×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jury Decides Artist's Gory Images On Website Are Art

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the bloody-eye-of-the-beholder dept.

Canada 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

289 comments

Really Quite Disgusting (0, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#42382287)

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.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (5, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year ago | (#42382315)

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 (0, Troll)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#42382403)

At least put some thought into your stupid crusade.

Your 'comment' is so badly constructed it only makes you look like an idiot.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382933)

At least put some thought into your stupid crusade.

Your 'comment' is so badly constructed it only makes you look like an idiot.

It seems like you were offended by his "art" speech. That's your opinion/problem, but it's not my cross to bear.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382435)

Either you're trolling or you misunderstand things completely.

Christians believe that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. Hence they should also believe that there is no need for more sacrifices to wash more sins.

Whether you believe that or not is a different matter.

You imply they're spreading misinformation, and yet you yourself spread misinformation in the process.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (5, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#42382637)

you failed to grasp the meaning of TFAFalcon's sarcastic comment. Consider Mel Gibson's "The Passion." Goriest, most horrifying move I've seen in a long time. A real sickfest if you ask me. It's one thing to commemorate the death of Jesus. It's quite another thing to make dwell on every sick, sadistic detail of his crucifixion. But it's considered art and it should be. If we were banning 'art' on the basis of how horrific it is, we'd have to ban that movie and countless others, along with crucifixes and many other kinds of religious art and that would be a loss.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382991)

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. That you equate it with torture porn meant to give sick freaks a hard-on is so morally inverted it makes me despair for civilization. Remy Couture has created something that is the artistic equivalent of a heap of dung; only an over-educated, morally compromised cretinous lout would accept that what he has done is 'Art'. It's jack-off fuel for cannibals and necrophiliacs, nothing more. He is chiseling away at the foundation of civilization, you blind hydro-cephalic nincompoop.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (4, Insightful)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | about a year ago | (#42383049)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383241)

I follow you reasoning but would choose to ban the lot including the iconography, but that's just me.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (4, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year ago | (#42382807)

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:Really Quite Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383069)

Wasn't the death of every other person that died on a cross a much bigger sacrifice?

No, because they weren't of equivalent value.

I could go into how they fully got what they were offered (their life previous to their death), how they got far more than they could deserve (in terms of providing it themselves, that is, no life at all), or that you're making an unbacked assertion that they didn't/won't come back to life per the worldview you're evaluating, but that doesn't really seem necessary. It's the Christian worldview that has some basis for evaluating the event as more significant than, say, the equally "horrible" event of slaughterhouses for beef; theism, unlike Naturalism, has a basis to say their permutation of DNA is of particular value relative to animals and therefore should be considered differently--yours doesn't.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (2)

srobert (4099) | about a year ago | (#42383093)

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 symbol with pronouncements about the fate of the wealthy, "a rope through the eye of a needle" and so forth.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (4, Interesting)

Twinbee (767046) | about a year ago | (#42383111)

You're the only other person apart from myself I've known to state that it wasn't such a big sacrifice after all. Congrats and thankyou.

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:Really Quite Disgusting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382461)

God you're a stupid cunt.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382491)

Just look at all those offended Christians...

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#42382381)

You probably have a lot less to worry about an artist staging these sorts of scenes than the people on the internet sharing real video of these types of events, you know, the type of people that he's commenting on.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (0)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#42382423)

Why art in quotation marks? I atleast find his work exceedingly interesting, it takes special kind of talent to do what he does. Some of those pictures are really, really good and I'll probably spend a while googling around this evening. I've never heard of the guy before, but I'm glad I did now.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382951)

I atleast find his work exceedingly interesting

Than you are a sick indevidual.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (2, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#42383007)

Than you are a sick indevidual.

Well, I don't really feel terribly insulted when a person who can't even spell "individual" and "then" properly calls me sick.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (4, Insightful)

TrekkieGod (627867) | about a year ago | (#42382445)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382689)

What if my fantasy is looking at naked under-aged girls doing sexy things (with or without gore)? Is that okay now? I mean, if it is staged art and not real, then it should be okay and making it or watching it should be legal.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (3, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42382777)

Morally, yes, legally, no. Sadly, all the 5-12 year olds on The Gong Show (come on, is the "X" anything other than a gong?) is illegal child porn, according to many laws. It's just that the laws are so far divorced from reality that most wouldn't realize it unless they stopped and thought "would this excite a pedophile?" Though the general legal standard is "would this excite a normal person" but that is ignored in court, and it's all a question of "if you thought this was sexy, do you find this sexy?" So, by definition, anyone charged with child porn is guilty. Like the manga guy with so many movies that some of them included tentacle porn. He pled guilty because his lawyer let him in on the secret that anyone charged with child porn is guilty, even if the porn is fictional and completely impossible (tentacle porn). That it is part of a larger art collection is irrelevant.

