why we fight?

it's always been my understanding that when you believe in something, in some way, that belief is supposed to make you feel good. maybe it's because you feel the promise of a world where your most dearly held beliefs were put into practice, which would likely be a pretty cool world for you. or maybe, and i suspect this is a large part of it, it's because believing in some ideal, whatever it is, lets you momentarily wallow in the concept that you are a good, noble person with a strong set of beliefs. we all like to think that about ourselves from time to time. however, i will say that there is one of my most deeply held beliefs that, over time, is tending to make me miserable and depressed the more i see it thrust into the public eye.

the h.r. giger painting used in "frankenchrist"

for as long as i can remember, i have always been deeply committed to the idea that people should be allowed to express themselves freely and to be able to communicate their beliefs and ideas, whether those ideas are contentious or offensive to some. a great part of this is because powerful interests have frequently used laws about speech as a cudgel to silence those opposed to their point of view and to maintain the disenfranchisement of certain groups. some of the most celebrated cases have been fought over the boundaries and acceptance of pornography versus art. i was at an impressionable age when jello biafra was arrested over the artwork in the dead kennedys' frankenchrist album and at the same time, i saw members of the reagan-era government [notably senator jesse helms] trying to gut the national endowment for the arts on the basis that they had supported "degenerate art" [i'm reasonably certain that no one used that exact term, but you never know]. as a result, i became passionate about the issue and about breaking down the barriers that prevented people from being able to express themselves.

mapplethorpe

then, in the nineties, things changed and got very confusing. all of a sudden, censorship of language, long the province of the rigid right wing, was suddenly claimed as its own by the liberal left, under the guise of something termed [by its opponents] "political correctness". the main aim of this movement was to use language to "correct" the unconscious habits that denigrated certain cultural groups and by outright suppressing terms or actions that promoted prejudice or hatred towards identifiable groups. the efficacy of this loosely-structured campaign is questionable at best. while there can be no doubt that there has been a certain amount of enforced change and overall softening in formal language [the use of terms like "african-american" or the replacement of traditionally gendered terms like "waiter" and "waitress" with the neutral "server"], "political correctness" was treated more or less as a joke from its inception and incited a ferocious backlash on several different fronts. in terms of using language to eliminate racism, sexism or homophobia, it was an utter failure. by the same token, its reputed evils are almost entirely anecdotal [and yes, i know that your cousin knew a guy in university whose brother was denied a phd over the use of the term "chairman", or something like along those lines]. the one serious analysis of those evils that i've read was in "the culture of fear", which basically indicates that reported incidents of poltically correct repression were largely invented or grossly exaggerated by those who sought to instill fear of the leftist hordes in their constituents. but i digress.

what this meant for me was that i found myself suddenly ejected from the left, called a racist and a bad feminist, because i was still persisting in my old-fashioned defense of everyone to air their point of view. at the time, the new right seemingly came into vogue and my comrades in the fight for free speech were neo-nazis and right-wing militia groups. cue nervous sideways glances and sweaty collar. after all, these weren't the people who spoke for me. i didn't want people to think that i agreed with them, but i did think that they had the same right to speak as everyone else, so i gulped and spent a lot of time repeated voltaire's [or is it?]overused maxim : "i disagree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it." after all, it was a valid debate and it was evident that this movement had a small but dedicated audience.

standard response to "political correctness"

what was most frustrating for me was that few people seemed to appreciate the difference between defending the right of persons to say something and agreeing with that thing. when i was sticking up for punk bands and artists, of course, there hadn't been that separation, or at least it hadn't been as great. it was something new i had to deal with and its still a time of my life that i reflect on with mixed feelings. i was surrounded by people with very strong political views about a lot of things and i didn't much like or respect any of them.

flash forward twenty years and the playing field is very different. there are comparatively few conflicts over freedom of speech that truly take hold in the public imagination. but they do still occasionally crop up, like the case of guy earle here in canada, who this past week was fined $15,000 for impinging on the human rights of lorna pardy over insults leveled at her and her partner [another word the became popular with "political correctness"] on the basis of their gender and sexual orientation.

