Rape Jokes, Free Speech, and Inclusion

My train of thought on freedom of speech inspired by the unpleasant rape jokes in family Guy:

Dialogue:

A: rape jokes are wrong, you shouldn't make them. On top of that, they're not even funny.

B: sure, they're funny. Who are you to decide what's funny and what's not for everyone? And likewise, who are you to decide what's right and what's wrong (for everyone). I don't think they're wrong; I think they're fine.

A: fine, maybe I can't prove that they are wrong or not funny across the board, and maybe you're right that they are not wrong. But regardless of whether they are ultimately right or wrong, they still means that sexual assault survivors/victims and others sensitive to the issue will avoid your show. In essence then, the inclusion of rape jokes in your show is a method/means excluding sexual assault victims/survivors. That what you want?

Identity Politics Criticism

I worry that (some of) my criticism of identity politics is (getting) conflated.

A lot of what I criticize of identity politics is not its policy and personal behavior/treatment/practice conclusions.  

It is not my position that we ought not to or can not (not in terms of possibility/ability) lessen the tilt against, and even positively tilt things towards, the marginalized, like in recognizing that “neutral” policy is best thought of/called “facially-neutral” and may indeed still be unfair and need changing, and in recognizing that some explicit advantages for the marginalized in treatment, like affirmative action or exceptions to free speech, may indeed to justified or even obligatory restore justice after countless examples of other phenomenon going to other way, reverse the effects of those that are in the past and those still persisting with us.

Instead, what I am criticizing of identity politics is the idea that we must even do so (engage in this retilting/rebalancing) in the debate itself on the question of whether or not to do so. 

There's also a problem of self-reference here too, among other things.

Anthony Kennedy's Jurisprudence, Value-Neutrality, and Freedom for Legal Obligation

Does the constitutional principle, one that I associate with Anthony Kennedy most, that people have the right, and the constitution protects this, to define the good life, conception of the good and the good life, the meaning of life, life's value, morality, the summum bonum for themselves, and that this principle forbids legislation that hampers that and people's pursuit/promotion/implementation of their own personal sense/value/view of the good.

But if this is true, then can we even reject internally inconsistent ones?
Even if we say, yes we can
This still leaves many, social darwinism for just one example, conceivable/possible moral conceptions of the good that are internally inconsistent (no matter how implausible or arbitrary or random or fortuitously coincidental given the preferences of those who espouse them) but grievously undesirable and wrong.

Would such a conception of the good that requires murder or theft or assault, like a religion that requires unwilling human sacrifice or a moral nonrealist sociopath, or etc., justify legally proscribed actions and invalidate the laws prohibiting them, at least in these cases/exceptions?

Presumably no, but that means then that this right to define one's own conception of the good, which is really (at least seems like) value-neutrality, does not necessarily invalidate prohibitions, and thus cannot be the sole premise in a sound argument for the rights to establish a freedom and invalidate (again, in any way) its prohibition.

Free and Public Speech and Value-Neutrality: Public Sex & Nudity, Body Image, Social Roles, Sexual Assault, Media and Other Representation, and General Activism

David Frum scoffs at efforts to remove or change a large public billboard advertisement for a fitness product that features a sexy, fit woman in a small bikini
as obviously wrong

But if we already have and accept laws against public/the public presentation of drug use (public drinking) and public nudity and public sex actions and even depictions, pictures or video, of nudity and sex acts, then surely we've already violated value-neutrality, and certainly have violated (freedom of speech's) content-neutrality of/for (regulation of) public speech and expression.  

So what's the problem then with further restricting public speech some degree tighter than it is now, even if just to include images and media that uphold/propagate social roles and impossible ideals, and lead to body negativity, body image health issues and psychological issues in high numbers, and sexual assault issues, and gender identity issues, and economic and educational and racial bias/racist prejudice,
given how bad we know these things are right now (and how bad the various ideas to address them are right now, and how bad the general politics of the issue is--not amenable to good solution/policy/practical conclusions/choices and very amenable to false accusations, bad arguments, etc.)

I oppose regulating all speech that is contained to those who positively consent to hearing it, but unless you want to be forced to allow public nudity and public sex acts and/or depictions of them, (etc)...


---

dafd
My little reading on culture has shown how people pass down values and attitudes (culture) intergenerational and socially/in a socially diffuse way.
To the extent that the culture passed down can be the CoP
it may be inferred that people need positive role models, since they need "models for life"/examples of living, etc.
This is why gender and racial and queer representation is important, especially with regard to not only positive examples but much less negative stereotypical examples that reinforce negative stereotypes.