On "forbidden thoughts" and free speech

[sophie]

I recently saw the comic at http://onegianthand.com/post/160871094471/international-waters and found it deeply disturbing - but not for the reasons everyone else would.

The comic shows a ship at sea. It zooms in to show two people topside - the captain and a sailor - talking to each other on the bow. (Emphasis is from the original comic.)

Captain: "Are we in international waters yet?"

Sailor: "Aye, Cap'n."

Captain: "At last! Beyond the reach of any nation, I am free to think the forbidden thoughts I would normally be arrested for."

The last panel shows the captain's forbidden thoughts. It's irrelevant to this discussion and takes from the seriousness of it, but I've included it at the bottom of this post behind a cut if you're curious. (It's safe for work.)

I'm not disturbed by the captain's "forbidden thoughts", but instead I'm disturbed by the fact that bar the last panel, this is an incredibly eerie reminder of how society is potentially rallying around the idea of thoughtcrime. Being arrested for "Forbidden thoughts" is something that some people would actually be okay with. (For example, I know at least one person who believes that pedophiles should go to jail regardless of whether they've committed any offence. I find this idea horrifying.)

I'm aware that this comic is (probably) deliberately overstating things for the purpose of comedy, but at the same time it's promoting this overstated idea as normal. I'm curious as to what other people feel about this, and about its implications for free speech.

---

As promised, the last panel shows the captain's forbidden thoughts:

Jar Jar: "Wario, Meesa pregnant!"

Wario: "Waaagh! I'm gonna be a daddy!"

Comments

[pauamma]

I too find it this comic disturbing, basically for the same reasons as you. I wonder whether it's the same (IMO mistaken) belief that crimes borne out of hatred deserve harsher punishment than crimes borne out of other reasons. This would be punishing the hate in addition to the crime, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent. (Disclaimer: IANAL, and I have no idea in which jurisdictions if any this kind of harsher sentences actually exist.)