Censorship and the arts

Just the facts- (this is not a partisan comment) (no, really ))...

In practice, the electoral college, which distinguishes our election system from a "pure" democracy, has tended to favor more conservative politicians/platforms in recent years. The pure majority of votes tends to be concentrated in the urban centers on the East and West coasts.
If "pure" majority was the deciding factor, the values and opinions of "middle America" or "the Heartland" would have MUCH less weight- (hence Al Gore in 2000 harping about having won the majority of votes- he did).

I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, just an observation-

Matt

I read this today:



http://www.newsday.com/features/booksmags/ny-bkjacoby0516,0,2943544.story


Michael

I am intrigued. If I ever make it through the stack of books I'm working on now, I may get a copy.

I think I've got it. We stop censorship of the arts by:
1. Censoring everything evil
A. Republicans
B. Conservatives
C. non urbanites
D. all religions
2. Barring censorship we just run off any dissention

Oh yeah I kicked humpty dumpty off the wall. After all I am evil incarnate

jdef said:

Aggie, I think you're confused. Expressing opposition is not the same as censoring, it's the opposite.

Click to expand...

That's ok, after all you have stated that you don't understand my post*S*

mark said:

The united states is a democratic republic.

Click to expand...

I suggest checking the Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands ....

I hope all this is spelled OK ... for some reason. on this borrowed machine, spell check DOES NOT work...

"Pledge of Allegiance" is almost contemporary - 1st written 1892, modified 1920s, & "under god" added in 1950s. The author's intent in using term Republic didn't have anything to do with form of government, rather

It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove.

Click to expand...

For more info, see http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Ed Sukach said:

I hope all this is spelled OK ... for some reason. on this borrowed machine, spell check DOES NOT work...

Click to expand...

Thanks for that one Ed, thought I was just having lousy luck with my computer...I think it may be due to the upcoming upgrade...Sean???

Here goes - new system...

I am not sure of the difference between "Quick Reply" and Plan old vanilla "Post Reply" ... so here goes with "Post Reply"...

The key here is, "That SOME find offensive." Just who are the "some"? There is an old saying that illustrates an unavoidable position that MUST be taken by anyone who wishes to be a censor ... "There are two kinds of people (substitute "art" if you wish) in this world: The `good' ones and the `bad' ones; and *I*, being one of the `good' ones, will decide which is which."

In this world, I would submit that there will be someone who will find ANY photograph / work of art "offensive" in one way or another. How do we decide which of us will have the ultimate authority to pass judgement on "offensiveness? - And de facto, in theory, set our own standards of morality??

Magritte painted a landmark image he titled "This Is Not A Pipe". It wasn't - it was an IMAGE of a pipe - and he admonished the viewer to never forget the reality ... It was, in fact, paint on canvas - not a pipe.
It is a terrible, HORRIBLE, completely unconscionable CRIME to force, or entice - children - or anyone else - into situations capable of being photographed for the end purpose of producing "pornography" -- and that is exactly where we should - MUST direct our attentions and resources.... to the PRIMARY CRIME. The images are NOT the crime.

I personally, am FAR more offended by images suggesting cruelty and physical harm - torture - protracted, slow death .. to human beings - or animals.
There is a widely accepted image of just that... a death by one of the most tortuous, cruel, inhuman methods ever conceived by man... And there a *millions* of those images - all over the world.

We call them "Crucifixes".

i'm too stupid to do a quick reply, but I am smart enough to know that Ed's post is right on the money.

One fault with Ed's assumption that it is not the act but a representation. It holds if it is a medium such as oil painting, but in photography it is not. What are we photographing? Is it not the scene we focus on? So where it is just a photograph, it was taken of the event/scene. Yes go at the perpetrators, but who is photographing them?

Aggie said:

One fault with Ed's assumption that it is not the act but a representation. It holds if it is a medium such as oil painting, but in photography it is not. What are we photographing? Is it not the scene we focus on? So where it is just a photograph, it was taken of the event/scene. Yes go at the perpetrators, but who is photographing them?

Click to expand...

In this case, the photographer is - *very definitely* one of the perpetrators - just as the "lookout" driving the car is at some level - guilty of bank robbery.

The only course of action that makes any sense at all to me, is devoting an enormous effort toward the prevention of this *violent* crime - and make no mistake - it *IS* violent.
The way I see it - all the agonizing over the "evidence" will only serve to dilute the efforts toward prevention in the future.

We should use *every* tool we have in our arsenal - including socialogical, psychiatric, - even - gasp - severe introspection into our own ethics and values - to eliminate *ALL* crimes of violence.

Other societies in this world are *FAR* less violent than ours - what are they doing - right- that we are not?

Aggie, the two are not mutual exclusive.
If the act depicted is illegal and if the photographer is a participant you have criminals and evidence -- no arguments. Would you have us go the further step confiscate/censor all photographic depictions of illegal acts and arrest the photographer -- even if it is staged and the act broke no laws?

On the one hand it is easy to use the literal nature of photography to identify a crime and the criminals (or is it). On the other it has been easy for the us to start down the slippery slope that Ed describes.

