Art vs Obscenity-- When is Censorhip valid?

Oh, so since you find my post offensive, that gives you the right to verbally censor it?

What right do you have to morally criticize my opinion of this work? Come on Kendra.... my posts are art.


Oooo... isn't it interesting how quickly that beast can turn and bite.

oh for fuck's sake.

You don't get it do ya.

Criticism isn't censorship.

What right do you have to morally criticize by by means of unreasonable, unprovable, and flagrant insinuation, that this person is a threat to his neighbors?

Sure it is Kendra. Criticism is an attempt to verbally sensor the opinions of others. That's the point I've been trying to get you to see: you can't claim all censorship is bad, then turn around and criticise those who disagree with you. That's a form of censorship in itself. Otherwise, you'd just let them say what they want to say, present your own viewpoint without judgemental criticism, and move on.

As leading, negatively and one-sided as this question is put Nolan, I would have thought the basic answer would be obvious: freedom of speech. That basic right does not carry with it the stipulation that one be correct. It applies to all people equally... even those who disagree with you.

Kendra's criticism can't stop you, in any way, shape, or form from expressing your own opinion, unless you withdraw of your own volition...

So, no censorship.

I understood your "point" when you made it, Wayfinder. I simply find it absurd.

You said it, so your coloring of my question is invalid. If you view it as negative, then you have but your own words to thank. I neither embellished nor exaggerated you own words. That's not even a weak dodge, by the way.

Futhermore, you are possibly not recognizing that I was simply turning your own question back on you, and I think that action was highly appropriate, given your intial salvo, in which you insinuate that this person is a threat to their neighbors. Glass houses, et al.

I'll withdraw from this lunacy, as the irony contained in your rebuttals (like the one above about freedom of speech - defending your right to free speech while trying to thwart that of others is not cool) is glaring, given your prior statements.

Well, yes and no. The definition of art and obsceity, from a legal perspective, is really wiered and shifting and tends to reflect the dynamics of the times. What was considered obscence sixty years ago was not considered obscene ten years ago. And Ten years ago, janet jackson's wardrobe malfucntion would have been just another boobie on the television, and now its an obscenity.
But is not just art because everyone says it is, rather you have to look at the defintion of obscenity to0, because really everything that is not obscene is allowed, though subject to time place an manner restrictions (the old fire in the crowded movie theatre thing). Thus art is anything that is not: 1. caluclated to appeal only to the prurient interest, and 2. is utterly lacking in artistic mertic according to the standards of the community. Thus something can appeal to the prurient interest, but still have artistic merit (even if that is simply entertainment value to consenting adults), or is can lack artistic merit, but not appeal to the prurient interest-like violence in action films (this is why its seeimingly okay to show a guy gettig whacked, but not okay to show fucking). In some ways all of this is an incredibly simplified breakdown of a nuanced topic, but really the gist of the op's position was that this is obscenity, and I disagree. It may be offensive, but it is not obscene.

Blatantly incorrect.

"Censorship is the control of speech, and other forms of human expression, often by (but not limited to) government intervention. It is most commonly applied to acts that occur in public circumstances, and most formally involves suppression of ideas (by criminalizing or regulating expression). Futhermore, discussion of censorship often includes less formal means of controlling perceptions by excluding various ideas from mass communication."


From Wikipedia. Other dictionaries give essentially the same meaning. None of which include "criticism" as a defining aspect. Actually, most modern censorship in countries where freedoms are limited is applied in order to silence criticism of the government - leading one to infer that the freedom to criticise is the antithesis of censorship.


I have to agree with Nolan as to the overall tone and quality of your discussions regarding these issues. However, I'm very glad to see that a matter of this gravity and sensitivity hasn't delved into destructive personal attacks on anyone's side - kudos to all.

Also, in regards to your initial insinuation where you fear for the individual's neighbors in question - you still haven't stated what it is you actually fear, if not in relation to the sexual nature of the image he had in his gallery. If it is of a predatory nature - and you hadn't removed the name of the individual in question - it would seem to me that your statement is dangerously close to libel, which is not protected free speech. For your reading pleasure - the definition of slander and libel.

Considering that this is a volatile subject, I'd have to agree that the general tone of this discussion, while not totally free of personal attack... has been unexpectedly mild in such (with one or two noteable exceptions). That's commendable.



What I would fear is simply this: a ticking time bomb. What, is that supposedly an irrational concern? Considering the vileness of this work and the subject matter, if that doesn't cause concern in such issues.. what exactly would it take? One person mentioned he did not find this subject matter to be obscene. This work depicted, in a (debatably) positive manner, a violent, blood-spurting murderous rape of a helpess victim by someone many times her size... what would it take in the mind of that observer to cross the line of obscenity? Perhaps very little would qualify.

Taking your post into light regarding the definition of libel, quoting the source you provided... "require in some situations that the subject of the communication prove, in a civil court, that the defendant made the statement with "malice".

By this definition, a statement of opinion or earnest concern made without intentional malice toward the subject cannot be considered libel. However, to be honest, I think you grasp at straws here from the incept. To infer libel on a statement of opinion is really without foundation, even if a name had been retained.

Point: since so many have been eager to point out the difference between fantasy and reality in the case of this "artwork", how can my posting of a fantasy name-- ie the user's avatar fictitious designation-- have anything to do with reality? It's not his real name. It's the name of a fantasy character in a make-believe, virtual world in which RL laws seldom apply (otherwise, everytime you shot your friend testing a weapon you'd be up for manslaughter). Or is someone trying to set their own standard for when fantasy applies and when it doesn't?

Even if I'd left the name in there (which I removed out of consideration for the feelings and opinions of others here)... so what? The guy decided to post the work in a public venue. He can stand up to the flak that he knew would possibly come. Slander? Libel? With all due respect, get real.

What would I be slandering, a cartoon character? Since his true identity is unknown and unnamed, I could say his mother was a hooker if I wanted to and it couldn't even be remotely inferred as slander (lying maybe, but slander?). That would be an interesting court case, to be sure. I can see the judge now, "Let me get this straight. You're suing this guy because he called your pretend-life animated character a pervert and stated the owner of such is probably one too?" I wonder how long he would laugh before leveling fines against the presenting attorney for frivolous lawsuit. (The guy might be withinin his rights to report me to Linden Lab-- who would promptly either just smack my hand or do nothing-- but libel? Highly unlikely).

I am bringing these points out in all respect, seriously. I'm just presenting this as rebuttal for thought.

Let me ask a question (rhetorical or otherwise, your call):

Let's say for argument that I had said something of this nature:

"This guy is a total pervert and by the subject matter of this thing he presented, I think there is reason to suspect latent pedophelia. I wouldn't want my family to live anywhere near this guy. Those who do could potentially be in danger."

Now that's a pretty direct statement. As I've already explained that wasn't my intent, but let's say that was my direct statement. SO WHAT?

By your very definition of freedom of speech / art without censorship, I should be able to make any personal observation I durn well care to make, right or wrong, factual or not. If I decided to state "George Washington was a Commie"... what skin is it off your nose or anyone else's?

If I think this piece of "artwork" contains elements that in my experience could very well hint at potential antisocial traits and decide to say so... even if I name him by user name... that is a statement of opinion, not a libelous statement of fact. Even if I did so in RL he would have difficulty proving slander in court, much less here in Neverland.

If anti-critics are allowed to voice their opinions regarding a subject, everyone else has to have that same right. Otherwise, they present a double-standard.

Regarding freedom of speech, I don't recall anywhere calling anyone here a pervert for condoning this particular piece of artwork. I made no dispersions on anyone's mentality or ego or personalities. I have replied to arguments, for this is a discussion forum. In the case of those who have shown disrespect for me, I have returned in kind, deservedly.

But can the opposition say the same? That's a valid question I think. And what's interesting, they seem to believe there's nothing wrong in doing so. The only mentality I recall questioning is the person who posted the work in the first place-- and that with good reason. It's funny that the one accused of being a "high moral ground church lady" has not accused the free-thinkers of being antisocial demented perverts (or at least if I have, surely had no intent to do so.).

Just an observation.

I also think it's kind of funny that those who claim to be so open-minded, tolerant and progressive would get so up-in-arms because a user posts his personal opinion regarding the obscenity of a piece of artwork and its poster. That's really pretty humorous.

I think that is a false analogy. Whether something is art or not depends entirely on the intention of the person who created it, or caused it to be created. The artist presents us with something that is intended to cause a reaction of some sort. In the context of this discussion, how successfully he achieves that reaction is immaterial.

