Art vs Obscenity-- When is Censorhip valid?

"What the cloud doeth, the Lord knoweth,
The Cloud knoweth not.
What the Artist doeth, the Lord knoweth, Knoweth the artist not?"

Yes the man commits the act while the picture depicts the act, however emotionally and pyschologically speaking, when someone publicly displays a depiction of such an act they are condoning it. In this case true it is symbolic but it is a tacit nod to commision of said act. Sorry I am with Way on this one. But then I am sure all the ppl walking around with leashes on other humans in SL would disagree with both of us. End of story. You may all rant now.

After awhile on sl you wake up and notice there are people blowing their own horn on sl. Why? Well because in their small marco world they are right and everyone else is wrong. In the perfect world maybe they COULD be right. but in our world as it is now. we are far far from it.

Sounds to me like the dude had some anime/hentai pic in his house.

If he had a security script to keep you out - you'd be bitching about that.

Much ado about nothing.

I suspect that you would find me a deviant person, and I can assure you that I was never spanked even once as a child.

If I display a picture of a man being brutally nailed to a piece of wood, then I am condoning that act on others like him?

The only thing that defines social deviance is the reaction of the people who are labelling a person "deviant." The world is big enough that someone is bound to find you deviant.

Why yes, in fact, I am a structural psychologist.

The most compelling work I've seen so far on the causal links between childhood environment and brain wiring is by Dr. Martin Teicher and crew who have shown that they can put a person of unknown history in an MRI and see with about a 90% certainty that an adult was exposed to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse in their childhood through measurable hypertrophies in the limbic system which mediates much of our basal emotional response. Although this has not been shown to generate furture malefactors, he does concludeI admit to not following the current literature to the degree that one might like, but this is quite a ways from showing a causal link to future conduct.

What Teicher hasn't shown is that depictions of anything cause the same reponses, but neither was he looking for that.

Prior to the internet and video tapes and whatnot, "True Crime" magazines - often violent, often with a sexual component - have been a lurid part of the landscape for at least a century. There is little evidence that such depictions have a causal link to susequent behavior. Stepping into folk psychology, we all have strong, personal, anecdotal evidence to believe that being abused as a child makes one more prone (generally) to be abusive as an adult. But it is also clear that we know very little about the strength or "obligation" of that causal arrow.

As yet, I've seen no such hard science showing depictions causing conduct, and it is hard to tweeze the self-attraction to depictions from tendency to perform such conduct. However, I'm admittedly not an expert in that sub-field and am open to data that does show it. To the contrary, there seems to be a tendency for exposure to high amounts of depicted violence to dispose a developing mind toward discounting similar input. This is not unrelated to the escalating efforts of advertisers of all stripes to hammer pitches into minds increaingly inured to depicted stimulation.

Speaking off-the-cuff, film has become substatially more violent in the last 50 years or so and yet actual incidence of violence is decreasing. As to the children who are more aggressive for a short time after seeing the Three Stooges beat upon each other, I think that mimicry is a much simpler explanation for the phenonmenon than any deeper more permanent effects of such viewings.

<obligatory plug>The Second Life Brain and Behavior Semiar will be holding its second session on Tuesday at 6pm, SL time; watch the event calendar for place and topic</obligatory plug>

My issue with that is we have ZERO insight into the artist. Your and Way's (and others) assumptions are that the artist surely must condone the act, when it is equally as likely the artist does not.

Art does not always need to portray things in which you believe, it can portray things which you are against. The artist could have been a rape victim and found art (painting, drawing, whatever) as a means of channeling and releasing internalized emotions - fear, anxiety, anger.

To be honest.. the picture described in the first post is nothing new. To me that would show a male taking full dominance of a woman, owning her. now, granted such a degree of sadism would most likely only exist in a twisted version of Gor, or ecchi (twisted hentai).

I say -twisted- Gor because sadism was stamped out among the populace according to the books, for the most part. One did not hurt a slave or captured woman as such was portrayed. they were instead ransommed off or made slaves proper, and treated as any other slave. Beating a slave 'just because' was not seen in the books.

Do keep in mind that I do not roleplay Gor on Second Life, but I have in chat forums before coming here. My SL girlfriend is a relationship of equals though I am still a dominant.

Chance's point was a good one - the depiction of violence needs context for a real understanding of the artist's purpose in displaying it. In his example, Christ's crucifixion is often lovingly (and bloodily) reproduced for the purpose of reminding the faithful of how He sacrificed his life for the world in the most painful and terrifying way possible to demonstrate His love for us. Without the context that religion provides for that image, He's just another schmoe suffering horribly on a cross.

