Damascus

I'm not sure what's so shocking about the notion of love being evil. There are tons of songs about how much love hurts, love breaks hearts, yadda yadda. The sloppiness of the language blurs painful things and evil things into the same broad category.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that most stories declaring that love is evil would probably come across as a bit whiney...

That said, maybe I'm wrong. Suppose you were in an editor's office and you saw the "Love is Evil" story sitting on the slush pile, and read enough of the opening page to know it was the most vile thing you'd ever read in print. It contained words that could, if followed by even one person in a thousand, seriously damage society as you would like it to be. Would it be a moral act to take the manuscript and burn it? If the editor had already accepted it, would it be okay to wipe the file on his computer? If the presses were running, would it be fair to throw a wrench into the works then torch the building? (By the way, if you were the editor, of course you have every right to reject it. No one is obligated to publish something offensive to them.)

I guess I'm curious about this in light of the recent CBS canning of the Reagan movie. I read the script excerpts on Drudgereport and they were definitely slanted to make Reagan look bad. I mean, he declares, "I am the Antichrist!" Hard to put a good spin on that. On the other hand, all the people who rose up to boycott the show mystify me. So the show is going to be a left wing hatchett job--don't watch it if this sort of thing bothers you. But why not let the lefties who would get a gratuitous thrill at this sort of thing have their jollies? Where's the harm? If the right wants a movie that is full of praise for Reagan, then make one. Let the two movies compete.

I'm rambling aren't I?

I'll shut up now.

I'm sure that if someone wanted you to put your name on a book that was essentially a glorification of the Third Reich and Hitler's great vision of exterminating all the Jews and other lesser races to make way for his master race, then you wouldn't do it just because you wouldn't want to do it. But you also might legitimately concern yourself about what lending your name to such a work would say about you as a person, and how you would then be regarded, "Oh, James Maxey, isn't he the one that wrote Adolf Hitler, champion of the SuperMan?"

WatersOfMimir couldn't really do very much to stop Damascus (take that syllable by syllable and see if it doesn't make you laugh) from publishing, but it is her legitimate right to do that everything (actually, because she can't really do much to stop him getting published, it is her legitimate right). I am of course excluding the idea that she meant anything downright criminal like pre-emptively killing the child (but wouldn't that fit in wonderfully with the theme of his book--ooh, more on this later, or in the other thread). If she wants to start a letter writing campaign to each publisher to whom Damascus (okay, enough of that) submits his book, saying that she is appalled by their publishing of anti-love fiction, then that's just as much her right as it is his to submit such a work.

After all, free speech doesn't need a license or anything. She's free to speak her piece, as he's free to speak his (forgive me if I'm confusing the genders here, both of these members are new and I haven't asked them which gender pronouns they prefer--actually, now that I think about it, I should just call them WOM and DAC...no, that doesn't work so well).

I have to agree that most literature should be completely free. After all, as we have discussed elsewhere, words on a page are pretty much voluntary, so they usually cannot of themselves impair freedom (the only proper consideration of whether something should be outlawed in a free society is whether it materially impairs another person's freedom).

Of course some things are different. I think that medical researchers have proved that pornographic images are actually addictive, in that they cause a stereotyped self-reinforcing behavoir characterized by a change in brain function. I think that it is possible that some people might have a similar reaction to certain words in print (fighting words as well as f---ing words). But as for a story in the abstract, no...I don't think it should be illegal.

But neither should there be any bar to Waters letting publishers know that taking an anti-love stance is going to cost them financially.

P.S. Ditto for the Reagan thing, if a studio is considering publicly airing a show that is based on patent untruths about a known and well liked (in some quarters, at least) public figure, then the people running things deserve to know that some viewers will decide they don't particularly like or trust that studio anymore.

3 with the same theme by the same person.

Hey guys thanks for responding even if it was merely to poke fun or ridicule me. But I like your style! Now take your thoughts of my sunday made for tv movie and go to the feedback section.

I have tried to explain my story idea in the upmost detail.

PLEASE READ THAT AND TELL ME WHAT GARBAGE YOU THINK MY STORY IS!

Thank you Esteemed collegues<>

Ps I am a male human bieng.

[This message has been edited by Damascus (edited November 07, 2003).]

Teacher on first day of school--"Shawn, is Shawn here?"

Me--raising hand and waving, we had to say we were "here" by raising hand and waving.

Teacher--"OK, Shawn's not here." On to next name--"Julie, is Julie here--"

Me--still waving hand etc.

Teacher--"Ahh, OK. You can put you hand down now, Julie."

Me--"I'm not Julie I'm Shawn."

Teacher--"You interrupted me Julie."

Me--"No, I'm Shawn/"

Teacher--"You can't be Shawn. Shawn is a boy's name---

Well, then I ended up in the corner for arguing with the teacher and I suppose for having a boy's name. LOL