Heresy Trial In Greece

[El Greco]

Based on what?

I haven't lived there but have interacted with a lot of people from these countries and I've seen them in their everyday life. They have absolutely no problem with nudity and they have a much different perception of morality (as opposed to the religious perception of morality we have here). Lots of little things, I guess.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Cleon]

Which, IMO, are against the principle of free speech.

Oh, hey, I agree. Not that anybody wants or needs to see that on a banner.

 

[Grammatron]

I haven't lived there but have interacted with a lot of people from these countries and I've seen them in their everyday life. They have absolutely no problem with nudity and they have a much different perception of morality (as opposed to the religious perception of morality we have here). Lots of little things, I guess.

Just my opinion, of course.

So is nudity a deal-breaker for you in terms of being a free society?

 

[Cleon]

So is nudity a deal-breaker for you in terms of being a free society?

What? Where did you get that idea? El Greco is simply saying that Greek society is more liberated than the US on some issues (specifically, prudish American laws), but behind some other countries. How that indicates that the US isn't a "free society" is a bit beyond me.

 

[Manny]

Maybe in this "heresy" stuff we're behind, but that would one of the very few things we are behind US as far as freedom of expression is concerned. [/B]

See, now my perception is precisely the opposite -- that we overregulate TV content in the US, but other than that we're way ahead of just about all other countries.

The federal government, through the FCC, owns all of the broadcast frequencies in the US and exercises broad regulatory authority (and I agree, it's overbroad) over that medium. But all of those examples you mentioned were on free, over-the-air television. The Superbowl could have their cheerleaders naked if they stuck to cable. The explicit language warning can be removed from the DVD (though of course it's good customer service to keep it). The magazine can publish without blurs (though so could the TV if it wanted to -- some parties in the States are engaging in an abundance of overcaution and calling it censorship).

On more important stuff, we have no state secrets act, no laws mandating respect for any institution whatsoever, no government libel law. I'd say we're doing pretty OK.

 

[El Greco]

Well, only if you blur out the genatalia. Municipal "decency" laws and all that.

Just noticed something here:

If you have to blur out the genitalia, then what happened in Greece could have very well happened in US too, since the offending image was an erect penis next to a Christian cross. If you notice the article, the artist was charged with "insulting public decency".

Am I missing something ?

 

[aerocontrols]

Fuss about exposed boobs ? Obligatory warnings for explicit language ? Blurring two computer-generated Australopithecuses having sex in a BBC's documentary ?

Thanks. Let's not forget no beer-drinking in beer commercials and no cigarette commercials on TV at all.

We are indeed talking about two different sorts of censorship.

Perhaps 'you cannot show X on public airwaves' looks ridiculous to you, but it sort of pales in comparison to 'you cannot show Y anywhere'.

 

[aerocontrols]

Just noticed something here:

If you have to blur out the genitalia, then what happened in Greece could have very well happened in US too, since the offending image was an erect penis next to a Christian cross. If you notice the article, the artist was charged with "insulting public decency".

Am I missing something ?

No doubt the penis would be blurred were the image to appear on most broadcast television networks. Not int he art exhibit, however, where it could hang proudly, as it were.

 

[Cleon]

Just noticed something here:

If you have to blur out the genitalia, then what happened in Greece could have very well happened in US too, since the offending image was an erect penis next to a Christian cross. If you notice the article, the artist was charged with "insulting public decency".

Am I missing something ?

That charge, or a similar one, would stick in the US if the image was displayed in a public venue--like painted on the side of a building. In art galleries and other private places, they can't do squat.

The second charge, insulting the Church, wouldn't stick anywhere in the US.

 

[Grammatron]

What? Where did you get that idea? El Greco is simply saying that Greek society is more liberated than the US on some issues (specifically, prudish American laws), but behind some other countries. How that indicates that the US isn't a "free society" is a bit beyond me.

Sorry that was not my intention for it to come out like that.

It just seems to be he is placing nudity -- the cencorship of which I disagree with -- in the USA to a degree of importance. While I may be deprived of images of breasts and penises on billboards and network TV, it's not something I would compare to heresy laws.

 

[El Greco]

And what if a religious extremist would sue the artist for "insulting public decency" ? Wouldn't a trial be conducted in US ?

The fact that a trial will be conducted doesn't say anything about how people see this incident. I wish you could read this article but unfortunately I only found it in Greek. The title says "The Art is crucified again" and among several caustic things it also says that the judge should laugh and move on to the next case.

