁止過《孤獨之井》）；在英國，當我16歲還在聽 "性手槍 "樂隊的歌時，《同志新聞》(Gay News)的出版商就因為發表了一首幻想耶穌的情色詩歌，以 "刑事褻瀆罪 "被判入獄。

When I was writing Sandman, about eighteen years ago, I had thought that the Marquis 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 refusalto sentence people to death) and realised I ought to read his books, rather thancommentaries on them, if I was going to put him in my story. I discovered that the works of DeSade were, at that time, considered obscene and not available in the UK, and that UK Customs had declared them un-importable. I bought them in a Borders the next time I was in the US, and brought them through customs looking guilty. (You can now get De Sade in the UK. The arrival of internet porn in the UK meant that the police stopped chasing things like that.)

大約十八年前，我在寫作《睡魔》時，曾認為薩德侯爵會成為我的法國大革命故事中的一個很好的人物（我很喜歡當時他因拒絕判處死刑而被監禁的事實），並意識到如果要把他寫進我的故事里，我應該讀他的書，而不是對這些書的評論。我發現薩德侯爵的作品在當時被認為是淫穢作品，在英國買不到，英國海關也宣布這些作品不能進口。等到下次去美國時，我在 Borders 買了這本書，然後心虛地把它帶過了海關。

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 in 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 Customs would seize any comics they objected to, and often other comics in the same shipment, forcing Knockabout to fight long, expensive, court cases to get their comics back. (I remember the outrage when, in 1996, Knockabout imported someRobert Crumb books to accompany a major BBC TV documentary on Crumb, and UK Customs confiscated the books, forcing yet another court case. I'm pretty sure thatit was over some autobiographical Crumb work which contained drawings of sexualfantasies including characters who were under 18. As Tony Bennett, from Knockabout said in a recent interview, "The other case was with HM Customs in 1996 overRobert Crumb’s comics and explicit sexual imagery. We won this overwhelmingly as well and Customs were kind enough to write to me after the case setting out alist of what sex acts might be shown in comics. I haven’t actually framed it but it is a precious document.")

我第一次參與為漫畫言論自由籌款活動是在 1983 年底或 1984 年初 -- 當時，Knockabout漫畫公司經常與英國海關爭論哪些漫畫可以進口到英國，哪些不可以。有些漫畫中含有粗魯的詞語、性或使用大麻，英國海關會扣押他們反對的漫畫，並經常扣押同一批次中的其他漫畫，迫使 Knockabout 不得不打漫長、昂貴的官司才能拿回他們的漫畫。(我還記得 1996年，Knockabout為配合 BBC 有關Crumb的大型電視紀錄片而進口了一些Robert Crumb的書，結果英國海關沒收了這些書，迫使我們又打了一場官司）。我敢肯定，這是因為Crumb的一些自傳體作品中包含了性幻想圖畫，其中的人物還未滿 18 歲。正如《Knockabout》的Tony Bennett在最近的一次采訪中所說："另一起案件是 1996 年與英國海關總署（HM Customs）就Robert Crumb的漫畫和露骨的性描寫所打的官司。我們也以壓倒性的優勢贏得了這場官司，海關還很友好地在官司結束後寫信給我，列出了漫畫中可能出現的性行為清單。我還沒有把它裝裱起來，但它是一份珍貴的文件。）

The first time I ever came close actually to sending a publisher to prison for something 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 contained a rape and murder, and this was held to have contravened a Swedish law depicting images of violence against women. The case was only won when the defense pointed out that the words were from the King James version of the bible, and thatthe images were a fair representation thereof...

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

我第一次差點因為自己寫的東西把出版商送進監獄是在 1986 年或 1987 年，當時是為了出版 Knockabout 的《舊約中的離奇故事》： 我重述了《士師記》中一個包含強奸和謀殺的故事，這被認為違反了瑞典關於描述暴力侵害婦女形象的法律。辯方指出，這些文字出自詹姆士王版本的《聖經》，而這些圖像是對聖經的公平呈現，因此才贏得了這場官司......

(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 surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "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 beso 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 such 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 heroutside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and atdawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master 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 stepped 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 home.

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, into 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, explaining that only perverts would want to read Lady Chatterley, or see images of women being abused, or read Lost Girls or the works of Robert Crumb, and mentioning that if only one person was saved from a hug from a creepy uncle, or indeed, 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 point of view of the people who were banning these works or stopping people reading them. They thought they were doing a good thing. They thought they were defending other people from something they needed to be protected from.

在我迄今為止提到的每一種情況下，你都可以重寫Jess的上述信件，解釋說只有變態才會想讀查泰萊夫人，或看到婦女被虐待的畫面，或閱讀《Lost Girl》或Robert Crumb的作品，並提到只要有一個人免於被變態叔叔擁抱，或在街頭被強奸，那麽禁止這些作品或起訴那些撰寫、繪制、出版、銷售或--現在--擁有這些作品的人就是值得的。因為這是那些禁止這些作品或阻止人們閱讀這些作品的人的觀點。他們認為自己在做好事。他們認為自己是在保護其他人免受他們需要保護的東西的傷害。

I loved coming to the US in 1992, mostly because I loved the idea that freedom of speech was paramount. I still do. With all its faults, the US has Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment states that you can't be arrested for saying things the government doesn't like. You can say what you like, write what you like, andknow that the remedy to someone saying or writing or showing something that offends 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.

