Rand's Kind of Censorship!

[Jonathan]

Rand would have sided with the city code preventing a gallery from displaying nudity in its store window:

http://www.my9nj.com/chasing-news/127326609-story

Gallery sues over fines for artwork of partially nude woman

ENGLEWOOD, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey gallery has filed a federal lawsuit over a city code violation it received for displaying artwork of a partially nude woman in its store window.

The Borghi Fine Art Gallery in Englewood sued last week, saying its constitutional rights were violated when it was issued a violation with fines of $1,250 per day and the threat of up to 90 days in jail over artwork showing a woman's bare buttocks.

City officials and code enforcement officer Walter Deptuch, who is also named in the suit, didn't immediately return phone calls and emails seeking comment Tuesday…

-----

J

 

[BaalChatzaf]

Just now, Jonathan said:

Rand would have sided with the city code preventing a gallery from displaying nudity in its store window:

http://www.my9nj.com/chasing-news/127326609-story

Gallery sues over fines for artwork of partially nude woman

ENGLEWOOD, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey gallery has filed a federal lawsuit over a city code violation it received for displaying artwork of a partially nude woman in its store window.

The Borghi Fine Art Gallery in Englewood sued last week, saying its constitutional rights were violated when it was issued a violation with fines of $1,250 per day and the threat of up to 90 days in jail over artwork showing a woman's bare buttocks.

City officials and code enforcement officer Walter Deptuch, who is also named in the suit, didn't immediately return phone calls and emails seeking comment Tuesday…

-----

J

 

How did you conclude that Ayn Rand would have approved of this restrictive law?

[Jonathan]

Ayn Rand Lexicon, under the entry for Free Speech:

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality . . .

The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech.

“Thought Control,”
The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 2, 2

[RobinReborn]

This is one of those areas where Rand contradicts herself.

 

Remember the Temple of the Human Spirit?  Remember the statue there?

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Ayn Rand Lexicon, under the entry for Free Speech:

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality . . .

The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech.

“Thought Control,”
The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 2, 2

No one is forced to see or watch pornography.  Confront is an interesting word.  I wonder what it means (legally speaking).  Short of a couple rutting on the grass of a public park,  how does anyone confront anyone else with scenes of gross sexuality.  Most people (mostly men)  view their porno  stuff by logging onto  www.video-one.com   or similar sites. Is that confronting?

[MereMortal]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No one is forced to see or watch pornography.  Confront is an interesting word.  I wonder what it means (legally speaking).  Short of a couple rutting on the grass of a public park,  how does anyone confront anyone else with scenes of gross sexuality.  Most people (mostly men)  view their porno  stuff by logging onto  www.video-one.com   or similar sites. Is that confronting?

Rand isn't claiming anyone is forced to watch pornography.  In fact, that wasn't even the issue.  She was asked a question about sex and what can or cannot be prohibited.  She simply said what she thought was appropriate to legislate in that area.  It's like me saying that I think the government can properly outlaw private ownership of nuclear bombs in response to a question related to the 2nd Amendment and then a critic responds by saying "No one owns any nukes".    

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, RobinReborn said:

This is one of those areas where Rand contradicts herself.

Remember the Temple of the Human Spirit?  Remember the statue there?

It was pornographic?

Leonard Peikoff discussed the idea of pornography during a Q n N many decades ago and found it, like "propaganda," too hard to pin down respecting what was and was not. ("I know it when I see it"--Justice Stewart.) Peikoff suggested, somewhat facetiously, that if he had been in charge "propaganda" wouldn't have made it into the language.

--Brant

"propaganda" was at NBI in 1968

"pornography" was a few years later in a NYC lecture

[Brant Gaede]

32 minutes ago, MereMortal said:

Rand isn't claiming anyone is forced to watch pornography.  In fact, that wasn't even the issue.  She was asked a question about sex and what can or cannot be prohibited.  She simply said what she thought was appropriate to legislate in that area.  It's like me saying that I think the government can properly outlaw private ownership of nuclear bombs in response to a question related to the 2nd Amendment and then a critic responds by saying "No one owns any nukes".    

To digress: The right to own and bear arms is not a primary but derivative right. The primary right is the right to defend oneself. Hence nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, tanks, naplam, etc. are not properly covered by the Second Amendment. Automatic weapons? Not really. Semi-automatic, yes. When it comes to grey areas the citizenry needs to push back against the contemporary interpretation of the law as needed to protect the right to self defense.