 

[Cleon]

And what if a religious extremist would sue the artist for "insulting public decency" ? Wouldn't a trial be conducted in US ?

No. There's a difference between civil and criminal litigation; decency laws are criminal, and deal with "indecent exposure" (nudity), cussing, etc. The Church or extremist, at most, would be able to file a complaint with the cops. If the cops decide not to pursue it (as they often do), or if the DA declines to prosecute, nothing happens.

 

[El Greco]

BTW, it wasn't a private gallery, it was a public exhibition placed among the events of the parallel "Cultural Olympics".

 

[Cleon]

BTW, it wasn't a private gallery, it was a public exhibition placed among the events of the parallel "Cultural Olympics".

If this case had happened in the US, aside from the "insulting the Church" part which couldn't be prosecuted at all, the question of whether an art exhibition is "public" or "private" would have to be hashed out in court. Even if publicly funded with free admission, it would be difficult for the DA to prove that it was truly a public gathering place. Courts tend to set a very high bar when issues of censoring content occur. (Broadcast issues, like TV and radio, are different because the FCC sets its own rules and is for all intents and purposes outside the court system.)

Which is why for something like that, only the most zealous, praise-Jebus-bible-thumping Alabama DA would even think about prosecuting it. And then, recognizing that it was a waste of time and resources, he'd decide against it.

 

[aerocontrols]

BTW, it wasn't a private gallery, it was a public exhibition placed among the events of the parallel "Cultural Olympics".

El Greco, allow me to introduce you to El Dildo Bandito.

Ceramic penises, in a public library. Note which side the law takes.

 

[Manny]

Shows what we know!

Now, if we're talking about Scandinavian countries or France, then I'm ready to admit they are way ahead of everyone else in these matters.

Heh. Here I was all agreeing with this and it turns out to be at least partly incorrect. Turns out that until just the other day it was legally mandatory to use a black bar to cover the naughty bits in Norwegian television broadcasts and magazines. That restriction would apply to US broadcast television, but not to magazines here. So they just caught up and passed us in one court decision on that particular issue.

Also, I know there are extensive restrictions on some forms of depiction of sexual activity in many European counties including France, including on consensual BDSM activities. There exist in the US fetish magazines which would draw a producer or distributor a lengthy jail sentence in France.

 

[Leif Roar]

Re: Shows what we know!

Heh. Here I was all agreeing with this and it turns out to be at least partly incorrect. Turns out that until just the other day it was legally mandatory to use a black bar to cover the naughty bits in Norwegian television broadcasts and magazines.

That's not entirely accurate. Norwegian law prohibits the sale and distribution of pornography, which has a specific definition in legal terms (rather rough translation here) "sexual depictions that are percieved as offensive, or which is in other ways suited to degrade humans or act 'coarsening', included under this is sexual depections involving corpses, animals, violence or coercion. Not considered to be pornography is sexual depctions that must be considered defensible from an artistic, scientific, informational or similar purpose."

It has been the "rule of thumb" that "offensive" started at "kjønnsorgan i bevegelse" ("sexual organs in motion", although the description is imprecise as for instance an erect penis was considered to be in motion for this purpose,) but the actual definition of pornography has not been tried in the courts for a long while until recently. (I'm not quite sure just how long, but I think at least 15-20 years.) Recently, a court found that pictures of adults having sex are not offensive in today's society.

That said, naughty bits that weren't in motion has been shown on state-sponsored national TV since at least the early 80ties, with for instance reports from nudist camps on prime time TV. It's also worth noting that Norway has much more restrictive laws on the subject of pornography than the other Scandinavian countries do.

 

[Manny]

Huh. Not a very clear article then (at least in translation). Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Tony]

Ceramic penises, in a public library. Note which side the law takes.

Which side does the law take? I couldn't find it.

 

[Elind]

I'll take your word for it. But why on earth do you tolerate such laws existing in the first place? According to the BBC story, "Mr Iaokimidis is charged with insulting public decency and the Church." Unless the BBC just got this wrong (which I'll admit as a possibility), then Greece still has laws that would never be considered even close to constitutionally permissible here in the US. No group deserves legal protection from insult.

Where's Cleopatra? We've already had discussions on this Greek thing.

What I'd be interested to know is whether any of those 485 pages in the EU constitution allow for such "crimes" and, if so, how they justify them.