Michelangelo's David: Art, or Pornography?

Post Reply New Topic

Internal censorship in an organization or website (or, for that matter, self-censorship) is acceptable, but what's wrong is when it's made law. When for example you can't say certain words on your own television network without having to pay a fine, as it is in for example the United States. Or when certain video games are banned for imaginary violence, as it is in for example Australia. When a government works to impede freedom of expression, that is simply unacceptable.

In Australia video games were not 'banned'. Some games were submitted for regulation and the agency refused to classify. The regulations did not have a category for that level of violence in video games. It was primarily a failure of regulation. We have certain ratings; in the case of video games the highest restriction is MA15, in the case of movies it is R18. Even with a new R18 rating on video games; some things will still be refused classification.

Items that are RC are not illegal. It is perfectly acceptable to view RC material in your home. RC materiel cannot be sold in places like a newsagent nor it is allowed to be broadcast in public. The Australian Government does 'ban' things (like sex abuse materiel) but not by refusing them classification.

I stand corrected. Still, I would argue that it is wrong that RC material is restricted from sale and broadcast in such a manner. The spreading of art should not be impeded by legislation unless there is real exploitation involved.

What you guys need is the First Amendment.

Whatever else is wrong with the U.S.A. the First Amendment is our crowning glory.

ruveyn

I live in Sweden, where we have no official censorship, and one of the best examples of freedom of speech/press in the world.
You, the USA, have the first amendment, which is great, but you also have the FCC, who like to pretend they own copyright on certain words and themes. Which as far as I can see is in direct violation of the First Amendment of your constitution. Perhaps something you should be protesting against if you truly care about that first amendment of yours. I sure would.

to be fair freedom of speech is not uncommon in western constitutions, i think it started in the french revolution,
many countries break it, denmark has internet censorship (piratebay, allofmp3)
in sweden there is a law making email and internet surveilance legal without a warrant in certain cases, look up the piratebay cases from around your last election.

We have an implied right to freedom of speech and communication with regards to politics and government. Our Constitution does not contain a bill of rights in the sense that your's does but it does allow for freedom of political action and an absolute freedom of religion. So in effect we do have a first amendment with regards to government but we still have libel and slander laws with regards to each other.

Implied. That is the problem. Your liberty to speak and write rests on convention and custom, not clearly written Law.

ruveyn

Implied as in it is in our constitution but is not specifically mentioned. It is neither convention nor custom; it is law. In every case where it has been an issue, the high court has upheld this view.

A good case was the attempt to ban the communist party. The high court ruled that the federal government had no grounds for infringing on free speech with regards to political activity. The government attempted to change the constitution so as to allow them to ban the communist party; the Australian people overwhelmingly rejected the proposition.

Are your judges bound to stare decisis by force if necessary. You depend on the good will of your judges much more than we do.

I like having the First Amendment written down clearly. If the U.S. government wishes to fiddle it they have to do it openly, plainly and publicly.

ruveyn

she'll be right, mate

A literature professor once told me that the only necessary element to produce a scenario where a person is reading pornography is a pornographic reader. All other elements are interchangeable.

However, a wise man once told me that the way you know if something is pornographic is if it's for whackin'.

Given that he's 17' tall, it probably is 13 inches.

And rock hard.

Pornography is all about sex & the state of arousal. The statue of David is not about sex...naked yes, but there is a difference. I have viewed the statue in person....he was also not meant to be seen on a pedestal in a museum, placed so low. Previously, he was in a niche up high, where the flat area of the stone on his head wouldn't be noticed by viewers far below on the Plaza. Michaelangelo designed him specifically for that placement. It's also why his hands are so large in comparison to the statue's proportions.

I say it's art. I really don't like art with naked people (especially nude women), but I do have a few exceptions & all of those are the art masters during the renaissance. I just don't find human nakedness to be all that attractive, thin or a robust body matters not to me. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure that most would disagree. Btw, Michaelangelo didn't paint or carve all his subjects naked. He wasn't particularly well informed about women's anatomy as his nude female figures for the Medici's tomb have breasts that are rather oddly shaped.

The Birth of Venus: also in Florence Italy
Some of Titian's paintings
Da Vinci did some amazing stuff, as did Rafael.

Wow...