28 comments/ 13805 views/ 0 favorites Free Speech By: H20wader the ravings of a lunatic. This may be copied, distributed and folded, spindled and mutilated as the reader see fit. ***** Free speech and the vilification of some the writers on the site: I have often been amazed at what readers will say to and about the people who post material here on Literotica. I write and I post to share but I have a thick skin. And above all I want is to post the best tale I can. Hell Yes, I like the good things people say in the comments. I enjoy the negatives also. Mostly I laugh at them. The one I treasure are the ones that tell me how to do it better. Those are the best kind. I have been cursed, had my manhood attacked and scorned by readers. I have read public comments that seem to be a full scale frontal assault on the writer of stories. Over the last two years (more or less) I still leave the challenge to all readers to "Lay on Macduff and damned be he who cries hold enough." Some writers cannot say this. For them each attack is personal and deeply felt. It hurts to be called names and have sanity and human feelings questions. Yet they continue to post. Read some of the comments and it appears that most (all?) of the readers who are very brutal in their comments always seem to be named 'Anonymous'. I have talked this over with other writers and we have shared comments that seem to be typical of the insulting genre. One of the least insulting but again typical is : Anonymous Comments: Still pumping up you ego - well if no one else will you should - by the lack of "H"s for the last 83 stories perhaps you should realize we are tired of the male humiliation and of your mug and life story which is hard to believe that anyone could do that for you or for you without being blind. (Spelling and run on sentence left as is.) There is no vulgar words, no curses, and no doubt of 'Anomymous's' entent. This comment was emailed to a woman writer. So the question arises, Do I read her stories? The answer is simple, I read one and I did not finish it. I did not like it. Humiliation is not my 'thing'. From either direction, a human should not be treated in that manner. Ah, the next question, why do I step out to raise my shield to defend this writer (one misty morgan? Because I am a 'writer'. She writes and posts in a public place where the reader decides to read or not to read. As do all of the people who post on a public bulletin board. Simply because we post should we not be subject to common courtesy. I cannot appeal to all readers. Therefore I do the best I can. I will accept the slings and arrors as they come, but please be fair. I believe that the writer of this particular comment is devoted in that he reads all for her stories posted and then repeatedly writes the same insulting trash to her. He appears to love to blame HER for his continuing enjoyment of her stories. Why would anyone read 83 tales of female domination and male humiliation if he did not like them? I like most writers know that my stories will not be liked by all. I would be ecstatic if my writing were liked by just 10% of the readers. I would never ask a writer what the reader count for any story is. I would indeed feel lucky if I could just get 1000 reader to read my stories. However it is a free and open site (with damn few restrictions), all stories will be posted. It is free speech at its best. Any one may post and anyone may leave a comment. Ain't Free Speech just wonderful? My first attempt to raise questions about this treatment of writers was rejected. It was suggested that my defense would be better placed in the FORUMS. Where only a damn few go and fewer read. I find that idea repulsive. So I will rewrite and try again. And if rejected again I will try yet another rewrite. Is it not bad form to snipe from the bushes? Do not hide away and snipe from the bushes. Step out into the light. Take your fight public. Some writer write for the LOVING Wives, Others for other sections. I like loving wives because I get more readers. I find that placing my story in Loving Wives I can double and often triple my reader count. I do not always write about cheating wives and I will admit to damn little sex. (Just enough to hold the 'claim' of loving wives. I do NOT expect readers to read me if they do not like what I write. It makes no sense to me that a reader would read 83 stories and then complain about the writer. Anonymous Comments: Still pumping up you ego - well if no one else will you should - by the lack of "H"s for the last 83 stories perhaps you should realize we are tired of the male humiliation and of your mug and life story which is hard to believe that anyone could do that for you or for you without being blind. (Spelling and run-on sentence left as is.) I wonder how the reader justifies this to himself? Of course I will never know. Why would a person who hates these type of stories read 83 of them? I have no idea. I would welcome a dialogue with someone who could tell me. I do understand the need for the Anonymous method of comments. It allows for the hidden identity of the person who would not like to be seen as a reader of PORN. And I will not get into a battle on the definition of Porn. I find it to be what ever the reader says it to be. But why read something that displeases you this much? Hell, if you know the story and it will upset you, Why read the damn thing? Freedom of speech means that you chose what you read. So why read what makes you angry? It is after all a matter of choice. This in not the war (Veitman, please) where the reading was enough to turn the opposition to the war into war into hatern and scorn for the brave men who fought there. And why hide behind Anonymous? Possibly fearful of retribution? A few well chosen words from a writer? If the tale offends you, good. If