Reply #283: I'm pleased to see that you can recite the relevant parts of the catechism.

[Unvanguard]

Instead, however, you might have paid more attention to what I was saying. I certainly don't think that people should only be allowed to say things that I consider to be "reason and careful judgment." Nor, obviously, do I think that people should only be allowed to say things I agree with. What I said, rather, is that how we interpret and apply the principle of free speech should be subject to reason and careful judgment, just like every other principle. We should not pretend that we are incapable of making any distinctions at all when it comes to speech; we should not ignore the experiences of every liberal democracy in the world, including the United States, and pretend that somehow any government restriction of any medium in any context is a gateway to totalitarianism. We should not take the mere fact that pornography is "expressive," in that it contains images, to be a bar on its meaningful regulation, if in fact a case can be made that it's socially harmful or exploitative. We do not need pornography to have a robust societal debate about ideas, or to organize important cooperative endeavors, or to protect anyone's freedom of conscience.

I have not heard (and do not believe) your claim about Andrea Dworkin's end-of-life beliefs, and in any case I don't think it's relevant to the major body of her life's work. You are simply wrong to suggest that Dworkin sought to get rid of penetrative sex, though it's true that she thought (probably correctly) that the way we understand penetrative sex, and the emphasis we place on it as the pinnacle, the "most real" form of sex, is tied to patriarchal gender relations. In any case, Andrea Dworkin also breathed, ate, and slept, and I don't notice you invoking her name against those practices.