Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
joeb1 -
I don't envy you for the can of worms you just opened. You will notice that what Art does and how he does it is very artistic. I would guess that by using the label "pornographic" that you stepped in a good one here.
|
No arguement there. I find the thought inducing comments made by ART on this board really do add an amazing view of the human psyche.
My previous post was in no way a swipe at him personally or artistically. Just trying to get him and others to see. That if we allow the FCC to control every aspect of censorship. All forms of media??? What is next?
Now granted the internet is different for now. So If we give them too much control. When will enough be enough? So at some time he will have to pull all display's of flesh the non pay part of his site.
Look at the religous zealots in my area. (Bob Jones) That have taken priceless works of art and painted their own fig leaves to cover the private parts of some amazing pieces of art. Disturbing, but a view of censorship at it's best.
I find nothing wrong with ARTelevision or his website.
But what happens when somebody's kid accidentally links to it. The child might see more than his parents want him or her to. Is this the kids fault? The parents? The FCC or governing body of the internet?
I don't find it offensive. But this is all in the eyes of the beholder. What might be consisdered "artistic" to me and you. Will be considered "pornographic" by others.
Janet Jackson did not bother me. I'm just glad it was Janet and not Michael. It's hard to tell the two apart lately.
(this is a joke.. so please don't take it the wrong way!)