Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: More Censorship

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    779
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 230 Times in 170 Posts

    More Censorship

    "The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be judged by the standards of the strictest community that is able to access it. The court upheld the conviction of pornography producer Paul F. Little, aka Max Hardcore, for violating obscenity laws in Tampa, despite the fact that the 'obscene' material in question was produced and sold in California. From the article: 'The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities. In other words, the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else. But if they violate the standards of one community, they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime. ... Jurors in Little's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how "the average person of the community as a whole — the Middle District of Florida" — would view the material.'"
    Link

    This is getting out of hand - how much stuff on this site would be considered "obscene" in the fundamentalist parts of America? I've posted stuff here that could be considered sadistic - not for the purpose of pleasuring sadists, but, you know, bad guys can't be good guys. Do I trust a fundamentalist to make that distinction? This is amazingly stupid. If you're afraid of seeing nasty stuff maybe the internet isn't for you.


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,504
    Thanks
    3,149
    Thanked 6,558 Times in 2,766 Posts
    It will be overturned in a higher court but yeah it sucks that America is becoming a third world fundamentalist breeding ground of stupidity. When the last administration was in office they went around DC covering the statues that had partial nudity, you know like truth and justice.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    14,050
    Thanks
    4,223
    Thanked 6,727 Times in 4,633 Posts
    Should be amusing when the Taliban bring a case against the White House site for Mr President (that's all the Presidents) showing his wife unveiled.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Black Spot For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    779
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 230 Times in 170 Posts
    Will it be overturned in a higher court? I can see this as the kind of thing Chief Justice Roberts would politely decline to hear.

    Maybe in forty years when he retires or dies in office - fat lot of good that will do us.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    sweden
    Posts
    834
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 87 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack the R View Post
    Link

    This is getting out of hand - how much stuff on this site would be considered "obscene" in the fundamentalist parts of America? I've posted stuff here that could be considered sadistic - not for the purpose of pleasuring sadists, but, you know, bad guys can't be good guys. Do I trust a fundamentalist to make that distinction? This is amazingly stupid. If you're afraid of seeing nasty stuff maybe the internet isn't for you.

    dude...your stuff doesnt even come close to Max Hardcore. There should be a law against him, people like him or maybe just HIM.

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    1,569
    Thanks
    1,170
    Thanked 1,192 Times in 516 Posts
    So if this ruling stood, one ultraconservative town could impose their sensibilities on the entire country?

    That doesn't sound right.

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,504
    Thanks
    3,149
    Thanked 6,558 Times in 2,766 Posts
    It will either be overturned in district court on appeal or the ACLU will step in and it will be overturned in a higher court. Just ot let you know how scary the possibility is. I used to work with some fundamentalists (before I worked as an artist)who thought anything fantasy or science fiction was from the devil and pornographic wouldn't let their kids watch any cartoons because of it. Of course they also couldn't spell anything with three syllables in it or find Nebraska on a map, but I digress.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:


  11. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    779
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 230 Times in 170 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Crash View Post
    dude...your stuff doesnt even come close to Max Hardcore.
    I don't disagree with you - but who can say where the magic tripping point for a fundamentalist lies?

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,830
    Thanks
    1,110
    Thanked 1,312 Times in 544 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    It will be overturned in a higher court but yeah it sucks that America is becoming a third world fundamentalist breeding ground of stupidity. When the last administration was in office they went around DC covering the statues that had partial nudity, you know like truth and justice.
    Please tell me you're joking, right?

    That's almost scary: censor content too much and you'll find that when kids grow up and have to fend for themselves in the big wide world, they won't be ready for it...

    I mean censorship in all forms btw: violence in movies, all that stuff...

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    248
    Thanked 335 Times in 122 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BlightedArt View Post
    Please tell me you're joking, right?

    That's almost scary: censor content too much and you'll find that when kids grow up and have to fend for themselves in the big wide world, they won't be ready for it...

    I mean censorship in all forms btw: violence in movies, all that stuff...
    Because titties and violence in games and movies are mandatory material to prepare kids for the big scary world?

    They only serve one purpose, and that's entertainment. There is next to no educational value (depending on your definition of "educational") of letting your kid play GTA.

    Other than that, and a bit more on-topic, I agree that this kind of censorship is bullshit, and in the end won't change a damn thing. In the prohibition era people found their way to alcohol, during the war on drugs they manage to get their hands on pot, and if a censorship era ever happens, people will find a way to get their hands on boobs. (Figuratively speaking)

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Armonah For This Useful Post:


  15. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,504
    Thanks
    3,149
    Thanked 6,558 Times in 2,766 Posts
    What gets me is these same people will watch Cable News where most of the women dress like Vegas Hookers and scream about video games or movies being exploitive.

