Should feminists be concerned about artistic expression? Does sexist or indecent art harm women? The following informative pamphet from Feminists for Free Expression rebuts the idea that free speech comes at the expense of women and that meaures taken to retricit, ban or exclude indecent or offensive artistic works from the general pubic will expand the rights of women. FFE instead demonstrates that the best remedy for countering harmful expression is free expression!
See the full text here.
Showing posts with label Artist Concerns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Artist Concerns. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Monday, October 02, 2006
The Possible Effects of Censorship on Art
Below Nick Pell shares his concerns about the secondary effects theory and legislating the morality propounded at the Nopornnorthampton web site. While for myself (Always Controversial), personally, I may believe I am better off adopting in many respects, but not all respects, the morality Adam and Jendi recommend, I do share Nick's concerns about the secondary effects theory and legislating morality.
Tasteful erotica, we are told by NoPornNorthampton (NPN), depicts a state of love and commitment between participants. This idea, while perfectly fine as a personal preference, is incredibly dangerous to a society which values free speech, free expression and free choice when the proponent seeks to impose their preference on others. On the one hand, it describes a set of behaviors as normal and desirable, marginalizing those not in monogamous, heterosexual relationships or those with allegedly deviant sexuality. On the other, it seeks to eliminate specific content from the city. While NPN assures us that such limitations will be reasonable, I find little reason to accept their premise at face value. As always, political debates do not take place in a vacuum. The proposed zoning legislation comes at a time when the Bush administration is aggressively pursuing obscenity laws against artists, as well as speaking out in favor of repression of sexual minorities. In the final analysis, however, the rights of artists and a contemporary history of censorship lie at the center of this issue. Repressive elements in society have no shortage of reasons that consenting adults such as you and I do not have the right to make choices for ourselves. In considering the new zoning law, it seems prudent to consider what consequences could come later, particularly in regards to censorship and creeping fascism- two dangers far more insidious than the "secondary effects" spoken of time and again by NPN. The entire community should be concerned when a few vocal individuals take it upon themselves to not only dictate how we can choose to spend our money, but also what the "correct" forms of sexuality are. Allowing such voices to prevail can only lead down a slippery slope to an increasingly repressive environment. The First Amendment Center has a thorough and thoughtful analysis of how "secondary effects" are routinely used to undermine free expression, including using "secondary effects" to prohibit high schoolers from dying their hair unusual colors. The text can be read in full here.
It seems worthwhile to quote NPN: "We are not against sex. We are against mindless sex, abusive sex, sex without regard for issues like love, fidelity, commitment, pregnancy, disease and children." In other words, they are opposed to casual sex, polyamory, condoms and other forms of birth control. Why don't they- as someone has recently suggested on their website- move to Ave Maria, FL, a planned community for people who wish to avoid the terrible burden of being exposed to the sexuality of consenting adults. Just as the repression of pornography in Weimar Germany opened the door for repression of some of the best art of the period (Futurism and Dadaism were verboten), so will content-specific legislation open the door to repression of "obscene" or "indecent" or "degrading" forms of art- with the judge of such content not being the sensibilities of individual citizens, but a government censorship board in everything but name. Content-specific legislation will not only effect the kinds of "tasteful erotica" that NPN claims to support (such as how burlesque performers must have all of their naughty bits covered in the state of Massachusetts) but also art and literature. Universally lauded works of art as Ulysses and Naked Lunch have been banned as obscene. Recent critically acclaimed Vincent Gallo film The Brown Bunny (which features a potentially disturbing, arguably degrading act of oral sex as the film's climax), or even the television show Desperate Housewives (which depicts suburban infidelity and sexual relations between adults and minors) would be questionable using the criteria outlined by NPN above. The recent French film Baise Moi (translation- "fuck me") includes a graphic rape scene, with real penetration as did the similarly themed Irreversible, which Roger Ebert declared an essentially moralistic film. In short, sexually explicit and sexually transgressive art did not end with Henry Miller. The tradition is alive and well today, particularly in cinema but also in literature and the visual arts. How would the proposed laws effect a gallery showing of Trevor Brown or a midnight showing of The Brown Bunny? What of the measures enacted after what we are being told are the "first steps"?
Lest anyone think this discussion has become to abstract, I direct your attention to the National Coalition Against Censorship's Selective Timeline of Censorhip in the U.S.A. Many of these examples come from New York City, arguably the artistic capital of the world. The vague, undefinable nature of NPN's rhetoric should be cause for alarm. What is to stop, for example, films like Kinsey and Auto Focus being declared obscene because of their frank portrayal of sex? In fact, such films have been not merely protested by conservative Christian organizations but the subject of attempted bans. Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute states that "Just as Reagan was not content to contain communism but announced a rollback, pro-family organizations are not content to protest the latest outrage anymore, but will seek legislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment." (Washington Post Article) Again, the groups opposed to the biopic about Dr. Kinsey did not outwardly protest, but rather ran a disinformation campaign aimed at smearing a man dead for four decades as a child molester and blaming him personally for AIDS, incest and pornography. NPN makes similar arguments attacking pornography generally- not the proposed location of Capital Video or relevant zoning laws. This should bring into question their claims about not being in favor of censorship.
In fact, NPN leader Adam Cohen has gone to great lengths to speak out in favor of the erotic material that he thinks people should be allowed to purchase. His list of signs that the pornography you consume may be "bad" can be found here.
The list seems to say far more about Adam Cohen's sexual ethics than anything else. This is further evidenced by Mr. Cohen's laundry list of material that he finds personally offensive, which can be found here. Included in the list is the infamous wedding night video of Paris Hilton, created between two consenting adults in a monogamous, legally-sanctioned relationship. So much for the claim that NPN seeks to do anything but proscribe a set of behaviors and choices in the community. It is my position that Mr. Cohen and his co-thinkers have the right to hold any beliefs they wish about pornography, sex and intimacy. What they do not have is the right to impose those positions on the broader community using legitimate concerns about the city's zoning as a smoke screen.
Tasteful erotica, we are told by NoPornNorthampton (NPN), depicts a state of love and commitment between participants. This idea, while perfectly fine as a personal preference, is incredibly dangerous to a society which values free speech, free expression and free choice when the proponent seeks to impose their preference on others. On the one hand, it describes a set of behaviors as normal and desirable, marginalizing those not in monogamous, heterosexual relationships or those with allegedly deviant sexuality. On the other, it seeks to eliminate specific content from the city. While NPN assures us that such limitations will be reasonable, I find little reason to accept their premise at face value. As always, political debates do not take place in a vacuum. The proposed zoning legislation comes at a time when the Bush administration is aggressively pursuing obscenity laws against artists, as well as speaking out in favor of repression of sexual minorities. In the final analysis, however, the rights of artists and a contemporary history of censorship lie at the center of this issue. Repressive elements in society have no shortage of reasons that consenting adults such as you and I do not have the right to make choices for ourselves. In considering the new zoning law, it seems prudent to consider what consequences could come later, particularly in regards to censorship and creeping fascism- two dangers far more insidious than the "secondary effects" spoken of time and again by NPN. The entire community should be concerned when a few vocal individuals take it upon themselves to not only dictate how we can choose to spend our money, but also what the "correct" forms of sexuality are. Allowing such voices to prevail can only lead down a slippery slope to an increasingly repressive environment. The First Amendment Center has a thorough and thoughtful analysis of how "secondary effects" are routinely used to undermine free expression, including using "secondary effects" to prohibit high schoolers from dying their hair unusual colors. The text can be read in full here.
It seems worthwhile to quote NPN: "We are not against sex. We are against mindless sex, abusive sex, sex without regard for issues like love, fidelity, commitment, pregnancy, disease and children." In other words, they are opposed to casual sex, polyamory, condoms and other forms of birth control. Why don't they- as someone has recently suggested on their website- move to Ave Maria, FL, a planned community for people who wish to avoid the terrible burden of being exposed to the sexuality of consenting adults. Just as the repression of pornography in Weimar Germany opened the door for repression of some of the best art of the period (Futurism and Dadaism were verboten), so will content-specific legislation open the door to repression of "obscene" or "indecent" or "degrading" forms of art- with the judge of such content not being the sensibilities of individual citizens, but a government censorship board in everything but name. Content-specific legislation will not only effect the kinds of "tasteful erotica" that NPN claims to support (such as how burlesque performers must have all of their naughty bits covered in the state of Massachusetts) but also art and literature. Universally lauded works of art as Ulysses and Naked Lunch have been banned as obscene. Recent critically acclaimed Vincent Gallo film The Brown Bunny (which features a potentially disturbing, arguably degrading act of oral sex as the film's climax), or even the television show Desperate Housewives (which depicts suburban infidelity and sexual relations between adults and minors) would be questionable using the criteria outlined by NPN above. The recent French film Baise Moi (translation- "fuck me") includes a graphic rape scene, with real penetration as did the similarly themed Irreversible, which Roger Ebert declared an essentially moralistic film. In short, sexually explicit and sexually transgressive art did not end with Henry Miller. The tradition is alive and well today, particularly in cinema but also in literature and the visual arts. How would the proposed laws effect a gallery showing of Trevor Brown or a midnight showing of The Brown Bunny? What of the measures enacted after what we are being told are the "first steps"?
Lest anyone think this discussion has become to abstract, I direct your attention to the National Coalition Against Censorship's Selective Timeline of Censorhip in the U.S.A. Many of these examples come from New York City, arguably the artistic capital of the world. The vague, undefinable nature of NPN's rhetoric should be cause for alarm. What is to stop, for example, films like Kinsey and Auto Focus being declared obscene because of their frank portrayal of sex? In fact, such films have been not merely protested by conservative Christian organizations but the subject of attempted bans. Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute states that "Just as Reagan was not content to contain communism but announced a rollback, pro-family organizations are not content to protest the latest outrage anymore, but will seek legislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment." (Washington Post Article) Again, the groups opposed to the biopic about Dr. Kinsey did not outwardly protest, but rather ran a disinformation campaign aimed at smearing a man dead for four decades as a child molester and blaming him personally for AIDS, incest and pornography. NPN makes similar arguments attacking pornography generally- not the proposed location of Capital Video or relevant zoning laws. This should bring into question their claims about not being in favor of censorship.
In fact, NPN leader Adam Cohen has gone to great lengths to speak out in favor of the erotic material that he thinks people should be allowed to purchase. His list of signs that the pornography you consume may be "bad" can be found here.
The list seems to say far more about Adam Cohen's sexual ethics than anything else. This is further evidenced by Mr. Cohen's laundry list of material that he finds personally offensive, which can be found here. Included in the list is the infamous wedding night video of Paris Hilton, created between two consenting adults in a monogamous, legally-sanctioned relationship. So much for the claim that NPN seeks to do anything but proscribe a set of behaviors and choices in the community. It is my position that Mr. Cohen and his co-thinkers have the right to hold any beliefs they wish about pornography, sex and intimacy. What they do not have is the right to impose those positions on the broader community using legitimate concerns about the city's zoning as a smoke screen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