--Brant

rationally fight for your freedom, but fight for your freedom always (to fight for it you have to know what you are talking about)

[MereMortal]

Brant, I'm afraid you missed my point.  If one opines that a particular law is justified, it doesn't matter if the action being prohibited is occurring or not.  The law itself is the issue, not whether or not the behavior being legislated is occurring or not occurring.  

[Brant Gaede]

True. I knew it but wanted to say something anyway.

--Brant

hard to shut up

[Brant Gaede]

4 minutes ago, MereMortal said:

Brant, I'm afraid you missed my point.  If one opines that a particular law is justified, it doesn't matter if the action being prohibited is occurring or not.  The law itself is the issue, not whether or not the behavior being legislated is occurring or not occurring.  

Now I got it! Thanks.

--Brant

people are starting to worry about me

[Max]

I think the picture or statue of a nude woman isn't in itself what is usually called "sexually explicit material", so I don't see a contradiction in Rand's viewpoints here.
 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, MereMortal said:

Rand isn't claiming anyone is forced to watch pornography.  In fact, that wasn't even the issue.  She was asked a question about sex and what can or cannot be prohibited.  She simply said what she thought was appropriate to legislate in that area.  It's like me saying that I think the government can properly outlaw private ownership of nuclear bombs in response to a question related to the 2nd Amendment and then a critic responds by saying "No one owns any nukes".    

In the news item that I posted, the city of Englewood, NJ, had banned the public display of images that it regarded to be loathsome or inappropriate. The Borghi Fine Art gallery posted images of nudity in one of its display windows. Rand specifically supported "legal restraints" on exactly that!

I quote her again (with my bolding added):

"Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality . . .

"The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech."

Of course, her position is wrong, irrational, and in inconsistent with her stated philosophy. It's an example of her reacting emotionally, not thinking the issue through, and deviating from Objectivism.

J

 

[Jonathan]

18 minutes ago, Max said:

I think the picture or statue of a nude woman isn't in itself what is usually called "sexually explicit material", so I don't see a contradiction in Rand's viewpoints here.
 

Usually? Usually is irrelevant. Rand's position is that people have the right to not be offended by images that they regard as loathsome. The people of Englewood, NJ, decided what they regard as loathsome, and enacted laws against displaying it.

Are you suggesting that Rand's, and only Rand's, personal tastes and levels of being offended are or should be the universal standard? Only images which Rand would have found offensive can be banned from being displayed publicly? Only she has the right to not be offended, and anyone who is offended by softer nude or sexual content doesn't have the right to not be offended?

J

[Max]

6 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Usually? Usually is irrelevant. Rand's position is that people have the right to not be offended by images that they regard as loathsome. The people of Englewood, NJ, decided what they regard as loathsome, and enacted laws against displaying it.

Are you suggesting that Rand's, and only Rand's, personal tastes and levels of being offended are or should be the universal standard? Only images which Rand would have found offensive can be banned from being displayed publicly? Only she has the right to not be offended, and anyone who is offended by softer nude or sexual content doesn't have the right to not be offended?

J

I'm not suggesting Rand's personal tastes should be the universal standard. I only don't see how we could abolish all standards. Necessarily those will be more or less arbitrary, in some places rather liberal, in other places more strict. Nothing wrong with that. We can just laugh about the actions of the more prudish ones, unless a small but aggressive minority will try to force its views against the will of the majority (which for example is becoming a problem with muslim immigrants in Europe).
 

[MereMortal]

57 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

In the news item that I posted, the city of Englewood, NJ, had banned the public display of images that it regarded to be loathsome or inappropriate. The Borghi Fine Art gallery posted images of nudity in one of its display windows. Rand specifically supported "legal restraints" on exactly that!

I quote her again (with my bolding added):

"Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality . . .

"The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech."

Of course, her position is wrong, irrational, and in inconsistent with her stated philosophy. It's an example of her reacting emotionally, not thinking the issue through, and deviating from Objectivism.

J

 

Yes that's true and that bothers me too but she's no longer with us. The rest of us have to correct the errors and move on.  At least she provided the methods by which to think about these issues more clearly.  

[Brant Gaede]

Rand's philosophy was/is more radical than she was.