我喜歡 1992 年來到美國，主要是因為我喜歡言論自由至上的理念。現在依然如此。盡管美國有很多缺點，但它擁有言論自由。第一修正案規定，你不能因為說了政府不喜歡的話而被捕。你可以說你喜歡說的話，寫你喜歡寫的東西，並且知道如果有人說的話、寫的東西或展示的東西冒犯了你，補救的辦法就是不去讀它，或者大聲反對它。我喜歡閱讀，喜歡自己對某件事情做出決定。

(It's worth noting that the UK, for example, has no such law, and that even theEuropean 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"to 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 obscenityfor the comics in his Zine "Boiled Angel", and sentenced to a host of things, including (if memory serves) a three year suspended prison sentence, a three thousand dollar fine, not being allowed to be in the same room as anyone under eighteen, over a thousand hours of community service, and was forbidden to draw anything else that anyone might consider obscene, with the local police ordered to make 24 hour unannounced spot checks to make sure Mike wasn't secretly committing Art 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 lines on paper, and that I was henceforth going to do everything I could to support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Whether I liked or approved of what Mike Diana 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 powerto them. And somewhere in the sprawling basement magazine collection I have Boiled Angel 7 and 8, which I read back then to find out what was being prosecuted,and 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--並被判處一系列刑罰，包括（如果沒記錯的話）三年有期徒刑緩期執行、三千美元罰款、不允許與任何十八歲以下的人共處一室、 一千多個小時的社區服務，並被禁止畫其他任何人都可能認為是淫穢的東西，當地警察還被命令進行 24 小時的突擊抽查，以確保Mike沒有在凌晨時分偷偷進行藝術活動。 從那時起，我就決定，我知道什麽是 "淫穢"，那就是起訴有想法並在紙上畫線的藝術家。至於我是否喜歡或贊成Mike Diana的所作所為，這完全無關緊要。(順便說一句，我不喜歡《Boiled Angel》的文字部分，但喜歡它的漫畫，它很有個性，有一種原始的力量。在地下室的某處，我收藏了《Boiled Angel》第 7 期和第 8 期，當時我讀這兩本書是為了了解被起訴的原因，我想我現在可能會因為擁有這兩本書而被捕......）。

In this case you obviously have read lolicon, and I haven't. I don't know whether you're writing from personal experience here, and whether you have personallybeen incited to rape children or give inappropriate hugs by reading it. (I assume 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 have seen no statistical evidence that porn causes rape -- and indeed have seen claims 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 banned, and people prosecuted for owning it, and I don't. You ask, What makes itworth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instrumentsthat do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person's obscenity is another person's art.

在這種情況下，你顯然讀過蘿莉控作品，而我沒有。我不知道你在這裡寫的是否是你的親身經歷，也不知道你是否因為讀了這些書而被煽動去強奸兒童或給予不恰當的擁抱。(我假設你沒有）。我猜擁有大量漫畫收藏的Christopher S. Handley也沒有。我讀過一些聲稱接觸色情會導致強姦的書，但卻沒有看到任何統計證據表明色情會導致強奸--事實上，我還看到過這樣的說法，即美國強姦案數量的下降可能是由於色情內容的廣泛傳播。老實說，我認為這在第一修正案問題上是個 "障眼法"（red herring），我把它留給其他人去爭論吧）。不過，你似乎想禁止蘿莉控作品，並起訴擁有蘿莉控作品的人，而我不想。你問，是什麽讓它值得捍衛？寫作的自由、閱讀的自由、擁有你認為值得捍衛的材料的自由，意味著你必須為你認為不值得捍衛的東西挺身而出，甚至是你覺得非常討厭的東西，因為法律是個大鈍器，不會區分你喜歡什麽、不喜歡什麽，因為檢察官也是人，也會記仇，也會為連任而戰，因為一個人的淫穢就是另一個人的藝術。

Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the 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 paper, to draw, to write, to sell, to publish, and now, to own comics. And that'swhat makes the kind of work you don't like, or don't read, or work that you do not feel has artistic worth or redeeming features worth defending. It's because the 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 distinctions, and because you only realise how wonderful absolute freedom of speech is the day you lose it.

CBLDF(漫畫法律辯護基金會) 將捍衛你作為成年人在紙上劃線、繪畫、寫作、銷售、出版以及現在擁有漫畫的第一修正案權利。正因為如此，你不喜歡、不閱讀的作品，或者你認為沒有藝術價值或可取之處的作品才值得捍衛。這是因為同樣的法律涵蓋了你喜歡的東西和你覺得惡心的東西，無論你的惡心界限在哪里：法律是一把沒有細微差別的大鈍器，因為你只有在失去它的那一天才會意識到絕對的言論自由是多麽美妙。

(And let it be understood that I think that child pornography, and the exploitation of actual children for porn or for sex is utterly wrong and bad, because actual children are being directly harmed. And also that I think that prosecuting as "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 themselveis utterly, insanely wrong, and a nice example of the law as blunt instrument.)

（請大家理解，我認為兒童色情制品以及利用實際兒童進行色情或性行為是完全錯誤和糟糕的，因為實際兒童正在受到直接傷害。此外，我還認為，以 "兒童色情製品製作者 "的罪名起訴 16 歲和 17 歲的合法性行為者、因為他們拍攝了自己的性愛照片並通過電子郵件發送給自己是完全錯誤的，這也是法律作為鈍器的一個很好的例子。）

--

他有針對讀者的問題回答啊，就是那段法律是個大鈍器的話。 然後他也有講到閱讀自由、別人認為的淫穢可能是你認為的藝術……等等。 其實一般色情在過去也是被認為是噁心的東西，但因為堅持閱讀自由的前輩們的努力，最後 大家得以閱讀這些作品。