Porn vs. Art

[BenBurch]

Gee... Cherubim in Roman Catholic churches world-wide are porn now?

 

[quadraginta]

I don't think I ever suggestedit was harmless, innocent, or simple, merely that it isn't a huge societal problem. I stand by that. In every case mentioned the people who were victims of the out-of-control authorities will cross-sue for the damages they incurred.

That's not to say that it doesn't suck to be those people, but the legal system responds quickly to lawsuits against it. This practice is not, nor will it become widespread unless legislaturs start enacting laws that specifically criminalize the activity.

There's a reason each of these cases are so noteworthy. It's not because they're common.

You seem to be saying that it's okay to craft bad law if only a few people get hurt by it, and if maybe they can attempt some sort of restitution.

Perhaps instead of damage repair, or attempts at such, the wiser course would be to avoid draconian statutes which beg for misuse.

This isn't about child abuse. There are clear and unequivocal statutes in place to address abuse transgressions. This is about individual variations in perception. These are laws passed to punish someone because of how someone else interprets an image.

 

[GreyICE]

Before I answer let me reiterate that I'm more concerned with this issue moving forward than I am with litigating past works of art.

That being said, I reject the notion that the art world and humanity in general are dependent on a single painting/photograph or even an entire subject matter for their artistic vibrance. We could all scour through collections and say, "this is nice, it would suck if we didn't have it," but it's not as though our entire conception of aesthetics woud come crashing down.

And it's not as though I'm making some sweeping, undefineable distinction, it's really a pretty simple principle: no naked kids in the production of the art.

So no, I don't think a counterexample would cause me to back away from my absolutist position. For one, I don't care that much about what has happened, but even if I did, the notion that a single painting is so essential that we are "cheapened" by its loss seems like hyperbole.

In other words, if our choice is between the potential exploitation of a child and achieving ultimate artistic expression, so much the worse for the arts.

Painting or Photograph, Trane.

If one did exist, and was unequivocally something that should not be banned, should not have been forbidden, and should not have been censored, and your standard would censor it, would criminalize the person who took the photograph or painted the painting, you agree that you are wrong?

Or does your position exist without reference to reality, without evidence or anything but belief to back it up?

 

[TraneWreck]

You seem to be saying that it's okay to craft bad law if only a few people get hurt by it, and if maybe they can attempt some sort of restitution.

Perhaps instead of damage repair, or attempts at such, the wiser course would be to avoid draconian statutes which beg for misuse.

This isn't about child abuse. There are clear and unequivocal statutes in place to address abuse transgressions. This is about individual variations in perception. These are laws passed to punish someone because of how someone else interprets an image.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. There are no laws that prohibit breastfeeding in public specifically--at least not in any of the cases brought up in this thread. I don't want to spend my time scouring state statutes, so I will say that if any such laws exist, it's silly.

The cases at issue all came to be through local authorities interpreting decency laws.

The are 2 ways in the United States to establish what is and what is not considered decent/indecent under the law:

1) The legislature crafts a statute--this would be nice, but they haven't done it.

2) Actual controversies are settled in the legal system.

They aren't mutually exclusive, but that's the framework.

Thus, when a local authority interprets the law to forbid breastfeeding in public (or taking pictures of it) the legitimacy of that act is decided in the courts. So far, none of those charges have been sustained (despite unfortunate and irreparable harm to the families involved) and lawsuits in response have been filed. I'd imagine most of them were settled, which is why there's little information about their ultimate conclusion.

So observed from the perspective of the nation in general, it appears that the legal system is rejecting attempts to define children in bathtubs and breastfeeding in public as indecent, pornography, or child abuse.

If you're upset that the system doesn't work more smoothly, I am in full agreement.

 

[TraneWreck]

Painting or Photograph, Trane.

If one did exist, and was unequivocally something that should not be banned, should not have been forbidden, and should not have been censored, and your standard would censor it, would criminalize the person who took the photograph or painted the painting, you agree that you are wrong?

Or does your position exist without reference to reality, without evidence or anything but belief to back it up?

I think there are at least two perspectives with regard to child pornography at play here:

1) What the perverts do with the photos.

2) The production.

I am signficantly less concerned with 1 than 2, thus I'm not interested in censoring past works of art.

As for moving forward, if we make it well known that using naked, underage children in the production of art is forbidden, and an artist still tries to use a naked kid, then he will face punishment.

But again, what possible need in the 21st century could someone have for a nude child model? Somehow this argument has evolved such that the burden seems to be on me. I have to justify why such an act should be prohibited.

Let me turn that around and ask why a nude child would ever be necessary to the production of a work of art?

 

[GreyICE]

Let me turn that around and ask why a nude child would ever be necessary to the production of a work of art?

To this I shall respond visually.

Your absolute stance is stupid. Your refusal to consider the results of your rules is stupid. Your refusal to think about censorship is stupidly naive. One picture is worth one thousand words, and those two explain more completely and more absolutely than I ever could how your opinion and desire for censorship are destructive to our free speech and dialogue as a nation. Two thousand words condemn you and your answer is 'think of the children.' Someone should, you sure as hell haven't.

 

[TraneWreck]

To this I shall respond visually.

Your absolute stance is stupid. Your refusal to consider the results of your rules is stupid. Your refusal to think about censorship is stupidly naive. One picture is worth one thousand words, and those two explain more completely and more absolutely than I ever could how your opinion and desire for censorship are destructive to our free speech and dialogue as a nation. Two thousand words condemn you and your answer is 'think of the children.'

Are we calling those art? Or are those images from on going news events?

I can't think of anything that I've said that would stop someone from recording a historic event. Now if the photographer went and found a young girl and paid her to run aroun crying, that would engage the sorts of issues I'm discussing.

Try as you might, these things are very easy to distinguish.

Now I'm sure there exists some event such that the newsworthyness would be arguable, and that's why we have courts.

But you've avoided the question, quite emotionally, as it were. A PASSIONED, if misdirected, defense of using naked kids in art.

 

[MortFurd]

On the concept of Art, well I remember a story about an artist who sent a sculpture into a museum for display. They decided to display just the peg that was there to balance it and support it on instead of the actual sculpture.

Right. Define art. Fat piled in a corner, or smeared on a wall, or left in a pile on a chair?
Beuys' "Fat Corner" was inadvertently destroyed when the room it was in was cleaned - the building custodian thought it was just a disgusting mess that someone hadn't bothered to clean up. How do you tell art from satire? You don't. Satire at that level is an art form.



An artistic painting or drawing of a nude woman makes me appreciate the skill of the artist and the beauty of the woman. A pornographic nude picture or drawing of a woman makes me wish I could get it on with that hot chick and appreciate the skill of the artist.

In other words:
It's artistic if you can concentrate on the technique and how the artist got the lighting just that way.

It's pornographic if you wonder how in the heck the artist managed to keep his hands off her long enough to paint the picture.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Hard Porn and Art. Let's mix the two and call it Phart.

 

[JFrankA]

Are we calling those art? Or are those images from on going news events?

I can't think of anything that I've said that would stop someone from recording a historic event. Now if the photographer went and found a young girl and paid her to run aroun crying, that would engage the sorts of issues I'm discussing.

Try as you might, these things are very easy to distinguish.

Now I'm sure there exists some event such that the newsworthyness would be arguable, and that's why we have courts.

But you've avoided the question, quite emotionally, as it were. A PASSIONED, if misdirected, defense of using naked kids in art.

I'm going to go back to Superman: The Movie. The film was made in 1978. In the scene when Kal-El landed on Earth and the Kents discovered him, the shot was a naked, well-under teenaged boy (I'd venrture a guess at eight years old), standing arms outstretched and smiling.

That is art, that is art that has nothing to do with something historic. Now according to your rule, nowadays, that scene could never be done because of "no nude children".

The way I see it, if we ban nude children in art, we AUTOMATICALLY make any picture of nude children pornographic, no matter what.

And anything that was made before the rule is okay? That's plain hypocritical.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm going to go back to Superman: The Movie. The film was made in 1978. In the scene when Kal-El landed on Earth and the Kents discovered him, the shot was a naked, well-under teenaged boy (I'd venrture a guess at eight years old), standing arms outstretched and smiling.

That is art, that is art that has nothing to do with something historic. Now according to your rule, nowadays, that scene could never be done because people would cry "child porn". Why?

Well, since you quoted me I'll respond, but this isn't really the issue I've been dealing with.

My stance is to not worry about whether it's porn or not and err on the side of protecting children.

I don't remember Superman off the top of my head, so I'll say 2 things:

1) Maybe the kid was old enough that it was cool. I'm not hung up on the 18 rule, I think a 16 year old could reasonably consent. We also don't know the actual age of the actor, he may have just looked young. I'm sure some IMDB effort would reveal the truth.

2) Is Superman III, the work of art radically altered if that kid has some tighty-whities on? Was underage phallus necessary to that work?

 

[GreyICE]

Are we calling those art? Or are those images from on going news events?
I can't think of anything that I've said that would stop someone from recording a historic event. Now if the photographer went and found a young girl and paid her to run aroun crying, that would engage the sorts of issues I'm discussing.

Try as you might, these things are very easy to distinguish.
Now I'm sure there exists some event such that the newsworthyness would be arguable, and that's why we have courts.

But you've avoided the question, quite emotionally, as it were. A PASSIONED, if misdirected, defense of using naked kids in art.

A stupid, ridiculous defense. Are photographs not art because they might depict something happening in the real world? What is a photograph?

Are photographers only artists when they pay people to be in their photos?

These questions are idiotic, the answers so trivial a child could give them to you.

You state these issues are easy to distinguish, and we should use the courts for that. You want to censor free speech unless a court says its okay, with appalling jail sentences if the court disagrees. Apparently no one has ever explained free speech to you.

I have answered the question, with evidence. Something you do not understand, you have provided none. Your misguided naked assertions are the opposite of agreeable.

 

[TraneWreck]

A stupid, ridiculous defense. Are photographs not art because they might depict something happening in the real world? What is a photograph?

Are photographers only artists when they pay people to be in their photos?

These questions are idiotic, the answers so trivial a child could give them to you.

Haha, what a personality.

Here's one big difference:

In those photos, the "artists" captured events that were happening. They did
not create the events. There is nothing that I've said that would ever stop those photos from being taken.

You state these issues are easy to distinguish, and we should use the courts for that. You want to censor free speech unless a court says its okay, with appalling jail sentences if the court disagrees. Apparently no one has ever explained free speech to you.

I have to ask if you're serious here. How do you think we know what constitutes protected speech and what doesn't? What institution other than courts should decide such issues?

My point was merely that when the issues become unclear, we let the courts set the rules. That's our system of government, sorry.

I have answered the question, with evidence. Something you do not understand, you have provided none. Your misguided naked assertions are stupid.

That's an interesting use of the word "evidence." You've shown photographs of historical events and claimed that they cannot be distinguished from an artist contemplating a work.

Capturing events as they occur is different from causing an event to occur.

 

[GreyICE]

Haha, what a personality.

Here's one big difference:

In those photos, the "artists" captured events that were happening. They did
not create the events. There is nothing that I've said that would ever stop those photos from being taken.

I have to ask if you're serious here. How do you think we know what constitutes protected speech and what doesn't? What institution other than courts should decide such issues?

My point was merely that when the issues become unclear, we let the courts set the rules. That's our system of government, sorry.

That's an interesting use of the word "evidence." You've shown photographs of historical events and claimed that they cannot be distinguished from an artist contemplating a work.

Capturing events as they occur is different from causing an event to occur.

I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend the difference. Certainly the photographer in Africa was searching for just such a model - that's why he was there, after all. According to him, he tried to feed the boy afterwards, which certainly counts as compensation. Would the difference be that he did not plan for that exact boy to be naked at that exact time? What level of randomization is acceptable?

So where does the damage come from? Kids being photographed naked? Nope, you just got done with that. Someone sexually molesting them? That's already illegal. Someone asking them to pose for photographs? Nope, we've ruled that out to.

Apparently, somewhere along the line, damage kicks in. You're not sure where, you can't document it, you can only tell us that you can legislate in such a way that you can prevent that damage without having any negative consequences at all, to free speech, to photography that we (now, apparently) both agree is art, to anything else.

Magical. I approve. Did a unicorn draft it?

 

[JFrankA]

Well, since you quoted me I'll respond, but this isn't really the issue I've been dealing with.

My stance is to not worry about whether it's porn or not and err on the side of protecting children.

I'm sorry, that's a cop-out. There's going to be art that will involve nude children. Some artists would feel that they need to express that. If they produce art that does not involve a child being abused or exploited, why can't they produce it?

I don't remember Superman off the top of my head, so I'll say 2 things:

1) Maybe the kid was old enough that it was cool. I'm not hung up on the 18 rule, I think a 16 year old could reasonably consent. We also don't know the actual age of the actor, he may have just looked young. I'm sure some IMDB effort would reveal the truth.

Okay, he was three years old. http://www.supermansupersite.com/aaron.html

Not eight, younger, but still very naked.

2) Is Superman III, the work of art radically altered if that kid has some tighty-whities on? Was underage phallus necessary to that work?

I'm not sure about Superman III. But that's not the point. The ONLY reason for that child to have underwear on would be to appease the people who are uptight about such things. So we should make every scene in which a child would be naked, even in a scene as innocent as that one, not naked simply to appease the people who'd be offended? Isn't that censorship?

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend the difference. Certainly the photographer in Africa was searching for just such a model - that's why he was there, after all. According to him, he tried to feed the boy afterwards, which certainly counts as compensation. Would the difference be that he did not plan for that exact boy to be naked at that exact time? What level of randomization is acceptable?

Well, if you can't see any difference between a photographer taking pictures of something that exists, and an artist who sets up his subject matter, I don't know what to say.

There was a famine in Africa, the photographer wandered around looking for a compelling image. An otherwise clothed and well-fed child was not disrobed and starved to produce the image.

Generally speaking, do you not distinguish between news and art?

So where does the damage come from? Kids being photographed naked? Nope, you just got done with that. Someone sexually molesting them? That's already illegal. Someone asking them to pose for photographs? Nope, we've ruled that out to.

Apparently, somewhere along the line, damage kicks in. You're not sure where, you can't document it, you can only tell us that you can legislate in such a way that you can prevent that damage without having any negative consequences at all, to free speech, to photography that we (now, apparently) both agree is art, to anything else.

Magical. I approve. Did a unicorn draft it?

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/International/story?id=1919036&page=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/03offender.html

A google search will reveal plenty of such victims. Children do not have the ability to knowledgably consent to the use of their bodies and tragically, neither do their parents often times.

Do all kids who are photographed naked suffer? Obviously not, but what do we gain by trying to draw that line accurately? If we succeed, we have some art with naked kids in it, if we fail, lives are ruined.

That's enough for me.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm sorry, that's a cop-out. There's going to be art that will involve nude children. Some artists would feel that they need to express that. If they produce art that does not involve a child being abused or exploited, why can't they produce it?

I'm going to need some argument there. So naked kids in art is an irreversable force of nature? No way to stop that from happening?

And why should we listen to the artists just because that's what they want to do?

I'm not sure about Superman III. But that's not the point. The ONLY reason for that child to have underwear on would be to appease the people who are uptight about such things. So we should make every scene in which a child would be naked, even in a scene as innocent as that one, not naked simply to appease the people who'd be offended? Isn't that censorship?

The only reason? I can honestly say that's a reason that doesn't motivate me in the least. Protecting the psychological well-being of the child is the ONLY thing I'm really interested in.

 

[fuelair]

I'm claiming that porn is not art per se. Are you claiming that porn (i.e. all porn) IS art per se? If so, by what absolutely unequivocal definition of "art"?

I'm claiming this is so much drivel as it was in the last column of this type. I could not care less about your attitude - you have it you put it out it bores I'm gone. Get new schtick.

 

[JFrankA]

I'm going to need some argument there. So naked kids in art is an irreversable force of nature? No way to stop that from happening?

Maybe I wasn't clear. That's not my argument.

And why should we listen to the artists just because that's what they want to do?

Because it is that artist's freedom to do so.

The only reason? I can honestly say that's a reason that doesn't motivate me in the least. Protecting the psychological well-being of the child is the ONLY thing I'm really interested in.

Really? The old "Think of the children" cry?

Your own statement

Do all kids who are photographed naked suffer? Obviously not, but what do we gain by trying to draw that line accurately? If we succeed, we have some art with naked kids in it, if we fail, lives are ruined.

IS my arguement. You are stating that if one child gets hurt because she/he posed naked, even for a legitimate, non-sexual, artistic photo shoot, then all of it should not be done? The censorship should be allowed?

Interesting how nude photos of children ACTUALLY suffering is okay with you, but having a scene in a movie of a nude child coming out of a spaceship in a fictitious story would be acceptable only if the kid was wearing underwear.......

Have I got your opinion right?

 

[quadraginta]

Well, since you quoted me I'll respond, but this isn't really the issue I've been dealing with.

My stance is to not worry about whether it's porn or not and err on the side of protecting children.

There's at least two things problematic about this statement. The first is that there is no evidence that any harm is actually done to children by the existence of images which may be perceived as child pornography. This is a separate issue from images created by the abuse of children, which is adequately addressed by other statutes which need have no reference to art, content, or interpretation. The second is that it takes that illusory, alleged goal and presumes that such a law as we are discussing has any real, significant effect in achieving it.

All of this in complete disregard of fundamental rights of speech or expression.

You seem to be saying that it makes no difference if a harmless artistic image can be made, that presumptive prevention of alleged harm trumps all of that. This is a classic "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" argument. All rational thought must be sacrificed to that mantra. The problem is that the law in question does not address harm to children, it addresses the prurient sensibilities of some portion of the voting public in a shameless attempt to garner support through manufactured hysteria. There aren't any good reasons to advocate bad law, but that is certainly one of the worst of the bad ones.

I don't remember Superman off the top of my head, so I'll say 2 things:

1) Maybe the kid was old enough that it was cool. I'm not hung up on the 18 rule, I think a 16 year old could reasonably consent. We also don't know the actual age of the actor, he may have just looked young. I'm sure some IMDB effort would reveal the truth.

2) Is Superman III, the work of art radically altered if that kid has some tighty-whities on? Was underage phallus necessary to that work?

So you're okay with an image that looks like a minor child and might be perceived in a licentious fashion by someone as long as the subject isn't really a minor, and simultaneously have no problem with laws which are demonstrably being abused to harass utterly innocent people for utterly innocent images because a little collateral damage is not important to the principle?

This seems inconsistent.