Art vs Obscenity-- When is Censorhip valid?

Freedom of speech is one of the primary rights of people in most major nations. No one can really argue with that basic concept. It is as important as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, or freedom to assemble.

That concept extends to artwork, movies and other forms of presentation. There are those who believe that all forms of censorship are wrong, that there is no instance in which censorship is valid.

However, there are some things that are so perverse, so twisted that one has to question that stand. While it is admitted that society is becoming so callous and jaded that these days just about everything is tolerated, there are still some things that society as a whole finds so disgusting it must react in abhorrence.

I was visiting a sim a couple of days ago and found an "art" studio. [edit: name of owner removed by poster until futher consideration]. This studio contained a variety of pieces on various levels of taste. But in particular, there was one piece he for some reason found fit to display, which portrayed a small fairy being violently raped by a person ten times her size. She was depicted as screaming and bleeding profusely from every orifice imaginable.

I am not a prude, nor by any means victorian. People who know me know I have a sense of honor, but I'm not fresh off the haywagon. I took extensive art courses in college; the human body is nothing new or shocking to me. But this particular piece was so extremely obscene in nature, so demented and twisted that it emotionally shocked me.

It shocked me for a couple of reasons. First, I had to wonder what kind of a mind would consider such a thing as appropriate to display anywhere, much less Second Life. Second, I was shocked because this is Second Life, not a saddist porn site (although considering some sims and stores, some may rightly argue even with that statement). But I had to wonder, "Is there no line here that sets the limit of what is tolerated and what is not?"

I felt conscience-bound to file a "Content Abuse" report with Linden Lab, even realizing as I did so that it probably would do no good. I then contacted the user himself and expressed my concern over such content. His response was less than cordial, showing absolutely no evidence of any kind of conscience in displaying such a horrific piece.

I have to wonder what such a twisted mind might think of to present next? This depicts a helpless victim being sadistically raped by someone several times her size. What shall we expect next... scenes of child molestation? When does it get to the point that Second Life society says, "This is too much". Or is there no such point? Have we, as a society, gotten to the point that nothing is "too much", that whatever an individual decides to do is to be allowed, no matter how obscene, violent or anti-social that behavior might be?

What kind of person thinks that such things are "ok" or "personal choice"? Is this what freedom of speech is about-- going beyond any concept or boundary of decency? Is nothing too profane or objectionable enough to cause people to recognize it as beyond acceptability? When violent, bloody, homocidal rape of helpless victims is considered proper subject to display in such a cavalier fashion, one has to question whether this society is improving... or heading to well-deserved collapse. Indeed, we might even question that in regard to real life, for we have to accept the reality that behind this SL avatar... there is a real-life person out there, a real mind who for some reason thinks this is funny.

Was the image on his own land? Was it openly displayed so any bypasser could see it (kind of a moot point in a world where you can pan your camera anywhere)? If yes to the first and no to the second, its his own business and no one else's.


Its an image. Its not an advertisement encouraging people to fairy-rape (if you can see how silly that sounds). Its a patently unrealistic image. I might see your point better if it was an actual depiction of child rape, but sounds like it has as much grounding in reality as, say, graphic dragon porn.

All the bluster and pontification about "what such a twisted mind might think of to present next" and "one has to question whether this society is improving... or heading to well-deserved collapse" is the same tune that's been sung over and over again - about art, about all flavors of pornography, about movies, about music.

All types of artistic mediums push the envelope of what is considered safe and inoffensive. The best of them do so in order to make you think about the subject matter in a way you may not have before - to make a statement. If you harm no one else in production of the art (i.e. this is not a defense of child pornography), then in my opinion you're free to express it.



Not only did you name names in this thread, you're also not-so-subtly suggesting that because he has a picture of a fairy involved in rough sex that he's a sexual predator in real life? Classy.

A little over-reactive there, don't you think? I named no real names and made no direct accusations. I simply mention potentiality based on visible evidence. As for his SL name, it's a fact of life that if you're going to earn a reputation, your name is going to be known. I didn't hide behind an alt in posting this thread; saw no reason to allow him to hide behind annonymity. I have no doubt there will be a rash of highly outspoken people that insist he's totally within his "rights" (regardless of the impact on others). Such is welcome. That's the purpose of forums, to present thoughts and feelings-- pro or con, rational or irrational-- regarding any subject.

I appreciate your response. Highly disagree with you, but that's beside the point. Opposing viewpoint, as there will undoubtedly be.

Side point... your desensitizing description of a "fairy involved in rough sex" is part of what I'm talking about. I wonder why you chose that particular "consenting adults" phrase instead of accurately describing what that work portrayed? That's part of what I'm talking about-- our society becoming so jaded that just about anything seems ok. People are so quick to rationalize and make excuses. "Rough sex". "Fairy rape". Just because it's placed in a fantasy theme makes it no less abhorrent in concept.

