As also noted by Sankaku Complex, the translator's defense was probably one of the few available for the drawings, which are criminal under Swedish law regardless of whatever artistic value they might have. Thus one should not conclude that the translator was claiming that this was his only purpose. Surely, he also enjoyed the material to some extent.
Nevertheless, his defense failed to impress the judge, who saw the issues as "thorny" because, he said, “[t]here is a clear conflict between freedom of speech on the one hand and general regulations regarding children’s rights on the other.” What children's rights? What children? "The aim of the law," the judge said, "is not just to protect individual children but children in general."
This is rhetorical nonsense, albeit typical of child-savers in Sweden, Germany and other European jurisdictions, who conflate "rights" with "protection," while de-valuing the concept of individual rights. While an individual child may have the "right" to be protected from acts perpetrated against him or her, such a right cannot include censoring the expression of all the ostensibly evil thoughts in the world (whether sexual or otherwise) on the chance the child might be in some way affected by them. As a matter of principle, without a proximate harm to a particular individual, there can be no just cause. Textual accounts of adult-minor sexual activity are not yet covered by the law, but based on the logic of the censors, writing, selling and reading Nabokov's Lolita would constitute criminal acts.
The translator’s lawyer, Leif Silbersky, expressed surprise at the ruling and lodged a formal appeal on behalf of his client. “It goes against all common sense," he said. "These are just drawings; no children have been harmed.”
(Image by Chararin, from his website / blog.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment