Post by Nora on Dec 16, 2017 15:32:39 GMT
so… people should only work with certain people who are deemed "ok/harmless" … which effectively means art should be made only by people who have a clean criminal record? Or what? How would it be evaluated? What if they do have a clean criminal record but allegedly have done something bad (not necessarily a crime perhaps) should they be first evaluated by some committee that would examine their moral fortitude and decide if we, the society, should be exposed to their creations or not?
HOW EXACTLY WOULD THIS WORK? Would it be only people who allegedly have done something bad related to children? Or sex overall that would be in this group that would have to be certified "worthy" first? Or would it be other crimes and misdemeanors too that would keep people from being able to create art?
Shoplifting? Yes/no? Assault? Yes/no? Larceny? Rape? Attempted rape? Yes/no? Taking a picture next to a confederate flag? Yes/no? Spitting in public? I am intentionally mixing things of different seriousness, I just want to know how would you regulate this. Because you are surely talking about REGULATION, right? You cant leave this up to "peoples feelings", about someone, no? Because effectively you are talking about indirect censorship.
If we found out that Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo were creeps, would we admire Mona Lisa and Sixteenth Chapel less? Or stopped people from going to see it? If we did, would it be the right thing to do? Where does this end?
I actually think this is a good discussion to have. So I hope you answer and let me know how you see it.