tronvillain

Michaelson:
I draw that line because I think people should be free to create whatever they want unless its creation involved harming someone else, such as actual child abuse.

Why should something that does not express any idea be covered by freedom of speech laws? For the simple reason that speech is not inherently about ideas. Is a painting of a rose about an "idea"? On the other hand, I suppose one could say that every speech act is about an idea, and a ten minute video of two people fucking is about the idea of sex or sexual gratification or whatever. Either way, it is difficult to see how you justify censorship.

tronvillain

...
I frequently see people saying "rape is an act of violence, not sex" but I am far from convinced that this is actually the case. I can see it being very much about sex, though also about power and control.

Michaelson

I agree on the rape issue. I know a lot of feminists in the 70s developed the theories about rape and power, and certainly it is an interesting perspective, but I am never convinced by people who make a blanket statement that "rape isn't about sex, it's about power'.

Anyway, regarding instrumentals and pictures of roses. First, can I just say that I meant in my last post to reiterate that I've basically conceded the porn as speech point, which I alluded to in my second last post. That said, I'd just like to say that I think a picture of a rose, can clearly encompass ideas. I don't know much about art, but I know enough to say that something like Warhols' Campbell's Soup tin thingies have to be making a statement of some kind, otherwise they'd just be pictures of Campbell's Soup tins.

As for an instrumental, just like an abstract painting, it will appeal no doubt to the listener's emotions in some way, or at least can.

Now, reiterating again, that I'm now willing to give porn the benefit of the doubt regarding whether or not it is speech, I think it serves a different role to the instrumental or picture of a rose. When you watch porn, you are basically engaged in a sexual activity, unless you're looking at it as a representation of the society it was produced in or something, in which case, yes it would seem to encompass ideas. So, having failed originally to make that distinction, I duly acknowledge that it exists.

I don't think you can equate porn with art, though, seeing as porn has no pretense that it is an artistic endeavour. That distinction is exactly what distinguishes porn from other 'erotic films,' or nude shots or whatever. I am of the opinion that despite the gray areas in trying to make a distinction, there is a clear conceptual difference between art and porn.

I'm fairly embarrassed when I read over this thread. I think I had a point, and tried to make way too much of it, and argued weakly for the most part. I'm not retracting everything I've said here, but I'm basically trapped trying to defend a silly proposition that I didn't think through enough. So I acknowledge this and ask if we can move on.

And actually, I just read this so I'll throw in a quick response.

avalanche:ix: As I said, I'm all for individual rights, I just think there should also be a balance. I have argued with so many Americans online who suggest that you either have complete and total liberty or a police state. I asked someone flat out a short while back if they thought I lived in a totalitarian society because we have compulsory voting in Australia, and he told me yes. It's ludicrous, I think. You can balance the common good and personal liberty. But apart from all of that, to use the example you were refering to, if this person who has the knowledge to disrupt global economies decides to get his knowledge published, and distribute it throughout bookstores in every state in the US, it seems crazy to me that that information could not be supressed, yes. Similarly, allowing a how to guide for pedophiles to be published and distributed seems to me to represent a greater risk to children's individual liberties than it does a victory for freedom of speech on the part of the author.

avalanche:ix

who decides what the proper balance is? you'll always end up opressing someone.



i'm not an american though.



ofcourse you do, because you don't know any better. it's ludicrous for me to even consider compulsory voting.



by opressing the minority, which is exactly we *shouldn't* 'balance' the 'common good' and personal liberty. the only balance should be: everything goes, as long as it doesn't directly harm others.


that's because you fail to be able to make the distinction between possibility and inevitability. he who creates the information, holds the right to publish it or not. we have guides for just about anything, a lot of it illegal, these are bought primarily by people *interested* in something different, there's guides on the market on how to kill people in various ways, people who buy these guides do NOT intend to actually use that information, they're just CURIOUS. see, when you surpress curiosity (which is what you would do), you create a police state. when you censor any type of information other than that you create yourself, you do not hold high the principle of freedom, but rather the principle of selective freedom.

...

avalanche:ix spake thusly:

That's the best response I've ever seen in this thread. Good on you, avalance:ix

It's damn sad when I have to look outside the United States to find an example of a truly free and open society. I have nothing against Holland - in fact, I consider it to be the peerless ideal. However, knowing that the US - a nation founded by a rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy - is now owned and controlled by the "Axis of Christianity" (Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schafely, Osama bin Falwell) really hurts my sense of patriotism. :banghead:

If I had the cash to move to Holland - as well as a job offer in that country - I would. I wonder if their government would give me amnesty as a refugee from a despotic state?

kctan

That's what you think.

Some people do equate what you termed as porn, art. While what you termed as art, 'porn'.

There's no conceptual difference at all, only preference.

One man's meat is another man's poison.

One would call a painting with only a black dot in the middle art, I don't see anything artistic about that. One would call heavy metal music, musical, I don't see anything musical about that either.

Does this mean that there's a clear conceptual difference between them ? No, it's all personel preference. I don't think it's possible to draw a line when it comes to personel preference.

Gregg

Glancing through this thread, it doesn't look like anybody has responded to your question yet.

You're probably thinking about Jack Chick tracts. He has a web site: www.chick.com. And if you do a search, you'll find plenty of sites that criticize the tracts or parody them. You should also be able to find discussions of them in IIBB.

Gregg

christ-on-a-stick

Excellent point, kctan.

Porn and art are both subjective terms. However, the conceptual difference may vary from person to person - kctan's quote above is spot-on.

As soon as you can objectively define what is porn and what is art, you have a foundation for this argument It seems that you have a particular idea of what would still constitute art ("erotic" films, nude shots etc.) However, I'd bet that there is some stuff out there that for you would cross the line from being "art" to "porn" (thinking of some of the more hardcore bondage & discipline stuff) - but I know for a fact that a lot of people who are involved in the making of that stuff *do* consider it an art form, and are very passionate about that.

Tenpudo

It becomes even more difficult than that -- there's still the other half of the equation to deal with. Specifically, assuming you are somehow able to provide a solid definition of "porn" you would have to decide if any given item was "kiddie". How do you objectively determine the age of a fictional character?

"But look, officer, it specifically says in the script that her 18th birthday was last week!"
"Sorry, bud, but that collection of polygons/pattern of inkblots/syntax doesn't look a day over 16 to me!"
"She just has a thyroid dysfunction, that's all!"
"Sure, pal, tell it to the judge..."

...

Good point, Tenpuedo

One point I'd like to bring up. There's a porn star named Gauge, who is 19 but looks like she's around 15. That's her main selling point, in fact - her pr0n videos show her in schoolgirl outfits, carrying schoolbooks, and so on. One video shows her in her school uniform in a classroom setting having sex with a middle aged man (presumably, a high school junior "putting out" to her teacher for a good grade).

Is this legal? Of course. Gauge is a consenting adult, and she may do whatever she wishes. Is it moral? Let's examine that.

I pointed out earlier that if virtual KP were kept legal and readily available, that would reduce the demand for the real stuff. Gurdur then asked me for proof, which I will provide now:

Take whatever sort of sex turns you on. Maybe it's hetero, gay men, lesbians, threeways, whatever. Now imagine this sort of pr0n was banned. Possession of [insert your favourite kink here] pr0n would land you in jail. However, it's also possible to get a very convincing fake legally and with no hassles. Now you tell me - would you risk going to jail and being humiliated for possessing genuine pr0n featuring that kink, or would you settle for the fake stuff?

I ask you to think about that awhile. I'm sure you'll quickly see the point. Allowing the pedosexuals a safe outlet for their perversions keeps them sated AND keeps real children safe.

[Off Topic]
Yeah, chick.com had the tracts I was talking about before. Thanks for the link.
[/Off Topic]

Ah well, enough for now I guess.