Censorship or protecting morals?

[DivideBYZero]

Police in the US state of New Jersey have ordered a family to cover up their snow sculpture of the famous nude Venus de Milo after a neighbour complained.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8551528.stm

Seems a shame to cover art, and IMHO the bikini top defines the breasts even more.

For me, it presents a question over which is the bigger problem; That there are 'breasts' or that a neighbour has sexual thoughts when looking at art?

 

[Linflas]

The most ridiculous part of this story is the "art" in question was so tame that pictures of it were displayed on OTA broadcast with no blanking out/pixelization.

 

[zsdersw]

If the government has no right to tell us how we should spend our money, it also has no right to tell us what we can and cannot look at. Censorship is as much of an abuse of our freedoms as taxes and regulations.

 

[PokerGuy]

This is absolutely moronic. Not only is it not offensive to any reasonable person, it's an exact replica of one of the most well known pieces of art in the world. Should we cover up the statue in the museum as well? Stupid puritans.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm sorry, but that's hilarious.

 

[Bateluer]

I oppose 99% of all censorship personally and find this completely ridiculous. The sculptor should be commended for their skill. I'd say its a safe wager that the majority of people wouldn't even come close to being able to replicate the Venus in snow, or any other medium, for that matter.

If I were the owner, I would have left it uncovered and told people to grow up.

 

[drebo]

Some people are too stupid to be allowed to live. The complaining neighbor is the one who should have had a police visit.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Sheesh! Snow tits on art panic prude!

I would have left it like it was and demanded to be confronted by the accuser, even if it meant going to court. Anonymous, moronic fools need to be exposed to public humiliation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Neighbor in New Jersey gives Venus de Mysnow a cold reception claiming it reminds him of his sexual relationship with his wife.

 

[werepossum]

This is absolutely moronic. Not only is it not offensive to any reasonable person, it's an exact replica of one of the most well known pieces of art in the world. Should we cover up the statue in the museum as well? Stupid puritans.

This. Protecting our kids from seeing it in snow whilst busing them to see it in stone makes sense how?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Face/palm "OWW that hurt!"

 

[Jaskalas]

It's a lovely police state.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

This is clearly a public safety issue. Very distracting for passing motorists. Think of the children.

 

[HumblePie]

This is clearly a public safety issue. Very distracting for passing motorists. Think of the children.

Yah I know... not to mention the nipples are probably sharp enough to poke an eye out if someone fell on them.

 

[CallMeJoe]

This is absolutely moronic. Not only is it not offensive to any reasonable person, it's an exact replica of one of the most well known pieces of art in the world. Should we cover up the statue in the museum as well? Stupid puritans.

John Ashcroft thought it was a serious issue; he had the statue of Justice at the Justice Department modestly draped.

 

[spittledip]

heh, funny stuff. It does look more sexualized with the clothes on. Those breasts are a bit uneven and lopsided anyway. But I say who cares. Why make a fuss? So NJ said she can't make naked snow statues in her yard. Boo hoo. This whole thing is really silly and is a waste of news space. It is silly from 2 ends: why does NJ care??? and why can't this lady just let it go??? Not a big deal.

edit: on second read, not really sure if the lady cares about it or not. She seems reasonable enough. Seems like the people who care are the ones on this forum.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Stupid, ridiculous censorship

 

[bfdd]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8551528.stm

Seems a shame to cover art, and IMHO the bikini top defines the breasts even more.

For me, it presents a question over which is the bigger problem; That there are 'breasts' or that a neighbour has sexual thoughts when looking at art?

The answer is the second one. It's art. If it was a topless man no one would complain, but oh no a topless woman people go crazy. I don't fucking get it. They didn't create it for sexual reasons, most likely, they did it because it's a famous statue. If someone SEES something sexual in it that's the eye of the beholder, not the artists intent.

 

[BoberFett]

In protest this person should have left Venus alone and sculpted David right next to it. And given him a horse shlong.

 

[Jaskalas]

edit: on second read, not really sure if the lady cares about it or not. She seems reasonable enough. Seems like the people who care are the ones on this forum.

We take offense to oppression. You think that's strange? We think it's strange that in America "the land of the free" that freedom is under attack.

The internet lets us rail in her defense, free from persecution for our words. She, with her life and her family on the line, is not so lucky. She'll do what the big bad men with guns tell her to do.

 

[heyheybooboo]

John Ashcroft thought it was a serious issue; he had the statue of Justice at the Justice Department modestly draped.

That jocularity began in the Raygun Administration, primarily with the (in)famous Ed Meese.

Steady Eddie was the scourge of the teat, among other things.

In the early- to mid-'80s they went on an anti-p0rn binge to save the masses. Local gov'ts were provided ordinances to reign in obscenity. The only problem ..... ????

The ordinances were hilarious. They had ten pages of 'definitions' describing (in tremendous detail) everything from protruding nipples to self-flagellation.

Self-flagellation? That one still cracks me up.




--

 

[werepossum]

in protest this person should have left venus alone and sculpted david right next to it. And given him a horse shlong.

lmao!

 

[spittledip]

We take offense to oppression. You think that's strange? We think it's strange that in America "the land of the free" that freedom is under attack.

The internet lets us rail in her defense, free from persecution for our words. She, with her life and her family on the line, is not so lucky. She'll do what the big bad men with guns tell her to do.

Oh such horrible, horrible oppression! You obviously have no clue what real oppression is.

 

[bfdd]

Oh such horrible, horrible oppression! You obviously have no clue what real oppression is.

You mean harsh oppression, not "real oppression" right? Oppression is oppression, why should we let any of it slide?

 

[woolfe9999]

Not really sure how the police could order this woman to take this down or cover since she couldn't have been breaking any laws I've ever heard of. Sometimes local ordinances and/or homeowner's association rules, CC&R's, etc. can have something to say about putting big sculptures in your front yard, but I guarenty these would never apply to snowmen or anything else not permanent. And obviously, this doesn't pass muster as an "obscenity."

More than likely the police didn't want to hear any more complaints from the loony prudish neighbor, so they "ordered" her to take it down or cover it, without exactly explaining to her that she wasn't breaking the law and therefore they had no authority to order anything. She probably just assumed that if the police told her to cover it or take it down that she had to do it. Personally, I would have refused.

- wolf