to give a brief summation of the case, i'll point readers toward this interview with earle, where he gives his version of events and this blog, which has been following the case closely from an opposing point of view and to the human rights' tribunal's decision against earle.

now, i will caution that virtually all of the facts in the case are in dispute- who started it, what the cause was, what happened off-stage after the initial verbal exchange, etc., so i'm going to limit myself to discussing only the parts on which everyone seems to agree: that earle insulted pardy from the stage and that those insults were mostly driven by her gender and sexual orientation. earle has claimed that what he said should be protected as free speech, whereas pardy filed a claim against him on the basis that he had assaulted her human rights with what he said.

the new face of the oppressed?

earle has referred to comedians as the "canaries in a coal mine" of free speech, on the vanguard and constantly pushing the boundaries of acceptable speech. certainly, there is evidence to back that assertion up. comedy has frequently been a vehicle for social change by pointing out the ridiculousness of existing situations. it's an important avenue to keep open.

so being a proponent of free speech and seeing the general value of comedy as a specific form of language, i'm inclined to agree with earle on principle. except for one thing. what he said is in absolutely no way pushing the boundaries of speech. far from forging new ground, he used the opportunity to repeat the sort of insults that have been leveled at women and homosexuals since people have been aware of their existence. you're only lesbians because no man would fuck you? wow, never heard that one before. shut this woman up and stuff a cock in her mouth? the originality just doesn't stop. now, free speech has become about the rights of the traditionally dominant cultural group to advocate the oppression of the traditionally oppressed.

returning for a moment to the case of the militias and neo-nazis, or, to use a more timely example, the reprehensible actions of the westboro baptist church, the one redeeming thing about them is that they at least believe in what they're saying. you might hate it, but it's genuine. earle isn't even that. he's said since the incident in 2007 that he isn't sexist or homophobic. so, if we take him at his word, what he said doesn't even have any deeper meaning for him. all of a sudden, free speech is about the right of someone to shoot their mouth off and to make disenfranchised groups a target of ridicule and hatred just for the hell of it. and what kills me is that i agree that such instances to constitute free speech.

i chose this case to illustrate my point because i think it's increasingly characteristic of where battles over free speech are going. far from pushing the envelope or expanding horizons, freedom of speech now denotes our collective ability to fill the air with verbal pollution- insults, taunts, ignorance, xenophobia- until the pollutants effectively drown out anything meaningful that's being said.

i am still unwavering in my support for free speech. even though it's been a long time since that belief has made me feel that glow of pride at being a strong, principled person, it's close to my heart and, in defiance of logic, it's become even more entrenched with time. but at the same time, i think i'd like to start a movement defending the right of people to just shut the fuck up.

The dangerous child play of Facebook

For a long year now, I've wanted to post again to this blog. Yet, my lack of infrastructures--- the continual shift and unknowing of not having my own home for over 5 years, the viral attacks on three of my websites in the summer of '09 ( making them unusable in early '10 and still not repaired), a long-time house cleaning client I've needed to sue for both monies owed me and her sudden reckless attack on my ethics and character, and all the many other day to day family and work and health and money interruptions that each and every one of us faces in different degrees, that unsettle our ways--- have left me exhausted and often too hopeless and unconfident to bother to write, no matter the importance of the cause.

So, here, something as trivial as Facebook has me writing in the wee early hours of the morning. I posted this image from our book III (THREE): The Fantasy and Experience of Threesome Sex a few days ago to my Crystal Haidl Facebook profile, with a statement that this was one of the few images from our book that showed neither breast, nor derriere, nor private parts.

A book that had to be printed outside of the US because small US print shops told me they were afraid of their other clients, or their employees, being upset with the content.  A book that was censored by PayPal (reinstated after 4 years and a few hour long phone calls with their attorneys.) A book that had endured a 4 year battle with one of our own photographers, who lied to me, even in writing, but was able to navigate the legal system, forcing me into a settlement , or else, to endure the costs and time of an ongoing court battle.

[Note-- the image here is from one of our other wonderful photographers, who allowed us use rights to promote the book.  ] And this image is in the book that the Library of Congress accepted in its General Collections, just weeks before the annual American Library's Association's national Banned Books Week. Go check it out next time you're in DC.

Over the past few days,  about a half-dozen FB friends posted their approval of the above image on my wall.  No one was crude; a couple of  variations of "Wow"'  and one very foretelling comment referenced Bill Clinton's famous definition of "is,is" for what is sex and what is not.

Then, at 3:27 AM yesterday morning FB sent an email to me entitled "Facebook Warning. " Turns out, when I logged into my profile around 8 AM that what Facbook calls a Warning seems to be Facebook-speak for "Your account is disabled."

The email stated that I uploaded a photo that violates their terms of service, and this photo has been removed.  Facebook FAQ also states on their site that they can not give any identifying information about the image that was removed due to "security" issues. Was there a possible smart bomb code embedded in our photo? Oh, my!

FB goes on to say that "These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children who use the site."

SO, I ask you, let's assume there's a 98% chance that the photo above is the REMOVED image.  No other images, except for a RIP to my old truck and few of a garden were posted recently.(ahha, birds and bees do it with the garden, and all that sexual pollination... I know, I know. You should see the squirrels and their nuts and hear the sea gulls, too! )

But really, take another look at this picture    --->  

Pretend you are 6 years old. What would you, an innocent child imagine?

A white woman with long hair and a black man with a tattoo are hugging, and they aren't wearing any clothes. Oh, and a tall white man is busy taking a shower in the background, and he doesn't see them. So, a child might ask, why are they hugging in the bathroom? Why is the man holding the lady's leg up? Is she hurt? Is he helping her to use the potty? Is he crying on her shoulder?

Sex would not be the question.

Isn't it only a person who already understands the range of physical intimacies that humans have with each other who would be able to see the suggestion of the image? There is no anatomical body part that alludes to something forbidden. There is no facial expression showing orgiastic delight. The bodies are not in throws of passionate tension. Their pelvises are not in a bump and grind. They are relaxed. They are beginning an embrace, even slightly clumsily one could say; he is helping her and she is leaning on his suport.

My FB images protections had been set so that only friends and their friends could view them. And FB's rules disallow any child under the age of 13 to have a FB account. A 13 year old, hopefully knows about the basics of sexuality. Yes, he or she would know that the image was evoking a sensual moment. They'd  certainly be curious. And maybe bored.

If a youth truly wants to see sex this image is a poor choice. A click of the remote, a glimpse at the supermarket check out, or perusing a plethora of other online options would show them the get-down- and dirty in seconds. If Facebook was truly concerned about kids, it would create a Facebook Youth opt-in, a site for kids and their families with features specific for those families that want g-rated content.

It is the media and the religious charlatans, and our focused obsessions with titillation and the commericalization of sex, rather than seeing the beauty of its complexities, of its sensualities, which makes this type of image subject to Facebook's terms of removal. (Like hate and violence, that the word sex is often grouped with, sexuality and its perceptions are considered social network aka societal contraband.)

How potent your sex is!

Meanwhile, as Facebook shouts "Warning " when they really mean "Disabled," which is the more abusive to you?  A multi-billion dollar company that fails to be be clear with its words, that refuses to allow time-dated information or vague description of the image, so that the person can possibly defend what they posted,  or is it the offense of an image that shows the side views of two people, without clothes, in embrace?

Personally, I'd rather the children and young teens that I know, and my future grand children and extended relatives, live in a world where they know adults protect them with sexual guidance and an ethics of honesty, over corporate-faux moralistic protectionism that in reality continues the charade of society hiding truths.

What about you?