board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Convention: Admin Powers

Post Reply   Page 22 of 24  [ 461 posts ]
Jump to page « 120 21 22 23 24 »
Author Message
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 3:02 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Well I would omit the word distasteful.
As for the rest, I don't know how to word it. Obviously nudity isn't allowed, with the exception of works of art as in Tosh's avatar.
Should we use movie ratings as a guideline? How about;
"No pic should be posted that would warrant an "R" rating in a film."

Here is an interesting article from PBS's Frontline.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The general litmus test for "pornography" seems to be whether it excites the viewer or the reader. But if that's the case, then how does one distinguish between pornography and "erotica" or "obscenity"? Here's a helpful excerpt from Pornography in America: A Reference Handbook by Joseph W. Slade (ABC-Clio, 2000)

Reprinted with permission of the publisher.


"Pornography" (or "porn") usually refers to representations designed to arouse and give sexual pleasure to those who read, see, hear, or handle them. Although sexual stimulation would seem to be a splendid goal, it is not always so regarded in a society still characterized as puritanical. Opponents often avoid dealing with the benefits of arousal in favor of attributing unflattering motives to makers of pornography, whereas producers of pornography themselves may cloud matters by insisting that their materials are educational rather than deliberately stimulating. Because arguments over sexual expression mask issues of politics, religion, gender, race, class and (above all) sexuality, irrelevant claims and assertions are not merely typical but seemingly essential to any discussion of pornography. At times, the confusion seems a deliberate means of demonizing enemies, achieving political advantage, or making a profit.


In a more general sense, the meaning of the term pornographic constantly shifts along a vast continuum moving between two equally slippery concepts, the erotic and the obscene. An erotic representation is usually considered socially acceptable. Associated with upper-class sensibilities, eroticism is primarily esthetic; erotic materials, say many critics, begin by stimulating physical responses, then transcend them, leaving a mildly sexual glow that one can speak of in polite company. Gloria Steinem, among others, claims that the differences between pornographic and erotic are always obvious. Al Goldstein, among others, maintains that such descriptions are biased by gender, class, and factors such as personal preference: "Eroticism," says Goldstein, "is what turns me on. Pornography is what turns you on."

At the other end of the scale are obscene representations, which are considered to be not socially acceptable. In a legal sense, obscenity denotes criminality, and its cultural connotation is lower-class vulgarity. In the United States, obscene material can be prosecuted because of its nastiness, its demeaning "prurience," or its sheer inhumanness. By contrast, pornography is entirely legal. Sexual expression is free to arouse, but only within limits, and those limits, which are set by concepts of obscenity, erode only over time. "I know it when I see it," Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said of obscenity. Because Stewart was virtually blind, his comment illustrates the difficulty of deciding what is obscene rather than pornographic. Stewart's remark is also as close as the American judicial system has come to a definitive statement on the issue. If a representation transgresses against sexual norms (that themselves change), courts may judge it obscene; if it does not push against boundaries, however, it may not arouse. In contrast, when a representation once called obscene becomes so widespread that taboos against it weaken, it moves first into the category of the pornographic, then of the erotic. From the domain of the erotic, the representation (a public kiss, for example) can pass into the realm of the commonplace.

The problem, of course, is that not everyone uses the same measurements. Some Americans believe that sex is a necessary evil, sanctioned only by marriage for purposes of reproduction, and condemn sexual representations under any circumstances. At the other extreme, those who concede that sex can and should be recreational may nonetheless find some types of representation disturbing. A reader comfortable with a sexual scene in a novel, for example, may be repelled by the same scene in a movie or on stage. Others attempt to distinguish between degrees of explicitness -- how much flesh is visible, say, or how vulgar a spoken word, or what kind of sexual act is depicted.

For most Americans, pornography means peep shows, striptease, live sex acts, hardcore videos, adult cable programming, sexual aids and devices, explicit telephone and computer messages, adult magazines, and raunchy fiction. Conservatives might add prime-time television programming, soap operas, Music Television (MTV) and rock music, romance novels, fashion magazines, and all R-rated movies. Conflating sexuality and violence leads some critics to think of sexual representations as inherently aggressive. Others, noticing that most sexual representations contain no violence, condemn only those examples that mix the two. As Walter Kendrick has pointed out, pornography is not a thing but an argument.