  16. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,521
    Thanks
    436
    Thanked 394 Times in 375 Posts
    Chances of this Un-American mind-dump lasting is pretty much zilch.
    The Louisianian Sketchbook You can Comment and Criticize if you want.
    My Newgrounds Profile Warning: Politically Incorrect thoughts, view at your own risk.
    My Facebook Site I stopped using it years ago.
    Louisianian artists thread If you're from or live in Louisiana, don't hesitate to post here.
    My Profile Nothing else needs to be said.
    Trillian: Zenithian Oh, and I am also a GNASH supporter/promoter.
    Nintendo Network ID: FightingSeraph

  17. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    779
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 230 Times in 170 Posts
    For those who don't think this will last, have you heard of the law that led to Christopher Handley being sent to jail getting overturned yet?

    What about the law that led to the conviction of Mike Diana? BTW, the Supreme Court declined to hear that case.

  18. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    468
    Thanks
    250
    Thanked 759 Times in 157 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack the R View Post
    What about the law that led to the conviction of Mike Diana? BTW, the Supreme Court declined to hear that case.
    That's the biggest load of bullshit. Wiki doesn't say what really happened since. Is he still not allowed to draw? and all that over a comic? The people who charged and convicted him should be hanged.

  19. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    779
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 230 Times in 170 Posts
    He "did his time" and is now being published by Angry Drunk Graphics.

  20. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    YUL = MONTREAL !
    Posts
    3,534
    Thanks
    276
    Thanked 129 Times in 88 Posts

  21. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 85 Times in 33 Posts
    Lets get real, the internet will never be censored. If it ever is, there will be riots.

    There's also a huge difference between the tasteless shit that Mike Diana and Max Hardcore put out and random scifi/fantasy violence/porn/whatever that fundamentalist may find offensive because of their religious extremism. I'm all against censorship, but can't say I care if stuff depicting the assault of children or a substitute for child porn is found obscene and censored.

  22. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    468
    Thanks
    250
    Thanked 759 Times in 157 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Schnookiefoo View Post
    I'm all against censorship, but can't say I care if stuff depicting the assault of children or a substitute for child porn is found obscene and censored.
    It's the principle of it, why should someone be jailed over a few lines on a piece of paper? Because someone is offended by it?

  23. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Is this thread a joke? yeah screw the law that is based on Universally accepted morals and ethics. Blame "Fundamentalists" for something any sane person would also agree on.

    No Jack the R, not everyone is into seeing adults pretending to be kids fisting each other while puking, or drawings of kids getting their limbs severed. that's what they mean by "obscenity" and yeah, it should be censored.

  24. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    468
    Thanks
    250
    Thanked 759 Times in 157 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    Is this thread a joke? yeah screw the law that is based on Universally accepted morals and ethics. Blame "Fundamentalists" for something any sane person would also agree on.

    No Jack the R, not everyone is into seeing adults pretending to be kids fisting each other while puking, or drawings of kids getting their limbs severed. that's what they mean by "obscenity" and yeah, it should be censored.
    If you think about it, those drawings are just a bunch of lines/ink on some paper, it has no meaning other than what people give it. Are you really for tossing someone into a jail cell for drawing something? That's pretty much thought police. As long as they don't actually fuck kids or do any of the things they depict, they should not be censored. Don't like it, don't buy it.

  25. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cool Britannia
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 123 Times in 83 Posts
    Surely responsible adults should be able to tell the difference between what they see on a screen, in a game, or in a comic book and reality...?

  26. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,679
    Thanks
    699
    Thanked 596 Times in 283 Posts
    zwarrior

    I see extreme violence and pornography in your sketchbook.
    The sherriff is on his way.

  27. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    no guys. You should accept the fact that there are limits to free speech; no hate speech, and no obscenity (they're both on the same boat). And as far as the US's current ethics goes, goes kind of 'art' are obscene. Im not sure if its different in Japan, since those kind of hentai and scat porn seem common, and those don't reflect their society at all, Im not saying the audience are likely to commit them in real life.

    And no, art isnt just ink on paper, or any medium smeared on another. It makes a statement, and the only statement those make is "Look how extremely disgusting I can be to garner attention!". Its puerile, and the only audience those get are emo teenagers and adults who live a depressing life. It shouldn't be a problem to them anyway, they can get those stuff in the depths of the internet just like people who want drugs can get them even if its illegal. And all of those things are illegal in society for a reason, complaining about it is just like any extremist whining because all of society wont share the same views as them.

  28. #24
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    779
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 230 Times in 170 Posts
    Zwarrior, thanks for making my point for me better than I was making it.

