Art vs Obscenity-- When is Censorhip valid?

I hear this claim quite often, and it's a pretty popular stance. But don't you currently censor child pornography? I think that pretty much invalidates this statement as a generality.

Again I'll point out; a world without any censorship is just as bad (perhaps moreso) as a world with too much. Because too much censorship might be an argument for erring on the side of caution, whereas no censorship is throwing caution to the wind.

Savannah, I enjoyed your post immensely, not just because you agreed with me in some areas (because you also disagreed in some areas )... but because of the sensible balance in which it was presented. I took the liberty of highlighting the statements I felt were especially thoughtful and well-stated. (which looking back, is pretty near the whole post. LOL)

I appreciate your feelings on an aversion to censorship. In truth, since we were focusing on other areas I have not yet said thus far that as an artist, I would have a natural aversion to censorship of art. As people pointed out, this has been abused in the past.

But at the same time, as an artist, if I presented something that people found to be offensive, I would seriously consider pulling that work voluntarily, out of consideration for the feelings of others. As you pointed out above, if I pushed my work on the general public, forcing them (by proximity) to view work that numerous people found obscene, I think it would be less of a statement about my right to exhibit art and more of a statement of my own pomposity, personal callousness and total disregard for the feelings of others.

Even though most of the posts here disagree with the initial post (thankfully, not all or I'd be feeling persecuted... LOL)-- as you stated I have found the thread in general to be very interesting and educational. I also appreciate the few who have had the guts to stand up against the general opinion and point out that there is such a thing as right and wrong-- even when it comes to the concept of "art".

The simple argument I make is that where there is right and wrong, just as there is the right of the individual, so there is the right of society to protect itself from what it considers to be potentially harmful. Everyone speaks of the right of the individual; most seem to forget about the right of society as a whole.

According to the principles of right of society, the needs of the many overweigh the needs of the one. That is why a person with an infectuous disease can have all of his rights removed and quarantined. Anything that presents an obvious and present danger falls immediately into that category. Things that present potential danger can be judged as to whether that danger is sufficient to warrant action. If that action is deemed warranted, then society itself has the right to enforce that decision-- and does so every day, even in our country of personal freedom.

It's when people fail to acknowledge all danger that we get into shark-infested waters.

So although we disagree on the right/wrong of censorship as a concept, I still enjoyed your post much.

LOL. Trouble is, they'd probably enjoy it.

I have to admit though, there have been relatively few trolls in this thread, which I think has surprised more folks than just me. Sometimes posts have gotten a little heated and there have been a few unintentional attacks, but for the most part it's been fairly clean.

But then, you know how the saying goes, one troll fouls the air. That's why I carry my Ronco Troll Spray with me at all times. Liquid sunlight in a can.

Yeah, I agree that was probably an unintentional slight by the poster (I didn't even notice it, but I see your point). Sometimes we don't realize how what we post comes across until it's already been read and quoted a few dozen times. LOL The hazards of forums and email.

Part of the confusion is that way back there somewhere (Luther?) there was a big split between the Catholic church and other faiths and there was a habit formed of calling Catholics "Catholics" and others "Christians". Since Christian basically means "Christ-like-one" or "Follower of Christ"... anyone who claims to believe in Christ can claim to be Christian, whether Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, Lutheran, Jehovah's Witness, Protestant, Independent or even the Christo-Jewish denominations popping up now. Does't mean they all act like Christ-- just that they claim to. LOL

Oops, and I always avoid religious discussions on forums. I didn't post this.

Imagine a world without censorship!

coco

The Lindens have reserved the right to remove anything they deem to be broadly offensive content from anywhere, so you may as well go tell them to jump in a lake.

coco

I will, when and if they remove it.

Wayfinder, I find it hilarious that when someone takes issue with you for making a veiled personal attack on someone's RL state of being, you cry "Troll".



As for your threat in PM to "drop-punt" me, you can put that right back where you got it, "LOL"

Ummmm....perhaps you meant "Christians" condone the killing of Christ? Catholics do not have a monopoly on Christianity.

Not bothering to comment on where the heck that line came from anyway.

She was referring to the original poster's idea that by showing something in an image, you condone of what is shown. The artistic depictions of Christ nailed to a cross are quite graphic, yet those depictions aren't condoning his crucifixion, merely showing it.

Wayfinder, again the insertion of child porn into this argument is not valid and not an appropriate comparrison, IMHO. Child porn is censored because of the exploitation of a minor. This piece of art we're discussing here is a picture of a mythical being and obviously a character of fantasy.

Oh my! Imagine! Someone's delicate sensibilities could be in for a shock! Oh my!

I see a lot of stuff I don't appreciate EVERY single day, Coco. Stuff that, if I were to take your false high road approach, I'd be pressing to have censored. I don't believe in it for one simple reason: there is no clear line - 'offensive' is subjective. What I may find offensive, you might not. What you may find offensive, I may not - so, who's right?

The point of "fantasy" has been made and responded to. No need for me to answer it again.

In regard to the general comment: if you censor anything, not matter what it is or for what reason, you contradict the statement you made, which was:

Originally Posted by Juro Kothari
A world with censorship of any kind also tramples on individual rights.



That's pretty much a blanket statement. Thus my counter-arguement-- censorship of some form is essential to all civilized society. And since that is the case, it falls to that society to determine when the line of acceptability/ obscenity is crossed.

Juro, I've seen this 2 or 3 times, so just as a friendly note...

Do you think it's helping your argument to make fun of the sensibilities of others? To me, that just puts your post in the category of "doesn't give a hoot about the feelings of others" and totally invalidates anything you might say thereafter.

I've seen this statement of "false high road approach" (or false morality or whatever) one time too many too. Just because our sense of morality is a little different (keener?) than your sense of morality does not make it false nor a moralistic "high road". In fact, the "high road" means looking down your nose at others with a different opinion than yours. I don't think Cocoanut gave such an impression, bu that is the appearance in the above quote.

Based on your past posts I don't believe you intended to take that road, so better perhaps to switch to the one that's less of a personal attack against Cocoanut... or anyone else.

Not that I may not have inadvertantly done such myself. Hazard of the trade. I just read one statement implying personal falsehood too many.

Nolan, for the record, you've made yourself a troll. Every post of yours thus far has shown heavy disrespect for those who disagree with you, a personally insulting attitude, vulgarity and direct attacks against others.

I PMed you to attempt to avoid publicly humiliating you by calling you to task for such here in the forums. I'm not the only one here who has mentioned trollishness; others have as well, but you didn't get the clue.

In case you're totally unaware of this, quoting any private IM or PM in public Forum IS against TOS (in addition to the concept that I humorously told you that if you continued to attack people here on this thread I would punt kick you like a squirrel. Which is what's happening now. Duh). Sorry man, did the honorable thing and gave you a chance. Guess you're just one of those people who has to cross the line and learn the hard way.

If the irony were any more palpable in here, I would need an oxygen mask.

I feel so humiliated, so schooled.

Way... I appreciate your comments, but that's the first time I've made a comment about peoples 'delicate sensibilities'. I stand by my feelings that some people are more sensitive and while I understand that and appreciate it, I do not think it is a good marker for setting the bar for censorship.

Let me clarify that comment a little, so that you can understand why I chose that label. Morals are relative and I believe it to be immoral to censor someone's work or thoughts because another doesn't appreciate them. So, when someone claims to be 'moral' and bases thier opinions and calls to action such as censorship on those 'morals' - I do find it to be false. It's not an insult, it's my opinion of the position and statement.

Wayfinder,

There has been nothing "trollish" about Nolan's posts in this thread, Wayfinder. His very first post was in response to you asking the following question:



He responded by asking you this:



He was referring to your original statement in your very first post about feeling sorry for the RL neighbors of the person whose gallery had this piece of artwork in it. Many people in this thread interpreted your statement as saying the person was a dangerous sexual predator in RL because of what was shown in the artwork.

Your response to Nolan was incredibly ironic:


This actually answers your original question as well. The same freedom of speech you claim in commenting is the same one anyone else can use in questioning you.

His next post was in response to your assertion that criticism is censorship:



Again no trolling or no disrespect.

He then explained the same thing:


I don't blame him for feeling it is lunacy. There seems to be a disconnect between the things you are saying, and what you think you have said. I've noticed it myself in this thread. The main thing is that there is no trolling there. You may dismiss him because you disagree, and because you don't like what he is pointing out, but that does not make him a troll.

He then responded to your assertion that you are afraid the person is a ticking time bomb. Again, meaning at some point you think obviously they are going to do something harmful simply because they had that picture. You are casting aspersions on this person simply because of a piece of artwork they had in their gallery. You keep backtracking and saying that you aren't making a statement about the person, but by saying you fear he is a ticking time bomb, you are just reiterating the impression that you think he will commit a crime related to the imagery.

Nothing in any of Nolan's posts constituted being called a troll. I have seen the private message that you sent to him, by the way. The threat was not taken out of context - it was just a stupid assertion to make to someone. I don't blame him for calling you out in his posts - you have been wildly inconsistent in this thread and don't seem to have any concept of how you come across.

Clarification recognized and understood. Thanks for responding. That's more the Juro I've come to know.

Rebuttal....

The only "false morality" is from one who goes against their sense of morals... ie, a hypocrite.

