Excusing Sexual Harassment and Abuse
Last month, DC Comics was in the news about long-time editor Eddie Berganza, who works on Superman. Berganza was disciplined for sexual harassment back in 2012, but it sounds like that was one incident among many. For a while, there was even”an informal policy in place that no female staff would be assigned to the Superman office, and no female freelancers would be hired.” (Source)
In other words, in an attempt to avoid further incidents of sexual harassment, DC kept the harasser on staff and chose not to hire any women to work with him.
Way to punish and exclude women because of a man’s abusive behavior!
#
Over at the Mary Sue, Teresa Jusino brings us an update on the comic Rat Queens. Artist Roc Upchurch was arrested for domestic violence back in 2014, and Rat Queens co-creator Kurtis Wiebe wrote at the time:
“As of today, Roc Upchurch will no longer be illustrating Rat Queens … I am committed to Rat Queens, to stand by what it has always been praised for and to prove to the fans that they weren’t wrong in loving it.” (Source)
Fast forward to 2016. Rat Queens is going on hiatus, and artist Tess Fowler will no longer be involved. Weibe claims this is because the collaboration “wasn’t working out.” Fowler claims she was being pushed out so Wiebe could “bring in the original artist.”
Nothing has been announced publicly about whether Upchurch will be involved when and if Rat Queens comes back from hiatus, but Weibe has recently begun promoting Upchurch’s art on Twitter and the Rat Queens Facebook page. At the very least, Weibe is once again promoting a domestic abuser in connection with Rat Queens.
#
Then there’s Kukuruyo, the Hugo nominee for Best Fan Artist, thanks to Theodore Beale’s Rabid Puppy slate. Kukuruyo has done a number of adult-oriented and sexually explicit works, one of which was a drawing of the 16-year-old character Ms. Marvel, naked from the waist down. (He’s since taken it down. Never mind. I had read that the drawing was taken down, but he still has it posted on his website, along with a long post about how “it’s just a drawing,” and so on.)
Theodore Beale also championed a blog post about pedophilia and sexual abuse in SF/F circles for the Best Related Work Hugo, which makes his defense of Kukuruyo all the more fascinating. Among other things, Beale argued:
- “The age of consent in Spain is 16. Kukuruyo is Spanish, lives in Spain, and US law is not relevant to his activities.” Which he immediately follows by trying to argue about what US law says…
- “The drawing cannot be child pornography regardless of what age the fictitious character is supposed to be. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that drawings and computer representations are not child pornography.”
- In the comments, Beale refers to a Supreme Court decision striking down provisions against “virutal” and computer-generated images in the Child Pornography Prevention Act.
- When another commenter pointed out that Congress later passed the PROTECT Act, which “makes it clear that obscene child pornography in any form — including cartoons — is still unlawful and not entitled to any First Amendment protection,” Beale dismissed this as “irrelevant.”
- And my personal favorite, “I am reliably informed that Ms Marvel was 16 when she was introduced in 2013. That makes her at least 18 now, possibly 19.” Just like Superman debuted in 1938, which is why he’s now portrayed by actors aged 95 and up.
#
What I find interesting is that in all three cases, we have people and organizations who have stated their opposition to sexual harassment, domestic violence, pedophilia, etc. We also see the difference between abstract statements and real actions when it comes to their friends and employees.
- DC claims they won’t tolerate sexual harassment, but they’ve protected a known harasser for years.
- Wiebe spoke passionately about the evils of domestic violence, but at the very least, chose not to fully separate his creation from an abuser.
- And Beale is working awfully hard to explain why it’s okay that one of his Hugo nominees drew and sold a sexually explicit drawing of a 16-year-old girl.
I highlighted these three examples because they’re such clear cases of crap we’ve seen again and again. It’s one thing to stand up and say sexual harassment and abuse are bad things. But if you’re talking the talk and then turning around to defend or protect people who cross the line because they’re your friend, or because you think it’s easier? Not only are you not helping the problem, you’re making it worse.
I think we’re doing a better job of talking about stuff, of creating harassment policies and discussing issues of harassment and abuse. But we need to do a better job of walking the walk, too. Step one of that walk? Stop excusing gross behavior just because the perpetrator is a friend or employee.
Simon McNeil
May 17, 2016 @ 4:43 pm
Regarding the Ms. Marvel thing, that’s just shitty nerding. Has the commenter who made that comment never heard of Marvel Time? Currently time is going at about a 1:4 rate in Marvel. So Ms. Marvel probably WILL turn 18. But not until somewhere around 2019. Right now she is probably either still 16 or just turned 17.
And it’d still be skeevy as all hell to nominate porny images of an 18 y.o comic character for a damn hugo.
Jim C. Hines
May 17, 2016 @ 4:51 pm
As Beale would no doubt point out, that particular porny image wasn’t posted when he nominated the artist for the Hugo. (All the other cartoon porn images were there, but you know, not that particular one.)
