Sunday, August 19, 2012

G+ comment on Moan Lisa Fan Club post

This is from a G+ post that I am commenting on, it would seem that one of the people in my stream is having their "art" censored by G+ stating it is pornography.  I do not know how long this debate will continue, but I thought I would capture some of it here as well.

Interesting as I have yet to be given a definition of pornography.  I note that it always comes with a derogatory connotation  but other than that, what the hell is pornography.

I actually haven't really noticed your art much on the stream, as there is so much nudity, it really doesn't seem to matter much to me.  I can filter it if I want, but I generally just ignore it, unless it is interesting.  With minor exceptions, I do not term it pornography, as I am not able to define that term easily.

I could go into a bunch of limits, evocative pictures depicting children in a sexual manner, would be my limit, I am not of that ilk, but I suppose for some that is their thing, and I am not so innocent to say that I could make that judgement.  I would say that I would take offense to it, but that is me, not someone else.  Again we could go into the whole innocence of the child thing, and that is a question for society to decide, for me, it is not an issue, as I believe in individual choice.  This does mean that I to some degree condone such, but I also condone the right of the child, and for that matter of the child's protectors to prosecute the offender if they are deemed to be in the wrong according to the mores of the society in which they choose to participate in.  As you can see this is a moral dilemma, and not one I myself can debate, lacking most of the moral principals that are needed to enter into such debates.

I do however feel that many people would find any nudity to be considered pornography, even though for them, I believe that they are mostly driven by religious zeal.

I will look into the sites that you mention, and if they seem like art to me, for that is something entirely different.  For I determine that which is art to my eye, and be dammed any that debate that, it is my eye.  If it is art to me, I deem it art, and the subject is immaterial.  So if what you do is art to me, then we are in agreement, and I will support that.  If what you do is not art to me, I will support your position, for it most certainly is art to you, and the nature of our relationship is based on my accepting your opinions as yours, and mine as mine.

To be honest I am not certain what they are censoring, as I do not understand the need for censorship, it seems that one should be able to censor ones own stream, or life for that matter.  If you do not want that don't eat it, should not equate to I can't consume vast quantities of the stuff just because you or someone else thinks it is not good for me.

I am a writer (can you tell) and I sometimes write stories I would not tell to my children, never mind my grandchildren, but that does not mean I am any less compelled to write them, they are the stories I deem necessary to write.  I feel it is not necessary to censor my children, they are all over the age of consent you might say (although I do not consider their maturity, just chronological age :) so I would not prevent them from reading some of my more evocative stories, I certainly would not suggest them, and most certainly would not encourage their children read them, at least with me watching them.

What I am trying to say here, is that for me, and I think for most people (or at least it should be) art is in the eye of the beholder, and so is pornography.  How does a company or entity, or computer know what that is.

Translate