nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: +
→Violation of Commandment 3: Is "this is art" a valid answer?
:::: An artist here in Australia has been in the news for photographs of naked minors. The police have seized them on the grounds of them being child pornography. The "cultural elite" have been excusing them on the grounds of them being "art". Anybody else in possession of pictures of naked children not their own would be charged with possession of child pornography. Why are artists considered exempt from laws that apply to everybody else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: An artist here in Australia has been in the news for photographs of naked minors. The police have seized them on the grounds of them being child pornography. The "cultural elite" have been excusing them on the grounds of them being "art". Anybody else in possession of pictures of naked children not their own would be charged with possession of child pornography. Why are artists considered exempt from laws that apply to everybody else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: What does that have to do with the discussion at all? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 13:18, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: What does that have to do with the discussion at all? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 13:18, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: It has to do with whether the "this is art" response in any way answers the objection. It is meant to show that "this is art" should not be a valid response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)