Should manic art be protected by the first amendment?

Art should br protected unless it's on someone else's property without permission, an obscene act in a public or private place children would reasonably be found, or child porn. Or beastiality. That's all.

Edit: an argument for coherent meaning is a very hard thing to define. You can define it as "recognizable objects" or "has a message someone specifically wanted". Both are reasonable on the surface but can be debated until the cows come home. Shitty artists and abstract artists get screwed by recognizable objects, people with weird political messages and no messages at all (most art) get fucked on the latter.
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: King Metalia, 𖦹Junkpop𖦹 and ⚞⛇⚟
Manic art meaning:

1. Art produced during a manic or hypnotic episode

2. Art that is less enjoyable by those not manic

3. Art done without social awareness
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brme
Indigo Plateau said:
Manic art meaning:

1. Art produced during a manic or hypnotic episode

2. Art that is less enjoyable by those not manic

3. Art done without social awareness
Click to expand...
i listen to your meaning and discover nothing more. What censorship do manic fear? Is criticism censorship? Is institutalzation censoreship? What earth are you desiring?
 
Brme said:
i listen to your meaning and discover nothing more. What censorship do manic fear? Is criticism censorship? Is institutalzation censoreship? What earth are you desiring?
Click to expand...
Some ways it may be censored:

1. It being deemed as lacking "serious artistic value" and therefore "obscene" by some shrink

2. A person can be coerced or ordered by a court into taking antipsychotics that disrupt the dopamine and serotonin systems that bring the art forward.

3. A state mandated psychiatrist can order a client to throw things out if it is deemed "mania" or "hoarding"
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: Safir and Brme
Indigo Plateau said:
Some ways it may be censored:

1. It being deemed as lacking "serious artistic value" and therefore "obscene" by some shrink

2. A person can be coerced or ordered by a court into taking antipsychotics that disrupt the dopamine and serotonin systems that bring the art forward.

3. A state mandated psychiatrist can order a client to throw things out if it is deemed "mania" or "hoarding"
Click to expand...
Obliged. I see youre point. Cannot the artist do his work under this censorship? I know of some who made art while in sanatorios.
 
Indigo Plateau said:
Some ways it may be censored:

1. It being deemed as lacking "serious artistic value" and therefore "obscene" by some shrink

2. A person can be coerced or ordered by a court into taking antipsychotics that disrupt the dopamine and serotonin systems that bring the art forward.

3. A state mandated psychiatrist can order a client to throw things out if it is deemed "mania" or "hoarding"
Click to expand...
‘Lacking serious artistic value, obscene’ ?
That comes from the Miller test. Funny that it’s most commonly used these days to obliterate pedo artists and their tranime ‘p.
Your verbiage makes you sound suspicious.
 
Indigo Plateau said:
Some ways it may be censored:

1. It being deemed as lacking "serious artistic value" and therefore "obscene" by some shrink

2. A person can be coerced or ordered by a court into taking antipsychotics that disrupt the dopamine and serotonin systems that bring the art forward.

3. A state mandated psychiatrist can order a client to throw things out if it is deemed "mania" or "hoarding"
Click to expand...
If these are your worries, freeze peach in art should be the least of your problems, instead you should come up with a constitutional right to shoot shrinks on sight.

(1) is "concerning": something that lacks artistic value is not necessarily obscene (easiest example: a child's drawings). You might be a coomer pedophile, please kill yourself if this is the case.
 
Safir said:
If these are your worries, freeze peach in art should be the least of your problems, instead you should come up with a constitutional right to shoot shrinks on sight.

(1) is "concerning": something that lacks artistic value is not necessarily obscene (easiest example: a child's drawings). You might be a coomer pedophile, please kill yourself if this is the case.
Click to expand...
is manic art now censord? I click on indigo profile and says user not available. his penultimo message say @ Null . He say @ Null en otro post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back