Jury Decides Artist's Gory Images On Website Are Art 289
New submitter wilbrod writes "A Quebec special effects artist charged with corrupting morals has been found not guilty in a case that tested the boundaries of creative expression and Canadian obscenity laws. He was charged with three counts of corrupting morals by distributing, possessing and producing obscene material. During the trial, Couture argued his gory works, roughly a thousand images and two short videos that appeared on Couture's website, Inner Depravity, should be considered art. The material in question depicts gruesome murders, torture, sexual abuse, assaults and necrophilia — all with young female victims."
Anything I find obscene is illegal (Score:3)
^_^ (Score:3, Insightful)
His work was in line with movies like Saw.
While clearly not for everyone, it was indeed art.
Hopefully, his career as a makeup artist will pick up even more steam and will allow to recover his legal costs quickly.
Re:^_^ (Score:5, Insightful)
I find the 'Saw' movies disgusting and tedious. But I don't want them banned just because they're revolting bad movies. But I don't need them banned. Call me old fashioned, but I just don't watch them! Everyone has a choice, a point which seems to all elude the would-be censors of the world.
All fiction, if you were wondering (Score:5, Informative)
Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we even have obscenity laws? They're so incredibly ambiguous and wrong that they shouldn't exist to begin with. No, asshole, you don't and cannot "know it when you see it."
Re:Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably too many anal, religiously backed idiots around
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong country.
Obscenity in Canada is "Any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence"
See R. v. Butler for further details.
Re: (Score:3)
Because when someone does something truly shocking to the public conciousness, we need a law on the books to nail them to the wall with.
You'd better hope the masses don't turn against you in the future.
So long as judges keep denying these charges in cases where they obviously do not apply
Where they "obviously do not apply"? And where's that? Whether something is "obscene" or not is subjective. Even if you try to determine whether something is "art," that's still utterly subjective. There is no hope for laws like these.
consider that in a democracy, what the majority want ought to be the law in most cases.
In most cases? Maybe. In cases where the laws violate people's rights? Definitely not. The laws are too ambiguous no matter how you slice it. What is "obscene" to some is not obscene to others. There is no right
No misogeny (Score:4, Insightful)
He was considering a series with male models but his career took off (he works in the television industry now) and he simply didn't have the time to follow-up
The way to fight this (Score:2, Interesting)
is not to give publicity to these attention whores.
Damnit, this is frustrating (Score:3, Interesting)
I submitted this story [slashdot.org] yesterday.
It's really frustrating that it's still on roughly the first page of the "submissions" page, but a "dupe" was accepted.
Note, I don't bear any ill feelings towards user "wilbrod" for also submitting it, it's just that I feel I wasted my time bothering to. And it isn't the first time this has happened. And, IMHO, my submission was a bit lengthier and contained a bit more relevant info for the Slashdot crowd.
And, since I'm on a caffeine deficient rant-binge, where the hell are my mod points? I comment, submit stories, rate the submissions of others (to help relieve the deluge of spam, etc.), and not a single mod point in months and months, whereas before that I was getting 15 at a time(!) and they reappeared almost as soon as I used them up (sometimes even before).
*off to get some coffee and food into me*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and not a single mod point in months and months, whereas before that I was getting 15 at a time
Random distribution is random.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't think it is random.
slashcode is smarter than you citizen. Just move along; nothing to see here. The enshrined hive-mind is not trying to keep your paranoid voice from being heard by the masses.
Re:Damnit, this is frustrating (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a Slashdot editor, but I'd say they picked this submission because it was a proper summary and didn't copy/paste sections of the original story in the submission like your one did.
Basically you put too much, and at the same time not enough, information in the summary. You grabbed sections from a coherent article and made a somewhat different article out of it. You think your information was relevant, but what a Slashdot summary is supposed to do is to push the core information in a couple of sentances and then send the reader to the link.
Your summary didn't give the historical background to the case, didn't give the charges laid against Couture or an indication of what the content was. That's what is needed in a summary. Sorry to be harsh, but your one was a mish-mash.
MOD POINTS, that I agree with you. Where are my mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a Slashdot editor, but I'd say they picked this submission because it was a proper summary and didn't copy/paste sections of the original story in the submission like your one did.
Basically you put too much, and at the same time not enough, information in the summary. You grabbed sections from a coherent article and made a somewhat different article out of it. You think your information was relevant, but what a Slashdot summary is supposed to do is to push the core information in a couple of sentances and then send the reader to the link.
Your summary didn't give the historical background to the case, didn't give the charges laid against Couture or an indication of what the content was. That's what is needed in a summary. Sorry to be harsh, but your one was a mish-mash.
Thanks for your thoughts. I should re-read what I posted and if I bother to submit again, I'll keep it in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying again: I thought it was highly relevant to bring the Jun Lin case into the submission I made, as the police had been advised in this case that a pathologist couldn't determine that a crime had not been committed (i.e. the effects were that good); they looked into it and found no violence had been committed.
Then the newer case from this summer where police were tipped off to an actual crime committed, recorded, and posted on a web site. They might have been a bit hesitant to look into the 2nd case;
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's happened to me several times also. I seldom bother submitting anymore, I mean why? There is no incentive to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
And, IMHO, my submission was a bit lengthier and contained a bit more relevant info for the Slashdot crowd.
You're doing it wrong. Just keep in mind that the editors have the attention span of a Chihuahua on meth and the reading comprehension of a flatworm and you're golden.
"young female victims" (Score:5, Insightful)
And "victims" is used in the sense of "models wearing makeup".
If you take this guty to court, how about all the Saw/Hostel/etc.; all the dozens of slasher/splatter movies made every year? See, e.g. http://bloody-disgusting.com/ [bloody-disgusting.com]
Distasteful is not criminal.Dressing up is not crime.
Re:"young female victims" (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like Canada is off the list. Even Britain isn't this prudish.
Not sure why; the boundary of the law was tested and the correct verdict was returned.
Re: (Score:3)
the boundary of the law was tested and the correct verdict was returned.
And then the government refunded the guy the money and time it cost to fix their mistake, right? Especially considering that had the guy run out of time and money, the incorrect verdict would have been returned by default.
And at this news, I nod and smile (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never seen the art, I don't plan to see the art, and I don't care what it's about. It could have been anything. It could have been stock footage of pebbles of gravel for all I care (can't say that 'I couldn't care less if it was horribly violent looking', since that's evidently what it was... so a different example appears to be required)
But the fact that it's allowed makes me smile just a little bit at Canada (which has been getting pretty hard for me lately, with Harper destroying the shit out of this place).
Freedom of speech today just took slightly less of a beating than it's normally been getting. Mind you it's still getting beaten within an inch of its life... but being beaten within an inch of its life with softer gloves this time.
Inner Depravity (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't the fact that his site is called "Inner Depravity" enough of a warning? I think you could make a pretty good argument that the "norms" that should be used to judge such a site should include only those people who would go to a site after seeing that name.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I see a site called "bigbrother.[whatevs]" I don't expect that to be the homepage of IngSoc, but rather a critical website. Likewise with "Inner Depravity" -- why would anyone glorify it? Only I know we are knee-deep in that sickness and "art", which is basically just a combination of issues and obsession, see H. R. Giger for example. But still, there are more naive, better people than me, and they wouldn't automatically assume this is actually FOR inner depravity. So fuck the average, fuck the low end
Re: (Score:3)
Is 4chan down again or something?
I was ok with this until I realized it was porn. (Score:2)
I guess I'm still kind of ok with it. I'm just worried about the people who are drawn to this site.
Re:I was ok with this until I realized it was porn (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I'm still kind of ok with it. I'm just worried about the people who are drawn to this site.
Why does the porn nature change your opinion of it? Isn't gruesome murder pretty high on the intolerable scale already?
In the US our FCC makes sure that producers can show babies being killed on TV, but babies being made is strictly forbidden. One school of thought says that this is entirely consistent with training a population to be 'at peace' with continual war.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All the puritans clearly think violence is absolutely fine while anything vaguely sexual will ruin the nation's morals, if it had any. This in a country (the US) with an enormous sex industry and where minors are routinely depicted as sexual beings in the fashion and advertising industries and in beauty competitions.
I find the hypocrisy simply astonishing. For the life of me I cannot understand how everyone doesn't see this. Are they all blind?
All those so-called Christians out there should remember: th
Re: (Score:2)
Because making sex 'no big deal' would also make it 'a lot less fun to fuck in the back seat of a car', or whatever floats your boat.
There are advantages to trivial things being 'taboo'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't harm anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of it even suggests that over time there is a need for kinkier pornography because the normal stuff no longer has as much of a dopamine release as it once did.
No, it doesn't. What is known is that the same sex act releases decreasing levels. The seven year itch and other phenomina like that are due to that effect. And no, a schedule of increasingly kinkier sex acts will not fix that. The variety changing is what causes the dopamine levels to get back to normal. But, rather than researching how to keep high dompamine levels with "mainstream" porn, the researchers are paid to demonstrate that porn is bad and leads to bad things. It's the purityranical core of the US creeping out again. First, prove it's bad, second ban it. It doesn't matter if the initial proof is wrong or all lies. Once it's banned, it stays banned. Marijuana is still illegal, being banned for racist reasons by money from the textile industry and big pharma.
Porn harms no one. If people stopped trying to prove how bad it is, and instead focused on making it as "safe" as possible, we'd have no problems. But instead, people try to make it as bad as possible, in practice as well as theory.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the purityranical core of the US creeping out again. First, prove it's bad, second ban it. It doesn't matter if the initial proof is wrong or all lies. Once it's banned, it stays banned. Marijuana is still illegal, being banned for racist reasons by money from the textile industry and big pharma.
Also still banned because the profit on sales is much higher for contraband; this pumps huge amounts of money into organized crime. Connections in the US government benefit from this. Instead, government should legalize, insist on purity and quality control, and heavily tax it. The public coffers would benefit and international organized crime would be dealt a serious blow.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it does seem kind of pointless to just link to a study that agrees with your own point of view, doesn't it? Let's just drop the whole charade and not even bother doing that anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
So what does reading Mills and Boon, which is unadulterated romance-"porn", do to women?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to make a case for a blanket pornography ban, but those who imply that consuming explicit media "harms no one" are starting to slowly find themselves on the losing side of the science.
Then instead of banning everything, why not educate people how to use porn sensibly? But then, we can't teach people how to drink booze sensibly, so we definitely should ban booze, right? And puritans won't tolerate sex education in schools, even though it is very clear that it would reduce teen pregnancies, inappropriate sex when the teen is not ready, STDs, etc. Who needs rationality anyway? The United States of Hysteria.
Re: (Score:2)
But then, we can't teach people how to drink booze sensibly
Yes we can, we in fact HAVE. We've also taught people how to use guns sensibly.
That will never stop a few people with mental defects from going outside the norm and doing something bad.
You're a shining example of your own statement. You're hysterical over non-existent issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the research out there is starting to show that consuming pornography over time changes the reward centers in our brains and impacts our ability to have relationships with the opposite sex. Some of it even suggests that over time there is a need for kinkier pornography because the normal stuff no longer has as much of a dopamine release as it once did. This applies to both men and women, and not just with visual pornography (reading erotica can be an issue as well). I'm not trying to make a case for a blanket pornography ban, but those who imply that consuming explicit media "harms no one" are starting to slowly find themselves on the losing side of the science.
You are an idiot if you think porn has anything to do with people looking for 'different things' as they get older.
Good thing he's In Canada not NJ. (Score:3)
Its good to see at least somewhere(Canada), the Enlightenment lives on, and people can continue to release that drawings don't come to life and hurt people.
Artist's Future Arrest will be for what? (Score:2)
Can anyone guess what we will hear in a few years about this "artist"?
Re: (Score:3)
That he won a special effects Oscar for Saw XXIII.5?
SLAPS test analogue? (Score:2)
Does Canada have something like the "SLAPS" test that U.S. law has? For background, in the U.S., we have a litmus test from Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), that says that a work has to lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" in order to be considered obscene. This standard is so broad that it's even been used to strike down some of our child pornography laws, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Rarely does our government even bother trying to prosecute
Re: (Score:2)
The Criminal Code's definition of obscenity is "any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence".
The prevailing standard for what constitutes "undue exploitation" is from R. v. Butler, which breaks potentially obscene material into 3 categories
1. Explicit sex with violence will almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex.
2. Explicit sex without violence, but wh
Streisand-like effect (Score:2)
Whereas it's not a good thing for the artist himself to be victimized by the State like this, from a pragmatic perspective, prosecutions like this are a good thing for freedom of speech. All they do is popularize the "obscene" art. I had never heard of this guy. I'm sure the vast, vast majority of people have never heard of him, either. Now we have. Now he's a cause célèbre among free speech advocates. And now I'm going to check out the guy's website and see what kind of "art" this guy has pro
Gory site contravenes Canada's NICE laws. (Score:3)
Juxtaposition: Fantasizing About Homicide (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems natural, at least to some, to recoil in horror at the notion of fantasizing about homicide or mass homicide. I am reminded of a scene from Inglourious Basterds
Spoiler Alert
Near the end of the film, it shows Hitler and a bunch of Reich VIPs watching a movie of the death camps and laughing, and we, the audience, are meant to recoil in horror (and we do). In the very next scene, the heroes slaughter Hitler and the VIPs and Tarantino frames it as a comic scene, and it made me laugh at the slaughter.
