Has The Supreme Court Lost Its Mind?!?!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
"but the taxpayer is under no particular obligation to fund the most degenerate fantasies of people passing themselves off as 'artists'."

I don't disagree, but you've set up another straw man to knock down. Let's take Rudy's case again, looking at what actually happened. The Mayor is not an expert in any way, shape or form on art. So, he appoints people who are recognized as experts on art to run the brooklyn Museum ( or whomever appoint such experts, but Rudy shows no objections whatsoever ). No, when these experts on art call something worthy of being displayed in the musem which Rudy finds objectionalbe, all of a sudden, he's enough of an expert on art to over-rule the expert's opinions, and declare that the City Taxpayers are under no obligation to fund such crap.

Well, I don't think the Taxpayers are obligated to fund any art. But once the City puts itself in the business of doing so, and as such sets up somehwat independant "judges", who are supposed to be experts on "what is art", I'm not up for the Mayor pulling the plug because it offends his personal sensibilities.
 
JC, I can't get into it here...I am way over my UG posting budget for the week at this point...but I would have to conclude from your post that you are not a working artist.

Yours is a very romantic notion of how art gets made...romantic and inaccurate. I wish it was the way you describe but any enterprise...artistic or otherwise...can be crushed by irrational economic forces that have nothing to do with merit or value.

I will say this however. In many realms...medicine, art, the sciences, the humanities, etc...the allocation of public funds is mainly determined by peer review by experts in the field. There are all manner of problems of course...old boys networks will crop up in any subculture...but for the most part peer review is the best system we've come up with for deciding what should and shouldn't be funded in these exceedingly complex and specialized fields.

When politicians exert political force to contradict the consensus view of experts in any of these fields you can bet that some form of bad decision making is about to take place.

Politicians love to grandstand...what better way to do this than to pander to latent anti-intellectual tendencies that sometimes flare up in America. And it is much easier to attack a trivial devil (e.g. Piss Christ) than it is to fix real life problems (e.g. the NYC public school system).

Politicians should overrule the peer review system in any of these fields only in the most critical of situations and for the highest of motivations. I've yet to see any evidence of that in any of the "culture wars" debacles.
 

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
Originally posted by slinkybender
I don't think the Taxpayers are obligated to fund any art. But once the City puts itself in the business of doing so, and as such sets up somehwat independant "judges", who are supposed to be experts on "what is art", I'm not up for the Mayor pulling the plug because it offends his personal sensibilities.
Unfortunately, what I *said* was that he had the right to use rhetoric -- not to withhold appropriations.

Giuiliani had the right to cajole, to argue, to shame -- to do anything *within the limits of the statute* to attempt to promote his own view of the matter.

We *expect* politicians to use the bully pulpit; when they don't, we think them weak or indecisive.

(So who's the one knocking down straw men?)

Judge Crater --

You're quite right.

Unfortunately, our society has grown unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between artists and those others who would pass themselves off as such.

(Perhaps in this post-welfare world, the "artist" who is unable to function without the continuing support of the taxpayer is the only "welfare queen" we have left. Shall we protect them as such -- as we once did the bison -- or, more pertinently, the snail darter?)

rufus --

On one level, I think you're not worth arguing with -- and as you say, I've made it quite clear why I think that.

On another level, however, I feel some obligation to the innocent who might stumble in on this.

I wouldn't want *them* to think you made any sense at all -- because you don't.

(Would-be artists -- like would-be intellectuals -- are *so* New York.

(I'm just holding a mirror up to their ill-natures.)
 
More name calling...typically the last desperate action by those who can't provide a reasonable case...

You of course don't address:

* the argument that the peer review process is the best process we know of for the public funding of specialized areas of enquiry (which includes not only art, but science and technology, and numerous other fields), and that politicians who try to overturn that system for political gain or due to an over estimation of the value of their own intuition in matters they know little about (i.e. the innate egoism of most politicians) typically do a disservice to all.

* the argument that the law against virtual child pornography is either redundant or is an attempt to lower the bar as to how obscenity is defined in such a way that even works with "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" could be censored.