The same can be said for a lot of art produced by the survivors of abuse, both physical and sexual. Art and music are often used as healing tools to help survivors accept and come to terms to what has happened to them. I've seen images created by rape and incest survivors that are truly terrifying and disturbing, both for the actions they depict and the emotions they bring forth.

To say that a description or rendition of an act is an automatic condoning of it is to purposefully ignore the context in which a piece is created, the intent of the creator, and indeed the entire purpose of art - to not only become a positive and fufilling act on the part of the artist, but to communicate ideas, thoughts, and feelings to the world.

Oh, NP. I never thought you were twisting my words. Forum postings and email are very easy to misunderstand.



An interesting philosophy. My belief is that there are certain things that are right / wrong despite personal opinions... and that there exist wrongs in which no one is directly hurt. The problem with each person individually deciding what is "right" or "wrong"... is that generally speaking, the intelligence/wisdom of the average person isn't all that much (including mine). To me, a person trying to decide for himself, by himself, what is likely to hurt others is a bit arrogant; who can possibly have all the information necessary to make such a decision?

That is why societal ethics and morals are so important. They are based on generations of experience handed down. Historically, when such teachings are discarded, society suffers as a whole. That's not to say the majority is always right; quite often just the opposite is true. But to discard the whole of human experience in exchange for a few short years of personal observation seems to me the course of the foolish.



In the field of psychiatry (which is what I think Susie was discussing when she used the term "deviant", it simply means "deviation from the norm". It is a generic term that can describe anything from mild individualism to total psychotic. While it is often used to describe those who go beyond the boundaries of socially acceptable activity, there's no connotation of judgement; it's a description of behavior.



Sometimes it helps to take something to an extreme to point out the basic principle underlying the issue. So let me again refer to the concept of child pornography and molestation. A question was brought up the last few months in legal circles (and in fact, here on SL in the Herald), as to whether computer graphic depiction of child pornography is classified the same as child pornography. As one can imagine, there were heated views on both sides-- but legally the matter is judged as the same. Posession of drawings of child pornography is considered the same as posessions of "real" child pornography. The person who holds such items has harmed no one directly. He may not have even paid for the items, thereby not supporting the industry financially. He'll still get arrested.

There are some things that are wrong in their very concept. People cry "thought police" and ideas of 1984. That's all fine and good (and emotionalistic), but it's very likely a lot of children have been saved by just such early detection of latent predator tendencies. I'm not saying such people should be arrested and put in prison for owning a few pictures (although at this time, that is indeed the case). But they should in the very least be required to undergo extensive therapy and perhaps even forcibly hospitalized until they are brought back to mental balance.

I would say that homicidal rape of a helpless victim is just as objectionable a subject as child porn (even if it is put in a "fantasy" setting). I fail to draw any difference between the two. If artistic depiction of child pornography is against the law (and as far as I am aware, that is the case)... I fail to understand how forcible homicidal rape should be any different.



I always respect a well-put opposing view. Thanks for joining in. Catch you later.

i'm glad to see "context" has finally started to be a consideration in this particular instance. with that in mind, we need to ask, was this on display with other works of art? wasa there a theme to the surrounding artworks? if the art in the immediate area was all of a sexual nature and had the general impact of sexual excitement and gratification, then we can assume this piece was placed there as one more piece that depicts an act of sexual gratification.
if the surrounding artowrk depicts an overall expression that is anti-rape or that have the general effect of artwork as a statement or commentary on various human activities, then we can assume it was a piece making commentary on the act instead of condoning any act in particular.

i think i've seen this, or something close to it, before. was this a compuiter generated image? if it what i'm thinking it is, then my own personal opinion of this image is as such:

the artwork, the actual generation of the image is, is artistic and shows a certain amount of talent. albeit, a talent that is fairly prevelant in computer generated artwork, but still of artistic value. it's the subject matter that is not artistic when, and if, presented in a sexually gratifying light.

it is regardless that the fairy is a "fantastical creature", when the true arguement is whether it's of artistic merit to display a depiction of torturous homocidal rape or not. which is reliant upon the context in which it is being shown, is it of sexual gratification or commentary on a despicable act? and should one be free to express either of them? (as commentary, yes.. as sexually gratifying.. i don't think so, but that's my opinion and i wouldn't be so quick to try to impose it on anyone without some serious pondering.)

Now this is where I'd agree with Coconut (obviously) and disagree with Cory on three points (two made in the above post and one in an earlier post):

1) The claim that he isn't forcing anyone to look at it against their will. It was certainly not my will to view such a piece. The fact that it's hanging in a public art gallery is indication that he intended other people to see that work whether they wanted to or not. It's not hanging on a locked room in his locked home (which frankly, would be scarey enough in itself).

2) Since I and others are shocked by such work (and since it is obvious such a work could cause some people emotional harm), I think the claim that he "doesn't hurt anyone else" is by this point proven wrong. Callous disregard of the feelings and needs of others is harmful.

3) The claim that there is a "world of difference" in depicting such a thing and engaging in it. I think a prominent teacher about 2,000 years ago stated that "If a man continues to look at a woman with longing, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart". Religion totally set aside (it has nothing to do with it), the point being made is that if a person develops a love for certain things, the next step toward actual fulfillment of fantasy becomes opportunity. There have been modern day psychology papers written on the same concept.

Police know this well: the step before criminal action is external evidence of thought pattern. Again, I'm not directly accusing this particular user of anything. But is the potential there? I don't think anyone can safely claim it absolutely isn't. The question of such most certainly is.

So I do disagree with the concept that there's a world of difference between the depiction and the act. And by the principles of substitution, tiny fairy, tiny human, it's all the same. That is why such things can be so alarming. Where there is smoke...

Again the question comes: what kind of society fails to recognize that which is blatantly obscene? When it gets to the point that nothing is obscene, can we really make the claim to be civilized? That's actually the foundation issue.

sigh. A couple points Siggy:

Are you being intolerant of others "intolerant" attitudes? If you're totally 100% tolerant, why does this bug you? You don't have to be here and read this forum. Just go off and ignore it.

Point: this is what you're telling others to do. "If you don't like it, just ignore it." Kinda like the doctor telling his patients they need to stop smoking while he's puffing away.

Secondly, if you read the very first post you'll know this wasn't in "folks houses". This was in a public gallery. What was I doing "poking around" there? Hey, it's my right as a member of SL to go "poking around". That's what SL is all about-- exploring sims. But again, this wasn't in a private, locked house (in which case I'd have likely said nothing. While still objectionable and equally obscene, his property, locked residence, I'da been "tresspassing". As it is... it was in a public gallery with transluscent walls.

At this point, artistic depiction of child pornography is not against the law. This link should provide some information as to the current legal status of the arguement: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=virtual_childporn

It details how the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was overturned because of the following bolded terms:




..essentially because it allows people to be punished even if no actual children are used in the creation of the material, which is the litmus test put forth for child pornography as determined by NY v. Ferber in 1982.

Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority decision:

“In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that itself is the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production...The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.”

Would that be more or less emotional a reaction then assuming an artist is a rapist from viewing a single painting?

just wonderin'

Too bad we dont have an archive of past disciplinary action for historical reference, but here is the link to the post referencing the following incident.

Does anyone remember the art gallery Azrazael Maracas had in Gualala? Az's membership is long cancelled, but the incident is one to be remembered.

Az was a great builder, and he built an art gallery on an M rated sim. Inside he had original artwork he created and that was created by other SL members. The works inside were creative, and some provocative, but no subject matter could be considered within the scope of cultural taboo such as pedophilia or antisemitism.

In front of the building in open view were 3 pictures posted at the entrance sign to the build. The pictures were black and white depictions of children who had been injured in the war in IRAQ. The children were alive, scared, somewhat bruised, a bit dirty, and were not mangled, not bloody, not disfigured etc. There was no nudity or M rated content. The pictures were the same as any that could be viewed in the news. The message represented Az's antiwar sentiment and how war was harming the innocent children.

The entire area of the sim at that time was commercial. There was a bikers bar across from the gallery, and a store with cats and other items next to it. Those owners objected to the gallery, claimed the pictures of the children were disturbing, and complained to LL.

Soon a Linden came to the gallery and ordered Az to remove the exterior pictures because they could be seen from an above flyover, and because the two neighbors were upset by them. Az was told to enclose the pictures inside the build which he did.

A short time later, the pictures were returned to his inventory by a Linden, along with a cross that he had in a church build in Aqua. Az received a CS violation for this.

Would this unwarranted censorship happen today? I dont know. but when you see or hear members complaining that there is a lack of consistency in the application of the rules, it is situations like this that provoke the complaints.

Thanks for that info. I stand corrected... until other data comes forth.



I did find this interesting however. They twice here state recognition that such things "may encourage pedophiles". I would think that this in itself would be enough of a deterrent to anyone with a functioning conscience. If not, well, that's a sad person indeed.