So there I was, whipsawed from moral outrage at someone for laughing at mass homicide on film to laughing at mass homicide on film in a matter of seconds. Now, obviously, we all prefer to see Hitler & Friends killed than innocent victims of genocide, but the laughing at mass homicide switchback remains. And it was all happening within a work of cinematic art.
Tarantino shot a scene of people laughing at holocaust victims, and it is art. He shot a scene that causes us to laugh at mass homicide, and it is art. He juxtaposes those scenes, and it is poignant, incisive art. If we can laugh at mass homicide, and see laughing at the holocaust as art, it would be very challenging to objectively define the moral limits of art.
Horrible things are a part of the human condition. If we are to be free to know ourselves, our artists must be free to explore the darkest corners of our beings.
In other words... (Score:2)
The material in question depicts gruesome murders, torture, sexual abuse, assaults and necrophilia — all with young female victims.
Basically, a Wednesday afternoon on 4chan /b/.
so does hollywood (Score:2)
> The material in question depicts gruesome murders, torture, sexual abuse, assaults and necrophilia — all with young female victims.
I'm not a serious horror buff, but aren't most slasher films all of the above (save perhaps the necrophilia) directed mostly at young female victims? It's practically a definition of the genre.
I'm trying to imagine how it could be a crime for Couture to stage these scenes, and a multi-million-dollar enterprise for a studio in Los Angles to do exactly the same thing.
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget about watching all those Christians. They seem obsessed about the virtue of people dying on crosses and thereby absolving them of their sins. We wouldn't want them to decide to wash away some more sins.
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'point' of all the horrible gore in "The Passion" was to elicit pity and horror in the viewer, and to make them understand the sacrifice that was being made for Humanity's benefit.
Surely the 'point' had absolutely nothing to do with making a controversial movie even more controversial in an attempt to get more people to see it (read: make more money).
And surely a militant antisemite like Mel Gibson would never, ever, make this movie gory specifically to incite anger/hate against Jews, who are blamed for the crucifixion.
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the torture depicted by Couture will give sick freaks a hard-on, but the torture depicted in Passion won't, and this is only because Mel Gibson's heart is pure, and Couture's isn't?
Do you think I just fell off a potato truck, or what?
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the point (whether intentionally or out of ignorance, I leave to the reader):
It isn't what something will do, but why it was made:
* "Couture" designed his movies specifically to give sick freaks a hard-on. Nothing more, nothing otherwise. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
* Passion of The Christ was designed to be an un-filtered look at what Christ had to go through, and was engineered to emphasize the suffering and the resurrection, so that adherants (and potential adherants) would empathize with
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is free speech, either you have it or you don't, and if you think because it was written ages ago gives it a pass? Well plenty of writings equally old that can let me make movies that will make Schizophreniac 2 look like an episode of the Teletubbies.
You missed the part where I said he had the perfect right to display it under Canadian law (since he was, you know, in Canada...)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Viably so, since intermixing these two has valid risk of significant social effects.
Thanks for the standard stupid troll on your part, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Are the risks of mixing violence and religion any less severe? What about violence and politics?
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimate sacrifice? Wasn't the death of every other person that died on a cross a much bigger sacrifice? After all, they didn't come back from the dead.
But the point of my comment was why persecute people creating images of torture, when the dominant religion in the country uses an implement of torture as it's symbol, and was founded on a person who had himself tortured to death. If creation of images of torture imply a desire to go on a killing spree then why restrict ourselves to 'keeping any eye on' just this artist? Shouldn't all the makers of crucifixes also be considered a danger? Shouldn't people who buy them?
