Christopher Handley was accused of purchasing drawn child pornography. The porn in question included people who were depicted as “under aged” (minimal lines depicting body and lack of pubic hair). The interviewer is discussing the issue at hand with two guests; whether artists should have the rights to express themselves freely so long that there is no direct harm inflicted, or should the welfare of children be placed above the rights of artistic expression. Charles Brownstein, the executive director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, argues that censoring the material creates a category of “thought crimes” that should not exist in the free world. However, Mary Leary, a child safety advocate, insists that the censorship of certain materials, according to what the public deems as acceptable, may prevent future dangerous occurrences regarding this subject.
The most fundamental questions raised in this article were:
Should artists be able to express themselves freely and without restraint in subject matter, or should there be restrictions and a line drawn that protects the rights of children? Visual Art is primarily a medium of expression for the artists from which they are allowed to present to the world what they have in their minds. As mentioned before, if such thoughts are attempted to be censored, the act becomes synonymous to stifling a certain mode of thought, not far from a certain Orwellian neologism. There have been various incidents throughout the course of history in which artists were silenced and denied their right to express their views on politics and society. Even today, nations such as China and North Korea enforce strict standards on what is and is not acceptable which strictly limits and regulates what the populace has access to see or think of. However, what if the the safety of children are at sake? Would it be justified to censor such materials if it meant that that by sacrificing the freedom of expression for some, we can protect many others from physical and/or psychological harm?
Then comes the final question of what is and is not appropriate. Though the law clearly defines a way to determine what constitutes as unacceptable child pornography (The Miller Test), there still remains various loopholes in what is defined by the public as indecent. The question in itself is an issue of reason and logic. The idea behind this is that by society’s standards, the art is deemed inappropriate because it depicts a child in a sexual situation (and that is considered inappropriate by society). However, this brings up an aspect of language as well as history/culture. What one culture conceives as appropriate may be completely different from another. Japan, the origin of much of the material in question, holds a different standard to what they believe to be socially acceptable than North America. The definition of what is socially acceptable then comes into question as well. In cases of child pornography, Vladimir Nabokov’s infamous Lolita has split the literary world into two camps. Though child sexuality is dealt with in the novel, there is no consensus on whether or not the story has any literary value. The definition of literary value itself varies from person to person and there is no absolute standard from which it can be held up to.
What is defined as appropriated and who gets to define it is an issue raised that does not have an absolute answer. The definition of propriety in itself is problematic as the definition of it is arbitrary and does not give concrete context from which we can extract a method of measurement. On the other hand, if it were prescribed by people, who get to define “appropriate” and “inappropriate”, especially within the realms of art. If the artistic community is allowed full reign, a risk is run that total artistic anarchy emerges where absolutely nothing is taboo and society falls into a state of Sadean chaos. If it were decided only by the government, the definition, though much more conservative and “family friendly”, will eventually render art into something culturally insignificant to avoid offending the public.
In essence, this is a question of individual rights versus the protection of the general populace as well as the vague definition of what is or is not considered appropriate. The root of the issues lies in that in both cases there is no absolute or concrete answer to when is too much. Personally, in a case where no explicit harm is done (that can be measured in certainty), I would side with the rights of the individual more than that of the general populace. In this instance, it really should be the responsibility of parents to filter the content that their children are exposed to rather than the artists’ burden to constantly create family-friendly art. On the matter of propriety, neither side is really qualified to make the decision, but I do believe that it is possible somehow for the court and artists to make some form of consensus.
The issues with illustrated child pornography relate in essence to various subjects. From the very obvious personal rights vs. public safety standpoint, the San Francisco BART incident is an example because the government infringed on the rights of the people to use cellular telephones in hopes that it would dissuade rioters from acting. The action was performed to stop an attack before it started, but at the same time it violated the basic rights of the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment