Art vs Obscenity-- When is Censorhip valid?

No offense, but given the fact that you have repeatedly insinuated that harmful sexual deviance is the motive behind the person that is displaying this image in his gallery - despite well documented evidence provided to the contrary that shows your insinuation to be based neither in factual evidence nor casual correlation - I find your rebuke of Siggy to be rather ironic.

I bring this up because an overriding theme to your discussion of the link between materials depicting actions and the actions themselves seems to be that you either feel that future investigation will provide evidence that backs up your viewpoint, or that there are other, albeit less well-known studies currently available that back up your assumptions. If its the former, then all discussion about "what is" is moot, as one can simply say "well, this could change in the future!" If its the latter, could you please provide some sort of link or citation?

So far, I've managed to find a Supreme Court ruling on the subject that negates your presumption, and others in this thread with training and expertise in the subject at hand have also told you that the relationship between material and action is much more inconclusive than you feel to be so. Something more substantial than your gut feeling would be appreciated, if you're basing your opinion on something beyond it.

This is a valid point Juro, and in some instances might even be true. But I would think by far that would be singularity rather than common rule.

You are absolutely correct that an artist can use his trade to present something he/she is absolutely against. This is especially the case in trauma victims. However, the liklihood of someone using photorealist methods to positively portray violent homocidal rape are very unlikely in the case of personal trauma. The tendency would be more toward abstract / very dark presentation and blurring of both the victim and assailant. The emphasis would be on the emotion of the issue, not the technique of the artwork itself.

Not quite as emotionalistic as putting words in other people's mouths.

It's on his land, it's in a building, it follows the TOS - its a friggin manga pic.

Storm in a teacup and the stirring of drama.

LOL heres a pattern I've noticed too - folks making huge deals outta nothing. It's hardly an 'personal attack' its an observation. If the guy put a script out - to keep folks from seeing 'objectionable content' folks would be complaining about the scripts.. People LOOK for things to be offended at here - thats the way I see it.

Folks desperately look for things to be offended at. It's a MO I've observed here on the forums that I find 'pretty lame'

If I was personally attacking you - I'd be calling you a fuckwit.

Ironically you seem to be following the same 'MO' with your post.

Cory, that kinda strikes me as someone punching someone in the nose and then saying, "If you don't like being punched in the nose, you can go elsewhere." Once the work has been viewed, telling an offended viewer he doesn't have to view it is a little too late, don't you think?


By whose opinion? Are you stating that an individual cannot determine whether he has been harmed or not? If you postulate that art is art if a creator says it's art... then would it not even be more true that if someone feels he has been harmed... he has been?




That's true. There are some people who are "offended" by our enforcement of PG attitude on ElvenGlen. There's always some clown...

That doesn't mean that one has to go out of one's way to offend other people. I think there's a pretty obvious difference between a Jazz Music station and the Howard Stern show. And it should be pretty easy to see that difference.



Are you forgetting those who are arrested on the charge of posession of pedophellia material, when no actual "action" crime has been yet committed? (Now mind you, I have a problem with people being arrested for images on their computer or in a magazine they possess-- just as I have a problem with drug addicts being put in prison with hardened criminals-- but that is the law).




And that is the foundation issue, I'll agree. If we arrest people for potential, where do we draw the line in that potential. As I mention here, I'm not all that comfy with someone being arrested for possession of certain items. But I cannot argue with the fact that ownership of certain items indicates a potentially dangerous psychological tendency toward certain actions. It's a complicated issue that folk smarter than we have debated for years.

really? You didn't post this?

Actually Kendra, as far as I undertand, most Christians do. But I don't know as you'd understand or even want to understand.

Myself, I've never liked the idea of the crucifix. Kind of like displaying your Lord's murder weapon around your neck. A little grizzly. I am especially adverse to the graphic depictions of such brutality shown in some movies. (I refused to go see The Passion for that very reason. I could just imagine the "Mad Max" depiction of the death of the Christ. Overboard? Hey yeah.)