* or even the practical argument that a generally conservative Court like the current one would not have thrown this law out if it wasn't truly deeply flawed by any reasonable constitutional measure.

(Any retort now to one of these will, I hope, address the full argument presented earlier in this thread, not the simple statements of conclusion above.)

And of course you don't address the fact that you've slandered me several times accusing *me* of being a pedophile simply because I make points like the above.

Here you commit the vilest form of sexual McCarthyism.

I'll not proceed further with this with you until you stop the name calling and retract the disgusting smears you've made upon my character.
 

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
Robert Bork Talks to Rufus Moses (for all the good it will do)

The Sanctity of Smut

How did "virtual child porn" end up with constitutional protection?


"The Supreme Court is not testing the limits of free "speech" so much as it is obliterating them. The latest example is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, a decision holding that Congress may not prohibit child pornography created by using adults who look like minors or by using computer imaging. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion described the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 as "proscrib[ing] a significant universe of speech" that fell "within the First Amendment's vast and privileged sphere." Since such speech was not "obscene" under the court's prior definition and did not involve real children in its production, the court found that the government had no constitutionally adequate grounds to suppress it.

"To anyone unfamiliar with the court's extraordinarily permissive rulings in the past, it might seem that any depiction of children in a variety of sexual acts could be, and certainly should be, prohibited. The government, however, was limited by those rulings to arguing on grounds that virtually ensured its defeat.

"To the suggestion that child pornography might be used to lure children into sexual encounters or might tip adults teetering on the verge of pedophilia over the line the court responded, "The prospect of crime . . . by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech."

"The importance of the Free Speech Coalition decision is less in its particular rejections of the government's necessarily limited rationales, however, than in the light the case throws upon the entire direction of First Amendment decisions that have brought the court to this point. There was, to put the matter bluntly, no good reason to throw free speech protections around pornography, nude dancing, raw profanity, and calls for law violation in the first place. Our jurisprudence has gone so far astray that there appears to be a right to display a picture of the Virgin Mary festooned with pornographic pictures and cow dung; but the presence of a crèche on government property is a forbidden establishment of religion under the same amendment.

"There is nothing about the First Amendment that requires these results. That until relatively recently pornographers did not even raise the First Amendment in defending their sordid trade indicates how far we have come. It would seem merely common sense to think that graphic depictions of children in sexual acts would likely result in some action by pedophiles. The court finesses that problem with the statement that its "precedents establish . . . that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it." Quite right. But why is pornography within the rights of adults to hear and see?

"And why--to take only one category of speech undeserving of the court's solicitude--are the rawest forms of profanity exempt from regulation? Cable television is saturated with words never before used in public, and the broadcast networks are racing to catch up. The New York Times reports that in "A Season on the Brink," the character playing basketball coach Bobby Knight "drops the F-word 15 times in the first 15 minutes," and that the characters in "South Park" used a "well-known word for excrement 162 times in 30 minutes." The industry response to criticism on this score is that such words give the programs authenticity because this is the way people talk. In reality, however, the arrow probably points in the other direction.

"People increasingly talk this way because they hear the words on television, and they hear the words on television because the Supreme Court's rulings have deprived the government of any effective sanctions for profanity. In justifying its decision here, the court actually said, "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought." One wonders what valuable thoughts are triggered by child pornography or by nude dancing and profanity. The point is not that the court should outlaw such things; it has no power to do so. But it ought not to deny society the power to curb speech of no social value, indeed capable of inflicting great social harm.

"In cases like Free Speech Coalition, the court, far from enhancing the value of thought, makes thought more difficult. The reduction of speech to the barracks-room level actively destroys thought that displays any subtlety, gradation or nuance. All that is protected is the right of the individual to satisfy his desires, no matter how base, without regard to the rights of others or the health of the society.

"One justice who knows better justified his vote on these lines with the remark that too many precedents would have to be overturned in order to give the First Amendment its proper scope. That is certainly true, but the precedents that would have to be jettisoned were themselves innovations. There is no constitutional justification for a ratchet effect that progressively liberates the worst in our natures. By destroying limits to speech, the court severely handicaps the community's efforts to retain a morally and aesthetically satisfying environment."
 
