baby art blog : censorship

Archives Under "censorship" (RSS)

graham ovenden continued…

9 April 2013 | art, censorship, crime | 10 comments

another post to help redress the balance of graham ovenden images on the internet – a few “exclusives” here, including unusually playful things

the controversy still raging – the guardian fueling debate (here and here) – and the mail-online fueling hate (here and here) – besides the usual menagerie of internet “world put right by me” types who like to brag about their 127 iq and their belief in impartiality, treating everyone with equal respect (artists/”sick fat cunt”s who paint little girls NOT included obviously) – so time for trevor to put you right!

i think everything that could be said has been said by now – you can choose sides – i feel the “truth”, the extent of the actual sex crimes, has got a little buried however – so briefly, for the record (and as the ignorant media aren’t telling you), mr ovenden was convicted for:

1. getting into a bath tub with two girls asking one girl to wash his “john thomas” – no other sexual act
2. cupping his hands over the clothed chest of the same girl – both these charges (related to events up to 40 years old!) denied by ovenden
3. two photographs of a girl …who has continued to state she was never touched or mistreated by ovenden
4. one photograph of another girl with the now famous victorian nightdress and “black stickytape” blindfold – i’ve seen the photo – the blindfold is white, looks like cloth, and appears she could see out the bottom of it easily
5 and 6. “specimen” charges i don’t understand related to the act of repeated photography – being itself viewed as an indecent act even if the photographs not indecent themselves(???)

date for sentencing not set – we’re not done here yet

no charges for painting – his paintings are innocent okay! – at least until the tate decides otherwise – which effectively they already have? – the idea his paintings are evidence of paedophilia and/or trophies for all his supposed child sex conquests firmly implanted in the public’s mind now (even liberal guardian readers)

personally i think his lolita works tend to sit on the mildly titillating end of the sensual-to-erotic-to-pornographic scale – mostly simple nudes (or not even nudes) with abstract backgrounds and nothing happening – basically portraits! – admittedly a certain idiosyncratic (unwitting?) somberness (also prevalent in his landscapes) which gives his work it’s artistic edge – or alternatively viewed as something troubling – “sexualised” images?, if you must, but any sexualisation is largely by you the viewer?! – or by the gutter press – to whit the censored/pornographicised image below courtesy of the mail-online (they removed it after their duplicity pointed out to them!)

ovenden gave up photography 25 years ago i think i read – and has made no new little girl paintings for a similar time?

and produced more paintings of trees than girls?!

“pervert!”

5 April 2013 | art, censorship, crime | 5 comments

“Be careful of ‘googling’ this guy’s work, or you might find yourself charged with viewing child pornography.”

“Dirty old creep. This sick society’s riddled with them.”

“Another so called artist who believes he can do whatever he likes so long as he calls it “art”Hope he is banged up for a long while”

“…his portrait painting had been a ruse to aid his abuse of children.”

“Gross, disgusting, disgraceful man. Those poor children !”

“Strange that he was ill on the day of the verdict.”

“He’s sounds like a loathsome man. He’s typical of many people in the art world ,who think that normal rules of behavior don’t belong to them.”

“Hang on… just what has he been convicted of???… what did he actually do?…. its so nebulous to be untenable…. until you tell us… what did he do? actually?”

bring back the death penalty

16 July 2011 | censorship, crime | 20 comments

stephen freeman and fellow ex-pie members in the uk, charged with making “vile” drawings (mentioned here a little while back), have now received “indeterminate sentences” – ranging from 12 to 30 months minimum, then the powers-that-be decide if they’ll be let out or left to rot? – it’s being hailed as a landmark case – police are delighted doing away with these “individuals who pose a significant threat to society” who committed “the most serious of crimes”: drawing pictures!

here follows (unedited!) some, err, heartfelt comments from the daily mail online (website of uk’s second biggest selling newspaper):

Bring back the death penalty.

A paedophile pressure group? The dirty, vile scum-bags!

Our children ate NOT avaiable for you to get your rocks off. All need shooting, no discussion, no appeal, no point to these childhood robbers even existing. I’ll personally volunteer to pull the trigger. Human rights legislation? ……. Up yours!

It is scary some of these men look normal. Heaven only knows what warped things go on in their heads.

Individuals like this make a staggeringly good argument for the return of the death penalty. Dangerous animals are by law destroyed – this is what they are – dangerous animals whose main preoccupation is the ruination of childrens lives.

These abnormals are allowed human rights but normal decent fathers have lost theirs with all the restrictions imposed by the PC brigade. In my world, I’d get rid of paedophiles and let normal fathers enjoy family life but I can’t shout as loud as all the PC paedophile support groups. Look at them, they are freaks and I welcome them to sue me for hurt feelings.

[We are no longer accepting comments on this article.]

these lynch mob nazis pose more of a significant threat to society?

japan to outlaw “loli”?

14 March 2010 | censorship | 13 comments

there are proposals to expand the child pornography laws in japan to include “sexual depictions of non-existant characters under 18 – or who appear to be under 18″ – it’s under government discussion this month – but due to western pressure it’s obvious which way the vote will go – when passed it’ll come into force before the end of this year

the public of course do not get a vote on the matter – but it appears my name is cropping up in the virtual discussions – so i’ll restate the fact trevor brown art does not include sexual depictions of minors – certainly no sex

getting that out the way, the first point is: regardless of anything, the banning of art is totalitarianism, or at best backward thinking – but we’ve passed the apex of free-expression – enjoy the ride back to victorian values – new islam

needless to say these measures are being brought in under the guise of “child protection” – naturally a blind eye is turned to yakuza dealings in child prostitution, the real problem is apparently some kid looking at cartoons (and i believe it is actually mostly kids / young adults who are into this “loli” stuff – i don’t want to use the word immaturity but it is just a part of growing up?!) – and japanese schoolgirls decided themselves to wear miniskirts, no one forced it upon them, they don’t want our “protection” thank you – and, perhaps due to the lack of sexual repression (loli manga!), children are a million times more safe to walk the streets in tokyo than they are in new york

it’s jealousy isn’t it?! – the western world despise japan for being so clean, safe, polite, law-abiding etc – you won’t be happy until japan is just like you with your sexual angst, hypocritical values, fighting wars and whatever else it is that makes america so goddam great that we all must meekly follow – congratulations, you’re getting your brave new world – and, hey, rather than all this concern making laws about stupid comics, why the hell isn’t there a vote on whether WAR should be allowed or not???

amendment:

having read a bit more it seems this law is tokyo specific – and relates (only?!) to the selling or distribution of material to children – so i think a false alarm?

a rough translation of the relevant clause:

Restriction of the Sale of Unhealthy Literature

[A ban on sales, lending or distribution to, or viewing by, minors in the Tokyo area would cover:]
1. Items which stimulate sexual emotions, foster cruelty, encourage suicide or promote crime, or otherwise impede the healthy growth of youth.
2. Items which through age, clothing, accessories, school year, setting, other people’s ages, or voice, seems reminiscent of a person who might be recognised as an under-18 (hereafter called a “a fictional minor”) engaged in, or appearing to be engaged in, sexual activity or activity resembling sexual activity, or which impede the development of healthy sexual faculties in youths, or which might be feared to obstruct the healthy development of youths.

it appears anime sites et al have been misinterpreting this as japan totally forbidding depictions of “fictional minors” – if that were really the case this would be a far bigger and more crazy issue!

christopher handley update

16 February 2010 | censorship, comix, crime | 2 comments

anyone interested has probably read this news already but i’m obliged to follow up my own slightly ignorant post on this case

the world’s latest most notorious anime/manga fanboy was sentenced last week to 6 months of jail, 5 years of probation, 3 years ban from using a computer plus psychological testing to diagnose and treat his sexual deviancy and mental health – better than the touted ten years jail but still pretty “urgh! wtf…” – the latter assumption of sexual retardation particularly – okay, he’s probably a bit old for all that silly otaku stuff but, hey, i’m even older and still trawl akiba (in search of nurse dollies) – one shouldn’t knock another man’s harmless interests/obsessions

this report lists the titles in handley’s seized parcel – and with a minimum of effort someone has grabbed a copy of each off the net and bundled them into a torrent – adding “i do have to say that the only real crime here is his taste in loli manga”