I definitely accept and agree with that definition- but the question still stands as to what sets depictions of acts with children aside from depictions of acts with animals or of rape or murder? All four are exploitative in nature. To me it seems that the artists who were aware that this other subject material was present on the site and are just now up in arms because of the ToS change are saying they were tacitly accepting the other material.
Then there is the discussion that artwork is not reality, that a depiction of an act is not the act itself- though that does seem obvious to anyone who watches any R-rated gangster movie with people being killed left and right... that's a whole other dimension itself.
Please don't misinterpret my aim- I'm not looking to convince you or any of the artists who left that your decision was wrong. There are plenty of options available to artists in terms of hosting work for people to see, and I support anyone who wants to leave. I understand some artists aren't going to want to have their artwork on a site which allows provocative works - I'm just curious as to why *now* versus before, especially by artists who create art within the other 3 genres I outlined above.
FA is in a nice little predicament over this situation. FA doesn't want to dictate morality to its membership, but by doing so is going to upset those with stricter moral codes that what is permissible by law. It'd be nice if they could have programmed the site correctly from the outset (which I suppose would be to have the highest level of filtration applied to each image, and the artist responsible for lowering the rating- and the users be defaulted to having to opt-in to whatever rating they were comfortable with.) That still is not going to go far enough for a lot of folks, though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Guardian-ward
Date: 2006-11-09 05:07 am (UTC)Then there is the discussion that artwork is not reality, that a depiction of an act is not the act itself- though that does seem obvious to anyone who watches any R-rated gangster movie with people being killed left and right... that's a whole other dimension itself.
Please don't misinterpret my aim- I'm not looking to convince you or any of the artists who left that your decision was wrong. There are plenty of options available to artists in terms of hosting work for people to see, and I support anyone who wants to leave. I understand some artists aren't going to want to have their artwork on a site which allows provocative works - I'm just curious as to why *now* versus before, especially by artists who create art within the other 3 genres I outlined above.
FA is in a nice little predicament over this situation. FA doesn't want to dictate morality to its membership, but by doing so is going to upset those with stricter moral codes that what is permissible by law. It'd be nice if they could have programmed the site correctly from the outset (which I suppose would be to have the highest level of filtration applied to each image, and the artist responsible for lowering the rating- and the users be defaulted to having to opt-in to whatever rating they were comfortable with.) That still is not going to go far enough for a lot of folks, though.