Glenn Hauman
May 17, 2016 @ 5:19 pm
Kukukruyo’s only taken down the “underage” one. The “20 year old” nude is still there on his site.
Also, both Ku and Teddy don’t understand the difference between the age of consent and the age you are allowed to appear in porn.
Heather
May 17, 2016 @ 5:38 pm
Thank you for writing so clearly and succinctly about these sorts of issues. You help to shed light on some truly thorny thickets, and you say things that people *need* to hear.
spacefaringkitten
May 17, 2016 @ 6:48 pm
Interesting reporting about the two other items, but I’m not really sure where you’re going with the Rat Queens thing. Is your point that a person who has committed a crime should not be able work again in comics?
Jim C. Hines
May 17, 2016 @ 7:13 pm
Not at all. My point is more that if you’re writing a comic about awesome, powerful women, and when your artist gets arrested for DV and you make a public statement about how much you care about domestic violence issues, turning around two years later and promoting that artist’s work with your comic, as well as potentially bringing that artist back*, is one hell of a betrayal.
*As as been pointed out, we don’t know if that artist will be coming back, or if there were plans for his return. Fowler and Weibe have made conflicting statements about that. But at a minimum, Weibe has once again begun promoting that artist’s work in conjunction with his comic.
Emily
May 17, 2016 @ 8:58 pm
Wiebe can’t entirely separate himself from Upchurch with Rat Queens. Upchurch owns RQ with Weibe. So unless W wanted to completely shut it down, or sell his part/quit writing it, he is legally stuck and involved with U. Now, his having him be an artist (if he does come back) is another (big) problem, as is his promotion of U’s RQ art. But W is in a tough situation legally.
Jim C. Hines
May 17, 2016 @ 9:03 pm
That’s a valid point.
Sally
May 17, 2016 @ 9:25 pm
Does Marvel know about this? The Disney lawyers are spoken of like unto Lovecraft Elder Gods. Ia Ia Mickey f’thagn!
Sally
May 17, 2016 @ 9:30 pm
Legally is fine. But bringing U back and promoting his art is probably not included in the RQ ownership.
Sally
May 17, 2016 @ 9:34 pm
Nerd point of order: Superman is canonically always 30, I believe (Or that was canon at one time). Therefore anyone portraying Superman must be 109. But a 95 year old who could play older would be okay too.
(I may have missed the point of this post.)
Jim C. Hines
May 17, 2016 @ 9:51 pm
I was wondering if someone was going to correct me on that detail 🙂
Jay
May 17, 2016 @ 9:52 pm
Obligatory link to Neil Gaiman’s Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech? Beale’s understanding of US law and of comics history is obviously deficient. But I think Beale’s right (first time I’ve ever said those words) to say that explicit drawings of underage characters are a world apart from pedophilia and real life child sexual abuse.
The PROTECT Act itself specifies that it applies to work that “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” (Some people may argue that fanwork by definition lacks literary or artistic value; I’ll just refer them to *The Aeneid*.) So there’s a recognition within US law that some types of art involving depictions of underage sexuality are of value to society. As someone who owns a copy of *Lost Girls* (another lauded fanwork) and who thinks it’s a brilliant and important book, I strongly agree.
The safety and welfare of children is obviously of extreme importance. But I see a very clear line between on the one hand child pornography–which causes harm to real life minors–and on the other hand art or literature that depicts underage sexuality involving purely fictional minors.
Fraser
May 17, 2016 @ 11:00 pm
Not quite, Sally. Under Mort Weisinger, who edited Superman for most of the Silver Age, Superman was 32. Under Weisinger’s replacement Murray Boltinoff the Kryptonian Crimebuster was 29 (this continued I believe until the John Byrne reboot.
Siddhartha
May 17, 2016 @ 11:28 pm
There’s a difference between calling a work illegal and pointing out its “ickyness” and calling its supporters hypocrites. The artist may have the legal right to depict Ms Marvel in a sexually explicit pose. But should he?
If I understand correctly, Mr. Hines is more concerned about the latter than the former, while Mr. Beale defends the work primarily from a legal standpoint.
DBryce
May 17, 2016 @ 11:48 pm
Everything Rat Queens promotes Upchurch. The work he drew never stopped being sold, and as co-creator he’s entitled to a percentage of revenue from the property even when he doesn’t draw it. So Weibe AND Fowler have both been promoting an abuser for quite some time, Fowler only took issue when she was being let go. Says a lot about her actual “honesty”, a trait she like too promote a bit too much.
Jay
May 18, 2016 @ 2:54 am
My point is that I don’t think it’s at all hypocritical to both condemn child sexual abuse and to support the creation of art or literature depicting underage sexuality. I am–as most people are–vehemently opposed to child sexual abuse. I also own several books that contain explicit depictions of underage sexuality: *Uprooted*, the aforementioned *Lost Girls*, *The Clan of the Cave Bear*, etc.
So I’m wondering whether those books are more or less objectionable than Kukuruyo’s art, and how anyone can possibly decide. And am I a hypocrite, as well, for reading them despite my opposition to real life abuse? (If your answer’s yes, I’ll respectfully disagree. And if your answer’s no, why not?)
Erica
May 18, 2016 @ 3:51 am
I think this is one of those dicey issues, and it comes down to whether the portrayal of minors’ sexuality or victimhood serves the story or if the sexuality or victimhood is what drives the story (or to put it another way, is there to be titillating, nothing more). So pornography or erotica that focuses on minors isn’t allowed, but minors can have sex or be abused in novels, movies, and comics for plot-related reasons. Most of the time, the distinction is pretty clear, but sometimes the line is rather fuzzy, and people will disagree if it’s been crossed.
Kath
May 18, 2016 @ 8:09 am
I’m English, so from my standpoint Ms Marvel is young but not underage. No paedophilia issues are involved. She is above the age of legal consent.
Is the image tacky? Yes, definitely. Do I dislike images produced purely for titillation? Yes. The dehumanising of (usually) women for sexual purposes is a completely different argument, but for me, the one that applies to this image, because she is not a minor.
Glenn Hauman
May 18, 2016 @ 9:00 am
Mr. Beale’s knowledge of the law is shaky at best. (Family trait, apparently.) Since Kukuruyo’s site is hosted in America, he is subject to US law. As far as the SLAPS test goes, the drawing fails on all points.
And Beale is trying to defend it legally because he can’t defend it while claiming the rest of his crusade against porn in SF is valid. Of course, trying to weasel out of it on legal technicalities is the mark of a strong moral stance.
D. D. Webb
May 18, 2016 @ 9:27 am
And the moral of the story is, there is no situation which will not be blamed on the only woman involved by somebody on the internet. Bonus points if the woman in question is the clear victim.
Jay
May 18, 2016 @ 10:43 am
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Ms. Marvel is actually above the age of legal consent in her home state of New Jersey, too. (Sixteen, as long as the older person isn’t in a position of authority over the younger person.) She isn’t, however, above the age of majority, which is the age at which a person can consent to appearing in pornography. That’s eighteen in the US–it may even be older in some states, I’m not sure–and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were at least that old in the UK, as well. So she’s a minor by some standards and not by others, hence Glenn Hauman’s first comment above.
What I find really weird about that argument, though, is that it hinges on the idea that Ms. Marvel the character is subject to the same consent laws as a real life 16 year-old. When in fact, her ability to consent is exactly the same as a 40 year-old comic book character’s ability to consent is exactly the same as a 12 year-old comic book character’s ability to consent is exactly the same as a toaster’s ability to consent: nil. None of them is or has ever been alive; consent isn’t even an issue. Drawing a sexually explicit picture of Ms. Marvel no more violates her legal and/or moral ability to consent than drawing a sexually explicit picture of Iron Man, because they’re comic book characters and don’t have legal or moral rights at all.
For that matter, what if an artist draws an explicit lack of consent? Does drawing a rape make an artist a rapist? Virtually no one would argue that it does. So why do so many people think that drawing sexually explicit art of an underage character makes an artist a pedophile?
The art in question may or may not be legal, for complicated reasons that imo map very imperfectly onto the moral issues of this situation. (To highlight the absurdity of the law: a 20 year-old artist in New Jersey could spend the evening having sex with her 16 year-old girlfriend and drawing a sexually explicit picture of Ms. Marvel. The former would be perfectly legal, while the latter would be questionable.) Depending on your point of view, the art in question may or may not be really gross. But what I can’t comprehend is the argument that the art is abusive.
DBryce
May 18, 2016 @ 11:25 am
@D.D. Webb
Nice job ignoring the actual female victim here. Yeah, there WAS another woman involved. Upchurch’s wife. You know, the one that got beat up? So she doesn’t matter now?
Are you denying that the continuation of Rat Queens was a process that continued to put money in the hands of Upchurch? Money that his wife claimed never made it anywhere near his children, by the way. This was a public issue, and Wiebe and Fowler both kept putting out Rat Queens and promoting the book anyway. And yet Fowler only seems to have taken strong moral issue with this when her employment is in question. This is NOT gender boas. These are FACTS.
And let’s not ignore that Fowler has a long and very public history of burning her work situation down behind her as she exits, often gaslighting the employer as she does so. I don’t care what her gender is – where there is smoke there is fire. If you ignore the actual facts of this scenario, if you ignore the history of the accuser and give weight to Fowler’s side only because she is female, then you’re engaging in some Fox News viewer style blindness.
Jay
May 18, 2016 @ 12:49 pm
I recognize that for many people, what you describe is the ideal, but I don’t actually think the distinction is pretty clear most of the time. Furthermore, I think that in practice, the way that people evaluate the relative value and obscenity of various works is based on a whole host of factors unrelated to artistic merit.
A picture hanging in a museum is going to be evaluated less harshly than a picture on a website. A professionally published story is going to be evaluated less harshly than a self-published story. A work by a dead straight white guy is going to be evaluated less harshly than a work by a living marginalized creator. A purely gratuitous and filthily pornographic sex scene in the middle of a 200-page novel is going to be evaluated less harshly than the same exact scene in a novelette. Etc.
One of the points Gaiman makes in his essay is that ickyness isn’t an objective quality. As he says, “One person’s obscenity is another person’s art.” Which is why I continue to think that the most important metric–and from a policy standpoint, the only important metric–is whether a real life person is harmed in the creation of that art.
Glenn Hauman
May 18, 2016 @ 4:29 pm
One of the arguments against that applies in this case is that images of children in sexual activities can entice children into participating in sexually explicit acts, videos, or photographs. (“Honey, see what Lisa Simpson is doing? Can you do that too?”) Art images may also be traded for the real thing, driving the market for child pornography — whetting the sexual appetite of pedophiles. Think of whoever commissioned the art from Kukuruyo in the first place, for example, and why he wanted a nude drawing of Ms. Marvel in the first place.
And as long as we’re bringing up consent, we might as well note that the character he’s drawing isn’t his; it’s owned by Marvel and is literally eponymous with the company. Drawing a sexually explicit picture of Ms. Marvel without Marvel’s permission does violate their legal rights.
Sally
May 18, 2016 @ 6:46 pm
I stand out-nerded, Fraser. But I was closer than Jim! (I didn’t start reading seriously till the Bronze Age.)
Jay
May 18, 2016 @ 8:30 pm
One of the arguments against that applies in this case is that images of children in sexual activities can entice children into participating in sexually explicit acts, videos, or photographs.
I share the majority opinion on Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: “[T]here are many things innocent in themselves, however, such as toys, movies, games, video games, candy, money etc. that might be used for immoral purposes, yet we would not expect those to be prohibited because they can be misused.”
Think of whoever commissioned the art from Kukuruyo in the first place, for example, and why he wanted a nude drawing of Ms. Marvel in the first place.
I’m going to go with the obvious answer and say that he commissioned the drawing because he wanted to look at it.
And as long as we’re bringing up consent, we might as well note that the character he’s drawing isn’t his; it’s owned by Marvel and is literally eponymous with the company.
I think the scope of copyright law is well beyond the remit of this discussion, and I’m afraid I don’t have the time and energy to get into a multi-paragraph digression about it right now. (I have lots of opinions on copyright law.) I will say that I think the least defensible part of Kukuruyo’s actions is that he was selling (not simply drawing, which I would be fine with) fanart of a character under copyright.
To get back to the main topic: There’s a lot we can and should be doing as a society to help prevent child sexual abuse. We should be prosecuting sexual abuse and sexual assault cases rather than burying the evidence in police station backrooms or letting perpetrators go scot-free or with a slap on the wrist. We should be teaching children about consent early and often, both so that they don’t grow up to abuse other people and so that they are better able to identify when they’re being abused and ask for help. We should increase the number and quality of teachers and school support staff, especially in low income areas, to give children a stronger support network. In the US specifically, we should damned well ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. And so much more; that’s just off the top of my head.
But curtailing non-criminal freedom of speech and artistic expression–with all the harm to society that that entails–in the name of a nebulous and unproven good? No, I don’t think we should do that.
Fraser
May 18, 2016 @ 10:33 pm
I only knew because comics blogger Commander Benson discussed Superman’s age in a recent post.
Glenn Hauman
May 19, 2016 @ 12:56 am
Think of whoever commissioned the art from Kukuruyo in the first place, for example, and why he wanted a nude drawing of Ms. Marvel in the first place.
I’m going to go with the obvious answer and say that he commissioned the drawing because he wanted to look at it.
Let’s be a bit more specific: the patron is someone who knows who Ms. Marvel well enough to be a “fan”, therefore knows she’s underage, and wanted a nude/bottomless picture of an underage girl enough to commission it. I would not presume the item he commissioned was one of those “things innocent in themselves”; his mens rea is established.
(In this, I’ll even give Ku a pass for creating it out of ignorance as he claims, although not for keeping it up after he’s been notified repeatedly of what he drew.)
LondonKdS
May 19, 2016 @ 7:14 am
It should be noted that kukuruyo has responded to the controversy by posting an installment of his main webcomic featuring a graphically pornographic image of Misty from Pokemon, who in canon is definitely pre-teen.
Jay
May 19, 2016 @ 2:51 pm
I would not presume the item he commissioned was one of those “things innocent in themselves”
How is it not? Nobody was harmed in the creation of the art. Nobody is harmed by the mere existence of the art. The art is innocent in itself.
KatG
May 20, 2016 @ 5:02 pm
The art is not illegal. And it’s art. But some people certainly can have the opinion that it is abusive art because it promotes the cultural idea that teenage girls are nothing more than sexual property — objects to be used and abused for sex and control, rather than human people. By taking a young superheroine and reducing her to a sexual subject, undercutting all her work as an equal, powerful superhero, it is art with a political message — that young girls are not human and have no real power, that they can be used and raped however is pleased. It’s a cultural choice and one that many people do believe harms people — how teenage girls are thought of and treated in society. And as a cultural artistic and political choice, it can be critiqued as icky and promoting abuse, same as any piece of art.
KatG
May 20, 2016 @ 5:05 pm
My daughter just bought Rat Queens, because she heard it was good. Sigh.
Jay
May 21, 2016 @ 10:14 am
I half-agree with you. We share the opinion that art helps shape cultural and political views and that it’s important both to interrogate the prevailing worldview(s) of society and to criticize art on more than purely aesthetic grounds.
Where our opinions differ is that I still don’t think the art can be categorized as abusive, because it doesn’t directly harm anyone. This may seem like semantics, but I think it’s actually really important: I’d instead categorize it as art that may contribute to a worldview that encourages abuse.
I haven’t seen Kukuruyo’s Ms. Marvel fanart in particular, but speaking more generally of art and literature depicting underage sexuality, I can also think of examples that may contribute to a worldview that discourages abuse (e.g. art depicting enthusiastic consent between teenagers, or art depicting the horror of child abuse). Or a piece of art may contribute to either or both of those worldviews at the same time, depending on viewer interpretation.
Basically, it’s complicated. 🙂 But I think the best response to the complexities of the situation is for us as a society to think and talk more about the art we consume, rather than miscategorizing it and suppressing it.
KatG
May 22, 2016 @ 2:47 am
Well actually yes, art has contributed to direct abuse of many people. Some art is propaganda of one sort or another and it directly props up cultural and even legal attempts to harm people. You’re basically trying to give art a pass from the human beings who make it and experience it, which is not how it works. You yourself then talk about art that discourages abuse — i.e. a direct effect.
Art is subjective and it is discussed. You want art to be discussed, but part of that discussion is how people view it and categorize it. So you can’t say we have free speech about a piece of art except we can’t characterize it as something we think it is but you don’t. You can say you don’t think it harms people but other people get their viewpoint too.
As for suppressing it, nobody has been. They’ve been criticizing it, which is their right. They’ve brought it up in terms of the artist’s art being nominated for a Hugo award, thanks to the Puppies, and whether they think personally his art deserves a Hugo award. Whether Kukuruyo puts his particular piece of art up for public view or takes it down is his own choice. But you can’t keep people from talking about the art and condemning it if they think it’s exploitive and abusive art, just because you don’t like what they say about it. Criticism, including extremely negative criticism, isn’t censorship, and the government of Spain has done nothing to Kukuruyo whatsoever.
As for websites that may have decided not to have that particular piece of art up or his art altogether, that’s their right to decide what will be displayed on their site as allowed content. It’s not censorship; you can’t force them to display it. If they refused to sell Kukuruyo something in the public marketplace, that would be a different kettle of fish, but you can’t force websites to show art they don’t want. While Marvel really can’t go after Kukuruyo, since an artistic interpretation of well known fictional characters is not infringement necessarily, some websites might also not want to risk it.
So yes, by all means, lets talk about art, but you can’t control how that conversation goes. That’s something that all artists in all mediums have to learn, and Kukuruyo is now learning it. (Bearing in mind that death threats, etc. are not criticisms but threats performed as an action, and are not part of a conversation and are wrong.)
Jay
May 22, 2016 @ 4:07 pm
As a preliminary observation: I feel like you’re having part of this argument with somebody other than me, given that you keep telling me I shouldn’t say things that I haven’t actually said. (Some of your admonitions might be to a “generic you,” but at least some of them are definitely addressed to me personally.) I realize that “Free Speech!” is often the first refuge of assholes and hypocrites, but I’m genuinely trying my best to be neither, and I’d appreciate it if you responded to my actual statements rather than to what other people might have said in similar discussions.
[A]rt has contributed to direct abuse of many people. Some art is propaganda of one sort or another and it directly props up cultural and even legal attempts to harm people.
That’s still indirectly abusive; just look at the chain of events. The art encourages people to do something else, and then that something else harms people. Direct abuse would be if the act of creating the art itself was abusive–e.g. child pornography–or if the mere existence of the art was abusive–e.g. non-consensually drawing a violent picture or writing a violent story about a real life person, which would qualify as a rape and/or death threat. (Though technically, the latter would only be direct abuse if it were viewed by someone other than the creator. If it remained a drawerfic/drawerpic, then it would just be a nasty personal fantasy.)
You yourself then talk about art that discourages abuse — i.e. a direct effect.
Nope, also indirect.
So you can’t say we have free speech about a piece of art except we can’t characterize it as something we think it is but you don’t.
Except that I didn’t actually say that. What I did say is that I think you and anyone else calling the art abusive are miscategorizing it, for the reasons I detailed above. I’m not trying to shut down the discourse; I’m trying to explain why I think you’re wrong, with the hope of changing your mind and the minds of others reading this discussion. And you of course have the free speech right to explain why you think I’m wrong in turn, just as you have been doing.