[/QUOTE]

I like you.

I really enjoyed this. Short, sweet, to the point and to me obvious in concept. Too bad more people don't see it as such. Society has obviously become very jaded. Time to wipe it clean and start again... which historically has happened many times. It's interesting that when a society becomes so corrupt that it becomes objectionable, their power diminishes and another takes over.

(but, that's a whole nuther thread... "The Decline and Fall of Major Societies".

The piece, if I understand correctly, is being displayed in a gallery on his own land - not a public sandbox or other place where you would be forced to view it even if you weren't on his property. If you don't choose to view it, you can leave his property and not return - there's no force involved.




Shock is NOT harm. He may have offended you, but he hasn't harmed you. I have a very hard time equating a single image in an art gallery on private property to "callous disregard of the feelings and needs of others". For one, the concept itself is ridiculously broad. How can one possibly conduct themselves in a manner where you neither shock nor offend ANYONE, ANYWHERE by your actions, words, or choice of artwork? Its simply not possible.




Again, context is the key that you're omitting in your arguement. Police and profilers do use the possession of pornographic and violent materials in the prosecution of a murderer or sexual predator - HOWEVER - in that case, an actual crime has already been committed. The admittance of such materials is an extremely minor aspect of an overall case involving a crime, and it is certainly not the be all and end all in the prosecution's ammunition. The possession of said materials is but one of a great number of signs of a mind that may commit such crimes - and any number of these signs, taken singularily, indicates absolutely nothing. Certainly not enough to pre-emptively accuse someone of an act which they haven't committed and in all likelyhood will never commit.

Finally, the potential is in each and every human being to be capable of absolutely heinious acts. You and I are no exception. Once we begin to accuse people of acts simply because the potential to commit the act exists, we might as well lock everyone up from birth.

Please re-read. It states the exact opposite.


"The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.”

To wit: there is no more than a remote connection between materials that might encourage such acts, and the committance of the acts themselves. Without stronger evidence to tie the two together, the Government cannot prohibit the existance of these materials on the grounds that one leads to the other.

So then Catholics condone the killing of Christ? Uhm --okay.

Siggy, I've been avoiding commenting about this, but I can see it's time.

This is a pattern you follow on forums: if you can't make a point, start attacking the motives of your opponents.

This MO is lame. We're talking about propriety of subject matter and you switch the concept to imaginary complaining about security scripts? Don't you think it's time you change this habit and rather than personally attacking your opponents, try to contribute something to the forum?

Isn't it interesting how two different people can read the same thing an draw two different conclusions? Because in my opinion, this shows a strong liklihood of causal link. At the very least this would assuredly warrant further research into the matter.



Where there is little stimulus... there is little causal factor. Step up the stimulus, then do the research. This is exactly what happened when VCRs and the internet arrived. With greater population data comes more valid statistics.



I would have to say the evidence is far more than merely "anecdotal" and that more is known about the strenth of causal relationship than is being stated here. Not really wanting to get into a "my data vs your data" debate here because that's not really the purpose of this thread... just pointing out that what you're stating here is just one small part of several schools of thought in this area.

It has to be realized that in the area of psychology, there is strong faction between behaviroists, environmentalists and geneticists (as well as many others). I personally tend to be in the realitively recent ecclectic group who feels that one cannot singularly categorize human behavior, but that there are definite general trends followed, traceable and statistically measurable.




Agreed, more research needs to be done. And is being done all the time. Interestingly, the results seem to be pretty much one-sided thus far. Different studies being done in different countries and different language groups at the same time are coming up with the same results. The stimuli-relation-to-violence studies are some of the more interesting I've read of late.



This is true of areas where there is a natural predisposition of resistance (namely, the human tendency to shut out excessive stimulus such as abusive advertising). However, when that stimulus appeals to natural human desires (such as sexuality or hunger), it easily re-enforces those desires. (As much as we all hate hamburger commercials... how many times have you gone to the local burger joint in the middle of an evening after watching television? Me, lots. LOL)



Hmm. I'd first of all question that blanket statement. I'd secondly question if that violence is being displaced by other factors (drug use, sexual activity, or other stimulus). There are too many factors to accept such a statement at face value. (no offense intended. I agree there are some studies that make such claims).



But the issue is, they are mimicing negative behavor rather than positive. And at this time, there is not enough research available to prove such does not have long-term, deep-seated effects on overall behavior. The evident sign of mimicry is in itself statistical cause for concern. It would be only in the absense of such mimicry that one could safely claim no need for concern.