Re: (Score:3)
That reflects my thoughts as I was searching for a Christmas gift in a jewelry store yesterday. There were all these little gold and silver, jewel encrusted crosses in the store. I was thinking how peculiar anyone living at the time of Christ would have thought these little torture instruments. Had they peered into the future and seen these they might have concluded that it was the Romans we were holding in reverence. Also, I thought it was an interesting contrast, the expensive jewelry with a Christian sym
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Interesting)
It'd be a far bigger sacrifice to give up for one's place in heaven to go to hell eternally. And that's something even I'd consider if I could save say 5 people, and consign myself for torture forever.
And that, if nothing else, is why I consider Christianity as pure garbage unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Moreover, hell is something I think relatively few really think about. I think getting Christians to think about their "wonderful time" in heaven whilst others roast in hell is a good thought exercise which can help them to be a bit more humble, and (shock), even question their beliefs, and the inconsistencies therein.
Re: (Score:2)
I am posting anon because I rather liked leaving the last post of my posting history what it was. Prefer this?
It makes not the slightest difference whether I'd be "kind" enough to give up my place, nor does it matter in the least that "kindness" is the most important thing to you personally. You may as well ask if I'd be "kind" enough to upgrade e
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn right they weren't of equivalent value.
The others died, uncertain about what, if anything, awaited them.
Jesus chose to let himself be crucified, then rose from the dead and went on living, effectively giving up nothing.
It's like honoring a person for a charitable donation, even after he canceled the check.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
The "ultimate" sacrifice? Jesus had a bad weekend for your sins.
Re: (Score:2)
He wasn't giving up his life. There are people who survive worse every day in wars and car accidents.
He just took a couple of days off and popped back up in a tomb.
That's if you actually believe in these myths and that the guy even existed. There have been people calling themselves the christ/messiah for as long as the legend has been around. It's what keeps cults and mental hospitals in business.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd have to look pretty hard - crucifixion makes for a very slow and grisly death and was generally used to make an example of dangerous troublemakers by the powers that be, Jesus was hardly the first man to be thus killed. Basically you're restrained until you die of dehydration, which is a pretty bad way to go to begin with. To make matters worse any movement grinds the nails into your wounds so, unlike being shackled against a wall, you're going to have to be in pretty bad shape before you can lose con
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
The material in question depicts gruesome murders, torture, sexual abuse, assaults and necrophilia â" all with young female victims.
"Art" perhaps. But I'd keep an eye on this guy. Of course it's only my reactionary opinion, but I think people that have an obsession with this sort of thing have a problem, and I'd want to make sure they don't "jump" to exercising a more "real world" form of their entertainment.
"Opinion" perhaps. But I'd like someone to keep an eye on you. Of course it's only my reactionary opinion, but I think people that have an obsession with being concerned with what people do that doesn't harm anyone have a problem, and I'd want to make sure they don't "jump" to exercising a more "real world" form of their philosophy, like lobbying for laws that remove more of our freedoms.
You and I may find it disgusting, but that just means we don't need to go look at it. It doesn't mean this guy is going to go and hurt anyone, and I think it's dangerous for us to start assuming that anyone with a fantasy would want that fantasy to be reality. Let's look at less extreme forms of entertainment. I love James Bond movies. Would I really want to be James Bond? Let's see what happens when we turn that fantasy into reality. We have a man who constantly gets beaten up and tortured, constantly in danger of dying, and although getting laid like he does sounds great, think about all the STDs he must have. I'm a fan of Batman, but do you think that means that I would really want to see a vigilante out in the streets bypassing the court system?
Just because you enjoy a fantasy, doesn't mean you'd like to make it real.
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
The laws are so far divorced from reality it's insane. The problem is nobody wants to be seen as legalizing child porn, so they will only get more strict, and never less.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, only if you channel Norman Rockwell [wikipedia.org]. Now his stuff was disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the actresses are of legal age and just look under-aged, then go for it.
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada the definition of child porn also includes actresses who appear to be or are depicted as being under 18 regardless of their actual age.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's hard to define 'consensual' with children. If a parent/trusted adult tells a young child that something is good, the child will likely trust him/her and do it. So for example a girl could agree to have her genitals mutilated, since it would make look 'pretty'. Would that be considered consensual?
The 'legal age' is a bit arbitrarily set, but there has to be some way to protect children until they are old enough and have enough information about what they are consenting to.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's hard to define 'consensual' with children. If a parent/trusted adult tells a young child that something is good, the child will likely trust him/her and do it. So for example a girl could agree to have her genitals mutilated, since it would make look 'pretty'. Would that be considered consensual?