you elect not to read others by the writer, GOOD. But to rant and rave from the bushes is child-like, allow people to wonder why you do it, and make the commenter appear a fool. Why read 83 stories if they annoy you? I do not like a of lot of the tales on LIT. Pain and love /sex I cannot read. Domination by either party, I cannot condone. To act to hurt and destroy a woman or man because of pain from an affair (regardless of the length) is inhumane. As a reasonable adult (yes I know there are questions about that???), I wonder how often the writer thinks of the children in a divorce. How much more pain should others suffer to end a single person's agony? The people of the Cheyenne tribe in the early days would often cut themselves to help the pain caused by the death of a loved one. I am not ready to do that. This misty morgan tried to write a reason for her tales. The Anonymous blasted her for that. Is he so stupid that he does not see Misty as a women who controls her pain and anger by writing it out. She leads a normal life with a great valve for venting. Hey WOW girl, go baby go. I do not like what she writes, but damn it all to hell I will die in her defense to write and post what she bloody well pleases. Now those that wish to attack writers have a new area for their attacks. ME! Here I stand. Attack me. I will accept the blows in the name of Free Speech and in defense of a Lady. Now again this may be rejected. I kinda expect it. But the battle for Free Speech is not just fought by those who wish to throw stones, but by every writers who post on a public site and ask not for readers but for some respect. Sure this might be better posted as a FORUM item. But this is an open site and to get the readers I must post it more openly. How many readers actually open the Forums in say a week? How many open the loving wives? I am the h20wader ***** These are too the raving of a lunatic. Lay on Macduff and damned be he who cries hold enough. Free Speech is Offensive Copyright Oggbashan May 2005 The author asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work. ******************************* The unrestricted use of Free Speech is bound to offend someone. The right to say or write something controversial is precious. What I say may give offence. What other people say may offend me. Free Speech is a reciprocal right. If I want it, I must also allow other people to have it too. The ultimate test of Free Speech is the ability to criticise a government, a religion, or any organisation in authority. Can you say what you think about those who rule you or control your life? If you can't then you do not have free speech. The authorities have to have confidence in their legitimacy if they can allow free speech. If they are ruling by force, coercion or financial control then they cannot afford to have people claiming that the emperor has no clothes. Free Speech and the Establishment. It is difficult for any established power to totally suppress any form of criticism as used to happen in soviet states that banned typewriters, duplicating machines and restricted the sale of paper. The internet has spread so far that almost anyone with access to a phone line can criticise the establishment anonymously even though there are still risks for the individuals. The difference in those countries that have free speech is stil significant. US citizens can publish jokes about their President or any politician without fear of an official knock on the door in the middle of the night. They might fear illegal reprisals from incensed supporters of the President or the attacked politician but not state-sponsored violence. Free Speech and Belief. Attacking a religious belief is an expression of free speech that can be very controversial and counter-productive. Belief is not necessarily rational so arguments against it are not likely be perceived as normal debate. The response to criticism may well be extreme. Criticising the religion from within may be valid such as stating that the way the organisation is run is not in accordance with its stated beliefs. However the extreme response may be that the critic is ignominiously ejected from the community. Criticising someone's belief will be considered as very offensive and few people are secure enough in the belief to dismiss critics lightly. Free Speech and Politics. Political debate has its own rules and free speech is essential if the true issues in a campaign are to be aired. Unfortunately for democracies the message is no longer 'We will do this' but 'We will tell you what you want to hear'. A free press unfettered by imposed restrictions by law or the politics of its owners can perform a valuable service by separating the rhetoric from the reality. However most of the media is not as free as it pretends to be, leaving the duty of exposing politics to those few independent voices crying in the wilderness and hoping to avoid lawsuits. Free Speech and Morality. Whose morality governs free speech? What I might think is moral would be anathema to another. Should my morality prevail? Should the majority's morality succeed in banning any other version? There are some givens e.g. that abuse of children and the vulnerable is immoral. Beyond that: who sets the limits? What is very offensive to one group may be common practice in another. The morality of different cultures can cause real distress. If there is free discussion of what is or is not acceptable then the unmentionable must be aired and not suppressed. This is only possible if all cultures recognise the usefulness of free speech and not all are prepared to do that if what is proposed is contrary to their beliefs. Free Speech and Courtesy. If the exercise of free speech is going to offend then how can a courteous person fully use free speech? The real answer is to say what you