Now, considering this is (and was expected to be) a volatile issue, I'm going to (do my very very best) to back out and let others have it. And I'll resist (hopefully) responding to the numerous troll posts which are bound to follow. Surely there will be a few thoughtful viewpoints on the matter, as was yours.

...the families of faeries?

The depiction, while offensive, is completely fantastical. Your hyperbolic insinuation that this person is a budding RL sexual predator has no basis in reality. Coupled with your naming of names, it seems like slander and isn't appropriate according to TOS.

Did you kindly ask him/her to put up a disclaimer outside of their art gallery before you started your crusade?

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that first two counter-posts objected to mentioning a user name. What, freedom of speech is ok and censorship bad, but YOU CAN'T MENTION A NAME! Seems like a double-standard to me.

As far as making a connection between this piece of "artwork" and child molestation, hey, hate to point this out, but I think about 99.9% of psychologists would make the same immediate connection. Live with it.

It's not against TOS to post a name in regard to a verified public activity on Second Life. Happens every day here. Nevertheless, for the time being I've removed the user's name... and I'll let the general consensus of posts here decide whether it goes back in or not. But be careful; you might shoot any "no censorship" argument right down the drain.

Choice of the public.

I'm frankly more afraid for the families in the original posters' neighborhood. The leap of logic required to diagnose the author of the painting in question as a sexual predator comes real close to "thought police".

I get a real burr in my saddle from people who try to mandate what is appropriate as art for other's. If you don't like it -- note it to yourself and move on.

Just my personal $0.02 here....


To the specific case you mentioned:

- I've seen the art work you spoke of, and I had a strong dislike for it personally, but I didn't see anything that constitued Content Abuse from the point of view of the subject matter. I don't know if there are copyright issues, so I'm excluding that issue from my comments entirely.


To the general Free Speech question your talking about:

- I think he is perfectly within his rights to display art that you or I may find offensive.

- I think you are prefectly within your rights to think / say that you think he's a sick fuck for displaying that art.

- I don't think it would be right to take action to prevent him from displaying such art.

- I don't think it would be right to take action to prevent you from saying just what a sick fuck you think he is for having that art and why. For Free Speech to "work" IMHO, it has to be a two way street.

- I think you were wrong to suggest he presents some potential real-life threat to people based on the art you saw and his defense of his right to show it. I don't think you realistically have anywhere near enough information about them from online to make that sort of judgement about who they are in RL.


But to the realities of SL:

- SL is solely legally owned by Linden Labs, and they are under no obligation to follow my ideas relating to the general Free Speech question and can essentially do whatever they like. But I would certainly lobby for them to do so, because I personally think it would be a good thing on the whole for obvious reasons.


Ok...so that six points...so I guess that really makes it my $0.12.

The RL person's proposed jonesing for a poke at a kid is not a verified public activity on Second Life. To jump to a double-standard rather than acknowledge the real reason the first two counter-posters objected to the naming of names suggests that you are too emotionally overwhelmed with this to listen to anyone. Maybe come back to the issue after you've had some time to cool off.

I'm sorry, you're new here aren't you.

I don't know much about art - but I know this:
Duchampes Urinal is a peice of piss.
Van Gough cut off his ear to spite his face.
But me, I have a message for the whole human race:

I want to be a phallic symbol, like the tower of Pisa.
And wipe that smile right off of the face of that that bitch the Mona Lisa
I'll flirt with Bottacelli's Venus - just to tease her.
But unless you're hung like a Jackson Pollack - you couldn't please her.


meh if its on thier land, and in their house they're abiding by the TOS..
Here's ya helmet.. life goes on.

I believe your operating under a common misconception that you have the right not be offended.


Rox

More succinct than I would have put it but very true. There are actions that civilized people should abhor (e.g. genocide). But a depiction of anything is just a depiction. People were apopleptic in 1921 and again in 1933 because James Joyce wrote a textual description of a character in his novel masturbating (resulting in one of the most humorous case names ever before the supreme court "United States v. One Book Called Ulysses" which as we know is beyond-the-pale since no one ever does that.

There are things that I can not bring myself to look at ranging from a scene in Dali and Buñuel's 1929 film Un Chien Andolou or a scene from the 1999 film Fight Club or even videographic recordings of eye surgery. The former may be art, the latter is certainly not, but my visceral offense at any of them does not grant me the privilege of deciding that others shouldn't have acess to them.

I have no doubt that one person on this planet may have a prurient interest in eye surgery, but the existence of that person shouldn't dictate social policy. Now let's take a look at something considered broadly offensive: child pornography. I think there can be little disagreement that the production of such ought be prohibited, not because it is "obscene", but because it is an act that is likely harmful to the child. I'll even say that the sale of such materials is fair game for prohibition because a market for such could encourage more such acts to be committed.