An apple isn't art, but paint a picture of it, and the picture is. Take the apple and hang it in the local gallery, and call it Aphrodite Rising and it is art. Bad art, perhaps, but art.

Take a urinal and sign it R Mutt, and it becomes art. Successful art in this case, but I won't go into that. The context and the intention are all.



Forgive me for saying so, but that old school is the 'I Know What I Like' College of Philistinism. If something is created just for prurient reasons, then it cannot be art. But art can most certainly be obscene. If Dali's 'The Great Masturbator' isn't art, do you think I could have it, please?

I don't understand your argument about society. Certainly I am an adult, and I can decide what is right and what is wrong from my own perspective. When we allow others to make these decisions for us we are treading very dangerous ground, IMO. Totalitarian regimes specialise in deciding they know what in our best interests.

If we set ourselves up as authorities to say what is and what is not acceptable in the world of art, then we are saying that our artistic standards are the only ones that count - that other people's are, by definition, worthless. I do not see that refusing to censor art is in any way leading to the apocalypse.

Again - a time bomb resulting in what, exactly?

Myself and others in this thread have attempted to explain that any relationship between artwork depicting illegal acts and actually committing the act depicted is casual at best - certainly not enough to state with any certainty that possession of the artwork will result in the individual committing the act. There are numerous studies resulting in this, and the Supreme Court has made rulings based on this evidence. Your concern, while coming from a good place, isn't based on facts.



As I stated above, while your concern may be without malice, it is also based on emotion that isn't based on fact. At the worst, you could be guilty of libel because your statement is made with '"reckless disregard" for whether it was false". You're basing your statement on one piece of artwork in the individual's possession, with no other information as to the individual's behavior or actions. Such a serious accusation would seem to require more than such a paltry piece of evidence before the accusation should be made.




The issue of how your SL avatar name relates to your real life personage is a good one for discussion, and one that hasn't been fully explored - there hasn't been a virtual world with the size and scope of SL previously, so we're all breaking new ground.

Personally, as my occupation and living is made in SL, under the avatar name "Cory Edo", any defamation of my character can conceivably effect my real life income. In effect, I work under an alias - a name under which I am still legally answerable for my actions.

The individual in question may or may not do real life business transactions, so the defamation or libel of his avatar name may or may not have measurable effect on his real life income or reputation.




I'm certainly no lawyer, and if you'll re-read my earlier statement, I was careful to state that it seemed to me that it was dangerously close to libel - not that it was, or that I was absolutely convinced that it was. If a theoretical lawsuit were to arise from your statement, there's a very very good chance that it wouldn't see the light of the courtroom.

However, certain points involving the situation would have to be more fully fleshed out to be certain of the result - does the individual in question operate under the avatar name for business, making it an alias under which he does business? Had your statement resulted in measurable harm to his reputation or business in real life? Again, using myself as an example, its now not hard to Google "Cory Edo" and discover my real life name. If I was in the position of the individual your comment was directed to, the results could very concievably result in effects detrimental to me in a real life setting.




Again, as has been stated before, there are real and legal limits to freedom of speech - libel laws are in place for just such a reason.

The statement you offered up for discussion included the words "This guy is a total pervert and by the subject matter of this thing he presented, I think there is reason to suspect latent pedophelia." Again, there is no legal or scientific evidence to back up your suspicions - your suspicions, while coming from an attitude of concern, are not based in fact. "Reckless disregard" again comes into play here.






Personal opinion is perfectly fine, and protected as free speech. However, when your statement of opinion is defaming the character and reputation of another individual based on knowing false information, or without regard to the actual truth of the statement, and said statement results in social or economic detriment to the individual being spoken of - harm is being done to that individual.

Your statement and the creation and possession of artwork depicting illegal actions all revolve around that basic concept - harm. Possession of materials that depict illegal actions when nothing illegal has actually taken place - including sexual abuse, rape, murder, etc. - are not illegal themselves, because no actual harm has taken place. Your statement, if it resulted in measurable social or economic harm to the person in question without basis in fact, could be construed as libel.

Wow, this reminds me of the Robert Mapplethorpe controversy...

Interesting you would mention Robert Mapplethorpe... and I don't really want to get sidetracked onto that case, but it is interesting to note that while the jury ruled in the favor of the art museum in question, they did find the work to be obscene.

