On February 21 2012 01:46 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 21:16 MiraMax wrote:
To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist.
An accusation of lazy thinking, which you follow up with a most contrived argument that is build almost entirely on a scenario akin to a ticking-time bomb scenario (aka so far removed from reality that it never occurs, a cheap shot tactic at best).
But you seem to attack freedom of speech, democracy and the freedom of the arts. I should be embarassed if I don't refute such totalitarian ideals.
Show nested quote +You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom!?
Nobody spoke of absolute freedom, this is something you have conjured up entirely on your own. You may go back and re-read what I said, never do I claim that absolute freedom is a good idea. Please refrain from argueing against points that I never even mention supporting. Stick purely to what I actually say, do not conjure up things that you 'perceive' in between the lines.
In this case, your art would be the product of a crime, the creation of child porn. You cannot violate a law in order to create a work of art.
For example, you cannot slit a persons throat and film it, because then you have committed murder. Publishing the art after the fact is also not permitted, even if done by a third party. You cannot profit directly off your own crimes. Third parties cannot release the creation because it was not created with consent of the people in question.
Your complaint could be valid in a situation where absolute freedom is present or advocated, but neither is the case. Your argument is build on sand.
Show nested quote +Art is a form of communication and as every communication it happens in a context. Communication can be harmful. It is not at all clear that every form of communication should be allowed in any context. Instead there are good grounds to forbid certain forms of communications with regard to the content and/or the context, especially if it threatens to harm another public or private good. So the question is: Do certain interest groups have a right to "monopolize" the use of particular symbols and/or ceremonies or at least control the context of their display given that these have a very large significance for said group?
"Harm another public or private good," again, you speak in totalitarian terms. One vague law and an entire foundation of freedom is obliterated.
What if a muslim considers his private good to be harmed by women complaining about the veil?
What if a homosexual considers his private good to be harmed by his inability to marry?
Eventually you need to pick sides on this. Where do you come down? Do you side with muslims? Do you side with women? Who do you silence, who needs to suck it up?
It is impossible to create a society in which nobody is offended. To suggest that offense is a proper way to judge the course that needs to be taken is simply put, insanity.
Like I said before, gay marriage, do you offend the religious? Do you offend the gays? Which sides emotions are more important? Why do I, as a supporter of gay rights, have to be offended, whilst muslims and christians get to have their feelings protected?
Why can't we have a proper discussion, the market place of ideas, and come to a conclusion what is best, what is most moral, what is the right course of action?
Why do you feel the need to storm in and dictate, in totalitarian fashion, that one group needs to keep their opinion to themselves, whilst another is allowed freedom of speech?
You are either against democracy, or you are not fully aware of the full extent of creating laws that protect people from being offended. To create laws that prevent people (to be more accurate, certain groups) from being offended means to abolish democracy and freedom of speech. It is utterly impossible to maintain either of those if you start to create laws that are based on preventing offense.
It might be totalitarianism with a smilly face, but it is totalitarianism no less.
Show nested quote +You can certainly take a strong stance on this issue, but it is a meaningful discussion to have.
Who said that there can be no discussion? Once again, please refrain from argueing against the imaginary persona that you have created around me. Stick to things I actually say. It will prevent a great deal of confusion.
I have argued that discussion should be the norm. You have argued that certain discussions (or discussion starters, like this art display) need to be silenced because they cause offense. I will not permit you to wear the cloak of freedom and democracy whilst you attempt to stab both in the heart.