To avoid contentiousness, some theorists prefer a neutral term such as sexual materials over the charged word pornography. In any case, only a few things seem clear. First, what seems pornographic to one person will not necessarily seem so to another. Second, pornography is not monolithic: representation occurs in many media, and it adopts many forms and genres. Third, no group, gendered or otherwise, has a monopoly on sexual expression or representation. Fourth, our social, esthetic, political, legal, and economic attitudes toward pornography both affect and draw on complex responses to gender and sexuality. Fifth, pornography, an attempt at communication, conveys a host of messages, many of them contradictory. Some of those messages, in fact, are ancient.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 4:40 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Holby -

Well I would omit the word distasteful.

If it's a big close-up of dog poop with worms coming out, I want us to be able to object to that, too.

Here is an interesting article from PBS's Frontline.

That's an excellent find, Holby!

See ... OK, first of all I'm copying all of that to my hard drive ... second, this is one of the services we can be doing for the board right now through these discussions - collecting materials like that to put in some kind of reference place, so that juries will have access to these kinds of opinions when they have to make decisions.

The admins are not going to be the ones who decide any of this. We're only empowering them to start the arbitration process and take whatever protective measures are needed while it's going on. It is the members themselves who will have to mull over the questions that arise, and having a repository of articles like this so they don't have to hunt everything up themselves - this will be very helpful to them.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 5:24 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Here's another one for your hard drive, Jn, talking about Justice Potter Stewart's famous definition of what is obscene: "I know it when I see it." and subsequent developments in the Court's definition of what is pornography. A bit much, I know, but definitely a good reference item.
Quote:
Movie Day at the Supreme Court or "I Know It When I See It": A History of the Definition of Obscenity


By Judith Silver of Coollawyer.com

What is "obscene" under U.S. law has plagued our courts for the last fifty years. Many people don't realize that in our society, which trumpets free speech, that there are many restrictions on speech, including restrictions on adult or sexual images and words - or "obscene" materials. Other forms of unprotected or regulated speech include: speech which creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action; speech which contains narrowly predefined "fighting words"; written or spoken untruths (libel, slander, fraud) which may be punished by civil suit; speech which is false or deceptive advertising; speech which threatens others; and speech with restrictions justified because the government can demonstrate a "narrowly tailored" "compelling interest".

"Obscene" speech is "unprotected" speech as ruled by the Supreme Court. "Unprotected speech," means speech that does not enjoy First Amendment protection and may even be criminal to express.

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . ut I know it when I see it . . . "[1]

This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is "obscene".

It is surprising that the difficulty in defining obscenity in our history did not fully begin until the mid-1900s. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, who served from 1956 to 1990, who was one of the great, and often liberal, legal minds of the 20th century, attempted repeatedly to define obscenity. The task was much more daunting than he had anticipated.

Background

The book The Brethren[2], by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, outlines the behind-the-scenes battles of the Supreme Court during the 1960's and 1970's and provides an interesting background to the obscenity cases decided during that period. The most important case during that time was Miller v. California, which still defines obscenity today.

The Brethren describes Supreme Court "movie day" – when the law clerks and the Justices sat down to eat popcorn and see the porn films for the cases awaiting decisions. Justice Hugo Black, who served from 1937 to 1971, always refused Movie Day by saying "if I want to go see that film, I should pay my money." Justice Black and Justice William Douglas, who served from 1939 to 1975, at the time were the only two Justices who believed that speech should be entirely free of restrictions.

According to The Brethren, the law clerks that drafted the Justices' opinions created the following short hand for how their bosses decided if material was obscene:

Justice Byron White's Definition: "no erect penises, no intercourse, no oral or anal sodomy. For White, no erections and no insertions equaled no obscenity."

Justice Brennan's Definition, The Limp Dick Test: "no erections. He was willing to accept penetration as long as the pictures passed what his clerks referred to as the 'limp dick' standard. Oral sex was tolerable if there was no erection."

Justice Stewart's Definition, The Casablanca Test: " . . . I know it [obscenity/pornography] when I see it." In Casablanca, as a Navy lieutenant in World War II and watch officer for his ship, Stewart had seen his men bring back locally produced pornography. He knew the difference between that hardest of hard core and much of what came to the Court. He called it his 'Casablanca Test'."


These were the opinions of the more liberal Justices.

The First Definition

In 1957, Brennan crafted the first Supreme Court legal definition of obscenity in the case of Roth v. United States. Although indirectly addressed in the law to this point, Roth's formal legal holding on pornography was a case of first impression for the US Supreme Court. Brennan held that the First Amendment did not protect obscene materials.

The definition of obscenity set forth in Roth was:

Speech which " . . . to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest" and which is "utterly without redeeming social importance..."
By 1964, lower courts had misapplied the Roth standard resulting in many cases for Court review. Thus, the Court tried to clarify this standard by adding another requirement for obscenity in later opinions – that the material goes "substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation." The Court also clarified that the "community" referred to in the definition was as the national, not local, community. This clarification resulted in a more liberal definition of obscenity going forward.

The Second and Current Definition

The tide turned more conservatively on free speech and sex when two liberal elements – Chief Justice Earl Warren, an Eisenhower appointee, resigned in 1969 and Black, a Roosevelt appointee, resigned in 1971. President Nixon appointed two replacements, Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice William Rehnquist, along with two other appointees Justice Harry Blackmum and Justice Lewis Powell. With the arrival of Rehnquist and Burger, the Court opinions on obscenity became more conservative.

In the summer of 1973, the Court decided a group of pornography/obscenity cases that set the standards for the future of pornography. In his Dissent in one of these cases, Justice Brennan wearily admitted:

"Our experience since Roth requires us not only to abandon the effort to pick out obscene materials on a case-by-case basis, but also to reconsider a fundamental postulate of Roth: that there exists a definable class of sexually oriented expression that may be suppressed by the Federal and State Governments. Assuming that such a class of expression does in fact exist, I am forced to conclude that the concept of 'obscenity' cannot be defined with sufficient specificity and clarity to provide fair notice to persons who create and distribute sexually oriented materials, to prevent substantial erosion of protected speech as a byproduct of the attempt to suppress unprotected speech, and to avoid very costly institutional harms."[3]
Unfortunately, this realization came too late and without support from the majority of the Court.

Thus, in 1973, in Miller v. California, Justice Burger announced the second definition of obscenity - the majority position of the Court, and the definition, which, more or less, is still in effect today. It is as follows:

"(a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
This holding specifically replaced the old test and also held that community standards could be local rather than national. This change swung the pendulum back toward a more conservative definition of "obscenity" by local, some times rural communities.

As many had complained that these rulings were so vague that they were impossible to comply by those trying to obey the law, the Court set forth examples of what was "hard core", or that which the Court considered obscene and illegal. The Court's list of illegal acts was as follows:

"(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.

(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals."[4]
Clarifications and Today's Definition

Since Miller, the Court has clarified and explained aspects of the Miller standard:

Jurors are to apply the standards of the area "from which he comes for making the required " decision as the "community standards" for obscenity; [5]

"[A]ppeals to the prurient interest" means that which appeals to "shameful or morbid interests" in sex, but not that which incites normal lust [6] and includes materials designed for and primarily disseminated to a deviant sexual group (for example, sadists) which appeals to the prurient interests of that group; [7]

"[A]verage person " includes both sensitive and insensitive adult persons, but does not include children; [8]

Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does not preclude a finding that a work is obscene.[9]
Additionally the Court has created a sort of middle category of materials – "indecent" materials that are protected speech. Indecent materials are defined as those which show "nonconformance with accepted standards of morality."[10] After reviewing the above, most persons, including lawyers, remain confused about what is and is not legally permissible.

The Definition of Child Pornography

In New York v. Ferber in 1982, the Court held that "the States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children" because:

"It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in 'safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is 'compelling'" and therefore that narrowly tailored government interests may restrict such speech as stated in the initial definitions of restricted speech above.

"The distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children in at least two ways. First the materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Second, the distribution network for child pornography must be closed if the production of material which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be effectively controlled."

"The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal through the Nation."

"The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis."

"Recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the protection of the First Amendment is not incompatible with our earlier decisions"
The Court then declared a more conservative Miller standard applicable for child pornography:

"A trier of fact need not find that the material appeals to the prurient interest of the average person; it is not required that sexual conduct portrayed be done so in a patently offensive manner; and the material at issue need not be considered as a whole."
Conclusion

What persons in the sex industry typically fail to understand is how conservative the legal standards for pornography are and how vulnerable to prosecution they truly are due to these vagaries. One reading of the personal obscenity tests of the liberal justices of the past makes that clear.

What the Miller test outlines is the outer most limits on banning sexual speech. Thus, nearly all legislation at the both state and federal level, simply copies the Miller test into its language since substitution of even a single word can result in the law being held unconstitutional. The result is that application of the Miller test – what "prurient", "patently offensive", or having "social, artistic or scientific value" is, and what the local standard are for such decisions - rests squarely in the hands of the juries of each state. In the end, the Court concluded that this decision was one that must be made by each state, not the Supreme Court.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES

1 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964)

2 The Brethren, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, (Simon & Schuster, 1979), p. 193-200.

3 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 103 (1973)

4 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973)

5 Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 105 (1974)

6 Brockett v. Spokan Arcades Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (1985)

7 Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966)

8 Pinkus v. United States, 436 U.S. 293, 298-299 (1978)

9 Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987)

10 FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726, 741 (1978)


http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 5:30 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Got it, V! Thank you.


Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 6:18 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Excellent references on both accounts (though I must admit I only skimmed them... forever hiding from the family on weekends :oops: ;) and speed-reading) but I'm fully with Jny NOT to alter the language of that paragraph. The jury can hash that out on a case-by-case basis if it really comes to it.

Holby and V: could you also give us url refs where that stuff is (in addition to having it in text, which of course is fab!)

Jny: :) yep! That the RP 'maximum sentence' stuff and possible limits for 3 restrictions will have to come up under member rights too and judicial discussion.
_______________
Resident witch [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 6:35 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Jn: If it's a big close-up of dog poop with worms coming out, I want us to be able to object to that, too.

Indeed.

I want to even be able to object to people writing the phrase, "big close-up of dog poop with worms coming out". ;)

Seriously, I agree that the paragraph should not be altered. We have to trust human judgement at some point.


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 7:29 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ition.html

That is the link to the text I copied to this thread.

If you guys want to leave that paragraph as is, fine.
It isn't a huge deal, I just thought it a bit subjective.
If we are going to let whomever decide on a case by case basis, then perhaps that blurb should be added.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 7:38 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Holby,

I don't want to object to what appears to be a simple suggestion, but what this means essentially is saying after every admin action that goes to a jury we have to add that the admins don't get to make the decision for the jury, which is obvious and unnecessary to say.

We're already getting bogged down in a lot of detail that can easily do more harm than good. For example, if I put that phrase here and ony here, then people will say it implies that in other cases the admins *can* dictate to the jury, and that's not the case nor our intention.

I'm trying to be as careful as I can to keep ideas with the topic where they belong.

In the jury room, where the stickies show the procedure that members had approved prior to the convention, it says clearly that if an arbitration involves an admin, no admin can be on the jury. So all these cases that are initiated by admins are automatically out of their hands once the arbitration begins. We don't need to add that constraint to every sentence in the article on admins, and if we add it to one, it will looks as if it does not apply to the others.

I hope that makes sense to you.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 7:42 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Speaking just for me, when I read that paragraph, I have no real definition of what I can use as a pic and what I can't. Other than my own tastes and levels of conduct of course.
What is really being said by that paragraph?

Again this isn't a big deal, so we can just move along.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 8:28 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Well, the assumption is that your sig pic is OK unless some member finds it offensive and asks it be removed. Then you can talk to them about it, or decide to be chivalrous and remove it voluntarily, or you can say the member is full of nonsense and ask that it be arbitrated.

At that point an admin could remove the pic until the arbitration is over, but if it's just a beautiful woman showing some cleavage, as most of your pics are :) given the culture of this board the chances are zilch that you're going to have to remove it permanently.

I haven't seen any offensive sig pics since I've been here, but when we open to the public we might get some wacko stuff.

The wording does not prohibit an admin from stepping in and asking you to remove a pic that is very likely to anger a bunch of people - like, um, naked live genitalia, male or female - but you can even argue about that if you want to in an arbitration.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Apr , 2005 9:04 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
What is the meaning of zilch?

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Apr , 2005 12:24 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Nin.

Zilch is zero. :D

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Apr , 2005 1:50 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Viv, look at my post again. The url has been there all along.

Holby, some many things in life are subjective. There is no way that we are going to be able to eliminate subjective judgments from the process.