There are all types of morality, both "good and bad" (pro/con, however we wish to label it). There are those with excessive morality, which can be bad but not necessarily. There are those with no morality, which is usually bad (both for themselves and for others, for lack of morality brings consequences).

Whichever the road, so long as one sticks to the chosen road, that morality is true to itself; it is not false. It is only when someone preaches "high morals" while being immoral, or teaches no morals but then inflicts personal viewpoints of morality on others, that morality becomes false.

In my opinion, of course. Just a point for discussion. I don't really think Cocoanut was exhibiting false morality in any way; she's pretty much stuck to her guns, even in the face of majority opposition. I consider that to be pretty true.

I appreciate your opinions Christiano. Don't feel like going into some long post contradicting you because, well hey, what good would it do? I haven't been all that impressed with the disrespect shown in your posts either.

I have seen a couple of people post here whose posts I totally respect, even though they were in direct opposition. I don't feel like getting into a big argument over what is trolling and what isn't. Who knows, you may even be right! But I do know he crossed TOS whereas no one else on this post has. And why he felt it necessary to do that is a little beyond me. Shows a lack of honor or respect for others (which is what I PMed him about in the first place) and it got him muted by me in the process. So what did he accomplish? He got himself censored, at least in my case. LOL. Kinda counter-productive.

Why he felt it necessary? You sent him a private message unprovoked and included a threat in it to try to get him to stop questioning you. He was fully right to question you - none of his posts to you were disrespectful. He did not cross the TOS in his posts. The only thing he did do was call you out on your threat AFTER you made it.

PS - I haven't been disrespectful to you in any of my posts. You seem to view anyone disagreeing with you or asking you to clarify the things you say as disrespect. I just refuse to let you misrepresent Nolan's behavior when yours is hardly beyond reproach here.

Hate to leave on a negative note, but since this thread is obviously degrading at this stage, and with no new issues being stated and things starting to repeat, here's where I drop out. I have truly enjoyed the discussion with many of you here, even in mildly heated moments, even amidst opposition. Many of you have posted very well-stated points and I've enjoyed reading several posts which obviously had a lot of thought behind them. In at least one instance, my education and knowledge increased, which is icing on the cake. I've also come to understand some thoughts behind your arguments and while I still disagree (obscenity is still obscenity)... I will mentally store those for future consideration and examination. Best wishes to all.

Me, too, Juro, and I find it hilarious that everyone thinks I'm some kind of a church lady. When I say "imagine a world without censorship," I speak primarily of a world with no sense of place. Where everything is allowed (not censored) everywhere. That would be a very rough environment in which to bring up children, for one thing.

For another, it would create an entire world where no one could exist without running into anything and everything. Where only the percentage that enjoyed the most deviant things would be happy. They would define the world by default for everyone.

What is offensive and what isn't changes with the times. Obviously. Or we would still be covering up women's ankles. And what is considered acceptable and what is rejected as "broadly offensive" depends on overall acceptance by the society itself at any given time. In SL, it depends on what the Lindens think is broadly offensive.

Irl, if there were no such censorship at all, 249,900,000 people, say, would be forced to see/watch/look at/be exposed to something that only 100,000 people actually want to see/be exposed to. But because society does go by generally accepted guidelines, those 100,000 people must practice their art/activities someplace other than the public square.

Censorship of things in the public arena really isn't censorship at all, if such things can still be viewed/engaged in in the private arena.

It also amuses me that because I don't adhere to a radical notion that "all censorship is always bad" (who in their right mind would?), it must mean I'm running around with delicate sensitivities easily offended.

If that were true, I wouldn't be on these forums, or even in Second Life, now would I? I would consider such stuff as the original poster mentioned "trash," "pure-D trash," possibly "disturbed trash," and probably "childish trash" - but hardly "shocking."

What we have here is apparently (I haven't seen it) a drawing which - unlike "The Rape of the Sabine Women," for example - has no redeeming qualities and no message whatsoever. In addition, because it deals with bloody and violent rape, it falls easily into the broadly offensive category.

As someone earlier in this thread put it, I believe, you can take a crap in front of me on the sidewalk, but you know, I'm not going to consider that art, and I'm going to take the position that such should be allowed on the public sidewalk.

On the other hand, if a person wants to have a "let's all take a crap" party in their own living room, well I'm not going to object.

Unfortunately, SL isn't quite analogous to one's own living room, unless you are on an admittance-only private island.

Regarding SL, if the Lindens want to allow depictions of bloody and violent rape in mature areas, then that is their right. Unlike real life, no one has to live in SL, and this is a privately-owned place. But I believe other online environments, such as Sociolotron, cater to this sort of thing a lot better and with a great deal less - here it comes! a word I've not used before on these forums! - hypocrisy.

coco

no kids in the real SL, ever!