Forums | MacLife

The Who song, "Pictures of Lilly" comes to mind...

That's probably the most worthless remark in here.

But yeah, back on topic, I really would like to have my previous questions answered properly.

What makes breasts different from guns or soda, in regards to cencoring them? And I'm pretty sure I had another one, but I just forgot it.

The censor-friendly are hoping you forget them.      The fact is that they can't establish that there's any reason for censoring this mural.  Except that some parents want it... even though they have no intelligible reason.  But the fact is that they have to have a reason for this censorship to be just.  According to the law being enforced there, the reason has to be that the mural of a partially nude Eve causes "harm" to minors who view it.  But no one can establish what harm comes to a kid looking at her, so the only conclusion is that this sheriff is wrong and should drop it.

And it shouldn't matter that the majority of people in the town think the mural should be censored.  We don't live in a mob rules society.  Hell, it shouldn't even matter if no one likes it but the artist.  He/she still has the right to paint it if it's causing no harm.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually like it myself. I think it's bad. I might go as far as to say awful. But I still wouldn't say it must come down even if I have to look at it every day. If I live in that town and I found that it bothers me that much, it's up to me to either avert my gaze or find an alternative route so I don't see it. Or live with it, because it really doesn't cause me any harm - something no one has yet bothered to address.

Just because I don't happen to think the painting is any good and I find it offends my artistic sensibilities, that doesn't give me the right to dictate whether it stays there or not. My high school art class did better murals than that. But hey, it's the gallery owner's call as to what goes up on his walls, not mine, not the uptight townsfolk.

Flying_Meat"]That, or an itsy-bitsy, teenie-weenie, yellow polka dot bikini. 

And on the eighth day (at the request of Adam) God created sexy womens lingerie.

  That must have been in those gnostic Gospels, right?

According to the quoted article, "(p)olice gave gallery owner Wes Miller until Aug. 20 to change the wall mural, saying it violated state law against distributing "harmful material" to a minor. Otherwise, Miller will face criminal charges."

While I obviously realize some parents wouldn't want their kids to see this, I don't think they should be able to dictate what others can do with their property. Much of the debate in this thread has focused on the sensibility of a law against "nudity," but putting that aside for the moment, it's not clear from the article that the contents of the painting are illegal. If there's a law that specifically forbids publicly viewable imagery of women's breasts, the painting is probably in violation, but if the state law simply references "harmful material" to a minor, without being more specific, whoever decided to charge Miller appears to have overstepped boundaries - however personally objectionable some may find the mural, I'd imagine they're hard-pressed to present a compelling case that the image is actually harmful material to a minor.

If we ban this, the next step will be banning chicks wearing tight shirts in public, and... Well that's just unconstitutional or something...