RealityStudio.org

RW is Richard Wolstencroft, and apparently the enfant terrible of the australian underground film world. first i've heard of him myself.

Australian Censorship Story

Richard said
April 29, 2008 at 4:06 am

do you think all censorship should be removed, including child pornography, rape and snuff?
don’t mean to judge but are you just another person who wants to see censorship removed from what they feel is acceptable?
cheers, rich.

Reply
richard777 said
April 29, 2008 at 4:50 am

Hi Rich,
RE: My own view of censorship limits and ‘grey areas’.
I think I am a fair libertarian in this regard… with some obvious limits.
As long as what is on screen is not an actual crime, it should not be censored. I said something to this effect, along with US filmmaker and anti censorship campaigner Tony Comstock in the Filmink article.

Things like snuff, rape, child porn etc., should be banned, as what is portrayed on screen is an actual crime.
But, say, fake ‘rape’ porn (i.e where people are pretending to be raped) this should be legal, same with fake ‘snuff’ films like the Japanese ‘Guinea Pig’ movies, even though I find these gross and unwatchable. Same, even, for some ‘child porn’, where no child is being abused, like in the writings of Peter Sotos or the photography of David Hamilton, etc.

Beyond David Irving (who some argue is a racist), Racist speech itself should be protected. Like that in the Turner Diaries or that of Francis Parker Yockey, etc, as it represents a political and cultural opinion.

Also, live news footage of death scenes or executions like in the ‘Faces of Death’ series or Saddam’s execution, should be legal, too. Even though its a kind of ‘grey area’.

Other ‘grey areas’ are: Bumfights, it should not be banned, even though it participates in inciting minor violence against the homeless on screen. More importantly it documents a psychopathology of the filmmakers that is important to be aware of. Same for graffiti artists who document their crimes, thereby understanding and communicating their outsider artistic vision. Both of these are minor ‘crimes’ and not worthy of censorship and mitigate even Comstock’s and my own initial statements about ‘legality’.

But serious crimes made for pornographic purposes, I am comfortable with being banned.

If that makes me a censor at this limit, that’s OK, by me.

I believe it leaves a very wide area for artistic expression, pornography and even simple documentation of reality, even the seedier side.
Does that answer you question?
Cheers
RW

for the full article
http://ideafix7.wordpress.com/2008/04/2 ... hip-story/

How is a graffiti a "grey area?" Unless so-called graffiti "artists" are spraypainting their own property, it's a clear-cut case of vandalism.

Wonder if they'll even be able to see this in Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_c ... _Australia

Art in Transit
Keith Haring
http://www.haringkids.com/art/subway/ar ... aring.html

I wouldn't want Haring spraypainting the walls of my house either.

i don't think KH did houses, rather 'subway panels'

mark pauline started out doing billboards, which are still among my favorites
of his work.

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/the ... rk-pauline

I guess that anyone's reaction to that depends on how they feel about public property. On the one hand, everyone's taxes pay for it, which makes it something of a free-for-all (tragedy of the commons and all that), on the other hand, the best solution to the problem is to privatize as much as possible so that who can do what to what becomes clear-cut.