Arrest the criminals, but don't censor images unless they are clearly infringing upon someone's rights, and those rights need to be significant to trump free speech. Make the bar high, because freedom of speech is too valuable.

Other societies in this world are *FAR* less violent than ours - what are they doing - right- that we are not?
__________________
Ed Sukach, FFP.

The only one I can think of is Canada. Certainly not Europeans, much less Asians (e.g. they let the kids eat grass (notice how brown the football pitches are) in North Korea and reroute the food aid to His Majesty's army). Perhaps Australians (not too sure here). Most definitely not Central or South Americans (they kill priests with the best of them). AND DEFINITELY NOT AFRICANS! English? Well perhaps not in Gloucestershire. I live in Sweden - THE SWEDISH MODEL sucks and it certainly is a place where life is cheap (i.e. you would go to jail far longer via tax envasion than via first degree murder). Nope, I do not think that US society is far more violent than others. I would say that you are average at worst.

Francesco said:

Other societies in this world are *FAR* less violent than ours - what are they doing - right- that we are not?
__________________
Ed Sukach, FFP.

The only one I can think of is Canada. Certainly not Europeans, I would say that you are average at worst.

Click to expand...

I really should check out the recent crime reports from the World Health Organization. Unless it has changed drastically, the murder rate in the United States was second only to South Africa. If I remember correctly, the lowest crime rate - of all crimes - was from Iceland.

There has been an increase in serous crime both in Great Britain and Australia. Australia has seen a major increase in murders, and in Great Britain it is in assaults and "Hot Burglaries", where the home is occupied at the time - here in the united States it is known as "Home Invasion". Come to think of it, I remember a recent report where it was stated that you are eight times more likely to be assaulted - "mugged" - in London than you are in New York City.

However - I wouldn't have absolute faith in the above information.

This has struck a nerve ... I'll check it out.

Ed you are absolutely right. The last time I checked a site with statistics on crime the US was certainly in the top 3. Nevertheless the kind of crime is what I am getting at when I talk about violent societies. You do not see hoardes of people roaming the US Southwest using machetes on women and children. I believe that the crime rate of a nation does not represent its society's violent tendencies. It is just a number of how many murders, burglaries, rapes etc. per capita are committed.

I'm trying to think of a more efficient "measure"...

Any suggestions?

The crime rate in some of the countries mentioned are lower simply because they are not reported. If they were reported to the degree of accuracy they are here in the USA their rates would probably be many times what it is here. In places where life is cheap no one says much about another dead body much less reports it to the authorities. That would be a good way to join the ranks of the deceased.

Ooh thats a tricky one Ed. Statistics are certainly deceiving as I believe crime rate does not necessarily correlate with violent nature. Is there allowances to be made for cultural and religious differences? I believe in the Aristotlean Ethical principle that there exists one higher order for judging all acts. What that is and can it be objectively put down on paper is a huge undertaking. What I do know is this, having lived in the Philippines for 21 years I have seen violence against children that makes me believe there are people out there that have no problem killing on a mass scale (e.g. tribes in Africa, North Korean leader, etc.) if they can profit from it. This is not part of crime statistics, nor are they considered a crime against the world, which is why most do not act decisively against these societies.

we are soo much better than all those backwater republics and dictatorships that a few infringements upon our basic freedoms is no big thing.

We will still be richer and more powerful than them and that is what counts.

of course we could always

"...invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Dead Link Removed

Hyperbole being the better part of winning an argument

We incarcerate a greater percentage of our citizens than any society, past or present, in the history of the planet. Repressive political states, China, Nazi Germany, USSR, etc. included.

Just a fact, I'll leave the explainations to others more learned than I.

Matt

edited for spelling

If we limit the comparison to developed nations....

This is not an option if we belong to a civilised world that values the sanctity of life. To say that there are categories for violence which are influenced by how economically developed a culture or country is implies that if one were poor and underprivileged or an ex-colony or third world, etc. that it is somehow related to their situation that they let children starve, or that a tribe machete a rival tribe into oblivion. I believe that ethics transcends economics.

Also I do not see how violent nature is correlated with detaining people. I bet anything that the US is probably the most open nation as regards their detainment of prisoners. This is probably why they are also the world's leading incarcerator. Here is a question for you: are there any Gulags in the United States? It seems to me that we hold the US to a higher moral standard than any other country.

Its laughable that you actually believe that China will disclose to the world the number of people it detains, or holds in Gulags, etc... I love it that you mention a country that in the sixties called exterminating political rivals as a Great Cultural Revolution. This is a joke.

mrcallow said:

If we limit the comparison to developed nations I doubt the US would rank in the top half of the least violent as measured by per cap acts O violence.

But, I could be wrong.

One sat that can not be disputed is that the US has been the leader for over a decade amongst all developed nations in per cap incarceration (we passed Russia whilst it was still the USSR).

Click to expand...

Yep we throw them in jails instead of shooting them or cutting them to bits. How dare we be so mean!