[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: Censorship issues
----------
From: Gary Miller <gmphotos@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:19:41 -0700
To: Brian Ellis <bellis60@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Censorship issues
The liability that the school might be afraid of incurring is if someone
accuses them of displaying and/or promoting pornography. I know that in the
Sturges case in 1997 two of the bookstores that carried his controversial
book were charged by the state for selling child pornography. Although a
gallery situation is different because there is a consignment contract
between the artist and the gallery. Still I am not sure if the gallery can
be held criminally responsible for works displayed in it. After all it is a
private space, although this may be argued against, saying that the gallery
is really a public space because anyone can enter the gallery and view the
work and be offended, etc. This all may be a mute point as the school may
straight out refuse to allow the controversial image in the show no matter
what type of documentation that I provide. They have the right to do this
as it is their gallery, although I would hope that an art school would be
the last place for censorship to rear its ugly head. Still, the school is a
business first, and an art school second. I guarantee that they will do
everything possible to maintain a positive community image in order to
attract more students and therefore more money. They are in the business of
business, art is just the vehicle for them to get there. Now I know that
this is very realistic, but even in the former hippie bastion that is San
Francisco, where you would think that nothing would be shocking or
controversial, there exists censorship issues. Even if I do display the
image, although many people are recommending to me that I do not, I could
still face possible arrest and charges. There are incidents all over the
country where parents have been arrested after taking nude photos of their
children in a bath tub or at play. In each case the charges were eventually
dropped but not without legal expenses and lives turned upside down. I have
spoken with Jock Sturges in the past, and whatever you may personally think
of his work, the man went through a lot of legal hell and $100,000 in legal
fees to walk away from it in the end. He says that it still causes him not
to take certain photos that he would have in the past. So this is a real
lesson in reality. Freedom of speech goes only so far as the person next to
you who complains about your speech. Let's hope for a more realistic world.
Gary Miller