As for suppressing it, nobody has been.
The paragraph of mine you’re responding to was about art in general–and implicitly about depictions of underage sexuality in general–not about Kukuruyo’s Ms. Marvel fanart in particular. And the PROTECT Act absolutely suppresses that type of art. There’s an exemption for works with “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” but even so, any artwork that contains depictions of underage sexuality is in a legal gray area, with the attendant chilling effect on its creation. And some people have been prosecuted for possessing that type of art under the PROTECT Act. The UK’s Coroners and Justice Act 2009 also criminalizes artwork depicting fictional underage sexuality. Australia has similar but even broader laws, affecting not just artwork but literature. Etc.
Criticism, including extremely negative criticism, isn’t censorship.
Agreed. The application of the laws mentioned in the above paragraph, however, is censorship.
As for websites that may have decided not to have that particular piece of art up or his art altogether, that’s their right to decide what will be displayed on their site as allowed content.
Agreed on that point as well.
But you can’t keep people from talking about the art and condemning it if they think it’s exploitive and abusive art, just because you don’t like what they say about it.
Again, I haven’t actually tried to prevent anyone from condemning fictional depictions of underage sexuality…or fictional depictions of non-underage sexuality, for that matter, or fictional depictions of anything else that people might find objectionable. I may disagree with them and/or try to change their minds, but I haven’t tried to prevent them from voicing their opinions.
Additionally, I think that people’s opinions about any individual piece of artwork are much less important than the systemic response to art that society as a whole deems uncomfortable or offensive. Which is why I’ve spent so much time arguing against the conflation of real life abuse and problematic art. I think the former should be illegalized and the latter should be criticized (and those criticisms rebutted or not, as its artist and/or audience chooses). And I’m dismayed at the proliferation of overreaching laws that trample on freedom of speech and artistic expression in order to suppress that art, rather than allowing it to be debated in the court of public opinion.
KatG
May 24, 2016 @ 1:01 am
Jay —
1) I haven’t told you to not say anything. I’m explaining why people disagree with you and that they have the right to do so that the puppies claim they don’t. You seem to feel that they shouldn’t say it about Kukukuryo’s work because you think they’re wrong. That’s not a debate in the court of public opinion. That’s an opinion that their right to debate the art work should be limited to what you think is the correct view of it. Try this: say that you don’t think the particular piece of art is abusive because it’s not a photo of a real teen, not that others shouldn’t see it as abusive because you don’t think that’s the right view.
2) I never claimed that I thought the art was abusive. I explained why others thought so and that they have the right to view it as such and whether you think that’s a miscategorization is immaterial (though you can say that you think it’s not abusive art.)
3) I said that nobody had been surpressing Kukukuryo’s art simply by criticizing it. You agree that this is true. And the next breath, you try to prove that it is false and that the UK Protect Act has been surpressing Kukukuryo’s work, which is not true. The UK Protect Act has nothing to do with what I was saying and Kukukuryo’s case.
That you don’t think that there is a connection between cultural artistic expression meant to keep or sway culture to repressive political views (and often sell products at the same time,) and actual abuse that occurs and is accepted and not illegal, having been normalized in the society by portrayals in cultural art, is part of the reason abuse doesn’t get made illegal and repression remains systematic. Its victims can then be forced to stay silent (not speak criticism and point out abusive portrayals in art,) the abuse they suffer dismissed as not real abuse but acceptable cultural practice (as shown in the art.) Those actually trying to deal with repression do in fact need to criticize art that seeks to make that repression positive and point out the connection between the cultural attitudes of the art and its reflection in larger society that leads to repression and abuse. This is part of the discussion of art in the court of public opinion. It is also part of fighting repression and abuse in culture and real life. The two are not necessarily divorced from one another; it’s not an error to conflate them since they make up culture with real life consequences. Both art and criticism of art are part of real life. And that is all that has occurred in Kukukuryo’s case.
Now, if you want to argue that a particular country’s particular law about forms of art is repressive, go to it. But in the Kukukuryo case, it’s not relevant because no country and its law have gone after Kukukuryo’s artwork. Nor does it have anything to do with the Hugo nominations and criticisms people have about whether they think Kukukuryo’s artwork is worthy of a nomination.
Kukukuryo’s art IS being debated in the court of public opinion, and in that court, some people find his work abusive, promoting an abusive view of teenage girls, feminism and a bigoted swipe at Muslims in the bargain. They think that image seeks to reinforce cultural norms and beliefs that are often legally reflected — that teenage girls are sexualized property to be controlled, women are to be humiliated and controlled away from equality, and Muslims are to be killed. They believe that art was ordered by its buyer and publicly displayed by the artist to give people an experience of pain, intimidation and mental abuse. They don’t think that makes him a provocative artist; they think that makes him a sick bigoted propagandist.
