By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Auto-censorship and compromising ones freedom of speech and expression in art.

 

Freedom of speech and expression in art should...

Never be compromised in a... 69 78.41%
 
Be censored as not to off... 3 3.41%
 
Find compromise within ot... 9 10.23%
 
Results... 7 7.95%
 
Total:88
setsunatenshi on 29 March 2016
Lafiel said:
John2290 said:

And if you are in a country with different laws, for example, writing a screen play about Muhammad reincartnated as a serial rapist, drug pushiing pimp who manages to become a prophet in America and after becoming a political fingure manages to gain support for the annihilation on every muslim on the planet through a vector virus that attacks genes unique to middle eastern men causing their testicles to fall off and slowly cause an eventual sex change while eliminating the possibility of reproduction....While I'm just parodying I am pilgrim and Dan browns Inferno here, what if this became a global sucess in the film world and while not breaking any laws in say, the US it offends muslims and may quite possibly cause serious reprecussions to the political stability between the US and the middle east....well, more so than usual. Whats your stance on this ridicuous but quite real scenario?

how about instead of clearly surreal fiction we discuss a real case

in 1981 the KKK's "fiery cross" magazine featured a cartoony drawing of a black man being hanged, just days later Klansmen kidnapped and killed a young black man hanging his corpse in the neighborhood afterwards

that drawing was then used as evidence the men acted on an implicit order of the KKK itself instead of entirely seperated from the organization, so the KKK had to pay enormous fines bankrupting it and making it less relevant since

what's your take on this, should the KKK have be spared from the consequences in this case as they were only printing art?

 

So because a judge (or juri?) decided that we should agree with the decision?

the KKK pieces of shit have plenty of real problems they could probably go chase them for, printing distasteful artwork is not one of those. inciting violence in itself is a crime in most western states though.

so without many details provided on this case, yeah the people who did the action should suffer the consequences.

when muslim bombers kill people, do we jail their religious leaders? i does say in their book to kill infidels, so....



Around the Network
Zkuq on 29 March 2016

Art should not be censored etc. for almost any reason. The only exception I might be willing to stand is obvious slander, lies etc. and I'm not sure even about that. Art itself is not harmful, only the way it is used can be. I'm OK with not wanting to publish repulsive art, and schoolbooks for example should be appropriately moderated. Still, legally there shouldn't be restrictions to what kinds of art one can create.



Lafiel on 29 March 2016
setsunatenshi said:
Lafiel said:

how about instead of clearly surreal fiction we discuss a real case

in 1981 the KKK's "fiery cross" magazine featured a cartoony drawing of a black man being hanged, just days later Klansmen kidnapped and killed a young black man hanging his corpse in the neighborhood afterwards

that drawing was then used as evidence the men acted on an implicit order of the KKK itself instead of entirely seperated from the organization, so the KKK had to pay enormous fines bankrupting it and making it less relevant since

what's your take on this, should the KKK have be spared from the consequences in this case as they were only printing art?

 

So because a judge (or juri?) decided that we should agree with the decision?

the KKK pieces of shit have plenty of real problems they could probably go chase them for, printing distasteful artwork is not one of those. inciting violence in itself is a crime in most western states though.

so without many details provided on this case, yeah the people who did the action should suffer the consequences.

when muslim bombers kill people, do we jail their religious leaders? i does say in their book to kill infidels, so....

In that particular case one of the murderers was sentenced to death, the other one confessed > life in prision, but in a later trial the jury decided to also hold the organization itself responsible as they saw a connection with afaik the perpetrators themselves testifying they felt urged on by the drawing/magazine and the temporal proximity of the publishing of said drawing and the murder/act of terrorism.

That's the thing, art can and did incite violence, which is why in my opinion there can't be complete freedom from consequences for any kind of art

And atleast in my country we do prosecute religious leaders that use religious verses to incite violence. A "kill the gays" "religious liberties" convention like Ted Cruz attended in Nov 2015 would be impossible to get a permit for over here.



hershel_layton on 29 March 2016
John2290 said:
hershel_layton said:

That hurts my feelings. Delete everything you just wrote.

I'm so sorry. Will do...will do. Again, my appolgies. You have been through so much in your life, I see now that all media should be censored. 

Thanks. Also, make sure you label yourself as a racist. I prefer the pronouns of "Pou" and "Pour". 

 

Check you privilege



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

hershel_layton on 29 March 2016
John2290 said:
hershel_layton said:

Thanks. Also, make sure you label yourself as a racist. I prefer the pronouns of "Pou" and "Pour". 

 

Check you privilege

I'm about as racist as a jew in a concentration camp, it just isn't in me to class people...with the exception of women who are obviously designed with the sole purpose of birthing childern and navigating a kitchen.

I hope I don't have to point out that im joking/

You do

 

/sarcasm



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Around the Network
theprof00 on 29 March 2016

OK, well if we're talking about art and how cultures differentiate according to acceptance level, there's plenty to draw from.
Loli-con from Japan, pretty much is banned in America
Scenes of excessive violence are banned from certain films in Europe
Blood in Mortal Kombat was colored green in Japan

Personally, I don't have a problem with any of these...I don't think any should be censored.
But I have a feeling a lot of people will have a problem with that first one, probably some same people that say we shouldnt censor racist or anti-mohammed drawings.



demonfox13 on 29 March 2016

Freedom of Speech is exactly that. There is a clause that states as long as you don't bring about "clear and present danger" ie, yelling "fire" in a crowded building. The Charlie Hebdo situation is a perfect example of where the religious extremists lie. Say anything about the "prophet muhammad" and you are wrong, but everything else is fair game. I'm sick and tired of that bs. I've read a few chapters, more specifically Woman, and I am surprised at the morons who listen to the clerics who push others to cover their women and treat them as inferiors. On the other end you have many sects of protestants such as Westboro baptist.



Make games, not war (that goes for ridiculous fanboys)

I may be the next Maelstorm or not, you be the judge http://videogamesgrow.blogspot.com/  hopefully I can be more of an asset than a fanboy to VGC hehe.

Mike321 on 29 March 2016

Artist should do whatever they want, however they should at least be conscious of the offenses their art might trigger.



                                                                                     

tsogud on 29 March 2016

Art shouldn't be censored whatsoever, that's what freedom of speech grants, plain and simple. Though that also means that people are entitled to their freedom of speech and if a peice of art offends someone or an entire group then they are well within their rights to condemn it.

So sure go for it! Make what you want to make and say what you want to say but prepared to face criticism especially if the peice is particularly slanderous, racist, hateful, etc...



 

theprof00 on 30 March 2016
John2290 said:
theprof00 said:
OK, well if we're talking about art and how cultures differentiate according to acceptance level, there's plenty to draw from.
Loli-con from Japan, pretty much is banned in America
Scenes of excessive violence are banned from certain films in Europe
Blood in Mortal Kombat was colored green in Japan
Personally, I don't have a problem with any of these...I don't think any should be censored.
But I have a feeling a lot of people will have a problem with that first one, probably some same people that say we shouldnt censor racist or anti-mohammed drawings.

Wow that shit is fucking disgusting, I can't belive what Ive just seen, horrifying that they can get away with what looks like child pornography. And they sensor blood yet let this shit available to possibly draw pedos into the felief that they arent doing anything wrong and could well be a stepping stone to real pedo porn or worse. 

And yet, the US comprises 10% of the world's human trafficking of minors in the sex slave trade.

But anyway, like I was saying, you're ok with offending some people, yet you're not ok with being offended by someone else.