Baby shaking application outrage

In case you've missed this (in which case congratulations), a "baby shaking" application was recently available on the Apple App Store - a baby cries, and you shake your iPod/iPhone to shut it up. Hardly in the best taste, but considering everything that goes on in the world, it's not exactly bringing about the decline of civilisation. That hasn't stopped large numbers of people objecting to it, eventually forcing Apple to remove it from the store and apologise. But...

When did freedom of speech/expression stop meaning anything? It's not "freedom of expression unless you're offending someone". Of course there should be limits if harm is being done, and I realise that different people will have different definitions of "harm", but this is my blog, so we're going with mine - suck it up. Being offended is not being harmed. If someone is being offensive to the point of encouraging activity which would have wider negative implications on society, then that's probably over the line too. Looking into the limitations of freedom of speech, I've come across John Stuart Mill - a British philosopher born in 1806 whose name I've only ever heard as part of the Monty Python "Philosophers Song". My education may be questionable. Anyway, he wrote about freedom of speech and made a very similar point to the one I made above about what's over the line. I wish I could claim an equal level of intellectual brilliance, but it's most likely just because his musings have filtered through the generations.

Anyway. He believed "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He also noted the distinction in terms of what qualifies as harm, along the line that expressing an opinion against someone in a newspaper was one thing, but expressing that same opinion to an angry mob, armed and ready for blood was something else. The first wouldn't cause harm, the second might.

Some people argue that a baby-shaking application will whet the appetite of all the keen potential babyshakers out there, making it tantamount to the "angry mob" argument above. Which seems to overestimate the number of people just waiting for an excuse to give a baby a damn good shake. Plus that attitude assumes that people can't really differentiate between a small electronic rectangle and a living child. Of course actually shaking a child is an appalling thing to do, and I have every sympathy for those affected by that, but that's an entirely different thing from a stupid game which references such behaviour. I'm not advocating that the application should be made available until the first baby dies as a direct cause of its release...although I'll admit that's how a very small bit of me thinks, protected quite strongly by the firm belief that no baby will be shaken as a result of this game - if anyone uses that justification they're either lying or such a rage-fuelled moron that they'd have done it with or without the game. I just worry that this is a slippery slope, which to be honest as a society we've been on for quite some time - the belief that anything which has the potential to cause harm must be prevented, lest it ever cause harm.

Of course the problem with that is that we end up in a hugely sanitised state where nothing remotely risky is ever allowed. It's easier talking about things like this in abstract rather than up close and personal, but I recall someone making the argument not too long ago that a few children dying as a result of playground accidents was a worthwhile price to pay for the benefits which playground activities bring to all those children who manage to live through them (ie. 99.99%). Of course on a basic human level that's a fairly unpleasant thought, but aside from the knee-jerk reaction of "a child's life is priceless" I challenge anyone to disprove it. Not that children should be sacrificed in the street, but life involves risk, and while you can reduce that risk you can't eliminate it without losing a lot more.

And it's not like we don't already condone certain risky behaviour - cars kill people on a daily basis, and yet they're so vital to daily life and the economy that anyone claiming they should be banned or that they should be limited to crawling speed anywhere near pedestrians is ignored. Obviously the beneficial effects of this application are minimal, if that, but it's representative of my general irritation at people drawing connections that don't really exist, or having reactions which can't really be justified once you stop and think.

And if you're now convinced that I'm some baby-hating freak who wants to see children killed off at every available opportunity, a few points. Firstly you're clearly the sort of person who has knee-jerk reactions to what you believe a point is, rather than the actual point. I encourage you to read more carefully and think things through, rather than just blindly reacting to what you feel the tone is. Doing that often will serve you well in life. Secondly, I'll add comments soon, so you can share your thoughts. Finally, I direct you back to John Stuart Mill, who said "There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Which neatly brings me back to my original point - no matter how distasteful you may find something, that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.