2018-11-04 at 8:27 PM UTCHow broad should the standards be?
2018-11-04 at 8:31 PM UTCWhat are your thoughts on the subject cupo?
2018-11-04 at 9:31 PM UTC
2018-11-05 at 1:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by cupocheer I was thinking, in America, that they should be as broad as the US Constitution allows.
I think you're confusing the notion of "artistic license" with freedom of speech. Artistic license usually refers to a work of fiction taking liberties with a story, e.g. including factual errors or limited internal inconsistencies to serve the narrative. It doesn't really have anything to do with the idea of what an artist may or may not produce.
2018-11-05 at 1:46 AM UTCAre you guys bonding?
2018-11-05 at 10:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I think you're confusing the notion of "artistic license" with freedom of speech. Artistic license usually refers to a work of fiction taking liberties with a story, e.g. including factual errors or limited internal inconsistencies to serve the narrative. It doesn't really have anything to do with the idea of what an artist may or may not produce.
Couple of points, if you please.
1. The US Constitution refers to ..." freedom of speech and expression"... --- expression is not always verbal
2. Specifically, I was referring to art in my initial topic query. --- "Art" comes in many forms, not just design mediums (statues, paintings, line drawings etc).
3. RE: (your above quoted comment) -- What is your opinion of a cartoon image representing an actual person? (a caricature)
2018-11-06 at 8:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by cupocheer 1. The US Constitution refers to …" freedom of speech and expression"… — expression is not always verbal
Well the first amendment actually doesn't make any reference to "freedom of expression", it's worded as literally "freedom of speech" which, to be honest, really does seem limited to verbal expression and it's only through interpretation of spirit rather than letter that first amendment protections have been extended to non-verbal works of art.
No mind you I didn't really imply otherwise, the term "freedom of speech" clearly extends to non-verbal works and I used it in that sense.
The point I was making is that legal freedoms have nothing to do with what "artistic license" means.
3. RE: (your above quoted comment) – What is your opinion of a cartoon image representing an actual person? (a caricature)
Uhh, I guess my opinion depends on the actual image? If you're asking how I think artistic works about living persons should be handled, I'm highly skeptical of trying to legislate on defamation and don't think we should (legally) prohibit any kind of work merely on the grounds that it damages someone's reputation. If you're asking about my opinion on the genre artistically I think that most cartoons dealing with living people, especially politically oriented ones, is pretty much the lowest level political argument and usually don't achieve anything more than reaffirming people's opinions and making them feel smug.
2018-11-06 at 1:36 PM UTCCould it be an extension of artistic license,
A moody defiance
Of all of life's tyrants
While you've been searching your heart?
2018-11-06 at 1:36 PM UTCAlso OP is a faggot
2018-11-08 at 1:23 AM UTCActually, Lanny, I respect your opinion, albeit mine may differ completely no on can say we agent justified in our own way.
As far as genre applies I am of the wont that all genres should be cloaked in the garment of equality.
2018-11-29 at 3:55 PM UTCI made a real thing.