--Brant

very interesting but no big deal (Nathaniel Branden mentioned this decades ago)

[anthony]

And what year did Rand make the comment? As she says/writes " this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not morality". A (rational) morality stays the same, but the delicate tastes of the mainstream have advanced, and anybody today who objects to those extremely tame semi-nudes as 'porn' is loony. For definite, Rand was not going to protect Mother Grundy's who could be offended by e.g. the statue of David. Lets' get real.

[anthony]

19 hours ago, Max said:

I'm not suggesting Rand's personal tastes should be the universal standard. I only don't see how we could abolish all standards. Necessarily those will be more or less arbitrary, in some places rather liberal, in other places more strict. Nothing wrong with that. We can just laugh about the actions of the more prudish ones, unless a small but aggressive minority will try to force its views against the will of the majority (which for example is becoming a problem with muslim immigrants in Europe).
 

I think this gets to the point. It is not Rand's morality or "personal tastes" of ugliness which is central here, (she says as much) but as she perceives (one might say, "universalizes") the general standards of a whole populace - linked to their rights, balanced between freedom of expression and the freedom to not be arbitrarily confronted by "loathsome" sights. It would be often a fine balance which would require the law to decide, what is a public display of pornography - or what is within bounds of tasteful nudity. At one end of the scale, a Muslim man (e.g.) might kick up a fuss over a picture of a woman's bare shoulder. He should not be able to dictate to others his distaste, not in a free, civilised society. But nor should a pornographer, at the other end.

[Jonathan]

On April 21, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Max said:

I'm not suggesting Rand's personal tastes should be the universal standard. I only don't see how we could abolish all standards.
 

Really? You don't see how we could abolish all standards of cenosorship? It's very simple: just abolish them! Respect property rights, including in situations where you have feelings about what others are doing on their property. If someone is doing something on their own property which everyone else thinks is visually traumatic, then find some other means than running to government and initiating force to try to convince them to stop. The idea of a philosophy of liberty and respect for individual rights isn't to abandon it at the drop of a hat.

Having deep feelings about someone's showing a naughty picture? Well, get over it!

Can't get over it? Then get creative. Organize with others and apply social pressure, boycott, embarrass and socially ostracize, or raise funds to buy the surrounding property and wall in the offensive window displays, purchase street signs or billboards warning the innocent, tender, uninformed passerby that shockingly icky pictures are publicly displayed ahead in a naughty person's shop windows, etc. There are a lot of options that don't require abandoning individual rights over something as minor as some dirty pictures.

J

[Jonathan]

On April 21, 2016 at 3:53 PM, anthony said:

And what year did Rand make the comment? As she says/writes " this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not morality". A (rational) morality stays the same, but the delicate tastes of the mainstream have advanced, and anybody today who objects to those extremely tame semi-nudes as 'porn' is loony. For definite, Rand was not going to protect Mother Grundy's who could be offended by e.g. the statue of David. Lets' get real.

Rand's statement was that people -- all people, and not just Rand.-- have the right to not be offended by being confronted with images that they regard as loathsome. Therefore "Mother Grundy" would also have that right.

There is no "rational" standard of what is offensive, despite your or Rand's wish to believe that your every thought and feeling is rational and objective.

So, indeed, "let's get real," as you say. Rand's position on censoring what she personally found to be disgusting and loathsome is inconsistent with her philosophy. She didn't think it through at all. And it's really stupid of you to try to defend the contradictory position.

J

[Jonathan]

On April 22, 2016 at 9:21 AM, anthony said:

I think this gets to the point. It is not Rand's morality or "personal tastes" of ugliness which is central here, (she says as much) but as she perceives (one might say, "universalizes") the general standards of a whole populace - linked to their rights, balanced between freedom of expression and the freedom to not be arbitrarily confronted by "loathsome" sights. It would be often a fine balance which would require the law to decide, what is a public display of pornography - or what is within bounds of tasteful nudity. At one end of the scale, a Muslim man (e.g.) might kick up a fuss over a picture of a woman's bare shoulder. He should not be able to dictate to others his distaste, not in a free, civilised society. But nor should a pornographer, at the other end.

It's always fun watching you trying to embrace both opposing sides of one of Rand's contradictions. The pretzels you twist youself into! The transparent tricks, the equivocations, the obfuscations and evasions! Quite entertaining!

J

[Max]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Really? You don't see how we could abolish all standards of cenosorship? It's very simple: just abolish them! Respect property rights, including in situations where you have feelings about what others are doing on their property. If someone is doing something on their own property which everyone else thinks is visually traumatic, then find some other means than running to government and initiating force to try to convince them to stop. The idea of a philosophy of liberty and respect for individual rights isn't to abandon it at the drop of a hat.