That said, there does appear to be a market for pedophillic prurient fantasy literature where no person is harmed in the act of production. Assuming that people with pedophillic desires exist (someone must be consuming the words) it is terribly unclear if such materials cause people with those desires to act upon them or if the materials satisfy the (I'll say it) deviant desires thus causing them to not need to act upon them. One could argue either side of that coin, but probably not fruitfully. Should you prohibit such writings, you will but drive them underground and then we've entered the general politics of prohibition (which is almost always worse than the thing prohibited). As a matter of social policy, it would probably be more effective to identify and help those who might be inclined to act against children but that is also a difficult proposition for myriad reasons.

If thine eye shows you something offensive then pluck it out, or at least close it. Stated again, depictions are but depictions, it is actions that one should concern oneself with.

Then, as art, it was successful - you should know that being you took art courses and all.

I personally think you went overboard with the AR - if you don't appreciate it, turn around and walk out.

Valid point.

Since I took art courses, I also know the counter to this argument. Comes down to the old "what is art?" concept. While there are those who will argue that art is in the eye of the beholder and that any "art" that elicits response is successful, there is an equally vocal school of thought which states that art ends where obscenity begins (then we get into that whole "what constitutes obscenity" thing). A guy can take a crap on a floor and call it art; some folks will agree-- most won't.

At one time, society as a whole regarded a lot of things as obscene. Many people today find almost nothing obscene. (That of course, doesn't make them right and the folks of yesteryear wrong. Today's society just might be a tad warped and self-gratifying). The failure of today's society to draw lines anywhere (except for the aforementioned child pornography-- but then, who knows what tomorrow may bring, eh?) could be, some would argue, a harbinger of societal collapse. There is historical precedent.

By your definition, if a man slaughters a cat in a public square in order to make people aware of the plight of animals... it would be art. He would surely elicit emotional response. Police however, would call it a crime. And in this particular case, their vote would win.

Something isn't automatically "art" just because someone says it is. Whether the piece under discussion is "art" or not is not the point being contended here. Nor is even whether or not Linden Lab should remove it from the board (that's their decision). However, if the object of a forum is to catch the attention of people and make them question life and their role in it (or SL and their role in it)... then according to the point you made... this thread is successful.

Good point, I wonder what they are teaching in "extensive art courses" in college these days. A Dadaist (while agreeing with Wayfinder that it is anti-art, thus making it art to everyone else but the Dadaist) might claim that the depictions he displayed were highly successful in challenging the oppressive middle-class values and short-sightedness that are the driving force of our current imperialistic and morally righteous epoch.

LOL. Lots of impressive words, and well-stated, I'll give you that.

On the other hand, the work in question could be just plain ol' shock-jock obscene drivel without an ounce of legitimate "art" in it.

But you know, I do have the feeling that a few centuries from now, a mentally-well-adjusted society is going to look back at the 1900's and early 2000s... and the historical books will basically say, "What were those people thinking?"

I can see why you wouldn't want to watch the moon/eye juxtaposition in Un Chien Andalou, but what offends you in Fight Club?

I will probably never watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind again because of my adverse physical reaction to it, but I still think it was a good movie.

Modernism is not in vogue for a reason: "art" is not definable.

Apples and oranges, Wayfinder. The man is *committing* the act, while the picture *depicts* the act.

Well, I woudn't say offends so much as "cannot bring myself to watch" when the narrator savages "pretty-boy". In actual fact, I don't know what it is that I haven't seen, as I haven't seen it - which is vaguely germane to this thread.

Interesting... how did you know to avert your eyes?

Helpful tip#42 for squeamish about violence:

NEVER watch the opening scene to Gaspar Noe's Irreversible (although the rape scene is much harder to stomach, though less explicitly violent).

I would disagree with you. I think that if the creator calls it art then it *is* art. IMO there is no arguing with that. The argument comes when we consider whether it is good or bad art.

Question is Juro, who's to say he's "committing" anything... if it's art.

If we claim it's not art, then are we censoring his freedom of expression? Are we invalidating his right to social commentary?

Point is, when we get to the point that we're willing to call anything art... who actually becomes the judge of what is and what isn't? What then crosses the line between art and unacceptable activity? If two "consenting adults" are engaged in a mutually-agreed act in which one of them dies as an expression of art, who then is to say otherwise? It's art.

When society as a whole casts its moral and ethical conscience to the side in deference to the cry of personal "freedom" and "art"... who then draws the line?

I have to admit, I haven't seen as much of the "If you're for censorship of any kind, you're a @$@#%" type post in this thread as I was expecting. That deserves a nod of approval. All too often we see the ol' "Censorship is BAD... unless you disagree with my opinions." The ones who wind up being the biggest censors are those who verbally and otherwise attack the individual who stands up and says, "Some degree of moderation is needed. Some social conscience is necessary."

I would argue though, that when moderation and social conscience ceases to exist, however much a facade of progress may remain... "civilization" has ceased to exist.

Just because we bash each other with M-16s instead of clubs doesn't mean we're any more civilized than the most barbaric tribe.

The cat would probably have LOTS to say about it. The fairy, on the other hand, is an imaginary character and has zip to say other than the emotions expressed in the art. Cat = real, fairy = not.