The 'legal age' is a bit arbitrarily set, but there has to be some way to protect children until they are old enough and have enough information about what they are consenting to.
Yes. but your analogy is terrible.
At what age do you think a woman is mature enough to choose to have her genitals mutilated in order to make herself look pretty? How about having her face mutilated? Would you EVER consider such consent to be valid?
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but both things happen. Women have their genitals 'corrected', and you can see the results of too much plastic surgery in the media. And both are not just consensual, the women pay a lot of money for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny we don't care about that when we're talking about guys. After I found out I was mutilated and the pain I experienced was not a normal part of being a man, I stopped giving a shit about FGM, because I realized everything that horrified me about the idea was something I was already living with no way to reverse it, ever.
Funny, the rest of the circumcised world doesn't have your sorts of issues. Maybe it's just you.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious. Have you ever had an infected dick?
I ask only because nobody mutilated me, and I've never had one. Never. Not "not on a regular basis" but never.
As opposed to the mutilated children, assaulted with no possibility of consent, a high proportion of whom need medical assistance as a result.
e.g. http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/2/280.abstract [oxfordjournals.org]
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
So all the splatter horror movie creators and viewers? Just how many people are you planning on keeping an eye on?
Re: (Score:2)
All of them, obviously. Kind of like some countries where you can't go a day without doing something illegal you didn't know about.
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:4, Informative)
Oh you mean the US.
It's nigh impossible to get an accurate count of the number of criminal laws on the books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The material in question depicts gruesome murders, torture, sexual abuse, assaults and necrophilia â" all with young female victims.
"Art" perhaps. But I'd keep an eye on this guy. Of course it's only my reactionary opinion, but I think people that have an obsession with this sort of thing have a problem, and I'd want to make sure they don't "jump" to exercising a more "real world" form of their entertainment.
Probably best then to keep an eye on all those that pay to see gore-filled movies, since he was only trying to get work in the production of said movies.
i.e. Anyone watching CSI: watch 'em. Viewing Saw: watch 'em (ok, I might even agree with that one). The list is too long to enumerate.
Plus, Star Trek, etc.: sfx there too...
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was younger, sexually frustrated, and jaded by readily-accessible Internet pornography, I had lots of fantasies that were extremely violent. I wouldn't have acted on them then, and I wouldn't act on them now. I still have fantasies that would turn my gut if I ever found out that they happened in real life.
There are certain people who are able to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and determine that what works in one may not work well in the other. We call those people "well-adjusted".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
The "don't fly list"
The "sex offender list"
The "eats toejam and writes Free software list"
The (Charlie Sheen) "Winning" list
just to add to the previous "Security" and "Reserve" lists of US citizens that were actively spied on, for unspecified "crimes against the state" to be rounded up in case of an emergency.
Re: (Score:3)
Mmm. You may have been watching too many movies. Just a thought, but in terms of classical psychoanalysis, couldn't de-repressing these sort of fantasies in the form of art actually be a safety valve, just as horror movies allow the public to safely blow off their unconscious sadosexual fantasies? In other words, he might be less likely to act on them than some severely repressed, puritanical accountant who one day pops his cork ....?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I don't really feel terribly insulted when a person who can't even spell "individual" and "then" properly calls me sick.
And an elitist spelling Nazi to boot! My guess is that you have a thing for pedophilia and necrophilia involving female pre-teens. Wow, are you a sick puppy. But I guess this is what comes from a 35 year old overweight Neck Beard like you spending all your time in your mom's basement wearing your dead sisters panties while looking at Japanese Tentacle Porn.
Sick. Simply sick. Seek help before it's too late.
Oooh. Transference. Better discuss this with your shrink. Things are getting serious. I sense an epiphany!
Re: (Score:2)
and the remaining 0.001% would, and probably do, pay him quite a generous sum for commissioned work. i'm sure he'd have a comfortable life as long as he has the freedom to associate with certain aesthetes and like-minded individuals.
but don't worry! raving antisemites aren't left out in the cold; something like this [wikipedia.org] might be more your style. there's plenty of that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Put innerdepravity.com into google then click images, Remy is actually quite good at his craft.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And there's Gilbert and George in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_%26_George) who like to photograph their anuses. That's been around since the 1980s and no-one rightly gives a shit. They are high profile artists in the UK.