1. Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
    You are viewing our forum as a guest. Join our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please contact us if you need help with registration or your account login.

  2. "Muppet Guys Talking" Debuts On-line
    Watch the inspiring documentary "Muppet Guys Talking", read fan reactions and let us know your thoughts on the Muppet release of the year.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. Sesame Street Season 48
    Sesame Street's 48th season officially began Saturday November 18 on HBO. After you see the new episodes, post here and let us know your thoughts.

    Dismiss Notice

Interesting Gulf War News

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Luke, Mar 15, 2003.

  1. Patty

    Patty Active Member

    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.
  2. frogboy4

    frogboy4 Inactive Member

    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.
  3. Patty

    Patty Active Member

    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.
  4. Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear Well-Known Member

    "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.
  5. frogboy4

    frogboy4 Inactive Member

    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. :attitude: (<---bald eagle LOL!)
  6. Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear Well-Known Member

    :attitude: <----Bald, er-um...Kevin?
  7. Patty

    Patty Active Member

    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) :o

    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):


    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.
  8. frogboy4

    frogboy4 Inactive Member

    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.
  9. Mark Filton

    Mark Filton Well-Known Member

    I thought lawsuits are the American way :o

  10. Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear Well-Known Member

    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."
  11. Mark Filton

    Mark Filton Well-Known Member

    Fozzie, I am never far off the "mark" because I am the MARK :D

    Haa haa haaa:o
  12. Thijs

    Thijs Well-Known Member

    I don't care if you guys like or hate Bush, or were against or pro the Gulf-War, but you all have to admit that what happened to the Dixie Chicks is a big schandal. Not giving them any price because they were against Bush is extremely unfair.
  13. Mark Filton

    Mark Filton Well-Known Member

    It is fair to ignore them because their MUSIC is terrible :D

    Ha ha :D
  14. Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear Well-Known Member

    Last time I was "on the mark," he punched me.
  15. GPrime1

    GPrime1 Well-Known Member

    I don't think that was Tommie's point. Degrading an artist and their work and insulting and threatening them for stating an opinion that perhaps went against what many believed does not hold up the notion that the US is a place where free speech is allowed. Seeing scenes of kids smashing their CDs while their parents cheered on was simply a terrifying image.
  16. Mark Filton

    Mark Filton Well-Known Member

    "Degrading an artist and their work and insulting and threatening them for stating an opinion"

    Hey, the Chix had an opinion, and now we have ours. Is that not fair:D

    Paint my house, Chix:D

    Ha ha haa:D
  17. Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear Well-Known Member

    "There's a bikini in the corner...3 of you---one of it..." :zany:
  18. Thijs

    Thijs Well-Known Member

    haha, now THAT is true too:D

Share This Page