toldailytopic: Should anything that is considered art be covered under free speech?

Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 29th, 2012 08:39 AM


toldailytopic: Should anything that is considered art be covered under free speech? And if so what defines something as art?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Knight said:
toldailytopic: Should anything that is considered art be covered under free speech? And if so what defines something as art?
Click to expand...
What is or is not "art" is irrelevant to the question you're trying to ask, I think. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are a socio-political issue. What is or is not "art" is a personal intellectual issue.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are essential to the health and well being of any society of human beings. But with these freedoms also comes the need for the people to take responsibility for how what they say and how they express themselves will effect others. And as we all know, many of us will not be willing to do that. So we need to limit our freedom relative to the freedom and well-being of others, and the health and well-being of society as a whole. And of course, we will not always agree on what those limitations will entail. So there will always be an on-running debate in any healthy society about what forms of freedom of speech and expression should be considered acceptable, and what forms of speech and expression should be banned as unacceptable in a healthy society. And that debate, itself, is a big part of maintaining social/cultural health and well-being.
 
P

Ps82

Well-known member
My brief defintion of Art is:
Something that is created by a person that either expresses the artists feelings, or something designed to cause an emotional response from others, or attempts to capture nature in another form.

Even I can be an artist ... while a very poor one ... if I wished. I think I should have a right to create whatever I wish. If people are offended they have a right to express that offense openly.

I like this freedom ... because it is easy to know what people are thinking. If everything is suppressed by laws ... well ... it might be more difficult for individuals to understand the thinking of their enemies.

I think revelation of truth is important - even if one doesn't like the truth they see.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Off the top of my head the only place where I'd draw the line is material that documents/depicts/records the exploitation and abuse of children (as well as animals) since they can't provide consent, and because such material is evidence of a crime. I'm very much opposed to censorship (although a little tact and self-censorship is never a bad idea) but I think we can all agree these two groups, for their own reasons, should be protected.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Knight said:
I don't think it's irrelevant at all.

IF... art is covered under free speech the obvious follow-up question is.... what is art?
Click to expand...
Art is a form of human expression. So it would be covered under freedom of expression, but not exclusively, as there are lots of forms of human expression that are not art.

If we want to know what art is, then we must ask; "what is art?". But if we want to know how we should define freedom or speech, or freedom of expression, then those are the questions we should be asking.

I think your question, as asked, is wrongly conflating two different ideas: freedom of speech/expression, and how we define "art". How we define freedom of expression, and how we define art, are two very different questions, which will net two very different answers.
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Should anything that is considered art be covered under free speech?

Yes.


And if so what defines something as art?

Intent on the part of the artist to communicate, using a medium, some particular expression of appreciation or insight held by the artist. That can be as simple as a notice of light or form and as complicated as Joyce in Ulysses.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Setting aside the question of what is art, and addressing the question of how we should limit freedom of expression: I would say that we should be accounting for age-appropriateness. I believe there is a real and harmful effect on children who find access to adult expressions of violence, of humiliation, sexuality, and fantasy that they are not capable of understanding accurately. Also, in cases of expressions like child pornography or acts of physical violence and abuse, a crime will have already been committed in it's making and in possessing it as evidence of criminal activity.

The difficulty occurs in identifying the difference between the volitional expression of an illegal behavior and actual illegal behavior. How do we determine and define the difference between two consenting adults enacting a violent sexual assault as a form of self-expression, and an actual violent sexual assault? They are both, in actuality, violent sexual assault. The only difference is that one is volitional while the other is not. But is that in itself enough to excuse the former and criminalize the latter?
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Knight said:

toldailytopic: Should anything that is considered art be covered under free speech? And if so what defines something as art?

Click to expand...
No. It's too slippery of a slope, because a lot of things can be considered art, and who decides whether or not it is? If anyone wants to combat something that the person responsible considers to be art then we would have the courts deciding whether or not its art.

Some things need to be regulated, others need to be outlawed. And a lot of things, even if they don't outlaw them as they should, need to be kept from the eyes of the young, immature and impressionable.
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

toldailytopic: Should anything that is considered art be covered under free speech? And if so what defines something as art?







Art Linkletter was covered by free speech just as much as the rest of us.
:sibbie:
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
To be "art" it has to be useless.
Click to expand...

7791321102_744ab4fbb1_z.jpg


images


Shaker-Furniture-8-web.jpg


No, I don't think so.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Art should be a way for some to experience a truth, and find a way to communicate it to others.

Might not even be the same truth; images and poems are certainly personal expressions that might mean something to others that even the maker might not have intended.

Art should first make you feel, and then make you think.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Granite said:
For me "art" comes down to "various forms of creative expression."
Click to expand...
I think art is defined by a specific category of intention. That intent being one human (occasionally more than one) endeavoring to share their experience of being who they are with other human beings.
 
Doormat

Doormat

New member
Art is an expression of creativity.

Unless it is violating the natural rights of others, it should be covered under free speech.
 
This Charming Manc

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
All speech and expression should be as free as possible, art should get no special exemptions and treatment from the common laws that provide for and temper freedom of speech.

Such as deformation, slander, libel, inciting to hatred and crime and common decency laws where appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top