Nudity in Art is Not Indecent Exposure

The arrest of Zach Hyman’s nude model during a photo shoot at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was predictable in spite of the irony of the location. Whereas marble and oil nudes are usually left at peace (not always though: art containing nudity is a frequent target of censorship), a living woman posing naked for an artist is guilty of exposure. Some of the absurdity of that situation, however, is

tempered by the fact that New York’s ban on public nudity provides an exemption for “any person entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show, or entertainment.” In other words, nudity for artistic purposes is not illegal: a detail apparently unknown to those who arrested Hyman’s model.

In a case argued ten years ago, involving the artist Spencer Tunick who photographs groups of nude people in public places, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Second circuit) found that the exemption for a “play, show, exhibition, or entertainment” should, indeed, apply to a photo shoot, otherwise the law may run into constitutional problems. As the court noted, “It is enough to ask why a nude performance with an audience would be permitted, and a photo shoot in the same place would be prohibited, to suggest that significant constitutional problems, based on irrationality, attend the City’s reading of the statute.” (TUNICK v. SAFIR, 228 F.3d 135 (2nd Cir. 2000))

We hope the case against Hyman’s model is dropped. We value art as it challenges the drabness of the everyday, Met Museum photo shootthe routine of the expected – the juxtaposition of a live nude with the artwork of the Met, opens this kind of provocative middle conceptual ground between the museum visitors’ present and the art on display. Is the model just another visitor disregarding the social norm that forces us to cover our bodies or is she like the artwork – exposing her body for the delight of the camera and the spectator? It is precisely questions like this that Hyman’s work raises – let’s hope we remain free to discuss these questions without police interference.

Now Hyman will stir some more serious controversy – and offer some real challenges is he starts working not with beautiful female models in fetching poses but with nude men and less then perfect women. Will he dare?

Access to Gossip Girls May Be ‘Only in Your Dreams’ for Teens in Leesburg

In April we reported on a book challenge after two parents  called for the removal of Maureen Johnson’s The Bermudez Triangle and Ceicly von Ziegesar’s Gossip Girls: Only in Your Dreams from the Leesburg Public Library.  In June, we were excited to offer an update full of good news. Yet somehow we are still holding our breath…

On Monday the Leesburg City Commission is scheduled to meet to hear the appeal which will determine the ultimate fate of these books at the Leesburg Public Library. With this in mind, the Kids’ Right to Read Project has written to the City Commission. Click here to see KRRP’s letter and here to let the Commission know what you think.

In the past supporters of free speech have responded to challenges and bans in numerous ways, including by using social network website like  Facebook to create groups and causes as well as petitions. Individuals have organized marches, ‘read-ins’ and other events; tweeting to spread the word.

Brooklyn Public Library Locks up “TinTin Au Congo”

The cover of Hergé's book "Tintin Au Congo"

The Brooklyn Public Library trusts you to form your own opinions about any  controversial  and provocative content that you would find in Beloved, Hard Candy or Mein Kampf.   However, apparently they feel the need to protect you from racially insensitive material in the cartoon from almost 80 years ago TinTin Au Congo.

The NYTimes today reports that the  Brooklyn Public Library’s Materials Review Committee has decided to remove the book from its shelves.  Chair of the committee, Christine Stenstrom does acknowledge that the book, created by Hergé in 1929, “is of historic interest” and therefore “it will be added to the Hunt Collection of Children’s Literalure, which is located in the Central Library. This is a special collection of historic children’s literature that is available for viewing by appointment only.”

As the Times notes, the Brooklyn Library has actually had a good track record of keeping controversial material.  In their recent record of responses to requests to reconsider library materials, this is the only book they chose to remove from shelves because the review panel found it “racially offensive.”

I have no doubt the cartoon is racially offensive (you can see by the cover).  But will people find it more so than Mein Kampf several other books, films, cartoons and artwork  that would be readily available in Brooklyn Library?  What happens when someone complains about Disney’s 1941 movie Dumbo because of its racially offensive character Jim Crow?  What about Twain’s classic novel Huckleberry Finn which is regularly challenged because it contains the racially offensive word “nigger”?  Can we be trusted to consider those materials in their artistic and historical contexts, if not with “Tintin Au Congo”?

Brooklyn Library has responded respectfully and responsibly to every other challenge of this nature.  In their letters, to complaintants, they have often quoted the ALA’s Diversity in Collection Development which states, “librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive…. Access to materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user and policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if offensive to the librarian or user.”

So what makes this book any different – so dangerous that it needs to be locked up?  And now that they’ve removed it, what’s next?  And furthermore, how will they defend any future decisions to keep controversial materials now that they’ve set this disarming precedent?

Library Board refuses to censor book from teen section

The Effingham Helen Matthes Library Board in Effingham, Illinois voted unanimously to deny a request to censor Living Dead Girl, a novel by Elizabeth Scott. Local parent, Amy Hibdon formally requested that the book be removed from the library, or at least the teen section, after her 15-year-old daughter checked out the book and was reportedly upset by the content . Hibdon claims the physical and sexual abuse that the character is subjected to in the book is too graphic for teens. Living Dead Girl is written from the perspective of a 15-year-old who lives with her captor after being forcibly kidnapped and imprisoned at the age of 10.

“This is the first formal censorship request that has reached this point in the past eight years, according to Library Directory Jeannie May,” reports the Effingham Daily News.  May told the board any decision made would set a precedence for the future. “I’m opposed to censorship,” said board member John Latta. “It is up to parents to censor the material they are reading, not the library.”

Images of Muhammad Banned from Book by Yale Press

The NY Times reports today that Yale University Press has not only decided to remove the controversial Danish cartoons of Muhammad from “Cartoons that Shook the World” by Jytte Klausen;  they have decided that all images of Muhammad have to go on the recommendation of a group of “diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism”.

“…they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.”

While we understand the sensitivity of this issue, Yale is setting a frightening precedent as one of the leading academic presses in the country.   In not publishing these images, Yale Press will not protect anyone from the furor they incite  – rather it allows such furor to trump reasonable discussion, debate and scholarly investigation, which is exactly what Ms. Klausen is arguing in her book: “The book’s message is that we need to calm down and look at this carefully.”

Cary Nelson, President of the American Association of University Professors, lays it out nicely:

“The issues are:  1) an author’s academic freedom; 2) the reputation of the press and the university; 3) the impact of these twin decisions on other university presses and publication venues; 4) the potential to encourage broader censorship of speech by faculty members or other authors. What is to stop publishers from suppressing an author’s words if it appears they may offend religious fundamentalists or groups threatening violence?”

We respect the input of those two dozen diplomats and Islamic experts, however we sincerely hope that Yale University Press reconsiders their decision after hearing from academia and some pretty astounded First Amendment folks who recognize this creates serious consequences for academic freedom.

Read NCAC’s response to the orginial 12 Danish cartoons.

Land of Free Expression…? Map of Book Censorship in the USA Suggests Otherwise

Being so busy with campaigns promoting “freedom and democracy” in the Middle East and central Asia, it’s hardly surprising that most of us here in the United States are unaware of an archaic and abominable practice that continues here at home – book banning. The Kids’ Right to Read Project (KRRP), a collaboration of NCAC and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, recently released an interactive google map detailing book bans and challenges in the United States from 2007-2009 recorded by KRRP and the American Library Association, The map can be found here. Its contents demonstrate the clear need to raise awareness about book censorship in America.

It’s time to speak up for our right to read! A great way to get involved is to participate in Banned Books Week, the only national celebration of the freedom to read, which will take place September 26- October 3, 2009. Check out the official Banned Books Week website here and also look out for updates and posts to NCAC’s BBW page. Libraries and bookstores interested in participating can post their events here. For more information contact info[at]abffe.com.

The AETA 4: If this is terrorism, then what isn’t?

While Congress has been busy protecting animals from cruelty at the expense of the First Amendment (See U.S. v Stevens) elsewhere it has been legislating away the First Amendment rights of animal cruelty protesters to protect corporate profits. 

Last month, a federal court in Northern California heard oral arguments on a motion to dismiss in United States v. Buddenberg, the first prosecution under the American Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which was passed in November, 2006, under Congress’s interstate commerce powers.

While it is true that some animal activists engage in direct action such as breaking into laboratories to rescue animals that they feel are imminently in danger, that is not the kind of activity that was at issue here.  The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to use interstate commerce to engage in “a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, and intimidation,” that “intentionally place[d] a person in reasonable fear” of death or serious bodily injury in violation of AETA, 18 U.S.C. § 43(a).

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, co-counsel in the case, the activities alleged in the indictment consist of little more than: chanting, leafleting, chalking on public sidewalks in front of University of California researchers’ homes, and using the internet to conduct research on the activities of the protested company (apparently, an abuse of interstate commerce). 

Sotomayor is confirmed: What does it mean for the First Amendment?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate today as the newest member of the Supreme Court, replacing  Justice David H.  Souter who retired in June.  She becomes the 111th member of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the third woman and first Hispanic to serve on it.

What does her confirmation mean for the First Amendment?  See our series of posts All About Sotomayor as well as the Freedom Forum for a record of her responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questions on First Amendment issues.

Website tracks online censorship reports

Having trouble accessing a website?  Suspect it might be more than just a faulty connection or technical malfunction?

Visit Herdict.org, a website designed to track reports of censored web sites around the world.  There, you can report  anonymously that a site is inaccessible and see if other people are having the same problem.  There is no way to determine whether or not the inaccessibility of a site is the result of a technical glitch, hackers (see Twitter.com trouble today) or the government stepping in, but it can be a warning that something’s up even before the media catches wind of it, as it was when China censored YouTube and Google.

All in all, it’s a pretty fascinating way to keep watch of potential censorship problems reported directly from the source – and to track the “verdict of the herd”, the idea from which the site takes its name.

Apple censors the dictionary

Once again, a software company reveals its power over our access to information by making a dumb decision.   This time, Apple rejected a dictionary application, Ninjawords, because it included words Apple deemed inappropriate.

According to an interview by John Gruber with Ninjawords developer Phil Crosby, Apple refused to upload Ninjawords to the iTunes store until a number of “objectionable” words had been removed.  Besides “fuck,” “shit,” and various other four-letter ones, words that Apple ordered eliminated include “ass,” “cock,” and “screw.”  Even without these entries, Ninjawords is still a 17+ application!

This is isn’t the first time Apple has gone out of its way to search prospective apps for potentially offensive content.  In May, Apple refused to approve the e-book reader Eucalyptus because the Kama Sutra is among the books it makes available for download (After complaints, Apple reversed its position).  The same month, Apple turned down the app “Me So Holy,” which allows you to paste your face over depictions of religious figures (Also now available).  When we covered that censorship on this blog, we asked, “What’ll be next?”

Apparently, the English dictionary.  As Gruber points out on his blog, we’re talking about a reference book available in every classroom in the country.  Apple’s extraordinarily stringent, and seemingly arbitrary, process to decide what content is “appropriate” for iPhone users overreaches the level of authority any company should exercise.  The 17+ rating system can and should stand on its own as a tool for parents to police their own children’s application use.  With any other censorship, Apple simply insults the maturity and intelligence of its customers.

UPDATE 8/6:  Today on his blog, Gruber posts a note he received from Apple senior VP Phil Schiller, explaining, in short, that Apple did not ask Ninjawords to censor its app.  Instead, they refused to accept it while no 17+ designation yet existed, but Ninjawords itself took out the offending words in order to be up on the market more quickly.  Schiller also wrote that Apple originally rejected Ninjawords, which uses Wiktionary as a source, because it included terms that were “more vulgar” than the standard curse words found in “traditional” dictionaries–that is, certain “urban slang” terms.

Ninjawords noted that the existence of the rating system encourages all app developers to self-censor; that’s true, but we can, for better or worse, say the same of film producers who dread to be branded with R or NC-17.   And while the difference between “too vulgar” and “kind of vulgar” is very hazy, at least Apple doesn’t seem to have asked anyone to take “ass” out of the dictionary.  Ninjawords did that themselves.