This post from Gaiman is very interesting to me because it discusses issues at a nexus of interestes of mine – rights and the law, sexual ethics, and religion. It is a good articulation of Gaiman’s position on rights as they apply to Art, and I think it is worth a read because it will make you think. This is a thorny issue. Gaiman says that if you believe in the freedom of speech (including various kinds of artwork and not just verbalization) then you will ultimately end up defending the indefensible.
Do you think that’s true? Why or why not?
I’m inclined to tenatively agree, but I definitely want more time to think about the matter. I want to find a more elegant solution, but that might be entirely beyond the purview of the Law, which is, as Goblins in D&D games I run are wont to say, “threat of force”. A bludgeon, Gaiman would say, and I have to agree.