Is it Art? or Porn? Censorship

[Paul G]

If this bill gets up it really is another nail in the coffin, another step in the direction of declaring us a nation of fully-fledged wowsers. Life is just far to regulated and controlled thses days despite most people thinking we have more freedoms than at any other time in history.

[ElectricImages]

In this thread where did I say he was? Twisting things again.

You may not have directly used Henson as an example in this thread, but the article you referenced in your first post indicated that Barnett does. I believe I'm entitled to use the references you've provided. That's not "twisting" things, nor is it "twisting" things to use the Internet as an analogy or a metaphor for discussing a common principle.

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.

No, I'm not exactly arguing for "zero restrictions". I'm simply pointing out the fact that in a free and liberal society, the risks of drawing the circle too narrowly around what is "allowed" are far greater than casting that circle too wide. There are existing laws to punish people who exploit the vulnerable. But to censor art threatens basic tenets of our society, and I believe we should vigorously defend our rights of artistic expression against the kneejerk reactionism of uncultured philistines.

I see a difference between banning specific things which are harmful (e.g. child exploitation, defamation), and censoring content based purely on its appearance. I think that the former is not censorship, but the latter is.

[Kym]

No, I'm not exactly arguing for zero censorship per se. I'm simply pointing out the fact that in a free and liberal society, bla bla...

Ok so you agree we need some form of censorship - at last we agree. Now it is a matter of defining the level that is required

[ElectricImages]

Ok so you agree we need some form of censorship - at last we agree. Now it is a matter of defining the level that is required

I see a difference between banning specific things which are harmful (e.g. child exploitation, defamation), and censoring content based purely on its appearance. I think that the former is not censorship, but the latter is.

I object (ENTIRELY) to the latter, but not to the former.

The Senate inquiry, launched by the conservative Christian Guy Barnett, has heard submissions calling for any film containing full frontal nudity to be refused classification; artworks and books showing nudity to be classified; and all artworks to be restricted to certain age groups. ''Artistic merit'' should be abandoned when classifying art.

- reminds me of a passage from 'Understanding Poetry,' by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D (actually, from Dead Poets Society XD):

If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness.

RIP IT OUT. RIP RIP RIP. [/Irony]

[Analog6]

I really do not think this proposal is going to fly, frankly. Public outrage at such a limitation on our 'civil liberties' would be overwhelming.

Pornography to my mind is nudity or sex for exploitation of an individual and 'erosion' of their rights, and for titillation of the senses of the 'lowest common denominator'. I'm fine with censoring nudity in children, but I don't think a simple photo of your naked innocent infant, say under 3 or 4, at the beach or after a bath, is ever porn. I do think the years of puberty should be sacrosanct, it is hard enough to come to terms with the changes in your body yourself during that tumultuous time, without having other people gawk at you, even if the photos / images are not sexualised in nature.

I do not object to sex in movies if it is a natural progression of the storyline - by comparison in porn films the sex IS the storyline. We do not need to be nannied and over regulated and as I said above, I honestly do not believe Australians will lie down for it.

[ricstew]

Phooey does that mean I have to burn all my national Geo and medical books too? And just who would police such a policy? and as an adult am I not capable of making my own choices?

Quoting my youngest daughter here....."Does america seem to be heading towards fundamental religious bul#$%#it? They seem to be developing a lot of traits of the countries they are ‘liberating’…" When will this apply to Australia? Tell me well in advance please cause I may wanna move out..
cheers
Jan

[Kym]

I see a difference between banning specific things which are harmful (e.g. child exploitation, defamation), and censoring content based purely on its appearance. I think that the former is not censorship, but the latter is.
I object (ENTIRELY) to the latter, but not to the former.

But to ban anything requires a value judgement.
Who determines if it's harmful?
We have the classifications board and its guidelines to act on behalf of society in general; and its guidelines are the point of this thread as they are under review.

[colinbm]

................When will this apply to Australia? Tell me well in advance please cause I may wanna move out.. cheers Jan

Where would you go to ? I can't think of anywhere I would like too ?
Col

[ElectricImages]

But to ban anything requires a value judgement.
Who determines if it's harmful?

Surely the sane principle, and a tenet of our existing criminal legal system, is "Innocent until proven guilty". There is no harm, unless harm can be shown.

We have the classifications board and its guidelines to act on behalf of society in general; and its guidelines are the point of this thread as they are under review.

The Classifications Board only rates content, and if they change their methods (as per the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry) to judge artworks devoid of artistic merit, it is the equivalent of stripping the content from its context, thereby making it utterly meaningless. This could only result in innocent, innocuous, harmless - even GREAT - works of art, like Michaelangelo's David, being classified as inappropriate full-frontal nudity - [Refused Classification].

[Kym]

Sure innocent until proven guilty.
But before that there needs to be a statute (standard) to assess that case.
Simplistically if there were no law against theft no-one would be convicted.
So where does the law define harm or what is acceptable in our society? That's what is being debated.

So define to me what you consider harmful? Get to a specific definition, because that is what is required in law.

Also, There are no recommendations from the inquiry. There have only been positions put in some submissions.

[ving]

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.

there is a point to most of which i type... I am just not one for long winded posts. I am glad someone got it.

the line is there and everyones perspective of where that line is is quite different. we obviously cant leave it up to the individual to draw the line otherwise we would have teddy bear humpers all over family orientated sites... and so we elect a govt to think for us and usually they are liberal minded individuals who er on the side of safety. yes the artists suffer the consequences but what are the other options? to let everyone set thier own bar/line? great in theory but not in practice for I cant stand teddy bear pron on family sites...

there is no real right or wrong answer here and it will forever be a battle of art vs pron... I'll take the safe route even if i dont 100% agree with it.

ps: where it is typed "teddy bear" insert whatever you think to be well out of line... dogs, cats, frogs, damsel flies, inanimate objects, etc...

[ricstew]

Col quite frankly there is no where I WANT to be other than Australia........but if I had to don dark glasses because someone else said I was incapable of deciding which images I want to look at I may as well live on a ship in the ocean.......but I would take my National geo mags and all my medical books with me.
and this is one of the reasons I think Australia is such a great country....cause we CAN debate such things.....I dont need my position of choice removed.

[ElectricImages]

I suppose it's the process that I think should be judged, rather than the product on its own.

If we focus only on the image, without context or consideration of how it was created, then I think it's possible to condemn a lot of material. How about these advertisements for the charity Barnados, for instance? http://www.adpunch.org/entry/barnard...-into-poverty/ Shocking? Depiction of child abuse, and therefore illegal?

Even the Australian Government has CREATED works that are borderline child-abuse material, like the advertisement about "Children See, Children Do" - which features young children smoking, hitting their parents, etc etc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d4gm...eature=related. If we took a still from that video, could we accuse the Government of creating child exploitation material? Or do we consider the purpose and context, as well as the process (which hopefully included very careful counselling of the young actors involved in the creative process).

EDIT: the video above was not created by the Australian Government, but another community organisation/charity. Point is still relevant, however, as it was shown on TV and was therefore classified by the Classifications Board. Are they sanctioning child abuse? Or is it justified by context? Shouldn't context, and process, be considered in an educated judgment, therefore?

[WhoDo]

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.

So? Isn't that what DEMOCRACY is all about? I'd prefer that dilemma than the "my way or the highway" approach of protagonists at either end of the spectrum.

You proclaim that "no child was exploited by Bill Henson", but I would argue that the jury is still out on that one! Some exploitation, particularly that of pre-pubescent and pubescent children, can take decades to be recognised. I personally know of cases where it took more than 40 years and sometimes it can mess with the victim's psyche and yet may NEVER be formally recognised as the root cause.

As for wasting energy, I'd like to think that any legitimate effort to protect the weak and the vulnerable in a society is never really wasted, even if it ultimately proves to have been misplaced effort.

Like I said, I may not agree with Mr Barnett's extremist views but I can certainly see how they may appeal to some sections of our society.

In Mr Hensen's case all he had to do was to be open with the broader public about measures he may have taken to protect his under-age models and any brouhaha would likely have died on the vine. He clearly WANTED to push the boundaries of artistic freedom and, like some militants in both business and unions, he was moved to do so by provoking a social reaction in furtherance of his agenda. I'd just prefer that he didn't do that by using 12 year old children. No-one - not him, not me and certainly not you - can understand the risks involved in doing that and so make a rational, concerned judgement about any perceived benefits that might outweigh potential future damage to the children involved.

Any freedom, including artistic freedom, is bought at a price. All I'm saying is let's make sure the price isn't too high before we rush out to pay it with our young people's futures! And let's not suggest that artistic freedom hinges solely on the right of a few artists to push the boundaries beyond what society will reasonably accept with impunity. If they want more freedom than the society in which they live will allow, then those artists too, like the rest of us, must be prepared to pay society's price.

[aurora]

Just got into this discussion. Not sure how many females are taking part and I say that because it effects and affects females in numerous ways. Art can include naked bodies in an art-form manner. The line is when it involves anyone under 18 years of age who are not able to give informed consent. There is a lot of art out there I don't like, so I can chose to not view it. Personally I don't like to view genital showing in the pix as I think its demeaning to the subject.

[WhoDo]

Shouldn't context, and process, be considered in an educated judgment, therefore?

Absolutely! I don't see anyone, at least in this particular discussion of boundaries, insisting that the line be drawn arbitrarily. Barnett's is an ambit claim; asking far more than he expects to gain in the hope of gaining more than he really expects. In any negotiation, though, both sides can make ambit claims and offer arguments in support, rational or otherwise. In the end society will draw the line somewhere down the middle for that particular place and time.

And it's not a static line either, because it moves this way and that as protagonists either side of the line seek to increase their share of the "pie". It is only at the nexus where there are problems to be addressed, if you accept the Pareto principle. Unfortunately those are also the very places where the protagonists want to fight their battles; the demilitarised zone of cultural warfare will always be where the issues are less than crystal clear. That's fine, too, as long as we don't fight front-line battles using young lives for cannon fodder.

In a nutshell; Should ALL art be subject to classification? No. Should ALL art be free from classification? No. Absolutes seldom satisfy anyone. If you accept there should be a degree of censorship and a commensurate degree of freedom from censorship, you will likely find yourself in a rational and democratic society. I sure hope that's where we are in Australia.

[colinbm]

........Personally I don't like to view genital showing in the pix as I think its demeaning to the subject.

This argument is often seen, demeaning to the subject or females etc........?
If the person (who is supposed to be demeaned) is happy to appear in / or look like this, how is that demeaning ?
They did not go into this blind ? If they were forced or exploited, that is illegal ! But if they went willingly for some purpose or reward, what is demeaning ??
Col

[geoffsta]

This argument is often seen, demeaning to the subject or females etc........?
If the person (who is supposed to be demeaned) is happy to appear in / or look like this, how is that demeaning ?
They did not go into this blind ? If they were forced or exploited, that is illegal ! But if they went willingly for some purpose or reward, what is demeaning ??
Col

And what if that person is under 16. I say 16 not 18 because in todays age there is far more free information around than when we were that age, and teens know alot more sexually than we did, at that age.
Also, Parents today don't have the control that we had when we were kids. Just ask my fathers belt/boot and my butt. Things that are not permitted now days.

I find that I @ M is the perfect example. He has done many nude, or presumed nude shots. But it's the way it is presented. Andrew (I @ M) can produce a fully naked woman in a way that can make the viewer have a bit of a giggle or just view it as artistic. Instead of viewing it as saying "Gee.. that girl has big breasts"

So there is boundries. And it depends on the viewer. But as to who should decide the difference between art and porn. Someone has to protect the majority of people who find nude offensive.

[colinbm]

No, I wasn't talking about children,
I have only defended children in the discussion here.
I also said **If they were forced or exploited, that is illegal !** I was refering to anybody, child, adult or animal.
My last post above was asking questions about "demeaning".
Col

[ApolloLXII]

If anything, this thread has highlighted just how difficult it would be to apply any form of censorship as there are some widely varying views and opinions about the subject. If there is to be censorship as proposed by Guy Barnett then the question is "Who will censor the censor?" Just how will censorship be applied that would make it fair and reasonable and without any moral and spiritual bias? I don't such a thing is at all possible. One man's trash is another man's treasure and the way an individual views a certain work of art will always be at variance with somebody else. Censorship should only ever be applied to protect the innocent or those who are offended but it should NEVER be applied to satisfy the moralistic crusade of one sector of society and that is the real threat posed by what Barnett is proposing and, as such, it should be vigorously opposed.

On a lighter note, I'd like to thank those responsible for this site for the use of the squiggly red line that censors all of my spelling mistakes. Absolutely brilliant as it keeps me on my toes with correct spelling