Is censorship of art ever justified?

I agree with the general principle. But our 'proud record' isn't a particularly long one. The last big obscenity trial (I think) was only in 1965, William Burrough's Naked Lunch.

The most recent obscenity charges were for this man. Few would want to read his 'literature' but this sort of extremity really pushes people to decide if there's a line and what might cross it. And if it's simply a matter of where the line is drawn, it becomes difficult to criticise other countries just for drawing it in a different place.

chudleighpaul:

In my opinion any government or organisation that censors art, literature or music, entirely lacks self confidence. In this country we have a proud record of non-interference in this leaving the public to make up there own minds what they will view, read and listen to.

Shame other countries lack this confidence and attitude.

Whilst I concur in general terms with your views, we do owe it to ourselves (therefore sections of society) to "self censor", thinking of possible content warnings, inappropriate parenting skills, naivety, etc.

Also there are real issues in other countries, religions, governments as to what constitutes decency/indecency/censorship etc 

So Yes hats off to our tolerance, but let's knock other communities/countries/sects that don't share the same tolerance 

Good thread to start the weekend though!!

 

Edit, should read let's NOT knock other communities etc......................oops 

fayeanddavid:

Also there are real issues in other countries, religions, governments as to what constitutes decency/indecency/censorship etc 

So Yes hats off to our tolerance, but let's [not] knock other communities/countries/sects that don't share the same tolerance 

Good thread to start the weekend though!!

Lol, yeah helluva weekend thread!

I'm afraid I (mostly) disagree with this point. IMO we should be intolerant of intolerance Otherwise, taking it to a logical extreme, you end up saying, 'well it's ok they don't let women / ethnic minorities / anyone vote, it's their culture.' And you end up with a situation where, eg, widespread international violence can be orchestrated over a fundamentally inoffensive (Danish) cartoon.

Far better to be tolerant of everything and avoid what offends you personally than allow different hegemonies to decide their own standards of tolerance.

But I agree certain groups, such as children, obviously need protecting.

Agreed children need protecting, but adults can make up their own minds.. If they go to a film or play and it offends them, then one of the freedoms of this society is that  you can walk out and not see the rest! Not stay for the whole performance and then winge.

My favourite analogy on the subject of freedom; the freedom of speech does not extend to shouting fire, when the is none in a packed cinema, causing panic.

Yep, and it's a good illustration of why the human rights act and ECHR are necessary - you should be free to say what you want, save where that conflicts with the necessary maintaining of law and order. So an individual's right to shout 'fire' is outweighed by the state's right to prevent public disorder (in the form of a panic). It is therefore legitimate to prevent them from doing this by proper procedure of law. And it's that procedure of law which maintains vigilance over the spread of the state, and contrasts the UK from many illiberal, non-'Western' countries.

BenLaw:

Yep, and it's a good illustration of why the human rights act and ECHR are necessary - you should be free to say what you want, save where that conflicts with the necessary maintaining of law and order. So an individual's right to shout 'fire' is outweighed by the state's right to prevent public disorder (in the form of a panic). It is therefore legitimate to prevent them from doing this by proper procedure of law. And it's that procedure of law which maintains vigilance over the spread of the state, and contrasts the UK from many illiberal, non-'Western' countries.

So, playing devil's advocate you would have the world do what.......?

If the law exists in a country/society  that is in conflict with your thoughts then you would contend that they are wrong, and if so, on what basis, the mere thought that we are right??

Surely not! 

There would always be a need to compromise and continually examine where the line is drawn. But we can use examples of the totally tolerable, such as the annual Kintyre Art Show in Campbeltown town hall and the intolerable of shouting fire one night in the packed cinema to find that medium.

What I cant stand are the self important big wigs who seek to ban something because it "might" offend. If people are offended by something it is their right to do something about it.

These self important idiots are all too ready to ban something because it "might" offend a minority, but if that  minority offends the majority these same idiots go very quiet.

fayeanddavid:

So Yes hats off to our tolerance, but let's knock other communities/countries/sects that don't share the same tolerance 

Good thread to start the weekend though!!

Edit, should read let's NOT knock other communities etc......................oops 

Why shouldn't we 'knock' the intolerance of other communities/countries etc? Would you criticise the intolerance of others in our own community/country? If yes, then why not do the same with the intolerance of others in other communities/countries etc? 

Should we not treat everyone equally? 

  

chudleighpaul:

These self important idiots are all too ready to ban something because it "might" offend a minority, but if that  minority offends the majority these same idiots go very quiet.

 

Maybe that is because, for some bizarre reason, 'we' (and not I) feel that it is correct and proper to be so liberal that we ought to tolerate those who are intolerant of us, but ought not to tolerate those of us who are intolerant of those who are intolerant of us. Confused? Me too.

 

chudleighpaul:

These self important idiots are all too ready to ban something because it "might" offend a minority, but if that  minority offends the majority these same idiots go very quiet.

Can you expand on that with a real-world example?  Can you name one of these 'idiots'? I mean an actual name and not a nebulous 'them'. (One will do.) What was banned by said idiot because it offended a minority? Who were the minority? What offense did that minority cause that made 'the idiots' go quiet?

Is this still about art and censorship?

Controversial, but I would never censor it

    

Myra by the artist Marcus Harvey. It caused quite a storm, but controversy creates discussion which causes us to check the boundary between what is acceptable or not.

If we go into specifics, I think the moderators might step in.

fayeanddavid:

So, playing devil's advocate you would have the world do what.......?

If the law exists in a country/society  that is in conflict with your thoughts then you would contend that they are wrong, and if so, on what basis, the mere thought that we are right??

Surely not! 

Two points you make - (1) what would I have the world do? Well I disagree with intervention, because this leads to 'regime change' such as went on in Iraq (with other aims as well, I'm sure). But if other governments subjugate their people (censorship and propaganda tend to be manifestations of this going on) then things ought to be done, such as diplomacy, economic sanctions etc. For example, far more ought to have been done (and still ought to be) in Zimbabwe.

(2) Law in another country conflicting with my / our thoughts. Well, I don't propose that I be thge arbiter of the world's morality (fun as that would be) But different societies develop at different rates and in different areas. Fifty years ago or so, in the USA if you were black you couldn't vote. 100 years ago or so, in the UK if you were a woman you couldn't vote. Just because that was the law doesn't make it right, and that has come to be recognised. I'm entitled to say, and the country as a whole is entitled to say, that if there is a country where you're, say, a Suni rather than a Shia muslim you can't vote, that's wrong and ought to be changed. All that is happening in North Afirica and the Middle East at the moment goes to show that many people are not happy with the regime in which they live.

'On what basis?' Well, across Europe individuals have grievances and take them to court, and if their point is one of broad application then it results in a court considering general standards of law and human rights and eventually ends in changes to the law.

2 topical examples - the Supreme Court has said sex offenders need to have the right to appeal the requirement of notification requirements (signing the 'sex offenders' register') for life. And in Europe, the ECHR has decided that it is a general European principle that prisoners be allowed the right to vote - how each country then implements that is up to them, within the 'margin of appreciation'. I'm not saying I agree with these things, but this is how it works.

Ideally, all countries would sign up to comply with such a court system. And then demonstrably right law and morality eg (universal right to vote) would become widespread, demonstrably wrong behaviour (eg shouting 'fire') could always have laws against it, and behaviour in the middle comes within the 'margin of appreciation'.

Btw I agree with the last posts from Chudleigh Paul and hmtb.