Having deep feelings about someone's showing a naughty picture? Well, get over it!

Can't get over it? Then get creative. Organize with others and apply social pressure, boycott, embarrass and socially ostracize, or raise funds to buy the surrounding property and wall in the offensive window displays, purchase street signs or billboards warning the innocent, tender, uninformed passerby that shockingly icky pictures are publicly displayed ahead in a naughty person's shop windows, etc. There are a lot of options that don't require abandoning individual rights over something as minor as some dirty pictures.

J

Ah, the libertarian utopia, where people no doubt are also free to masturbate in public. I live in the real world, however, where I have to deal with other people with different opinions, and where compromise is inevitable, especially in cases where standards cannot be proved to be "correct". The viewpoint "therefore no standards at all" won't get you very far, I'm afraid.
 

[anthony]

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Rand's statement was that people -- all people, and not just Rand.-- have the right to not be offended by being confronted with images that they regard as loathsome. Therefore "Mother Grundy" would also have that right.

There is no "rational" standard of what is offensive, despite your or Rand's wish to believe that your every thought and feeling is rational and objective.

So, indeed, "let's get real," as you say. Rand's position on censoring what she personally found to be disgusting and loathsome is inconsistent with her philosophy. She didn't think it through at all. And it's really stupid of you to try to defend the contradictory position.

J

If anybody knows what is consistent with Rand's philosophy, excuse me, but I won't ask you. I will ask: should every passing parent have to explain to his child what's going on with a sexual, public display? Is a neighbor's horrendously loud music offensive? Same things. Oh, but they're on private property...doesn't cut it.

Perhaps you have absolutely no limits of what is loathsome to you? Well, bully for you, not everybody does. Despite your criticism, Rand does not specify here what SHE personally finds disgusting. She doesn't need to since this concerns public acceptability and decency, not her morality. She tacitly acknowledges that everybody has different standards, by their experience, rationality, morals, backgrounds, customs, age, etc.- I'd think - but obviously they all can't be catered to. It's a legal issue which has to be adjusted and re-evaluated with time - so where did you find "objective" or "rational standard" in it? Is this another fabrication?

What are acceptable norms of public permissiveness in a society and of a period can only be arbitrated by Law courts, case by case - if there are complainants.

"Legal restraints on certain types of public displays....but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality..." AR

Take "property rights" and "censorship" out of the context of reality, and we arrive at absurd conclusions. Again, this comes down to a considered balance between two rights in a given situation. You believe -do you- that a whole society of adults and minors must be dictated to (educated?) by explicit porn scenes quite acceptable to you and some others? That's the flipside, and as coercive, of religious Fundamentalists banning all displays of flesh. Yes you have the freedom of expression, but not as Rand put it, on MY stage in MY auditorium. The shop window is a stage to a public auditorium. Get real.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

If anybody knows what is consistent with Rand's philosophy, excuse me, but it's not you. I'll ask: should every parent have to explain to his child what's going on with a sexual, public display? Is a neighbor's horrendously loud music offensive? Same thing. Oh, but they're on private property...doesn't cut it.

Perhaps you have absolutely no limits of what is loathsome to you? Well, bully for you, not everybody does. Despite your criticism, Rand does not specify here what SHE personally finds disgusting. She tacitly acknowledges that everybody has different standards, by their experience, rationality, morals, backgrounds, customs, age, etc.- I'd think - but obviously they all can't be catered to. It's a legal issue which has to be adjusted and re-evaluated with time - so where did you find "objective" or "rational standard" in it? Is this another fabrication?

What are acceptable norms of public permissiveness in a society and of a period can only be arbitrated by Law courts, case by case - if there are complainants.

"Legal restraints on certain types of public displays....but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality..." AR

Take "property rights" and "censorship" out of the context of reality, and we arrive at absurd conclusions. Again, this comes down to a considered balance between two rights in a given situation. You believe -do you- that a whole society of adults and minors must be dictated to (educated?) by explicit porn scenes quite acceptable to you and some others? That's the flipside, and as coercive, of religious Fundamentalists banning all displays of flesh. Yes you have the freedom of expression, but not as Rand put it, on MY stage in MY auditorium. The shop window is a stage to a public auditorium. Get real.

Why are you pretending Jonathan didn't provide an alternative to legal ordinances and their enforcement? Because Rand didn't?

--Brant