    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    or drawings of kids getting their limbs severed. that's what they mean by "obscenity" and yeah, it should be censored.
    Did you know there are poor parts of the world where a mother will take her little child and mutilate it so it'll have better success as a beggar? I can definitely see myself writing and illustrating a scene where a child gets battery acid dumped on its face. Not for shock value, although it should be shocking, but because it's the kind of social commentary needed to burst the bubble of comfortable first world consumers. Illustrating that scene isn't the crime, not illustrating it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schnookiefoo View Post
    Lets get real, the internet will never be censored. If it ever is, there will be riots.
    Have you heard about this -

    France Votes Tuesday On Net Censorship

    "French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday on a proposal to filter Internet traffic. Part of a new security bill, the measure is intended to catch child pornographers. However, once the filtering system is in place it will allow the government to censor other material too. Slashdot has previously discussed Australia's proposed ISP-level filter."

    Link

  29. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack the R View Post
    Zwarrior, thanks for making my point for me better than I was making it.



    Did you know there are poor parts of the world where a mother will take her little child and mutilate it so it'll have better success as a beggar? I can definitely see myself writing and illustrating a scene where a child gets battery acid dumped on its face. Not for shock value, although it should be shocking, but because it's the kind of social commentary needed to burst the bubble of comfortable first world consumers. Illustrating that scene isn't the crime, not illustrating it is.
    Yeah, they showed (or suggested) that scene in Slumdog millionaire. Not the same thing, the same wiki page you linked to the guy already referenced that:

    wiki [...] stating that he found them to be "patently offensive," and that "The evident goal of the appellant's publication is to portray shocking and graphic pictures of sexual conduct so it will be noticed. If the message is about victimization and that horrible things are happening in our society, as the appellant alleges, the appellant SHOULD HAVE created a vehicle to send his message that was not obscene."
    yeah. the difference is the 'vehicle'. you suggested one, that guy didnt have one. There's no vehicle in a child getting tenticle raped either or in two girls one cup. Its all for shock value entertainment

  30. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,830
    Thanks
    1,110
    Thanked 1,312 Times in 544 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Armonah View Post
    Because titties and violence in games and movies are mandatory material to prepare kids for the big scary world?

    They only serve one purpose, and that's entertainment. There is next to no educational value (depending on your definition of "educational") of letting your kid play GTA.

    Other than that, and a bit more on-topic, I agree that this kind of censorship is bullshit, and in the end won't change a damn thing. In the prohibition era people found their way to alcohol, during the war on drugs they manage to get their hands on pot, and if a censorship era ever happens, people will find a way to get their hands on boobs. (Figuratively speaking)
    "Porn is like the warm up exercises before you play the real thing."

    Explicit material doesn't directly introduce you to what you need to know to get by in the "big scary world", but it brings up random scenarios that force you to cope with immediate circumstances... is what i was saying.

  31. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 85 Times in 33 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack the R View Post


    Have you heard about this -




    Link
    It's intended for child porn and they're still voting on it. Once again, I have no problem with the censorship of things that are clearly morally wrong. I'd wait until they start abusing the filter and start censoring everything before I get all uptight about it.

  32. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    sweden
    Posts
    444
    Thanks
    118
    Thanked 150 Times in 67 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Schnookiefoo View Post
    It's intended for child porn and they're still voting on it. Once again, I have no problem with the censorship of things that are clearly morally wrong. I'd wait until they start abusing the filter and start censoring everything before I get all uptight about it.

    Define clearly morally wrong would you?

    I can see a point in regulating imagery of real illegal activities, like not letting people sell films depicting actual rapes etc. ie, profiting from the actual victimisation of another human being should be subject to scrutiny by law. that too, would have to be handled with care, since things like the news is bound to report images that show people victimised by criminal activity, and that should not be illegal.

    But "clearly morally wrong"? What is that? How do you decide clearly morally wrong for an entire society?

  33. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 85 Times in 33 Posts
    In context I was talking about child porn, which is a perfect example of something morally wrong. There are certain things that are pretty much agreed upon universally as being evil and wrong all around.

    I was also referring to stuff by Max Hardcore and Mike Diana from my previous post. ANYTHING depicting the assault of a child or someone pretending to be a child(who actually looks like a child) IS wrong. I really don't see why someone would care if that's censored.

  34. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    sweden
    Posts
    444
    Thanks
    118
    Thanked 150 Times in 67 Posts
    just to clarify, even if its a fictional representation of child porn, it should be cencored in your opinion? Not just actual child pornography? How about something depicting rape in general? or murder? Is it only if its pornographic, or would a graphic representation of an act of child molestation be subject to cencorship even if the intention isnt to be pornographic?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Self-censorship and another problem
    By hippl5 in forum Art Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 4th, 2008, 08:58 AM
  2. Photobucket Censorship
    By Bojee in forum Artist Lounge
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 18th, 2006, 10:28 AM
  3. Photobucket Censorship?!
    By [void] in forum Artist Lounge
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 20th, 2006, 11:43 AM
  4. hey all you anti-censorship brethren....
    By oracrest in forum Artist Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 15th, 2005, 11:53 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Designed by The Coldest Water, we build the coldest best water bottles, ice packs and best pillows.