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:Really Quite Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382791)

Yes, if these girls are actually of age. It is actually very common for pornography to have plots depicting older women as very young.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383029)

Yes, if these girls are actually of age. It is actually very common for pornography to have plots depicting older women as very young.

All those hardened, tattooed 25yo "schoolgirls", LoL ... with faces you could file nails on :=)
Even the "Barely Legal" and "18 Only"-type genre usually means 25-30yo+ now. Just as well I find porn boring these days. Any convincing sexual reprepresentation of a schoolgirl, regardless of her actual age be that 12 or 45yo, would now be illegal in some (many?) parts of the world.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#42382803)

What if my art is peeing in a jar containing a portrait of Stephen Harper? Surely I should be jailed if I offend enough people, eh? What if I paint a picture of the top 50 Canadian Industrialists crucified? If I offend you with such a painting I should be jailed, what? How about if I'm a journalist and I uncover atrocities committed in third world countries by those same industrialists and I then sell the rights to those news articles to said artist who commences a mural depicting those atrocities and they offend you? Surely I should be jailed for 50 years, yes?

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year ago | (#42382845)

As long as the actresses are of legal age and just look under-aged, then go for it.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382971)

As long as it's consensual, go for it. The "legal age" shit is incredibly arbitrary.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383077)

As long as the actresses are of legal age and just look under-aged, then go for it.

Wrong! Any depiction that *looks* like a minor is child pron in Australia and some other countries I believe. This is also in an extremely broad international treaty which also contains an extremely broad definition of child pron. The model's actual age is now irrelevant; she could be 50yo and photoshopped to just *look* 16yo. Brought to you by the New Puritan Fascists who run all things, in association with Think Of The Children Inc Productions.

Remember: you let these people pass these oppressive laws. We all did. And no judge has the guts to strike them down in court.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (4, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#42382471)

So all the splatter horror movie creators and viewers? Just how many people are you planning on keeping an eye on?

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | about a year ago | (#42382587)

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 (3, Informative)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#42382701)

Oh you mean the US.
It's nigh impossible to get an accurate count of the number of criminal laws on the books.

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (1)

Maow (620678) | about a year ago | (#42382585)

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 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382687)

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:Really Quite Disgusting (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about a year ago | (#42382729)

As someone who creates art like this (in some cases) I've found it works best when both intelligence and emotion elevate this material from simply shock gore to artwork. Of course, I'm insane and admit it, but no one is keeping an eye on me besides my thousands of website visitors. - HEX

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (3, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42382801)

Why don't you put him on a "list"

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:Really Quite Disgusting (2)

wdef (1050680) | about a year ago | (#42382963)

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 ....?

Like people with GUNS perhaps? (0)

tekrat (242117) | about a year ago | (#42382987)

You know, people who keep guns in their homes seem to be more likely to shoot people than people without guns. So I think we should keep an eye on anyone who has a gun. What do you think of that idea?

Re:Really Quite Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383167)

Keep an eye on those gun worshiping trembling paranoid cowards too. The worst that can happen with a makeup rampage is we all look like rubber zombies. What's the worst that can happen when a gun freak snaps?

'Free Speech' Troll or Slashvertisment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382291)

Probably both together.

Andrew (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382301)

Thats Quebec for you.

^_^ (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382307)

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:^_^ (4, Insightful)

wdef (1050680) | about a year ago | (#42383123)

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 (4, Informative)

vivaoporto (1064484) | about a year ago | (#42382325)

From TFA:

But there was no victim in the case â" all of the works were staged with willing actresses and a combination of fake blood, latex and silicone to create life-like, horrific images.

Wtf? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382341)

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? (1)

Zagnar (722415) | about a year ago | (#42383063)

It's not as simple as that.

Obscenity not protected by the first amendment if it passes the miller test, from wikipedia:

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

Re:Wtf? (2)

compro01 (777531) | about a year ago | (#42383231)

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:Wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383191)

Why do we even have obscenity laws?

All powerful regimes throughout history have made illegal certain types of representations while also outlawing one sexual behavior or another.

They're so incredibly ambiguous and wrong that they shouldn't exist to begin with.

The ambiguity is deliberate in order to better scare the populace. It creates fear since no-one is quite sure which way the police (and then a judge) will lean on any borderline image. Therefore, people err on the side of caution and self-censor.

No misogeny (3, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | about a year ago | (#42382371)

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

Damnit, this is frustrating (3, Interesting)

Maow (620678) | about a year ago | (#42382411)

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:Damnit, this is frustrating (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#42382465)

I have had this happen in both directions. Having posted (unknowingly) a dupe story that was accepted, and what happened to you. It's just the nature of the poorly coded and edited slashdot beast.

Re:Damnit, this is frustrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382551)

Merry Christmas! I don't mean to make any false promises, but you can expect to find a whole bunch o' mod points wrapped up 'neath the tree tomorrow morning. You're welcome!!1!

Re:Damnit, this is frustrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382595)

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).

Here, have one of mine.
No hard feelings.

Re:Damnit, this is frustrating (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#42382653)

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:Damnit, this is frustrating (0)

Maow (620678) | about a year ago | (#42382753)

and not a single mod point in months and months, whereas before that I was getting 15 at a time

Random distribution is random.

But I don't think it is random.

It used to be; they'd come & go in groups of 5 with suitably long periods between them. Then they came in groups of 15 every few days to the point where I was tired of reading at a low threshold (threshhold?), then they disappeared completely.

Though you could be right in that they are now back to random and weren't random before. Or it was always truly random with a bizarre cluster of continuous points, but I began to think something else what happening.

Re:Damnit, this is frustrating (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42382809)

Slashdot has stated they are not random, and my experience is that they are not random.

Re:Damnit, this is frustrating (5, Insightful)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year ago | (#42382723)

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:Damnit, this is frustrating (1)

Maow (620678) | about a year ago | (#42382769)

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:Damnit, this is frustrating (1)

Maow (620678) | about a year ago | (#42382895)

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; once bitten twice shy, etc.

Cheers

Re:Damnit, this is frustrating (1)

wdef (1050680) | about a year ago | (#42383203)

Yeah that's happened to me several times also. I seldom bother submitting anymore, I mean why? There is no incentive to do so.

No link. I'm disappoint (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a year ago | (#42382413)

Funny that nobody post a damn link to the website. Can I have one please? I'd like to see by myself what is it that caused a trial. You know, first hand experience instead of just reported.

Re:No link. I'm disappoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382543)

INNERDEPRAVITY.COM

The site has been pulled and now links to a fund raising site for the case.

"young female victims" (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year ago | (#42382437)

Obviously, if the guy had depicted torture and dismemberment of old male victims, no one would be concerned.

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" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382669)

Especially when most of those were nice innocent young girls, admittedly in some cases with warped morals and lifestyles, but normal with respect to the rest of this self-destructive society.

The fact that obscenity can be a crime is terrible.
Looks like Canada is off the list. Even Britain isn't this prudish.

Re:"young female victims" (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about a year ago | (#42383065)

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.

And at this news, I nod and smile (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382487)

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 (4, Interesting)

booch (4157) | about a year ago | (#42382539)

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:Inner Depravity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382677)

Surely by calling the site "Inner Depravity" even the artist himself is acknowledging it's not something 'normal' or 'good' and certainly not something to be extended to reality.

After seeing some of his work, it's really quite impressive and is certainly not as graphic or tasteless as I was initially lead to believe.

Re:Inner Depravity (2, Interesting)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about a year ago | (#42383225)

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; use those angels as "norm".

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.

I am cool with that, see above. I am against censoring it, but I am also against respecting people who make it, and those who would put up with such shit or not give a second thought to it. If I even consider most pop music evil, then how much more so what can be found in the darker recesses.

Actually, kill yourselves (here's where me not being an angel comes into play). I know you're on thin ice so maybe a little prod will help? Do it. Don't dream about darkness, be it. I'm tired of all this cowardly pseudo-darkness by weak ass middle class farts that doesn't go anywhere. I'm tired of games with demons and soldiers, I'm tired of the movies, I'm tired of this dumb fucking elephant on that dumb fucking couch. Either renounce it, or jump into it, but don't think dithering around the bush is art. I have ZERO idea of any of this applies to the website in question, I know it applies to millions of people and the mediocre unreflected bullshit they create and consume. You fucking suck. Merry Christmas.

I was ok with this until I realized it was porn. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year ago | (#42382659)

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 (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#42382683)

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:I was ok with this until I realized it was porn (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383255)

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: the only thing that ever made that Jesus of Nazareth totally lose his cool was *hypocrisy*. He despised hypocrites more than anything else. He much preferred socially-reviled sinners who were up front about it: prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, persecutors ... If he were here today he would be hanging with pedophiles and Ponzi scheme administrators for example.

Doesn't harm anyone? (1)

MikeRT (947531) | about a year ago | (#42382665)

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.

Re:Doesn't harm anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382799)

This is precisely the kind of argument that requires some kind of backing evidence. It's all too easy to say, finding the supporting research isn't trivial to those not in the know, and anyone can make the argument.

Regardless, it's not evidence against pornography, either. It's just a sign of the times, and that "relationships" are changing. It's not a sign that it's unhealthy, unnatural, or that anyone is "losing".

Re:Doesn't harm anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382839)

I think you're confusing the side that causes harm. Socially we are sexually repressed. This is harm that has been done to the individual. What you reference as the determental effects of pornography, I call the reversal of a repressed society. Its extreme nature is shocking, but I would argue that you sometimes need to shock a system to bring about meaningful change. What you call a losing side of science, I call the evidence of an unhealthy society.

Re:Doesn't harm anyone? (4, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42382879)

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:Doesn't harm anyone? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#42383149)

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.

Meh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382667)

"Double tap" predator drone attacks are a far worse depravity IMHO...

This is Slashdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382775)

If you haven't seen the goatse link by now, you deserve to go back to Reddit. Also japan has been doing this sort of art for years with guro hentai.

Good thing he's In Canada not NJ. (2)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42382779)

Elsewhere in the world, specificly The People's Republic of New Jersey, school officials cannot determine the difference between a real, and drawn automatic weapon. (wonder why the US has education problems)

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.

Re:Good thing he's In Canada not NJ. (2)

blagooly (897225) | about a year ago | (#42383175)

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, and your frustration. But the Jersey school folks are not a court. Your assessment of our northern friends is a bit blinkered. Quebec suffers from PC phobias and acceptable idea codes that are far beyond the US now, although there are some here willing to catch up. For example, there was an effort to silence Mark Steyn, even to the point of putting ideas on trial.The good news? It comically failed, thanks to the very quick witted Steyn. for the curious: http://binged.it/TkvsFx [binged.it] It is worth checking out.

If you dont like it, dont look at it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42382873)

I cant understand how this isnt understood. Whether it be graphic violence, nudity or a michael bay movie if you dont like it then dont look at it. Its really that easy.

If more people in this country would focus on things they like instead of things they dont like we would all be much happier. And it would help if people minded their own business as well.

But thats the problem with you people, you feel the need to complain and condemn others just because you dont like what they like or have a different opinion of others. Everyone is fine and dandy till they see something they dont like and go ape shit over it.

And to all the parents out there: If you dont think something is fit for kids and morally wrong then be a parent and dont expose your kids to it. Worry about your own kids. Instead of trying to remove everything you dont agree with try and realize the world doesnt start and stop with you. Youre lazy, you dont want to parent, you want everything to be removed you dont like so you dont actually have to be involved with your children and do any work with them.

SLAPS test analogue? (1)

J'raxis (248192) | about a year ago | (#42382877)

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 such speech any more because they know that virtually anything can pass this test.

Streisand-like effect (1)

J'raxis (248192) | about a year ago | (#42382985)

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 produced, and I'm sure hundreds of others will, too. And some people will probably be inspired to create similar art. And so on and so on.

It's the Streisand effect with the entire Canadian government in the role of Streisand.

The best thing the State could do when people make art they don't like is to ignore it. But instead they try to suppress it, drawing an enormous spotlight to it, and they fail, leaving the art behind untouched---but now with a huge spotlight pointed at. Good job, guys.

All rise (0)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#42383017)

Scene at future patent trial:

Microsoft Lawyer: Your Honor, their patent on virtual intercourse clearly infringes on our patent from 2012.
Opponent Lawyer: But your patent was on hugs, not sex.
Microsoft Lawyer: Yeah, 'hugs'. (Winks at judge.) I think everyone knew what we were claiming.
Judge: I find for Microsoft.

It's Art - just not good art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383067)

I just went and watched one of his movies over here http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/5/inner-depravity-726742 and all I saw was something quite qeneric. Not very disturbing. Not that good. But definitely art.

Nuff said.

Gory site contravenes Canada's NICE laws. (2)

kawabago (551139) | about a year ago | (#42383115)

The outside world doesn't know it but we Canadians are actually legally required to be nice. Eh! Ya didn' think we were nice because we liked you?

Bad journalism and Conservative Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383125)

Slashdot, and none of the "News" outlets even bothered to list the Website in question. Yet another example of shameful and incompetent journalism (that appears to care more about political correctness than about accurate, comprehensive and informative reporting).

I don't get paid and I don't have anybody to fire me so I'll give you people the "controversial" Web site:

http://www.supportremy.com/ [supportremy.com]

Seems like politicians, and especially the religious ones, are more interested in promoting violence through gun rights, war and a police state, than they are about a peaceful demonstration of art.

We need to be encouraging artists like this instead of demonizing them.

The Canadian law in question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42383129)

He was charged under a law that makes it illegal to possess & distribute material that depicts pornography with a violent component.

He was found not guilty because the work in question depicts violence & murder with a sexual component ... ie: the primary component is the blood & gore not the sex; therefore he's not guilty of anything other than bad taste. It's a subtle difference, but an important one ... it means the law isn't invalidated, just that it doesn't apply to his brand of "art" .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...