SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights, Feeds and Contact

  • December 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Visitors Count

    • 64,509 hits
  • Categories

  • Meta

Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

The Hypocrisy of USonian fear of ‘Nudity’

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on October 29, 2010


I am an artist. I use my personal experience in my art. Some times that means using images of ‘nudity’. As in this image:

Beneath The Skin

It’s a composite of a portrait of me and a strongly demurred and obscured nude female torso – it depicts a piece of my personal history –

A Trans Man’s Transsexuality 101

I am being told that I have to remove this image from a Social Community Site because it contains ‘nudity’.

I live in Europe. In Europe ‘nudity’ is being considered in context – i.e the question of what is the purpose of the ‘nudity’ is taken into consideration before it’s deemed ‘inappropriate’ for public consumption. In the US any depiction of nudity, regardless of context or intention, is seen as pornographic, lewd, indecent and therefore immoral. Even if it’s clearly artistic or educational.

The USonians, influenced by Fundamentalist Xian Imperialism and values dating back to the Puritan Immigrants’ values of the 17th century, are so afraid that their children will become promiscuous and sexually depraved by seeing normal human anatomy and physical reality, that they actually demand that the entire world be censored to conform to their fears.

At the same time the US is the country that ‘gave’ the world MTV – where there is a lot more ‘nudity’, and sexually explicit images being cabled out than in the image I am being told to remove. The US is also the single Western country where sex education in schools are ‘forbidden’ – yet where teen pregnancies are such a huge problem, because of this single fact.

Smell the hypocrisy, my friends!

Compare my artwork to this artist’s work – Jody Scheisser – who is doing ‘fine artistic photography’ depicting nudity in a far more ‘explicit’ manner than I have ever published. Or compare to some of the most praised classical artists, such as Agnolo Bronzino’s Venus, Cupide and the Time (Allegory of Lust) – and this we ALL call fine art, and wouldn’t censor, wouldn’t deem ‘immoral’ or ‘inappropriate’ – even if we might not like it or think appropriate for prepubescent children to watch. Yet my single piece of art is deemed ‘inappropriate’ and judged as nudity, although one can hardly discern the forms or the details of the ‘nude female torso’! And that in a site that says that:

“The Ning Platform is not directed to children younger than 13 and is offered only to users 13 years of age or older.” (From the Ning TOS)

So the censoring of my art, by Ning (through the Gaia Community), is an extension of the hypocrisy of USonian society, based on the values of Fundamentalist and Puritan values of a small group of 17th century immigrants seeking freedom from oppression – a freedom they would now, through their 21st century descendants, deny me – despite my art being in no way offensive or sexually explicit in comparison to both classical and modern artists’ work.

When I attempted  to post this entry to the Gaia Network, I found that the image above had been removed by the Gaia Ning Team without any response to either personal messages about this or comments in a thread designated for the matter of ‘nudity’ in images, I see no other recourse than to delete any all my art from the Gaia Network, and leave the Network entirely, including all groups.

I can only assume that this was the Gaia Team’s intention from the onset of this sad affair.

Advertisements

Posted in Censorship | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

America in a Nutshell

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on May 7, 2008


“Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

I read this and I see just how accurate a description of the US it is. Especially after 9/11 2001.

It has been denounced by the Republicans and Neo-Cons as not true. All kinds of attempts to prove that this assertion is false have been made – and they have all failed. This is a very accurate description of what goes on in the US, and the violations of civil rights that the American People is being subjected to by its Government.

Political events after 9/11 2001 that are described above which have taken place in the US:

The War on Terror, specifically on Muslim/Arab/Islamist Terror, about which President George W. Bush said:

Any government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Our enemies are a radical network of terrorists — and every government that supports them.

Hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure.

Iraq is no diversion. It is a place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror, we must not waver.

On September 11 2001, America felt its vulnerability even to threats that gather on the other side of the Earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.

The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war.

The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States – and war is what they got.

Note that the terrorists are being connected with two Islamic countries – Iraq and Afghanistan – thus very clearly establishing that the terrorists he is speaking of are Muslims. This has also been evidenced by the US lack of action throughout history against terrorism that has not been carried out by Islamists.

America’s war on terror is fundamentally a war on Islam and on Muslims.

