args

Illegal art should be made accesible

In response to your assertion that the human body is a beautiful, natural thing and that we are sexual beings you may very well be correct, however it is these same sexual beings who will jump on the computer, type in "nude children", to a search engine and use this "art" for disgusting and unnatural purposes, surely the children as subjects of such art should be protected from perversions such as this with any of the power we possess rather encouraging this lewd misuse of illegal art by legitimizing it with socially acceptable tags such as "art" or "sexual freedom", especially since we know these perverted misusers of the "art" are commonplace on the internet with it's ease of use and anonymity. Whether someone might classify this Hensen art as pornography or not, promoting it's access on the internet for EVERYONE ensures just that, you will attract everyone, you will not only get the art enthusiasts who appreciate the artistic value of the naked human form but you will get every garden variety creep who decides to legitimize his perversions as an interest in "art". The argument that, as art, it should be available for anyone would also allow access to anyone wanting to view it for reasons other than it's artistic merits. It is a perfect example of the type of art that should not be made widely available, particularly on the internet, as there is a responsibility to the children featured. A website debating the artistic merits of Hensen's photos features the quote "I've considered removing this post as it draws a lot of hits from Google for those searching for underage nude photos." http://southernpagan.com... This shows that the intentions of some people viewing the photos are undesirable. Just because something hasn't been classified as pornography, that doesn't stop it serving this purpose for some people. In response to those who might say, why should these few bad eggs ruin it for everyone, I say in the face of protecting the violation of children and their innocence and right to grow up and make this decision or consent for themselves, the minority of the corrupt is enough to warrant removing this material, the idea of publishing it or exhibiting it as you argue, would be an affront to one of the most commonly agreed on laws of the internet. One of the only laws actually agreed upon in the troubled jurisdiction battles of the internet, is the creation of the Convention on Cyber crime, with thirty country members, prohibiting child pornography. (Siegel, 2006, pp109). If thirty independent countries agree upon the protection of children, surely you cannot hope to convince anyone that it is the right thing to do to throw away any laws or regulations, children be damned, so that you can promote a free and open internet to promote cultural growth. Anyone that requires child pornography, or any obscene, offensive material to "grow" culturally, is probably headed down the wrong path anyway. Not only do you wish to uphold a loose definition of art but you also want to throw away copyright protection? http://www.illegal-art.org... This website focuses on material that has been banned not because it is offensive, but because of copyright laws. Disney is featured 3 times. It does not make sense for copyright laws that exist in reality to disappear once art makes it onto the internet. The right of citizens to be able to view what they want without censorship is overridden by the right of original creators and distributors to have ownership and control of their intellectual property. Who's to say that just because Walt Disney stole Mickey Mouse that stealing people's original works is the right thing to do. What if someone had stolen the Mickey Mouse design and made it a symbol for White Supremacy? Would this have legitimized stealing? It would have sent our popular culture in a completely different direction and you would not be singing the praises of thievery of someone else's original work, just because Walt Disney created a lovable character from stolen work does not mean his popularity absolves his crime of copyright. Popularity does not counteract theft. If copyright laws are flouted, as in the case of this illegal copyright art, we will stunt creativity in a completely different way, no one will want to create anything new for the fear that the work they may have poured their heart and soul into will be stolen in tha absence of enforceable copyright laws and profited on by someone else. If Walt Disney did in fact copyright Mickey mouse, how do you think the original artists would feel everyone time they watch the Disney Channel. To use an example outside of the internet, graffiti is illegal and is considered a form of art by many people, yet there are far fewer objections to it being removed from public view. Under the argument presented here, it should remain accessible to anyone who wants to view it. The point here is just because something is classified as art doesn't mean it is morally or ethically acceptable, nor does it mean it is victimless. Illegal art is illegal for a reason, whether that be copyright infringements or because they are highly offensive. They should not be available for anyone to view just because they want to. If it was ever possible to effectively regulate access, the definition of what constitutes "art" would have to be thoroughly defined as opposed to the free for all blanket use of the terms "art" and "freedom of expression" which you seem to think is enough to justify the misuse of children, who have no legal capacity to consent yet and by the time they do, their "art" will be forever digitized in the world of the internet, where they will just be a click away for any pedophile in the world. Reference Carolyn F. Siegel, 2006, "Internet Marketing- Foundations and Applications", 2nd edn, Chapter 5, "Legal and Ethical Issues", pg 101-132