Actually, to look at it more clearly, you're arguing for people to create objectionable speech. I'm suggesting that it will change society in ways that may not be positive. To a bigot, their preaching of bigotry (let's pick a neutral target and say they are bigoted against global warming) is harmless to you. You, on the other hand, don't want to live in a society where that is the norm.

You are telling me that it's great if someone wants to publish violent animal sex pornography; I am asking if the same applies to propaganda of another sort, and to make it interesting, presupposing that it was done with the force of commerce.

Let's hold up a bit. Whether or not he's wrong, I think the type of thinking he does is useful here.

Our entire society is detail-obsessed and linear thinking obsessed. Hazelton offers another view, which is a top-down analysis based on a high level of abstraction. If new ideas are going to emerge, they're going to come from this process, not more churning through details based on past precedent.

I think what he's doing here is quite valid. Markets need some regulation; that's clear, and as much as I'd like to agree with my libertarian friends, I can't stomach the idea of a world following the ethics of fast food and television, which is what would result with pure consumer markets.

However, it's important to make sure that regulation doesn't screw up the process of the markets themselves, and I think Hazelton's analysis here shows a good way to think about that kind of problem.

Whether or not I think he's wrong in this instance has no bearing on the validity of his inquiries as a whole.

Note also that the Finnish Freedom of Expression protects you against censorship by anyone. The U.S. equivalent protects you only against censorship by the Government.

Thank you for that addition. It's an important point. In the US, anyone with enough popularity can lobby for their propaganda to be taught in schools, which then causes large interest groups to drown out legitimate opinions.

It reminds me of something Stephen Pinker said in The Blank Slate, or maybe it was Socrates in The Republic. When something gets repeated enough, it builds inertia because people are personally terrified of not being part of the trend, and yet aren't brave enough to speak their minds otherwise, which is the one thing that could deliver them from their terror.

False dichotomy and reductio ad absurdium in one post.

Neither fits the form. Now you're arguing like an AOLer.

All the kinky porn in the world won't harm anyone (unless they were harmed in the filming...and didn't want that).

If ABC news dedicated its resources to publishing nothing but Nazi propaganda, and started gaining in popularity, would you have the same view?

Why should you get your society where what you don't want is not allowed, but not others shouldn't get their own version?

Because it's not arbitrary. Some things work better than others. A society of obese people is going to have health problems.

Further, you could argue that we need to break up into sub-societies for people to have their own standards. But that sounds awful like the states' rights argument the Confederates were advancing.

Your #4 sounds much like the bigot's call for tolerant people to tolerate their intolerance.

Argument by appearance: found nowhere where the intelligent gather.

Now this is getting silly:

Pickup trucks are perfectly legal; does that make them government-recommended?

Decisions that affect the health of a society are different from the type of mundane shopping decision you're arguing. Do you really think drug use is on par with what type of car you drive?

So what would be the social consequences?

The main consequence is that it determines what type of society you live in: does it have standards and values, or not?

That's not how a free society works, because everyone wants something different out of society. A lot of people want a society without black people, but they don't have the freedom to live in a society without black people.

I think you're confused here as well. The point of a free society is that you're not compelled to do things against your values. That doesn't mean there are no rules or standards. If anything, you've shown why our society has become "un-free" with the adoption of forced pluralism.

In substance, not much different than the original 1st amendment:

Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.

Basically, you can express any idea you want, no matter how unpopular.

It has never had any bearing on pornography, which isn't an idea. It's just entertainment.

So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?

I think it's interesting no one posted all the good things that were going to come of this. What you posted were fears (OMFG fascism) and somewhat circular reasoning about permissiveness.

No one mentioned anything good.

You said:

An erotic fictional novel about interspecies intercourse you have said is speech.

In reference to my statement:

If someone were writing books about how we should be able to violently love animals, that would be speech and should be protected.

I'm going to just leave this here to show how radically different the two are.

Your entire argument rests on that misreading. I am sorry to inform you of this, but your argument just died.

I summarized your statement in the title, and turn it around on you:

Or do you feel it's your right to tell everybody else how to live?

You're telling me I have to live around animal porn in a society that demands it be normal. Who gives you that right?

See: you're stupid.

That word "marginalize", I don't think it means what you think it means.

I realize you're probably just typing in a meme by reflex action, but here's the definition:

to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marginalize

Now let's look at the rest of what you typed:

The core question is whose rights are being violated by the existence of animal porn, that supposedly gives you the right to initiate force against those who view animal porn. Your rights do not get violated by the mere existence of the stuff, and to claim as such is an extraordinary stretch - how are your rights violated - are you unable to go out in public because there are posters of animal porn everywhere?

The point is that many of us don't want to live in a society where deviancy is the accepted norm. Legalizing animal porn takes that away from us.

Prohibition and proscription DO NOT WORK. Each person, and children *are* people, must develop in themselves informed reasons as to why certain behaviors are not healthy for them.

You've confused prohibition and a lack of honest answers.

I suggest honest answers, and a strong signal that certain behaviors are seen as bad for a reason.

Letting kids "make up their own minds" before they're ready results in the kind of situation you found yourself in.

When I had questions about sex, I did what any good nerd would do... I hit the encyclopedia and then, some of the more detailed sources in the library. It wasn't difficult to find and had no prurient content, thus didn't mislead me as you misled yourself.

Don't blame prohibition for where you wandered off track, and definitely don't do the same to your kids by enforcing no standards in some kind of tantrum against the authority you blame for your own mistakes.

The form of ad hominem:

"My opponent is an x, so his argument cannot be valid."

Here's your statement:

After all, controlling what is and is not allowed to be discussed is what allowed totalitarian ideologies to wield sufficient power to perform their atrocities, and the justifications to establish such censorship in the first place are similar to those used by those who want to censor pornography.

Totalitarian ideologies also prohibit murder; should we legalize murder then to avoid being totalitarian?

Your argument presupposes that the source of totalitarianism is censorship, when in fact the source of totalitarianism is total state control.

Similarity in argument doesn't make a valid comparison.

Then you reveal for the second time you don't recognize the ad hominem format. This is the statement you claimed was an ad hominem attack:

In addition, if you're over 13, it's a pointless and recognizably played out tactic.

Doesn't fit the form. An ad hominem of the same would be:

"This guy is 13, so his argument can't be valid."