Which is why this was such a landmark case, because it virtually removed the right of society to protect itself from even what the majority perceived as obscenity if that item was given the lable of "artwork". The case exists, it was decided and ruled upon. I don't for a moment believe that just because a court makes a decision it then becomes right. It's just the court's decision.

The Supreme Court itself has been known to reverse its own decisions-- which means the initial decision was later determined to not be the right one. That Court does not hold the market on wisdom on societal needs, morality, ethics or right/vs wrong. It's simply the highest national power with authority to set law.

When Hitler ruled Germany, he was the highest national power and his word was law. Even so, some people felt morally justified to stand up for what they thought was right. Many were executed for their stance. They were still right.

So while I respect the right of the Supreme Court to decide in this matter and I abide by that decision from a legal standpoint, that doesn't mean I agree it is right. During the Vietnam war people were put in prison because they refused to go across the sea and shoot their fellow man. We now call these people conscientious objectors and many today view that war as an error in the history of our foreign policy.

It is up to us as individuals to discern the difference between basic right and wrong-- and determine what stance we will personally take as a result.

You're fucking kidding me?

That is one of the most irresponsible, fascist statements I've ever read.

Where is the line for the bar code?

1. The fact that we are discussing whether something should be allowed to exist in SL doesn't automatically qualify that something as "art." Neither does a person's declaring it to be art make it automatically art. In fact, the definition of art is almost entirely dependant on the agreement of large portions of a society at any given time. (And thus art may go unrecognized as art during the artist's lifetime.)

2. A world without censorship of any kind is a world of anarchy, with no sense of appropriate place, and a world which tramples on individual rights.

3. Rather than bothering to argue about whether something is art or not, we could argue whether it is "broadly offensive art" or "non-broadly offensive art." At least that would narrow down the parameters of the discussion by tossing the art-or-not-art debate out the window, and place the discussion into the realm of LL and the TOS, where it actually belongs in this case.

coco

No. We should argue whether anyone physically forced you to enter the premises and view it. (providing that it's not photographic child porn - if not, you can go jump in a lake)

Hello all. I'm still relatively new to SL, and haven't posted much on this bb. I have spent a few months exploring the SL world, and I just enjoyed the last hour or so reading the first 10 pages of this thread.

I must say that I agree with 99% of Wayfinder's opinions, right up to the point where he (or she) advocates censorship. I understand the desire to not be surprised by shocking and unexpected images of graphic violence. I have that desire too. But I wouldn't want to live in a world in which the authorities prevented artists from creating such images, or of informed consenting adults of viewing them, if they wish.

Wouldn't a warning to the gallery's visitors be enough? With a warning posted at the door, anyone who continues on would be giving their informed consent and would have no grounds for complaint. Assuming, of course, that the warning was sufficiently descriptive.

BTW, I completely disagree with the "gun to the head" argument above. Surprising someone with a graphic image is almost as bad as forcing them to view it. Either way, they've seen something they didn't want to see, and they've seen it against their will.

I also disagree with the argument that an artist has the right to shock people. Shock is a form of harm, a mild and probably temporary form, but harm nonetheless, and intentionally causing another person harm is usually illegal, and almost always immoral.

Thanks to all the participants here for this lively and intelligent discussion.

There is one other possibility, Wayfinder: take pictures of all the trolls you've gamely parried with here in various poses of sexual/physical/psychological degradation and abuse, put them up in an 'art' gallery and wait for the reaction. Feel free to contact me if you need clones of any avatars in question.

Oh, one other thing. I'm offended, but not shocked, by the moderator's assertion that Catholics aren't Christians.



I assume it was unintentional, but I've had more than one Protestant ask me, in all seriousness, if Catholics are Christian, so maybe it wasn't.

(Forgive me, Cybin, I think I have that authority figure problem someone mentioned earlier.)

I would be remiss in not pointing out that some of the most heavy censorship of what was considered obscene or inappropriate artowrk was done under Hitler's regime.

No doubt Hitler, himself, would have been in agreement with your own views of art.

Nolan, just to point out something here... just about every post you've written is about how offensive our stance is and proclaiming outrage at our posts. But also just about everything you've posted here has been offensive in presentation.

Your points might be better made if you were more respectful of others in making them. It's hard to convince us our posts are outrageous while at the same time being even moreso.