Still, most such depictions are not detailed, grizzly, gory representations of the concept. Although I disagree with the basic idea, they do have a purpose and that purpose is well known throughout society and something that few people would find socially unacceptable. I'm a long way from defending public presentation of a crucifix... but apples and oranges as they say.

Wow, nothing like patting yourself on the back.

Note to self: ignore user's posts here on out. Intent obvious.

I think you're in love with the sound of your own voice. I base this assumption on your many posts. I am offended by your posts and worry about how your family deals with such a classic narcissist.

See what I did there?

This has been an interesting topic and I like the discussion going on, though it's gone over my head a couple of times. And I agree with you, Way, in that the image has a jarring effect on most people and I'd prolly have a strong visceral reaction to it.

But how can we say that the person chose that pic because they related to the aggressor? What if they choose it because they related with the victim? That skews the whole theme into the opposite direction. To assume they're coming from only one side of the fence is unfair.

I have a sculpture depicting a woman slaying her enemies. To conclude that I handle conflict in this literal sense is an ignorant assumption. What if I wasn't I trying to invoke anger, righteousness, bloodlust? What if I was feeling something else? I wouldn't dictate to the viewer what they should feel or see in it. Whatever impression an artwork gives depends on the observer's willingness to take it at face value or go deeper.

WOOT!!!!! I W1N TEH INTR4N3TZ!!!!!!!!

You are saying you don't have a problem with people possessing images of child porn, as long as they don't actually have sex with a child? That seems to be clearly what you are saying - you are against people being arrested merely for having the images. Those who are arrested on charge of "pedophilia materials" are being arrested for possessing child pornography - transmitting and possessing child porn is rightfully a crime. I can't see how you could begin to find any justification for it.

The reason I mention this is because this is how he handles every forum I've ever read by him. It's a constant pattern... if you can't argue with your opponent...attack and slander. It's a yawner.

Now I want to clarify something that has been misconstrued throughout this thread. I've let it go thus far, time to clear the air.

My statement that I fear for the families in this user's neighborhood is neither an insinuation that he is a pedophile (as a couple of users have incorrectly read into that post) nor that he conducts criminal activities (ditto). It is a simple statement of personal opinion: I wouldn't want my family within 3 city miles of someone who thinks a piece of "artwork" like that is funny and I have legitimate personal concern for those who do. You remember I actually contacted the guy. He didn't give a flying fig what anyone thought. No, I would not want that kind of person as a neighbor.

Whether you or others personally agree with my concern or not is really irrelevant to that statement. It's a statement of my opinion. You're welcome to your own opinions in the matter. If that statement came across as a statement of fact, I do apologize. Tough to word things just right sometime. But I've left it as is in the interest of historical thread integrity.

As far as you presenting hard evidence to support your opinions, you've presented one finding. That's ok; I accepted that for the time being. And I'm not going to get into some long, drawn out, dull posting of multitudinous research papers here for people to yawn through. Let folks do their own durn research. Everyone here does have access to the internet, right?

I'm presenting a thought for consideration. Accept it or reject it, your choice. Argue with it, that's fine. That's what the thread is for. And we can either do that... or start getting personal. Shall we leave an otherwise intelligent thread and start with the personal flame attacks here? All in favor?...

Thought not. Adult maturity or otherwise, we all have the choice.

generally this has been an engaging thread with well presented thoughts and observations; however, i am seeing personal attacks starting to crop up and would strongly advise they be kept in check so as to avoid the closure of this thread.



-

a quick side note, Catholics show the crucifix with Jesus hanging upon it, Christians show an empty cross. one is the depiction of suffering for sin, the other is the depictrion of the release from those sins and the resurecction/ascension of Jesus. i'm not implying any judgemental statement here, just stating a fact.

I think you've totally misconstrued what I said. Time to take two giant-steps back and re-read.

Apples and oranges. You visited a parcel of private property, and in doing so viewed an image that was offensive to you. No physical harm, no one visited your land (or "personal space" as the case may be, to keep with your analogy) and put up the image for you to view.