intend to say as an attack against institutions, organisations, authorities and not against individuals or an individual's belief. If I believe that my government is misguided then I should say so. If I believe that a politician's policy is wrong then I should make clear my concern. If I am to be courteous I should distinguish between the person and the policy. A politician has been defined as someone who can believe two mutually contradictory things at once. If I can, by the use of free speech convince a politician that the policy is contradictory then I might be able to change something. If I have been attacking the politician personally then my chance of exerting influence is minimal. Free Speech is offensive. Saying what you mean without restraint is going to offend someone. The right of free speech also has a reciprocal duty: to allow others the freedom that you yourself claim even if the other person's free speech attacks everything you hold dear. If I can offend then I too must accept that others can offend me. I must defend their right even when they I attack everything I believe in. If no one is offended, then the speech isn't fully free. Free Speech: The Acid Test Copyright Oggbashan May 2005 The author asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work. If you are a member of an organisation, can you: A. Call the Chairman of the Board a stupid prat? B. Suggest that the General Manager is incompetent and a wanker? C. Describe the employees as talentless pricks who could be outperformed by three-toed sloths? Could you make such statements live to a TV camera? You might change your mind and describe them ten minutes later as respectively inspired, the greatest thing since sliced bread, and as living gods – but you can safely say any of those things - if you are a member of a UK amateur football club. In other organisations such freedom of expression might be unwise. Free speech is the acid test of the strength and democracy of an organisation. If you work for a company, does that company have a suggestion box? Could you put defamatory statements about your managers into that box and still remain an employee? If you can, you are working for a good employer. If you belong to a club, can you criticise the management committee and still remain a member? If you can't, your club is undemocratic. If you can, you might end up on the committee helping to correct what you have criticised. There are responsibilities with free speech. It is easy to retort 'If you think you can do better, come and try'. Perhaps you can. If a government allows free speech, which includes an uncensored media, then it should be regarded as a legitimate government, no matter what form it takes. The freedom to openly criticise the government or your bosses is a powerful weapon that has cost lives to retain and is still costing lives to obtain. That freedom has led recently to changes of government in Eastern Europe when the people took to the streets to protest about unfair and illegal actions by their rulers. The USSR's tanks eventually crushed the 1956 Prague Spring in Hungary. At that time, had the USSR been vulnerable to free speech then the Hungarian revolution would have happened a generation before Hungary actually became a free country able to choose democracy. The introduction of Perestroika in the USSR which allowed people to question the actions of their government was the first major step on the route to the break-up of the USSR into separate countries feeling their way gradually to the democratic freedoms common in Western Europe. Freedom of speech was so powerful that the East Germans had to build the Berlin Wall, not to keep invaders out, but to keep their own citizens in. President Kennedy's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech frightened the East German authorities into oppressing their citizens more than they already had. Even some dictators have felt it necessary to allow the appearance of free speech even if they cannot allow the reality. Opposition to the government in newspapers in some African states is officially permitted. It is punished by deniable raids on the printing works, the editorial offices, beatings and even killings of reporters by so-called criminal gangs that everyone knows are supported by the government. When those in power can hold up their hands in apparent horror and claim that attacks on free media are nothing to do with them, then they can still claim legitimacy even if their power depends on the AK47 and the machete to silence their critics. The success of free speech is not that of a few individuals, although like Charter 77 a few can start the process, but by mobilising large numbers of the population to challenge and criticise the legitimacy of the government. The fear of the international media and the response from the rest of the world has an impact far beyond the country's borders. The massacre of students demonstrating in Peking is less likely now than it was then. It is almost impossible to stop pictures and videos of an event from being posted on the Internet in graphic detail contradicting official accounts of 'a few dissidents' or 'a few fundamentalist Muslim terrorists' attacking the country's institutions. If the country's leaders are impervious to the complaints of their citizens, the countries that back those leaders, or work with those leaders, are not immune to the effects of free speech. The days when Western Democracies could unreservedly back dictators that oppress their people are ending. Free speech and a free media are making such policies unpopular and ultimately barred to any government that seeks re-election. Free speech is the tool that extends freedom to the places where other freedoms cannot yet reach. It is still the acid test to show whether a people are really free.