This is the kind of thinking that leads to not getting confirmed when nominated for Court service.

Now substantiate your slanderous remarks about me (I know you can't) or apologize.
 
Re: Robert Bork Talks to Rufus Moses (for all the good it will do)

Originally posted by Aristotle
The Sanctity of Smut

How did "virtual child porn" end up with constitutional protection?


The point is not that the court should outlaw such things; it has no power to do so. But it ought not to deny society the power to curb speech of no social value, indeed capable of inflicting great social harm.

Victims. Victims. Victims all.

The court has not denied the people the right to act in consort to bring about social change.

If people truly wish to have an impact on their surroundings the tools are present to do so.

The problem is that people are lazy and don't want to have to do it for themselves. They want laws and court decisions to do it for them.

The Supreme Court is not far off the mark in its decision on this matter. Child pornography is certainly heinous. Depictions that tell the story of juveniles in love, with a sexual component, such as "Romeo and Juliet" are not. Actual children being depicted in sexual acts is an abomination. Adult depicting such acts with so socially relevant reason are merely ridiculous and cruel, but not criminal.

Society has the power, though the act of social ostracism and, generally acting in its own self interest though the use of good taste and commonsense.

The fact that so many fail to use either good taste or commonsense is not the fault of the Supreme Court and certainly not a condemnation of "The First Amendment".

A picture of the Virgin Mary depicted in cow dung gets completed because the artist knows it will draw attention to his work. If it languished in the total obsurity it deserves, there would be no second work of that nature, that is a certainty.

So, in reality, we have no one to blame but ourselves when we discuss matters such as these and how they have gone so far astray.

The laws required to punish offenders who would harm children are present. We just need to enforce them properly. The rest should be about people, not laws.

Just a notion.
 

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
Thorn --

Perhaps the solution is to come at all this from another direction entirely (because, as Bork points out, there may now be "too many precedents" for the Court to want to fix the problems they themselves have created).

Perhaps the next version of the bill should classify the production, marketing, or possession of child pornography -- real or virtual -- as "a federal hate crime." (After all, why should sexual deviants enjoy a greater protection than children?)

That wouldn't appeal to the pedophile community or its advocates, but it might solve the "free speech" conundrum -- which even the Justices would like to do.
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
Picking out one statement to make a point:

"But why is pornography within the rights of adults to hear and see? "

See a previous post. My point being, he's not just against CP, he's against all P, and that's what he really wants to stamp out, this just being the first step in a journey.

"But why is a Prostitution Mesage Board within the rights of adults to hear and see?"
 

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
slinky --

Think about last your question slightly differently:

"But why is a Pedophile Mesage Board not within the rights of adults to hear and see?"

P.S. I wonder if ON BALANCE you'd have been happier with the votes cast by a porn-hating Bork than those now made by a porn-loving Clarence Thomas?
 
Originally posted by Aristotle
Thorn --

Perhaps the next version of the bill should classify the production, marketing, or possession of child pornography -- real or virtual -- as "a federal hate crime." (After all, why should sexual deviants enjoy a greater protection than children?)

I don't know. You have the problem of defining what constitutes "real of virtual child pornography".

I mean, there are many things that are absolutely obvious. Such as the depiction of any actual sexual union where one or more of the persons involved is under age. But what about nudes. There are photographic studies of persons who would be under the age of consent in this country, for instance, that present said individual(s) in a state of nudity that is natural to them within their societal norms [children of native tribes within central Africa, by way of example]. Such photos of what have to be acknowledged to be naked children have both artistic, social as well as scientific merit. Would these be child porno? [they would have been under the law the Supreme Court recently cast down]

I'm a tad leary. I guess its because, frankly, I don't trust government to use what I think is good judgement in making such decisions. It tends to pander to the lower common denominator. This has lead to the dumbing down of America, and such situatiions as cautionary labels on hammers instructing individuals that its dangerous to go about striking anyone with same.

I just prefer to do my thinking for myself, I guess. Because of that I expect my neighbors do as well. I respect that, but desire that they have the capablity to use commonsense and good taste. I give the benefit of the doubt until they show me differently.

I suppose I am a major Thoreauian on most issues of this nature. Truly, the government that governs the least, governs best.
 
"rufus --

I think we both know there's no reason for me to retract anything. "

Ari -

Since I am simply agreeing with the majority opinion of the Court, do you also accuse *them* of being pedophiles?

Since when is it good form to accuse people who disagree with you on matters of pure principle with the worst possible criminal perversions in practice...and without any, and I mean any, form of evidence?
 
Further Musings

(There are apparently some who think that a U.S. without the right to produce, market, distribute, and view virtual child pornography will inevitably lead to the reversal of various and sundry constitutional protections developed over the last 50 years, the loss of the right to vote for women, a repeal of the married women's property acts, a return to slavery, and the disenfranchisement of everyone who is not a white male property holder.

There are also some who think that the issue of virtual child pornography should be linked and conflated with the the completely separate issue of the legitimacy of forfeitures used against those arrested in drug and prostitution busts.

Such notions, while they may be honestly held and come by, are rooted in feeling and not rational thought. The knee bone is not connected to the leg bone here anymore than the availablity of greek in New Jersey on a Thursday night in May is connected to the federal reserve discount rate. Nor will the criminalization of virtual child pornography lead to prosecutions of prostitution board owners and posters, etc.*

My sense of why such feelings are so deeply held is that the holders of such opinions find themselves so deeply, so chronically in rebellion as a kind of emotional default that they have lost all notion of what it means to be responsible for ordering the world and can only "think" in terms of a muddied consistency.)



*These places are far too entertaining. The task of monitoring UG is probably passed out by shift commanders as a kind of reward.
 
RM:

I am close friends with a number of artists and have formed very definite notions of how they work and why they do what they do. They could not be otherwise than who they are. Hardly romantic. More of an involuntary servitude.
 

justme

homo economicus
I don't know. You have the problem of defining what constitutes "real of virtual child pornography".

They already have this problem. In fact this is what motivated the law to begin with. Child pornography (whatever that is) is illegal. We've all pretty much agreed that it should be. The problem is that as technology makes vcp indistinguishable from cp, it becomes harder to prove that someone has a bunch of child porn (which is illegal to own, not merely to produce) in their possetion. As the Internet proliferates, the producers of all pornography (child or otherwise) have become more specialized, more spread out, and to a certain degree less interested in making a profit. Any commercial producer of pornography must keep certain proof of age documentation on file in order to sell their product. Amature pornographers that give away their product are under no such requirement (as far as I know) when the subject is themselves. Now the net is flooded with thousands of cheaply produced free images of naked people. A good number of these images are of underaged children. As it's all but impossible to trace free porn back to its origen, and so it becomes all but impossible to determine whether or not a piece of child pornography is virtual or not.

Explicitly protecting VCP under the first ammendment is all but legalizing the possetion of all child pornography.
 
"Explicitly protecting VCP under the first ammendment is all but legalizing the possetion of all child pornography."

Nonsense. The courts are not on the verge of throwing out all forms of photographic or video evidence...whether related to child pornography or any other crime.
 
Since we're on a thread about laws

Originally posted by Rufus Moses
This is the kind of thinking that leads to not getting confirmed when nominated for Court service.

Now substantiate your slanderous remarks about me (I know you can't) or apologize.
Umm, it's not slander -- unless it's something you believe he's said. If it's written, it's libel.

Just thought I'd clarify.
 
Re: Further Musings

Originally posted by Judge Crater
The knee bone is not connected to the leg bone here anymore than the availablity of greek in New Jersey on a Thursday night in May is connected to the federal reserve discount rate.
Are you sure?

Have you done a correlation analysis???

It's just this kind of thinking that keeps us toiling away in these mines. Remember. The Matrix is all around you...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top