What exactly does it mean that free speech should not cover things like that? Should there be a communist Hays code that demands a specific degree of "If you feature bad things in your content it must be at least this punished and the consumer of the content must be explicitly shown how bad it is" or is it just not allowed to be depicted?
Personally I’d just have a system where any profit made off problematic material is garnished and sent to fund therapeutic social services. Example, a shock jock says “Rape is a natural way to let off steam”. He should, hopefully, be fired and investigated for possible rape/sa allegations. But immediately his income should be garnished to fund women’s shelters, therapy and abortion services.
Say someone writes a racist manifesto and somehow manages to make some money off of it. They should, hopefully, be deplatformed and any money accumulated sent to the nearest diversity and inclusion program for minorities and ethnic groups (more specifically the ones targeted in their racist screed).
But That’s just me. I’m personally not a fan of prisons.
I mean, thats fine for the examples you mentioned specifically cause its people advocating for shit like rape or racism, but just putting it as a "problematic material" is really vague. Is it just for unambigous promotion of crimes and bigotry or is it for depicting crimes and bigotry too?
Legal codes aren't wind up clocks. Especially of there's even a modicum of socialist/democratic control over the system that's enacting them. The whole point of leaving language loose like this is to allow for the specifics to be worked out in practice and not to enforce an idealized hypothetical onto reality.
Obviously depictions of bad things as bad things are different than depictions of bad things as good things. Letting courts/committees decide that on a case by case basis is the best way. Especially of those committees are composed of the people/groups most effected by the case.
But theres still gotta be principles all this is based upon, and just saying that there would be committees of people affected by the case/work in question still feels like it would mainly work for explicitly political work or speech but be very messy when thinking about narrative works.
What exactly does it mean to be affected by a fictional work, in a sense that it would make it relevant for you to rule on its existence?
You're really thinking into this way too much. Basically just more paid moderators that report content to comittees that decide on proper actions for certain content. Like how most websites work, but on a larger, more socialsed scale.
Once a specific type of content is registered, it becomes easier to spot more of it later on. Basic moderation stuff. Banning sites that refuse to moderate their content and allow shit through is fine and should be done. They aren't even wiping them out or anything, just blocking the site (in this AO3 case). Not like everyone's work is lost forever.
I don't think that'll happen. It's also not like art has been treated much better in capitalist places. Allowing artists to live and create is important, but it's also important that you aren't just allowing people to perpetuate the old system through their art, or romanticize things that don't/never existed.
Any damage done by heavy moderation will be more than offset by provision of better living conditions for working artists.
What exactly does it mean that free speech should not cover things like that? Should there be a communist Hays code that demands a specific degree of "If you feature bad things in your content it must be at least this punished and the consumer of the content must be explicitly shown how bad it is" or is it just not allowed to be depicted?
Personally I’d just have a system where any profit made off problematic material is garnished and sent to fund therapeutic social services. Example, a shock jock says “Rape is a natural way to let off steam”. He should, hopefully, be fired and investigated for possible rape/sa allegations. But immediately his income should be garnished to fund women’s shelters, therapy and abortion services.
Say someone writes a racist manifesto and somehow manages to make some money off of it. They should, hopefully, be deplatformed and any money accumulated sent to the nearest diversity and inclusion program for minorities and ethnic groups (more specifically the ones targeted in their racist screed).
But That’s just me. I’m personally not a fan of prisons.
I mean, thats fine for the examples you mentioned specifically cause its people advocating for shit like rape or racism, but just putting it as a "problematic material" is really vague. Is it just for unambigous promotion of crimes and bigotry or is it for depicting crimes and bigotry too?
Legal codes aren't wind up clocks. Especially of there's even a modicum of socialist/democratic control over the system that's enacting them. The whole point of leaving language loose like this is to allow for the specifics to be worked out in practice and not to enforce an idealized hypothetical onto reality.
Obviously depictions of bad things as bad things are different than depictions of bad things as good things. Letting courts/committees decide that on a case by case basis is the best way. Especially of those committees are composed of the people/groups most effected by the case.
But theres still gotta be principles all this is based upon, and just saying that there would be committees of people affected by the case/work in question still feels like it would mainly work for explicitly political work or speech but be very messy when thinking about narrative works.
What exactly does it mean to be affected by a fictional work, in a sense that it would make it relevant for you to rule on its existence?
You're really thinking into this way too much. Basically just more paid moderators that report content to comittees that decide on proper actions for certain content. Like how most websites work, but on a larger, more socialsed scale.
Once a specific type of content is registered, it becomes easier to spot more of it later on. Basic moderation stuff. Banning sites that refuse to moderate their content and allow shit through is fine and should be done. They aren't even wiping them out or anything, just blocking the site (in this AO3 case). Not like everyone's work is lost forever.
Idk I think y'all aren't thinking enough about it, but I guess its like decades away if it will even be a thing in our lifetime so w/e.
Would just prefer shit doesnt end up with heavy handed and archaic rulings about art which has happened in a lot of socialist places.
I don't think that'll happen. It's also not like art has been treated much better in capitalist places. Allowing artists to live and create is important, but it's also important that you aren't just allowing people to perpetuate the old system through their art, or romanticize things that don't/never existed.
Any damage done by heavy moderation will be more than offset by provision of better living conditions for working artists.