Interesting Gulf War News

[Patty]

The use of children in pornography, even in art, is illegal.

That's not true anymore. That act was tossed out last April, and it was not law while the Mike Diana case was going down. Art is now protected again while actual photographic depictions are not.

 

[frogboy4]

I can see this as being a very fine line. One that should have been debated in court. I don't think the artist should have been jailed or prevented from drawing. However, I think it's fair for the court to demand he not draw images that depicted child pornography. When an artist walks that line, they have very few people on their side - and they should know that. America doesn't tolerate such treatment of children. This case is vastly different than the one Kevin mentioned. Yes, it was wrong to jail the guy, but this entirely different! This wasn't about the courts not liking the artist's views, it was about protecting children. I haven't seen the work, but from what I hear, there was definitely cause for debate at the very least.

 

[Patty]

Well, just because I'm home with an impacted wisdom tooth, I dragged up a book that reprinted the comic that was used in the trial. It depicts a giant grasshopper maiming a boy ... it's actually not sexual. Oh, it's gross ... nothing I'd buy.

I know when he got in trouble the second time, it was for drawing a comic more graphic than this ... and that was a story in which he discussed his own run-in with child abuse ... as a child. A story he did not publish ... it was seized.

"Protecting" people from "obscene" ink splattered on a piece of paper is really not a whole lot different than protecting people from "political" ink splattered on paper. Because ink splattered on paper hasn't hurt or killed anyone to date.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

"I'm fuzzy on the whole good-bad thing."

In the first place, I must argue against the use of depicting children in any pornographic form. The reason? It might give people the idea to follow through with it.

Then again, I've not recently found myself pushing a coyote off a cliff, or dropping an anvil on a duck's head, either.

I can't say that people don't have the right to publish that if that's what they desire, because I don't have to purchase or view that information.

However, did he publish his own works, or did he go through the publisher, in which case if he had a publisher shouldn't they also be punished? I would think so.

I'm just really torn about this case. Though, it seems, nothing sexual was done, but the maiming of the child character, and Hollywood has done worse than that.

Like Froggie says, the line's just too thin to tread. I'd have steered clear of that myself, and just wrote an autobiography instead.

 

[frogboy4]

It's still a cause for debate. That's what we do in this country. Jailing the cartoonist was wrong, but discussing this issue in court is the American way. (<---bald eagle LOL!)

 

[Fozzie Bear]

<----Bald, er-um...Kevin?

 

[Patty]

I agree with your last statement, Frogboy. Talking about this stuff is what's important. The real reason I brought this up was simply to remind folks that free speech is an ongoing battle even here. We're still defining its boundaries ourselves, and sometimes people get a little nutty or too zealous with their own tastes vs. values.

Although I admit, I wouldn't want any grasshoppers to glean lewd, violent ideas from a comic book and then act on those ideas. (shudder)

Actually, since I'm inspired, here's a very good list of all of the "high profile" cartoonist/comic book cases since the 1950's (there's a mildly violent black and white drawing by Diana on that page -- just a warning):

http://www.awn.com/mag/issue2.4/awm2.4pages/2.4alstonlegal.html

Diana himself claimed his cartoons were political statements, by the way.

Like I said, I've seen the comics, and they're not my taste at all -- not stylistically and not in respect to the subject matter. But no one should go to jail for this kind of stuff, nor should their lives be ruined on account of art alone.

 

[frogboy4]

With comics on the web, I believe this will become less and less of an issue. I certainly don't think someone's life should be ruined over a comic. That's crazy. But art is always under scrutiny, and I think that's a healthy thing. It creates a dialogue, a communication of ideas and thoughts. That is what art is supposed to do. Some can take that too far and that’s a shame. Thanks for sharing the link.

 

[Mark Filton]

I thought lawsuits are the American way

Kidding

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Originally posted by Mark Filton
I thought lawsuits are the American way

Sometimes I think you're not too far off the mark on that one!

Speaking of art being scrutinized, I'm totally surprised that Mapplethorpe ever lasted as long as he did. I wonder how he kept his photos (you know the ones I'm talking about) considered as "art" instead of "porn."