As for what is appropriate or what is not, in my mind the standard should not be what I consider offensive, or what you consider offensive, but rather what the b77 community as a whole finds offensive. I'm not saying that that is going to be easy to determine (it won't be) but it should be the job of the admin/juror/shiriff/mayor to try to make that judgment. In other words, if I were judging whether a sig pic was inappropriate, I would attempt to determine not whether I find it offensive but whether the community as a whole finds it offensive.

And I'm sure that now I have hopelessly confused things more then ever. :P


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Apr , 2005 2:03 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Hah, finally caught up! :D ;)

No big objections so far - but, like Alandriel, I've only skimmed the long legal texts posted here. :oops:
What I could glean from skimming though (can you "glean from skimming" or is that a mixed metaphor? ;) ) - is that we'd have a hard time finding a middle way between all those vague definitions, and that if we want to be safe by those definitions, we'd best adopt TORC-rules, because what I saw described left really only that.
(For example that strange idea that if is excites you, it's pornography? I'd have said the other way round, if it excites me, it's erotic - I know it's pornography if it turns me off. :scratch )


Jny, thanks for your comments on my earlier post - I think I still have trouble understanding the things about asking for a hearing, I'm afraid - I'll just have to read that carefully once more, and if I don't get it, I'll ask again tomorrow. :)

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Apr , 2005 2:46 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
TH said: can you "glean from skimming" or is that a mixed metaphor

Hey, wow, you're right. I never think of those words as they're commonly used as metaphors, but of course they are, and that is indeed a mixed metaphor. That's really interesting. At least to me.


Voronwe said: As for what is appropriate or what is not, in my mind the standard should not be what I consider offensive, or what you consider offensive, but rather what the b77 community as a whole finds offensive.

You know, I'm not thrilled with that standard, but given the mostly reasonable and open-minded people in this community, and the impossibililty of coming to a objective definition that isn't a thousand pages long, this is the best we're going to get.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Apr , 2005 2:50 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
hobby, I didn't necessarily expect anyone to read through that schlock. Nor do I necessarily mean to suggest that we should follow the lead of the U.S. courts. But I do think their approach can help be illuminating.

I think it may be helpful if summarize exactly what that approach currently is, rather then making people read through that long, extensive legalize. For something to be legally regulated as obscene it needs to meet three criteria:

1) the average person in the community would believe that the material appeals to "shameful or morbid interests" in sex, but not that which incites normal lust

2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and

3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

There is certainly a lot of things that would be immune from regulation under this test that would not pass the TORC TOS, as it is applied. Indeed, there probably would be things that would be immune from regulation under this test that we would not consider appropriate for this cite. For instance Japanese Shunga and other erotic art would certainly not pass the third test, since they definitely have artistic value. So they would be immune from regulation despite the fact that they portray very explicit sex acts. I'm not sure whether we would consider such a thing appropriate here (outside of Thinking of England) or not.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Apr , 2005 2:57 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I think largely not (and I have seen what you're talking about). Though they don't distress me when I see them where children can't, they would distress me if shown in a public place, and a message board is a public place. Also, we have members who would be distressed for their own sakes. All in all, if we're going to have a culture of mutual respect, that includes putting the occasional limit on our own fun.

Sig pics do need much more care in applying standards than words. An image seen for a second or two can be remembered in nightmares for a lifetime. Words don't have that power (and are more easily avoided).

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Apr , 2005 3:00 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
TH: I did edit that sentence in the third post to make all three conditions required. Read that rather than my explanation in the text, and check if it is clear enough

Faramond: that isn't a thousand pages long

This is the operative clause, imo. :)

Voronwe: I've added your summary to the top of all that text in my HD file.

Jn

edit: Prim, we cross posted. Yes, I remember that a young poster on TORC complained that Daefaroth's sig pic gave her nightmares. I was very surprised that TPTB did not agree to remove it.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Apr , 2005 3:18 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Prim, that would be my opinion as well, for the same reasons. Just to check how different our subjective opinions are, is there anyone here that has a different opinion on the question of whether explicitly erotic art that clearly does have artistic value should be allowed in sig pics?


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Apr , 2005 3:41 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I have the same opinion - fine in England but not on the rest of the board if we have young posters.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 22 of 24  [ 461 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 120 21 22 23 24 »
Jump to: