Is it Art? or Porn? Censorship

[ElectricImages]

PS, Oh dear I just got censored by AP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wrote an*l parts in the complete word & got #### blipped !
Col

Wow. No, I don't feel patronised that I'm being protected from "naughty" words...

[colinbm]

Wow. No, I don't feel patronised that I'm being protected from "naughty" words...

Yes, but genitals got passed the censor & an*l failed, I mean.......
We all have tits of some sorts & bums too, it is only our genitals that are different 50/50%, well nearly, I accept that nature has its ways of presenting its-self as not being perfect, even if we think we are.
Col

[Bear Dale]

Conservative Christian senator Guy Barnett, he and his fundamentalist views are no different than the Taliban.

[WhoDo]

And to quote Judy Blume:
"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship."

Likewise, art, including photography. Chilled, stifled, and created in fear.

Or this one from Larry Flynt:
"If the human body's obscene, complain to the manufacturer, not to me."

There doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" on either side of such debates; on the contrary it's almost always going to result in a compromise. Such is Life (Ned Kelly, apparently). It's all about RISK. We need to protect those who cannot protect themselves while we also need to allow those who need freedom of expression that right as well. The middle ground is one of balancing the "risks" with the "rewards". Sometimes the risks are too great and sometimes the rewards are overwhelming despite the risks. The bottom line is that each society will create its own risk assessment and act accordingly.

I don't see all art being "Chilled, stifled, and created in fear" any more than all artists are paedophiles or all nudity is corrupting! As Lani says, extreme views are to be avoided and sometimes that means using crude tools like censorship despite the drawbacks. We don't need to ban the Bill Henson's of this artistic epoch; we just need to ensure that children are protected from adult decisions that carry inordinate risks for them in later life.

Do I agree with the Barnett position? Absolutely not, but I can see a lot of well-intentioned adults will find it attractive, just as many voters have found Pauline Hansen's views a plausible option.

[ving]

a forum where you can openly discuss pron and it merrits!

i wonder if it is a first?

[Kym]

Censorship on AP... type the word 'lens' (with an e on the end) and post

[Kym]

There doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" on either side of such debates;

Exactly! There is a line - we are really discussing where it should be vs not having one at all.

[ElectricImages]

There doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" on either side of such debates; on the contrary it's almost always going to result in a compromise. Such is Life (Ned Kelly, apparently).

These gentlemen, and I, would disagree...

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
* Noam Chomsky

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."
* Thomas Jefferson

When you start to permit censorship, then different people will have different levels of tolerance and different views of "RISK". You may be okay with artistic nudes, but clearly there are other who are not. When censorship is permitted, the line is pushed further and further by those who still object to content not yet banned.

"Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads."
* George Bernard Shaw

And yet none of it actually protects ANYBODY. No child was exploited by Bill Henson, and banning Bill Henson does not stop or even slow the production of truly exploitative images. So while you, or the police, or the courts, or the parliament, waste your energy on innocent and innocuous activities, the real criminals are getting away with exploitation - and it's NOT in art galleries.

If we waste our resources hunting down artists, then the real bad guys have fewer resources hunting THEM. Now THERE's your risk.

[ElectricImages]

Exactly! There is a line - we are really discussing where it should be vs not having one at all.

Oh really? Is there a good way to censor the Internet? Where is the line there, then? Senator Conroy is cackling with glee!

[ving]

after reading all this i still dont know where the line is....

is this pron?
www.bouncey boobies.com/sarah

[ElectricImages]

after reading all this i still dont know where the line is....

is this pron?
www.bouncey boobies.com/sarah

I dunno, but it's not really my idea of "art," either... lol

In seriousness, you've basically paraphrased the issue. If you draw a line, WHERE do you draw it?

If you draw it too wide, I believe there are plenty of laws that can be used to clobber people who have truly abused or exploited people. But if you draw it too narrow, you seriously risk punishing innocent victims, stifling expression, and chilling creativity and culture. Now THERE's a risk to a free, liberal, creative and tolerant society.

[Kym]

Oh really? Is there a good way to censor the Internet? Where is the line there, then? Senator Conroy is cackling with glee!

Good twist on the theme - not! No where did I even suggest censoring the 'net.
BTW the correct way to manage the 'net with children is parental supervision and education.

We are talking about the http://www.classification.gov.au/ board and the way it works, also its guidelines that are under review.

As for adults being controlled, Bevan Spencer von Einem was charged with child porn here in SA ... while he was in prison - based on stories he wrote himself.
FYI BSvE is a total creep/rockspider should should never be released.
Extreme? Yes, but he and his associates mutilated and murdered kids.

Now back on topic:
Fact: there is censorship in Australia it is in our legal framework. It affects TV, Movies, books etc. The system is under review and that ends up determining where the 'line' is.
Suggesting there should be no censorship is fanciful at best and downright dangerous at its worst, and won't happen. So lets forget that as an option.
Ditto an extreme censorship that allows nothing. That won't happen either.

[ElectricImages]

Good twist on the theme - not! No where did I even suggest censoring the 'net.
BTW the correct way to manage the 'net with children is parental supervision and education.

We are talking about the http://www.classification.gov.au/ board and the way it works, also its guidelines that are under review.

As for adults being controlled, Bevan Spencer von Einem was charged with child porn here in SA ... while he was in prison - based on stories he wrote himself.
FYI BSvE is a total creep/rockspider should should never be released.
Extreme? Yes, but he and his associates mutilated and murdered kids.

Now back on topic:
Fact: there is censorship in Australia it is in our legal framework. It affects TV, Movies, books etc. The system is under review and that ends up determining where the 'line' is.
Suggesting there should be no censorship is fanciful at best and downright dangerous at its worst, and won't happen. So lets forget that as an option.
Ditto an extreme censorship that allows nothing. That won't happen either.

Coincidentally, those are all exactly the same arguments Conroy uses to advocate censoring the Internet.

• We already have a classification scheme for other stuff, and the Internet is no different
• Because there are extreme and horrendous things that COULD be done, we therefore have to control all tihngs that ARE done
• It isn't enough to allow adults (or children with supervision/education) to make choices, we have to choose for them

Conroy has constantly said that he wants to only ban material on the Internet that would be RC (refused classification) under current media classification guidelines. So, if we do it for movies, books and TV, the argument is that it's okay to apply it to the Internet. Or art.

If you want freedom of expression and consumption, then make it consistent. If "parental supervision and education" is the way to manage Internet use, then surely the same common sense can be applied to art exhibitions. Supervise your kids. Educate them about the context of art, and the cultural place of nudes. Banning artists, or artistic content, IS like censoring the internet.

[Kym]

If you want freedom of expression and consumption, then make it consistent. If "parental supervision and education" is the way to manage Internet use, then surely the same common sense can be applied to art exhibitions. Supervise your kids. Educate them about the context of art, and the cultural place of nudes. Banning artists, or artistic content, IS like censoring the internet.

You argument fails to consider the medium and it's pervasiveness; other media can be controlled; my point is that the only way to deal with the 'net is direct parental involvement.
As for freedom of expression... there are limits already in place for very good reasons. Quite simply there is stuff that should be (and is) banned.
As for art education - I agree it should be part of a holistic approach (been there, done that as a parent)

Classifying content (eg. art) is not like censoring the 'net. It is much more specific.

I'm also for the authorities to go after the rockspiders and do what is needed to shut them down.
As per the recent global CP ring that was busted, inc. quite a few Aussies (sadly).

[ScottM]

Interesting discussion...

If classification was required, how would this affect sites such as AP? If, by taking photos, we're creating art, does any image posted here (or linked to flikr et al) require classification prior to posting? I can imagine the moderators checking for a classification level and identifier of everything as it's posted. Alternatively will the Classification Board provide image matching software for sites to automagically search for a classification, either by comparing images to images, or an image to a movie frame (excluding pattern matching type of check)? Does posting "ASCII art" or a stick man without clothes consitute a breach?

I think we go too far sometimes. Agreed, some parts of society do need protection from harm, including adults, but each to their own, and there are already methods of protection.

Thanks anyway Nanny Barnett...

[Kym]

We already do check posts per the site rules. AusPhotography Forum Rules. We have taken images down in the past due to complaints (BTW very few).

[8] Because our members are of a wide age range we have to take this into consideration regarding this topic. We will allow tasteful, mature, artistic nude photography, as long as no genitalia is visible, and the poses are not sexually suggestive. No full frontal below the belt shots. All nude photos will be heavily moderated and will be removed by a staff member if we feel it is inappropriate for the public display. The moderator's decision is final and we will not enter into discussion on the matter. Most importantly, the model in the photo must be over the age of 18 and has given consent to both the photo being taken and the image posted on a public forum.

FWIW I'm not supporting Barnett, just that there is a line and we do need some control. The debate to me is about how much.

[colinbm]

I was thinking of this problem the other day, but a different issue.
Banning photography from different places & objects (tourists, sightseers museums & galleries, etc).
Surely, if we can see it with our eyes, somewhere, legally, why should it be banned from recording it (visually) by another media, besides our eyes ?? Notice I said legally.
So why ban it from being seen another way ?
Col

[Kym]

@Colinbm - the SHFA limit publishing images of Sydney harbour. Esp. for commercial gain. http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au/
Ayers Rock is the same. And it goes on.

[ElectricImages]

You argument fails to consider the medium and it's pervasiveness; other media can be controlled; my point is that the only way to deal with the
'net is direct parental involvement.

Sooo... you would be all for 'net censorship, if it worked. If you could control the 'net, you'd censor it? Interesting.

I would argue that creativity is just as uncontrollable and pervasive as the Internet. Art happens everywhere, just like the Internet. It expresses complex ideas, like the Internet. Sometimes it is provoking or even offensive, like the Internet. And if you censor it, you end up doing a lot more damage than good.

As for freedom of expression... there are limits already in place for very good reasons. Quite simply there is stuff that should be (and is) banned.
As for art education - I agree it should be part of a holistic approach (been there, done that as a parent)

Sure there are limits. Defamation. Libel. Copyright. Trademarks. And mainstream media classification. Yes. And under laws such as classification regulations, certain material is not permitted in Australia for sale or public viewing. Why? Because it might be too shocking, too rude, perhaps offensive. But it is in the nature of art to often confront and offend. This would probably be Refused Classification: http://hahajk.com/entertainment/atta...ve-good-taste/ but it's permissible as art. Most people are outraged by Sunday's attack on it, and regard those responsible as morons and barbarians.

If you ban the creation or display of controversial art, then all you're left with is folk-art and pop-art. Nothing really meaningful, nothing with a message - nothing that holds a mirror up to ourselves and forces us to examine who we truly are.

EDIT: Actually, if society ever reaches the point where this happens, then shallow and meaningless probably IS who we really are.

Classifying content (eg. art) is not like censoring the 'net. It is much more specific.

Nope. See above.

I'm also for the authorities to go after the rockspiders and do what is needed to shut them down.
As per the recent global CP ring that was busted, inc. quite a few Aussies (sadly).

Sure. But Bill Henson isn't one, and resources spent on him are resources that can't be used to convict real criminals.

[Kym]

Sure. But Bill Henson isn't one, and resources spent on him are resources that can't be used to convict real criminals.

In this thread where did I say he was? Twisting things again.
And in the previous thread all I said was that 12yo's generally cannot make rational long term decisions and therefore are unable to give permission.

Now going back to my 8yo example above (which happened in real life) should those images be banned? Obviously yes!! So there is some control.
The question simply becomes how far should those controls go?

And yes! If there were a practical way to stop the images of an 8yo via some form of technology I'd implement it in a NY minute.
There is not, so we take an alternate approach.

You keep arguing for zero censorship when the plain fact is that we as a society do have some levels of censorship for very good reasons.