Perhaps our definitions of the word "harm" are different. When I state that shock and harm are not the same, its in the sense that no physical harm has come to you from viewing the image. If you've suffered emotional harm, which is defined here as "a normal response to an extreme event. (Psychiatric trauma, or emotional harm) involves the creation of emotional memories about the distressful event that are stored in structures deep within the brain". If viewing this image has indeed caused you emotional harm as defined above - along the lines of other emotionally harming events, such as being witness to an actual murder, rape, or other forms of violence - then this is truly an astounding image of fairy-abuse.

So, essentially, yes - I'd like to dispute that harm, as defined above, has occured to you, based on the presumption that a single viewing of an image couldn't possibly be so emotionally scarring as to qualify as emotional harm or trauma. You're welcome to prove otherwise.






But its certainly within their First Amendment rights to discuss or display subject matter that one person might find offensive, as there are certainly others that would not. However, the world isn't made up of only Jazz stations nor Howard Stern broadcasts - each person has different tastes and preferences. Sometimes the same person can prefer both jazz and Stern. What offends one person doesn't necessarily offend his neighbor. Who wants to live in a world of only jazz stations?


I don't feel that this person went out of their way to offend you or anyone else with this picture - again, this was on private property, not in a public area.







People that have been arrested for possessing child pornography have been arrested because child pornography is illegal. It is illegal because (and is defined as) pornographic material that is created with children under the age of 18. The harm is being done to the children involved in the production of the material, children that aren't legally able to make the decision of free will to be involved in pornography - that's where the illegality lies, and is why the CPPA was overturned by the Supreme Court. The person in question wasn't arrested as some sort of pre-crime measure.

If you're discussing a case in the US where pornographic material was the cause for someone's arrest, where the material in question did not contain photographs of a minor, then could you please provide a link to the case in question?





The bolded term above is what I've been trying to clarify repeatedly during this thread. The simple possession of material that may depict acts that are illegal does not mean that the person is predisposed to commit these acts! A study shows that 77% of child abusers are married. Does this make us assume that every married man has a potentially dangerous psychological tendancy towards child molestation?

My point is, you're repeatedly extracting one small aspect of an overall psychological profile - one that includes many, many factors of which both you and I probably are defined by - and using it as the overriding "fact" by which one can pre-emptively judge the actions of others, without any other evidence whatsoever.

I have reread it multiple times. I don't need to take two steps back when you make such a clear statemet:



You are saying here people have been arreseted for merely possessing sexual images of children, and claim no crime has yet been committed (by action crime, I assume you mean they have not had sex with a child). Why shouldn't they be arrested? It is illegal to have child pornography (aka pedophelia material).



You are saying you have a problem with people being arrested for possesing images on their computer. The only images you can be arrested for would be child pornography. What is not to understand in your statement? You are saying you have a problem with being arrested merely for possessing the images.

Now what again was misconstrued about such a straightforward statement?

Christiano, forgive me if I don't go into a long, detailed explanation for you here. I've already been on the thread 2 hours today. I think most people here know exactly what I was speaking about. Sorry you misunderstood.

Again, I don't see what there is to misunderstand about you saying you have a problem with people being arrested for images on their computer. Not a lot of grey area there. I also don't think you can assume "most people" knew what you were talking about, as everyone reading this thread has only your words to go on - and you made a very straightforward statement. I think you are the one who needs to reread your own words, since based upon several things you have said in this thread, you don't seem to have a clear grasp of how what you are saying is coming across to people.

What, precisely, do you fear will happen to the families in this person's neighborhood? I can understand your opinion that you wouldn't want to be neighbors with this guy, after your conversation with him - there are a number of people I don't want to be neighbors with. However to state that you fear for the people in this man's real life neighborhood leads me to question what, exactly, you're fearful of. Fear implies the potential for harm.




Your statements for others to do their own research to defend your point of view, and your stated aversion for "some long, drawn out, dull posting of multitudinous research papers" reminds me of the endless ID vs. Evolution debates. One is certainly welcome to their opinion, however opinions have infinitely more validity when they're based upon facts.

I found the perfect word to describe this the other day - truthiness. The quality by which someone purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination.

