Zero Satori
Jaguar Ninja
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2006
- Posts
- 2,009
I'm fuming right now about this, not because I'm particularly interested in the art-in-question itself but because of the precedent it sets, limiting the legality of self-expression in visual artists.
Fuck this shit.
Edit: Here's a preliminary article, again from politics.co.uk.
Fuck this shit.
Ian Dunt said:The government just passed a law against drawings. Very particular drawings, but drawings nonetheless.
Smuggled away in the recent coroners and justice bill was a clause outlawing the possession of non-photographic images of children. Child protection agencies are ecstatic. Comic artists and libertarians are concerned. But what's at stake, and is this as insane as it sounds?
Is it moral to pass a law against something with no actual victim? After all, we ban photographs of child abuse because a child actually has to be abused for it to exist. Libertarians will tell you that the law is unacceptable on this basis alone. But it's a little more complex than that.
[...]Children's rights groups claim the presence of these photographs acts to help child abusers rationalise their actions – contributing to a common sentiment in abusers that what they are doing is somehow OK. [...]Aside from the moral argument about freedom of choice, many artists are especially concerned that they could become criminalised by the law. Similarly, many comic fans could become criminalised too. Many adult comics – some erotica, some just with adult themes - could be found guilty if the law is followed to the letter.
Edit: Here's a preliminary article, again from politics.co.uk.
Last edited: