The artistic dimension
Manniq, 06 Sep 2005 18:50:20
I have just added a link to the links section - but add it again here for ease of access.
http://cgi.writersguild.force9.co.uk/News/index.php?ArtID=156
The Writers' Guild have decided, as a result of the religious discrimination laws, that censorship is back on the agenda. They are going to be active, as are Equity and others in the arts.
Why is this important? Because I do not believe for a moment that the government will be able to hold the line between realistic depictions that are pornographic in nature and intent....and realistic depictions that are artistic in origin.
Why? Because where you are talking Obscene PUBLICATION, this distinction is just possible taking a work as a whole and looking at the artistic intention. But when you are talking images?
Look at films in your local Blockbuster. My guess is that if the government allow this line to stand, they will look very silly when people point out to them a whole range of 'realistic depictions' of rape, etc. that are wholly legal because they originate in Hollywood.
If there is a case for this law because of the 'leads to harm' angle, then eventually the government must censor film as well. Either that or admit the lth argument is tosh.
A difficult choice for them - but means a potential world of additional allies for us.
Regards,
M
Graham Marsden, 06 Sep 2005 19:02:14
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> Look at films in your local Blockbuster. My guess is that if the
> government allow this line to stand, they will look very silly when
> people point out to them a whole range of 'realistic depictions' of
> rape, etc. that are wholly legal because they originate in Hollywood.
>
> If there is a case for this law because of the 'leads to harm' angle,
> then eventually the government must censor film as well. Either that
> or admit the lth argument is tosh.
The thing is, this is already covered in the OPA and implemented by the
BBFC which basically says it's ok provided it not gratuitous and it's
not showing someone (apparently) enjoying being raped.
SnowdropExplodes, 06 Sep 2005 19:25:35
--- graham wrote:
> manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Look at films in your local Blockbuster. My guess
> is that if the
> > government allow this line to stand, they will
> look very silly when
> > people point out to them a whole range of
> 'realistic depictions' of
> > rape, etc. that are wholly legal because they
> originate in Hollywood.
> >
> > If there is a case for this law because of the
> 'leads to harm' angle,
> > then eventually the government must censor film
> as well. Either that
> > or admit the lth argument is tosh.
>
> The thing is, this is already covered in the OPA and
> implemented by the
> BBFC which basically says it's ok provided it not
> gratuitous and it's
> not showing someone (apparently) enjoying being
> raped.
This is true.
However, Manniq's theory about creating narratives for
the public is a sound one in this case.
Some people might have clips from Hollywood movies
that are taken out of context, showing scenes from
crime thrillers etc that could then be regarded as
"extreme" pornographic in intent.
First thing to note is the "evidence of harm" issue is
rejected in the consultation paper; however, it is
still a strong plank in the Government's propaganda
presentation for public consumption. What we can say
very clearly is that "There is no evidence for harm,
look, even the Govt. admits it - but if there is
evidence of harm, then they must also stop people
watching slasher movies, crime thrillers etc. for the
the same reason."
What I wonder about is if a person who kept loads of
videoed clips of news stories featuring rape, sexual
murder etc. as material to fuel fantasies, would also
be prosecuted. Suppose then you have an academic
working on a paper or book about the way in which the
reporting of sex crimes has changed - they could be
vulnerable at least during the first stages of their
research.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Manniq, 06 Sep 2005 21:00:24
Author wrote:
> --- graham wrote:
> > manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Look at films in your local Blockbuster. My guess
> > is that if the
> > > government allow this line to stand, they will
> > look very silly when
> > > people point out to them a whole range of
> > 'realistic depictions' of
> > > rape, etc. that are wholly legal because they
> > originate in Hollywood.
> > >
> > > If there is a case for this law because of the
> > 'leads to harm' angle,
> > > then eventually the government must censor film
> > as well. Either that
> > > or admit the lth argument is tosh.
> >
> > The thing is, this is already covered in the OPA and
> > implemented by the
> > BBFC which basically says it's ok provided it not
> > gratuitous and it's
> > not showing someone (apparently) enjoying being
> > raped.
> This is true.
> However, Manniq's theory about creating narratives for
> the public is a sound one in this case.
Thank you for that.
Though I still think the soundest objection is that if they DID believe the leads to harm propaganda, they would stop us watching Hollywood stuff. My sub has a penchant for 'nasty' films. Recently watched 'Saw' (Yuk!): watches things like 'Monster' (double Yuk!) and many others which include scenes that, as stills, would be indistinguishable from some of what they want banned.
OK. One difference. Much of it looks far MORE realistic!
I take on board all that you say about the government not actually claiming that this is for Jane Longhurst...noit claiming that this will stop harm.... but you could do worse than do a google on Paul Goggins and look at the interviews he has been giving and where.
Loads of respectable/quasi-religious places....and lots of comment in the pieces that link this to Jane Longhurst. Ah, you might argue - Mr Goggins hasn't actually said this.
But if he really wished to stop the link being made, he would have a lot more to say to actively break that link.
Conclusion. The paper says one thing. The narrative that the government is living is quite another.
Regards,
M
Manniq, 06 Sep 2005 21:03:23
Author wrote:
> manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Look at films in your local Blockbuster. My guess is that if the
> > government allow this line to stand, they will look very silly when
> > people point out to them a whole range of 'realistic depictions' of
> > rape, etc. that are wholly legal because they originate in Hollywood.
> >
> > If there is a case for this law because of the 'leads to harm' angle,
> > then eventually the government must censor film as well. Either that
> > or admit the lth argument is tosh.
> The thing is, this is already covered in the OPA and implemented by the
> BBFC which basically says it's ok provided it not gratuitous and it's
> not showing someone (apparently) enjoying being raped.
With respect, no. Both the places you quote are about regulating the distribution or publishing of material.
As I say many times over (if not here), the ground rules for possession cannot be the same as for publication and distribution. This may not be apparent to the government now - but it will be as soon as they start to try and legislate.
Regards,
M