Art vs Obscenity-- When is Censorhip valid?

Well, Juro, as I said, SL isn't really analogous to someone's private home, except on admissions-restricted private islands.

As I recall, the Lindens once removed some display of a bloody dead hooker that was within walls, on somebody's mature land.

I imagine they have that "broadly offensive" rule because there really aren't private areas here.

(And I think it was a museum.)

I really don't think it is very conservative to be opposed to depictions of violent, bloody rape - of anybody, or any creature. And certainly not what I would call "protective." Everyone in SL is an adult, and as such, none needs protecting.

Jauani, the thing about the kids had nothing to do with SL. I was talking about why no censorship in the real world would be a bad idea, in response to earlier thoughts along those lines in this thread.

coco

Sometimes debates do get so convoluted it kind of gets hard to tell what we are even arguing anymore. But I would say that the fact that it isn't "real" is as irrelevant as it is in the Nazi iconography and dead hooker examples that have been removed by SL, if I'm not mistaken about those.

And only SL gets to draw the line in the sand. I would think they would do so when something was clearly detrimental to people, or to a group of people, intended to send a harmful message to a group of people, or a hateful message. I think depictions of violent, bloody rape (or murder) would fall into that category, but it is really up to the Lindens.

The fantasy realm of it doesn't really make much difference to me, as I would feel that way about the depiction of painful and violent rape of any creature - cat, dog, human; doesn't matter. That it isn't photographic mitigates it some, but not enough, imo.

coco

To my knowledge, Catholics are the one's that portray Christ on the crucifix, whereas other Christians tend to simply display only the crucifix.

Don't speak for me. I'm for the artist's rights, whatever they choose to produce within the law. I'm on the blue team this time, as the mentioned work is legal.

I skipped reading this whole thread, tho I'm sure its very interesting and many valid points were made, simply because the question the thread poses is really easy to answer. The answer to the question is: Never. You never have the right to impose your judgement of art vs obscenity on anyone (meaning any consenting adult), ever. What would make you think you did?

I am going to demand a refund from Nova (english conversation school)! I have gotten lost in this thread!

If understand there are a lot of things that would offend some people in SL. What about BDSM and the Goreans? Is it the right not to be offended the real premise behind this thread? Also what is a Troll? Thought it was a creature from D&D.

Ranma,

A troll refers to someone who comes into a message thread and posts messages that are meant to purposely upset people and get a reaction. They are often off topic, or just simply filled with attacks. Here is a good definition for you:

http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp

You missed my 'funny', Jonas. That's probably why I'm not a comedian, but I digress. We have all been arguing this topic and the only clear winner is the artist. Why? I think most artists would deem a work successful when it stirs up strong emotions and conversation.

So, while we make no real progress in this discussion, one thing is clear: it has provoked a strong emotional response and lots of conversation.

Then I misunderstood Juro

Censorship is unnecessary in a world where people have taste and the intellectual ability to be thier own critic. In short be educated, be critical, and be responsible for your self, and you will never be threatened by art. You can then look at something, say "I don't like it", and choose to go on with your life, giving it all the accord you feel it deserves.

Censorship is a tacit acknowledgement that we are unable to think for ourselves, and would rather not have the responsibility of worrying about things that we might not like, so we will have the big nice governemnt tell us what is good for us and bad for us, and if we don't like sothinging daddy government will make it go away.

SL is a big place, and ther eis a lot of room. If you don't like something avoid it. It is entirely possible to enjoy SL and never encounter anything that offends you: buy your land build a box and stay there. Nothing in My SL will offend you, and your morality will not offened me. We are happy.

Of course it is just better to worry about being true to your own moral compass than try and sort out a way to redirect mine.

Exactly, which to my mind entirely validates the original work as art.

I'm going to be posting about 3 messages over the next couple of days. I was going to just drop this thread as having sufficient information to allow individuals to draw their own conclusions... but based on statements posted since then, I see some claims still need exposed and corrected.

First of all, regarding the claim that this was a "private home" (and I'm going to deal with this more later), it was clearly stated in the very first message-- and later on in the thread-- that this was NOT a private home. That point has been emphasized three times already. This was a "gallery" with "transluscent walls". I am surprised anyone even presented the "private home" concept as an argument. It should make no difference where it was hanging. If a visitor could view it without intent or desire to do so, then gallery or private home, it presents the same potential to offend (albeit, perhaps moreso in a gallery, which is a public venue with more visitors than a private home). Again, more on this in following posts.

From: someone

it has provoked a strong emotional response and lots of conversation.

If we accept that concept (I do not), we would have to also accept that photographs of violent pedophelia would be art, since it provokes a "strong emotional response and lots of conversation". That statement is by no means the definition of art. By that definition, I could claim my original post was a work of "art" and a pedo-photographer could claim his work is "art" and thus not obscene (which they do try to claim).

I find it interesting that those who claim "Censorhip is wrong" and that "It's art when the creator claims it's art".... will instantly draw the line at something that goes beyond their personal views of morality. This strikes me as being an incredible double standard: censorship is always bad and you can never censor something labeled as "art"... but if your work goes against our personal morality (namely, pedophelia), then that's wrong and you need to be arrested.

Very double-standard. Either anything that claims to be "art" is and thus immune from censorship, or the statement as stated, is proved false. If censorship is always "bad" then the line may not be drawn anywhere. Drawing a line anywhere contradicts that claim.

The argument might be made of "consenting adults". That concept has no bearing on this issue at all. There are many instances of "consenting" activity that is against state and federal law (for example, gaining a person's consent to murder them on video will still get you life in prison). Art ends where obscenity begins. What the Supreme Court decides in regard to that matter is merely their opinion with the force of legality behind it. They are not the ultimate authority of the world, just in the United States. Their decisions can be challenged (and sometimes have been), with the original decision being reversed. They have the legal say; it doesn't mean their decision is always right.

In this message I primarily wanted to clarify and put an end to the "defense" that this artwork was in a private home on private land. It was not. So if that was part of what the anti-censorship argument was based on-- that's been knocked out of the air for the FOURTH time now.

Society draws lines. They are called laws. This is not anymore of a double-standard than allowing young adults to drink when they turn 21. Or drive at 16, etc. OR POSE NUDE WHEN THEY TURN 18. Did they suddenly become able to handle drinking, driving, or posing nude because the clock struck 12 last night and made them of age?

Not to mention, photographic pedophilia is involving children - people who, even if they give "consent" can be coerced much more easily, and who don't have the necessary life experience to deal with the situation. It's exploitation of children, just like having them work outside the federal regulations set for child labor is exploitation (not the same type by any stretch, pedophilia is obviously worse - in my mind). Those laws are in place to protect children, not adults who may be offended.

ALSO - material can be art AND be illegal both. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it can't be art. There's nothing in my dictionary stating that art has to be positive nor legal. Furthermore, this artwork you're blowing a gasket over is clearly NOT illegal (in the real world), so I am unsure what your point is. It's really a non sequitur argument you're making.

No, it hasn't, unless the owner has told you he doesn't live there, and doesn't consider it a home. Can you please provide us a location, so that we make look for ourselves? No offense, but I am not really inclined to take your word for it. To be honest, I don't so much care whether it's a home or a business, a free gallery, or what have you, I want to see it and decide for myself if this could be construed as "broadly offensive".

Dr. Victor Cline also believes homosexuality is a form of "non-agressive" pornography and that it is a curable disease.

Wonderful. Why am I not suprised in the least?

It's true. There was a weird period in 1995 where I had a crush on Trent Reznor of nine inch nails, but then I took some Tylenol Cold and Sinus and I once again love the ladies.

HAH! so, which version would I have to take to cure bisexuality? Nightime formula or daytime??? or half of each?

me too!

Wow. I find the wording "deviant sexual behaviour" rather close minded. Apparently this phD thinks it's wrong to masturbate or have fantasies. I wonder what he thinks of dykes or post-op transvestites. I wonder what he would say to them... or if he would say it in person.

"You're sick, but curable."

I'd like the think he would either get an intelligent counter-argument or a swift knock to the head.

I thought we as a society had progressed beyond that limited ideology.

While it may be true that some individuals have developed extreme fantasies and some of those fantasies have been acted out.. and if they harm anyone I hope they are caught and tried in court. However, it's not safe to say that pornography itself is the result as there are thousands of other factors which can produce violent behaviour.

As far as SL goes -- this is already a progressive culture here. There's room enough for everyone and their ideas or deviances. If anyone breaks any real laws, they will be punished. Otherwise, no matter how extreme we could leave them alone and it would do us no harm. So why waste time censoring people when we can just focus on being happy and doing our own thing?

Again... my arguments lead to the same area. This is a horribly dead horse.

UM how can I say this. No. No. No.

Your apprach to the whole pedophilia thing is wrong. Materials involving sexual situtaion with minors are not illegal because the idea of sex with a minor is somehow repulsive to a collective morality. They are illegal because the law protects minors who have no legal capacity to protect themselves. There are materials out there which depict nude children that are not considered obscenity. But you wade inot the analysis entirely from th wrong point. You say "its pedophilia, so its not art." the Legal analysis is this may be art, but the protection interest the state has in minors makes it illegal to own. With pedophilia the obscentiy issue really is immaterial to the determination of legality.

The governemnt can regulate speech beyond time place and manner, it merely has to sho that any law curtailing free speech is strictly tailored to effect a compelling state interest. In the case of pedophilia, the compelling interest is the protection of children, and the prohibited materials are strictly defined in terms of content. Thus the prohibition on pedophilia does not concern itself with the art aspect. Thus a picture depicting sexual acts with a minor can be art, but still be illegal.

In point of fact hower, the history of the obscenity debate, has prove then the line is drawn in favor of braodening acceptable materials. That is a social aspect. for example in the US depitic the prophet mohammed working at a conveneince store is offensive, but not obscene. In Iran, they might kill you for making a cartoon containing such obscenity.

And for legal purposes at least, a gallery is private land as it is not owned by the governement and used for a public purpose. A person who goes inot a gallery does so voluntarily and the owner has no obligation to concern themselves with wether or not such work is offensive.

We live in the uS and therefore the Supreme Court is our highest legal authority. When it comes to the determination of what works can be displayed and what workds cannot, this is a legal, not an ethical question. You are free to be offended, and to turn your face from that which offends, but when you enter into my land and tell me what I can and cannot do, then it is a legal problem.

The supreme court does largely track the prevailing social norms with respect to free speech, and thus the tolerance to what offends you is a social issue-you just happen to be on the losing, and frankly, wrong, side.

Oh, and trust me, just because someone is a PhD, or is qualified to testify as an expert in court, does not mean they are : 1. intelligent, 2. especially well qualified, 3. impartial.
In fact many experts shade thier testimony is such a way so as to produce a desired result-thats what parties pay them for. The cited materials may be presented by genuine academics, or they may be put out by what is known in the legal profession as a whore. They might also be put out by a legitimate scientific researcher with an agenda against pornography.

I can accept that ther eis evidence shoing that pronography might have a detrimental effect on some people, but then I can also accpet that the entire pyschological discipline is at best an inexact science, and reaserch showing these connections cannot do so with more than a tentative certainty. the mind is just more complex than that.

But really, this is a matter of you seeking to impose your morality on the country, The reseach seems to back a factual justification for why you feel your morality is right. But really the law has come to recognize one thing: morality is the responsibility of an individual tnot a governemnt. Of course there are oraganizations on all side of the politcal spectrum trying to undo that.

As shakepsepar said in Henry V-every man's duty is the kings, but every man's conscience is his own.