I've actually taken part in such debates and read such debates. Know what I observed? The ID people did present factual data and references to their position, only to have that arrogantly ignored and denied by the evolutionist faction. Seriously. The primary stance of the evolutionists was to verbally attack the reputations of every single reference presented by the ID group, insult the basic intelligence and motive of the ID group... and then later even deny the ID group presented any data at all. Such traits are not specific to the evolutionist vs ID field either. I've seen it on this board in debates over lag and other issues. The data is presented... then totally denied by people who have no interest in recognizing valid data opposed to their personal opinions. (no offense intended to current group).

I've long learned that forums can either be a scientific debate where people hurl "valid data" back and forth at one another... or they can be friendly discussions of opinions and concepts. I avoid the former as useless bouts of pomposity, enjoy the later as exchanges of ideas.

In direct reply, I don't ask anyone to do research to defend my point of view. If they want to do research it should be to personally establish the truth of a matter, without intent to arrive at a predisposed specific solution. You can't learn as much by having someone else do the research for you. You do the research yourself. When someone asks me to present "research" to support my views, in my mind they're being too durn lazy to check into the matter for themselves. I've done my work; let them do their own.

Learned that from a professor one time. A student challenged a statement he made and demanded proof. The professor replied: I have a degree. I've been to college and done my research. Now it's your turn. So when people ask for proof of a statement I make, hey, they're welcome to find it. I don't come here to look up mountains of research for other people because they can't be bothered to visit Google.

I surely support your right to your opinion Chris.

Y'know, I was thinking about this, and decided that rather than putting up with yet another such post (which would undoubtedly follow) I'll take time to answer it. Anyone ever discussed the concept of "obsession" with ya? Geez.

I will quote the original post:

Are you forgetting those who are arrested on the charge of posession of pedophellia material, when no actual "action" crime has been yet committed? (Now mind you, I have a problem with people being arrested for images on their computer or in a magazine they possess-- just as I have a problem with drug addicts being put in prison with hardened criminals-- but that is the law).

I obviously speak here not of the activity, but of the action taken as a result. This post in no way even infers condoning posession of such material. I think that would be extremely obvious considering the foundation theme and subject of this post. I question people being arrested because police search their computers and find pics in the temp files deep in the recesses of Windows. You ever found yourself at a porn site without wishing to go there? Ever had a multitude of popups flood your system and load you down with unwanted "favorites" and hidden files on your system to the point you had to physically shut down your computer to stop it? Now imagine yourself being arrested and put in jail because such was on your computer. Any objections? Hey, they were on your computer. How would you defend yourself?

Maybe my view isn't complete in this, but as a citizen of this country, I do have the right to question certain laws. So long as I obey them, that's part of the freedom of speech people are discussing here.

I question arresting drug users.. who usually have an addiction problem rather than criminal intent. Such people are likely in need of therapy and definitely in need of rehabilitation... but to arrest them and put them in prison (which was part of the context of the entire post), is in my opinion a questionable action. Frankly, I question jail itself as a valid way to handle criminal activity. But that's a whole nuther thread.

I hope that answers this question to your satisfaction.

In fact, Waiting for Godot, The Visit, most plays by Maria Irene Fornes, many many plays depict negative, sad, funny, horrific moments of human existence. Karen Findlay (one of the NEA 4)* has a moment in one of her plays where she shows us her mixed feelings over the death of her father--who kills himself when he no longer finds her sexually attractive. I believe It doesn't mean that the authors or the theatre owners or theatre patrons believe that this negative reality is something to be aspired to, but it does mean that we cannot paint all the walls pink and pretend that violence, desecration, loss, and terror don't exist in the world.

Artists must be free to explore and convey all aspects of the human condition, and to do so as graphically as befits their purpose. I don't have to like all art that is made, but I do have to allow for the necessity for artists to go, if they need to, where I am not willing to.

*(4 individuals denied NEA grants that they were approved for in extensive peer processes because they didn't sit well aesthetically with the Reagan-appointed Saboteur in Chief of the NEA--Imelda Radice, was it? think so.)