Conservative-friendly PCness and censorship

[aelf]

'Mythical' swan photo taken down after 'bestiality' fears

The Scream gallery in Mayfair had exhibited the artwork for a month with no complaints from the public. The work is intended as modern depiction of the Greek myth of Leda and the Swan.

But a Metropolitan police officer who saw the Derrick Santini image from a bus was alarmed.

...

“They said the photograph suggested we condoned bestiality, which was an arrestable offence,” she said.

“It’s crazy. Perhaps the cultural references were lost on them.”

...

“They stood there and didn’t leave until we took the piece down.”

...

“They said they didn’t know anything about the myth,” she said. “They asked if we had had any complaints and we said quite the contrary. Lots of people were intrigued by it."

Source

Conservatives like to talk about freedom and free speech, especially when they want to condemn minorities for their sinful ways. But there are certain kinds of censorship and PCness that they like to engage in themselves. This may be one such example, but I'm sure you know plenty others, like censorship and banning of video games, films, TV, music. So apparently some hate speech or borderline hate speech is covered by free speech, but God forbid there are 'sinful' influences in society.

So, is their stance on free speech often just wildly inconsistent or am I missing something?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What barbarians. (no sarcasm)

Do those morons also conclude that Christians condone crucifixion? Gott in himmel.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Source

Conservatives like to talk about freedom and free speech, especially when they want to condemn minorities for their sinful ways. But there are certain kinds of censorship and PCness that they like to engage in themselves. This may be one such example, but I'm sure you know plenty others, like censorship and banning of video games, films, TV, music. So apparently some hate speech or borderline hate speech is covered by free speech, but God forbid there are 'sinful' influences in society.

So, is their stance on free speech often just wildly inconsistent or am I missing something?

Sometimes, but liberals are just as guilty in that regard.

ALL speech should be protected. Period. No qualifiers.

 

[aelf]

Sometimes, but liberals are just as guilty in that regard.

ALL speech should be protected. Period. No qualifiers.

To be fair, I have no idea whether the policemen in the article are conservatives or 'liberals', but you need to look no further than to people like Rick Santorum to find conservatives who support censorship on some things other than the most egregiously offensive. Maybe they don't have a typical conservative view on free speech, though?

Would you be okay with the display of art depicting homosexual acts in galleries accessible to the public? How about the prevalence of depictions of homosexual 'lifestyles' on late night television?

 

[BvBPL]

For those that are interested, here's link to the exhibit.

This Brits are just beginners compared with the states. This is nothing compared with John Ashcroft covering the Spirit of Liberty with curtains.

Would you be okay with the display of art depicting homosexual acts in galleries accessible to the public?

I wonder if it is reasonable to have a different standard for art galleries and for museums.

ALL speech should be protected. Period. No qualifiers.

That's not how things are done in England.

 

[Antilogic]

That's not how things are done in England.

That's not how things are done in America, or in any other first-world nation as far as I know, period.

 

[GhostWriter16]

To be fair, I have no idea whether the policemen in the article are conservatives or 'liberals'

Its both. Conservatives tend to want to censor swearwords and whatnot (I should point out, however, that porn isn't really "Speech" I don't want to ban it but its ridiculous to claim "Free speech" in that case) and for moral reasons, liberals want to censor hate speech, which is still a moral reason but a different sort. Some people in both groups don't want to censor any of it. I'm one of them.

but you need to look no further than to people like Rick Santorum to find conservatives who support censorship on some things other than the most egregiously offensive. Maybe they don't have a typical conservative view on free speech, though?

Not sure what Santorum's view is..

Would you be okay with the display of art depicting homosexual acts in galleries accessible to the public? How about the prevalence of depictions of homosexual 'lifestyles' on late night television?

As long as its not being sponsored or paid for by the government, I think it is within the realm of free speech. I don't want to say I'm "OK" with it because I do think it has a negative influence on society. I just don't want to see it banned, especially realizing the whole "Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech, popular speech, by definition, needs no protection" and the reality that some of the things I have to say are unpopular, and I want the freedom to say them. "Do unto others."

Although I wouldn't necessarily say Art = speech either, by taking that type of view on speech to the extreme, terrorism is technically a form of speech.

 

[Formaldehyde]

She's not even wearing knickers in public. Isn't that against the law as well?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I wonder if it is reasonable to have a different standard for art galleries and museums.

I would think so . I don't think it's unreasonable for displays on buses, billboards , free to air TV etc to be required to meet some kind standard in line with "public decency" . What's the standard ? Leave it to the judge .

But if it's a movie , gallery , cable TV show etc whereby really the choice is yours whether to enter or not , everything should be fair game.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I get why they would find it tasteless, and they do have the right to protest by their rights, but the piece is not illegal.

Although it is a bit tacky for them to just stand their like a hippie tied to a sequoia.

 

[Traitorfish]

If I understand GhostWriter correctly, the state has no right to censor any sort of "speech", but it does have the retain to decide what does and does not constitute "speech" in the first place. So it can, in effect, still ban whatever it likes, it just has to make it clear that what it's banning is not "speech".

 

[aelf]

Although I wouldn't necessarily say Art = speech either, by taking that type of view on speech to the extreme, terrorism is technically a form of speech.

So what constitutes speech, then? Only the spoken and written words? How about placards? Are they okay as long as they have no pictures on them? Pictures aren't covered by free speech? How about hand signals and physical movements?

Also, terrorism isn't condoned because it, um, causes tangible and obvious harm to other people.

 

[Crezth]

So what constitutes speech, then? Only the spoken and written words? How about placards? Are they okay as long as they have no pictures on them? Pictures aren't covered by free speech? How about hand signals and physical movements?

also actions? Can I burn flags?

 

[Traitorfish]

Or putting gnomes everywhere?

 

[Leoreth]

Also, terrorism isn't condoned because it, um, causes tangible and obvious harm to other people.

But if terrorism was speech, we would have to suffer its harmful consequences, because liberty.

 

[attackfighter]

Conservative/liberal dichotomy is pointless anyways. All it is is people adopting nebulous identities and then carrying out whatever inane actions they think they have to waste their time with. This is true for all sides of the political spectrum. If only we had a king to save us from our own banality...

 

[Traitorfish]

It's silly to present them as dichotomous, but it's reasonable enough to observe that they are the two primary political frameworks in contemporary Western society. It's only in the US that people actually get excited about identifying as one or the other.

 

[attackfighter]

That's because USA has lots of idle people, with nothing to do but create fake drama and goosestep around at trayvon martin rallies.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, we should quickly give him a throne to sit on so his politics magically start to work!

 

[Save_Ferris]

That's because the silent majority is, well, silent here.