The Leader of the US has clearly stated who is the Enemy that is attacking the US.

The Patriot Act – especially created to monitor and disrupt any dissension with the Governmental Ideology in regards to the War, and in any given case label and silence such dissension as unpatriotic.

George W Bush on the matter of Patriotism and War:

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.

We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.

I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office and foreign policy matters with war on my mind.

There is no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland.

I don’t give a goddamn. I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. … Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!

That last quote is from the “White House cabinet meeting to discuss the renewal of the Patriot Act, in response to GOP leaders presenting a valid case that the Patriot Act undermined the Constitution. Doug Thompson, Capital Hill Blue, Dec 5, 2005”

Yes – The President of the USA regards the Constitution – i.e the safeguard of Human and Civil Rights for all citizens of the US – a piece of paper that he can dismiss as so much garbage. He basically replaced the Constitution with the Patriot Act.

Public Libraries in the US are required to turn over their records to the Homeland Security so the HS can see who has borrowed what from the library. The only way the libraries can get around this, and thus protect the constitutional rights of Americans to read and take part in any information they wish, is by destroying their customer records…

NGO Charities or individuals that transfer money to predominantly Islamic countries or organizations as humanitarian aid frequently have their assets frozen, also if they are not living in the US. All it takes is the mere suspicion that the money might, perhaps, maybe be passing through an area that the US consider “terrorist territory”. No proof is needed.

Any protests against current US policies, even wearing a T-shirt with anti-war slogans can end you in Police custody without any questions asked.

American Citizens who immigrated from any country where Islam exists are routinely being monitored and put under surveillance, simply because there might be a connection to Islam and thus to terrorism. Police Officers routinely mistreat individuals who “look Muslim” or have an Arabic name.

If the US Government wants to know what you wrote in your email or said on your phone – they can just simply spy on you without any real reason or a court order based in the probability that you are committing a crime.

Yes, the initial quote is a very accurate description of the US. Who said it?

Herman Goering.

Posted in Censorship, George W Bush, Human Rights, Human Rights Violations, US, US Politics | 1 Comment »

Freedom of Speech…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 16, 2007


Freedom of Opinion, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression are most often considered synonymous with each other. When we use them we most often, if not always, mean “Freedom to Express any Opinion we like in Speech.”But is this synonymization accurate?
Exactly what is covered by those three seemingly identical expressions?

Originally Freedom of Speech was intended to cover the citizen’s right to criticize their Government without fear of reprisals. That is how it is still intended. This can easily be understood by looking at the context Freedom of Speech is covered in Dictionaries. Or by studying the exceptions made in legislation.

In this respect equalizing Freedom of Opinion, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression is correct.

Over time, however, Freedom of Speech has come to cover every man and his dog’s every utterance, whether towards the Government or towards his fellow man. The concept has been vulgarized. This is where Opinion and Speech part ways. Which is evidenced by the additional legislation that has come into being in almost all modern democracies. What would never have been thought of as being socially acceptable within the society where Freedom of Speech originated is now something there has to be legislation against.

“African Americans, Muslims, Jews, Native Americans are inferior to White/Caucasians and deserve to be exterminated…”

“Homosexuals are dirty spreaders of AIDS and should be locked away…”

“Fat People are lazy and stupid…”

“Arabs are terrorists…”

“Jews control the Banks…”

Freedom of Opinion originates in Freedom of Thought – i.e the right to think for yourself, and this should never be limited. I may hold any opinion I like at any time. Also those out-lined above. Those utterances are not covered by Freedom of Speech, because they can all be classified as hate-speech.

So, when people want to limit rights of Speech and Expression to such speech and expression that is not offensive, they are actually protecting the original intent of Freedom of Speech, rather than exercising censorship.

“freedom of speech is integral to tolerance, which some people feel should be a basic value in society. Professor Lee Bollinger is an advocate of this view and argues that “the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters.” The free speech principle is left with the concern of nothing less than helping to shape “the intellectual character of the society”.”

Freedom must be tempered by the Responsibility to have Self-Control. That is far from “I wanna say what I wanna say, and I am going to say it NOW!

Shalom!

Posted in Censorship, Freedom of Opinion, Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Human Rights | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: