A newly active member of yestofreedom and law student, Immigrant88 wrote with the collaboration of myself and other members of the organisation a lengthy article explaining from a legal perspective the flaws of laws censoring “prurient fiction”. More precisely, it uses Professor Lon L. Fuller’s conception of natural law as basis of its arguments.
You can view it below, as well as download it here.
When you want to make a change in society, you deliver the message in a way society understands: you don’t make adverts for coke in London in hindu, and you don’t plaster swastikas all over your games in Germany, instead you plaster your adverts with good looking scantily clothed models and legions of fans telling us how amazing your product is.
Freedom of speech is among the most important things we are given as humans. We have naturally gained the ability to let our creativity flow through the many streams and rivers that are our imagination. To say you may speak and imagine what you wish as long as it conforms to what “we” believe is not true freedom of speech, and to deny freedom of speech is to corrupt, decay, corrode, and stagnate society. To believe in freedom of speech is to look beyond our initial judgements and stereotypes and even tolerate ideals that we disagree with, thus increasing the diversity of our culture and ideals. The only speech that should ever be impeded is that which inhibits another person’s human rights.
