To banned books, televisions shows, music, etc. will be like banning all entertainment. No form of entertainment should be disagreed upon by the government or people in the public because they choose not to accept it. Everyone has the right to pick and choose the forms of entertainment that they want to view in their lives, but they shouldn't have the right to pick what entertainment will be suitable for others. Which is why I think that the right thing to do, will be to ban the censorship boards in the cities and states that are allowed to make these decisions. It's understandable that crimes happen around world everyday, but when entertainment becomes the blame, the accuser becomes the fool because everyone's accountable for their own actions. Entertainment shouldn't be used as an excuse for someone's wrong doings. Like porn for instance, a lot of people may view pornography as horrible, gruesome material, but in actuality if it wasn't for pornography many people will have no knowledge of the many ways that the body could explore their bodies. Though some porn may be a bit too... explicit, who are we to say that the women in the porn is being degraded? We aren't in that woman's shoes because obviously she likes what she's doing. It's not like someone forced her to take her clothes off and stand in front of a camera in the nude, she made that decision on her own. If observed with an open-mind, pornography can be viewed as a form of art and educational to those who know nothing about sex or reproduction. Not saying that the school systems should allow pornography, I'm just saying that pornography comes from a line of ancient history that shouldn't be avoided.
1.) If the First Amendment Law didn't protect many forms of entertainment such as movies, television shows, books, music, etc. Will it be easier for the public to accuse and sue the production companies and win their case? Why or why not?
2.) By censoring art that is considered obscene, do you think that the government is violating the artists' right to freedom of speech?
3.) Would you consider pornography a form of art or dehumanizing to all man kind?
I agree that everyone has the right to pick and choose the forms of entertainment that they want to view in their lives. Like you said: “when entertainment becomes the blame, the accuser becomes the fool because everyone's accountable for his or her own action.”
ReplyDeleteEven with the first Amendment Law, people can sue all they want. Lawyers can find loopholes in any case in my opinion, so I don’t think that taking away the First Amendment Law would make any cases ‘easier.’ I think this censorship problem begins with children. Since they have no idea of what these subjects are, Sex, violence, etc. and they are all taught these subjects It is in the hands of the parents and the schooling that children receive. Since they are responsible for teaching their academics, and that is where they learn social skills it makes sense that they are going to be curious about the topics that are withdrawn from them. Like we were discussion in class, it’s normal to feel curious about things that you are banned from seeing/doing.
Let us be perfectly reasonable. If there was no First Amendment, many more court cases convicting art and media from all over as responsible for other people's harm would pass in favor of the accusers. Although, with the loops and tricks lawyers can conceive, far too many do instead of investigating the actual issues.
ReplyDeleteCan something be considered be obscene with how gray the concept of "obscenity" is?
Art, particularly fine art, should not be determined in scale of "modesty" by the government. It is something that has a different connotation by default- rather, it should be seen subjectively and not objectively.
Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. The argument of obscenity is also very difficult, and it will continue to be argued about for years to come.
It might seem easier to the public to prosecute production companies, but in actuality, the arguments will be just the same. Even if, for instance, an "offending" tv show is cleared from all blame in a court case, whether or not the First Amendment protects it, the controversy that it caused will likely cause it to plummet in ratings and effectively get it pulled off the air and the prosecutors will win. Validity on the government censoring obscene art varies case-by-case, though. If there just so happens to be tasteful nudity in a form of entertainment that's meaningful, and that gets censored, then sure, that would feel like a violation of rights. But if something has nudity just for the sake of nudity and there's no other message, then that feels like it'd be warranted. However, I think that pornography is a somewhat respectable form of art, but usually a bit simplistic. I wouldn't say that it's dehumanizing unless it's directly exploiting genitals or certain body parts, but I'd say that pornography does have the capacity to be meaningful, although lewd.
ReplyDeleteEvery single person has different opinions and different ideas on what they define as "obscene." The fact is that we live in a society comprised of a multitude of different ideas and viewpoints, and unless we are all isolated from each other and given little worlds that tailor only to our ideals of what is "right" and "wrong," there is no way that we can go through life without being offended at some point in time. The first amendment reminds us that we are in a community, and, although we may not understand someone's opinions and practices, they have the same equal right as ours to be respected. That being said, there also needs to be a responsibility that comes with the right to view whatever we want. Copycats who blame the media after they are caught suggest that they have no control over their actions and are easily swayed, thus acting as a vessel for ideas that may be harmful and destructive. These "vessels" defend themselves through scapegoating when they should be taking responsibility for their own lack of restraint and willpower. The media is not entirely to blame, but perhaps we should teach ways to better process and cope with art or media that can be considered violent and obscene.
ReplyDeleteI feel that pornography is a form of art. Even the reading stated that, "Pornography is a visual art that began with the ancients"(140). Pornography is depicted in, "African art to Greek antiquities, images of erect phalluses abound"(140). The idea of pornography has changed from back then to now.The idea of capturing the perfect lighting, noise, or even the perfect face expression to create a wide variety of people fantasy takes talent and a great imagination to act out what the director or camera person would be envisioning. It may seem a little savage or cruel in some people eyes but, people have to look at, not everyone will have the same opinion about something, especially dealing with things such as the nude form and it dealing with procreation. I also agree that pornography can be a great learning tool for teaching about reproduction and teaching people about dealing with their sexuality or even their issues they may have.
ReplyDeleteI agree that many people see pornography in a number of ways weather that be lewd or educational is for the individual to decide. The fact is that pornographic and sexually charged media has been imbedded into western culture. From sculptures, paintings, photography, literature, to other forms of media it has been present for centuries. I agree with Dianna about how lawyers can and will find loopholes in any and every case so taking the 1st amendment away wouldn't change much. No matter what the definition of obscene is, it will always be subjective. Now there are lines that shouldn't be crossed in my opinion but sometimes lines need to be crossed in order to bring attention to a pressing issue or just to bring light to something in general. I don't think any art should be condemned or censored unless it is something undoubtably visible in the public such as an advertisement/billboard. As far as art shows that are open to the public or what have you I think anything is fair game, and it would be an infringement on any artist if the government decided to censor some of their work that is outside the realm of public art. Basically if you have to go out of your way to see it then i think anything goes. But if it is going to be a public installation there must be some censorship in order to keep it from being offensive to whomever. I wouldn't necessarily consider pornography "art", but then again I also don't consider some fine art that sits in the Chicago Art Museum "art". So this question too is very subjective. Could pornography fall under the umbrella of art, sure. Would I view it/ hold it to the same standard as the works Michelangelo did on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Absolutely not.
ReplyDeleteWhile i don't agree with censorship all the way i think that we need to consciously monitor what media people put out if it can perpetuate ideas that lead to violence,physical and mental. The subject of pornography is so broad that it would impossible to just stick one label on it. If i consider what's degrading as opposed to another person we could end up with two different perspective, its ultimately based on the individual. Do i consider it art, yes and no. It is art in the sense of lighting and the workings of the camera but do i think porn has a message to convey to the viewers other than erotic stimulation, no.
ReplyDelete