Your view is that the artist is probably a sick bigoted propagandist, but because he didn’t actually go out and rape a teenage girl, it’s wrong to call the image abusive and supporting abuse in real life. Because you don’t see a cultural connection, you don’t think others should, which is more scolding than argument. But in the court of public opinion, they get to do so if they see it. And all that conversation isn’t censorship, as the puppies have tried to assert. It’s free speech.
Jay
May 24, 2016 @ 1:53 pm
I haven’t told you to not say anything.
You said, “So you can’t say we have free speech about a piece of art except we can’t characterize it as something we think it is but you don’t,” and, “But you can’t keep people from talking about the art and condemning it if they think it’s exploitive and abusive art, just because you don’t like what they say about it,” neither of which represent positions I’ve taken.
You seem to feel that they shouldn’t say it about Kukukuryo’s work because you think they’re wrong. That’s not a debate in the court of public opinion. That’s an opinion that their right to debate the art work should be limited to what you think is the correct view of it.
A discussion predicated on the idea that everyone’s opinion is equally right isn’t a debate; it’s a sharing circle.
I think people who categorize fictional depictions of underage sexuality as abusive are wrong; I’m presenting my arguments for why I think that; and presumably if anyone changes their mind as a result of my arguments, they’ll stop categorizing that type of art as abusive. Conversely, there are people who think I (and others who share my view) am wrong for not categorizing fictional depictions of underage sexuality as abusive; they’re presenting their arguments for why they think that; and presumably if I change my mind as a result of their arguments, I’ll start categorizing that type of art as abusive. That’s a debate.
Try this: say that you don’t think the particular piece of art is abusive because it’s not a photo of a real teen, not that others shouldn’t see it as abusive because you don’t think that’s the right view.
This sentence makes no sense. I have said that this particular artwork isn’t abusive because it’s not a photo of a real teen, from my very first comment in which I said, “I see a very clear line between on the one hand child pornography–which causes harm to real life minors–and on the other hand art or literature that depicts underage sexuality involving purely fictional minors,” to my most recent comment in which I said, “Direct abuse would be if the act of creating the art itself was abusive–e.g. child pornography.” That’s been my primary argument all along: abusive art hurts real life people directly, while fictional depictions of underage sexuality don’t do that and hence fall into a different category.
What do you think we’ve been arguing about all this time, if not that?
I never claimed that I thought the art was abusive.
But you did call the art abusive. I’m not arguing against whatever you feel in your heart–how could I even know what that is?–but against how you’ve been characterizing the art in your comments.
And the next breath, you try to prove that it is false and that the UK Protect Act has been surpressing Kukukuryo’s work, which is not true.
I’ll assume you mean the US PROTECT Act, rather than UK. And you should reread my above comment, because your summary doesn’t remotely resemble what I said. (Key phrases include “depictions of underage sexuality in general” and “that type of art.” [Emphasis added.])
Now, if you want to argue that a particular country’s particular law about forms of art is repressive, go to it. But in the Kukukuryo case, it’s not relevant because no country and its law have gone after Kukukuryo’s artwork. Nor does it have anything to do with the Hugo nominations and criticisms people have about whether they think Kukukuryo’s artwork is worthy of a nomination.
Jim Hines brought up the PROTECT Act himself in the original post in order to dispute Beale’s defense of Kukuruyo’s artwork. The relevance of these laws to Kukuruyo’s case has been part of the discussion from the very beginning.
They think that image seeks to reinforce cultural norms and beliefs that are often legally reflected — that…Muslims are to be killed.
Links? I haven’t yet seen any discussions in which people have argued that Kukuruyo’s fanart encourages murderous Islamophobia. (Which isn’t to suggest that they don’t exist; just that you and I apparently travel in different internet circles.)
[Y]ou don’t think that there is a connection between cultural artistic expression meant to keep or sway culture to repressive political views…and actual abuse that occurs and is accepted and not illegal, having been normalized in the society by portrayals in cultural art.
I don’t? That’s news to me.
I want both to preserve the distinction between abusive behaviors and problematic art and to protect non-criminal freedom of speech and artistic expression. Neither of those objectives prevents me from also wanting people to interrogate and criticize the art we consume, in large part because I do believe art has a strong influence on our culture. To quote from one of my earlier comments, “We share the opinion that art helps shape cultural and political views.”
Your view is that the artist is probably a sick bigoted propagandist, but because he didn’t actually go out and rape a teenage girl, it’s wrong to call the image abusive and supporting abuse in real life.
That’s a whole lot of unwarranted assumptions in one sentence. Let’s break this down: 1) My view is not that the artist is a sick bigoted propagandist. As previously mentioned, I haven’t viewed the artwork in question, so my view on the artist is largely unformed. But even without having viewed the artwork, I’ll say that “propagandist” is an absurdly strong word under the circumstances. The primary purpose of propaganda is to further a political agenda, whereas by all accounts the primary purpose of this fanart appears to be titillation.
2) You’re once again citing an indirect effect, i.e. rape as a consequence, in some nebulous fashion, of the artwork. Whether or not an artist commits a crime may affect how his audience interprets his artwork. But I don’t think it has the ability to transform a non-abusive piece of art into an abusive piece of art; a still-life of a potted fern doesn’t automatically become abusive just because it was painted by a serial killer.
3) Relatedly, the reason I think it’s wrong to call the image abusive has nothing to do with whether or not its artist is a rapist. The reason I think it’s wrong to call the image abusive is because the creation and mere existence of the image doesn’t harm anyone. (This would be me saying “that [I] don’t think the particular piece of art is abusive because it’s not a photo of a real teen,” btw, in case you missed that again.)
4) I don’t think it’s at all wrong for people to say the image supports abuse in real life. In fact, that’s very close to what I said about it myself in an earlier comment: “I’d instead categorize it as art that may contribute to a worldview that encourages abuse.” As mentioned above, I haven’t viewed the artwork, so I might or might not disagree with that criticism myself. But regardless of my personal opinion of the artwork, I think it’s good for society when other people criticize it on those grounds, if that’s what they believe.
Loose-leaf Links #22 | Earl Grey Editing
May 26, 2016 @ 6:04 pm
[…] C. Hines highlights three cases where those who have spoken out against sexual harassment and abuse have gone on to excuse […]
KatG
May 30, 2016 @ 7:56 pm
Jay, You’re talking yourself around in a circle. You say that it’s good for society when other people criticize the art on the grounds that it is abusive and/or discriminatory, and that it is also at the same time completely wrong for them to criticize the art as abusive and maybe discriminatory and they should shut up (stop using their free speech,) because it’s dangerous that they characterize the work that way. You say that free speech discussion of different views on this issue is great, and at the same time that it’s not great, because the only free speech allowed is debate about discrimination and whether it exists or not — someone has to win and be right (and funnily enough, it’s you, and funnily enough, you who are not the target of the propaganda doesn’t think the discrimination exists.)
Your original complaint was specifically about criticism of the artist’s work and how it should not be happening, that the work was not abusive. The next, you’re saying you don’t know if the artwork is abusive or not and going on about the UK law as if it showed how the artist was being unfairly persecuted when it had nothing to do with him, which was kind of Jim’s point.
You also remain oblivious to the real world factor that forcing discriminated against groups to endlessly and exhaustively debate about whether they have a right to speak freely about discrimination against them — including about a piece of art that is meant to be propaganda against them and their speaking up for their rights — contributes to discrimination and shutting down their free speech. The world already wants them to shut up about these issues. Insisting that they defend, prove, do an extensive treatise on how discrimination is involved every time they bring up systemic discrimination in law, economics and social culture and their own experiences with it, is part of the way that their free speech is curtailed and threatened. A demand to argue and prove the discrimination exists and their experiences are real isn’t “debate.” It’s shut down protest 101 by the dominate group against the disadvantaged group.
Witness that you didn’t understand the difference between freely expressing your own opinion that a particular artwork is not abusive and does no discriminatory harm in the culture — which is an opinion, not fact — and demanding that other people agree with you and are doing harm if they do not (and not understanding that it is a demand of a dominant group on repressed ones and how that inequality affects the situation.) And witness your very vague definition of child pornography and your failure to understand that abusive means more than just pornography in how it’s being discussed in this case. You’re concerned with only what a lawyer can prove — because that’s the only issue that interests you. But this is part of much larger cultural repression and discrimination to which the artwork in question contributes.
And deliberately contributes since the artist has stated his political views and publicly showed the artwork as an eff you to “social justice warriors.” So to be clear about my views (since you can’t seem to understand someone explaining how others come by their views):
I do regard the artist and the person who hired him as doing a propaganda piece that goes after women, children and Muslims to promote political power of a repressive world view. I don’t regard the artwork itself as abusive in that context, but I do totally understand the views of those who do and the cultural pressures on them to not speak those views freely. I do regard the artwork as contributing and attempting to advocate cultural repression and bigotry, on a fairly vicious scale.
This piece of artwork was not about sex and titillation. It was not commissioned for sex and titillation. (And child pornography isn’t about sex and titillation either, but about dominance and control.) It is to humiliate those groups for whom the superheroine is a symbol representative, to show women and teenage girls that they are powerless from men doing whatever they want to them, that women aren’t heroes, that Muslims can’t be heroes, and that these groups should not be equal. It’s a work attempting to debase a fictional character whom the owner and the artist feel represents empowerment and civil rights that they want to stomp out. So what did they do? They stripped a teenage Muslim female superhero and made her nothing. Child pornography is the least of those issues, but it is relevant in how children are dehumanized in the world and made slave property, especially if they aren’t white — and especially if they speak up.
You don’t see harm in the picture and what it represents, probably because you’ve never been the target of that harm. And you don’t think you’re censoring people by demanding they defend their experiences of discrimination to you instead of simply talking about them and raising their concerns. You are stating that you’re right from a position of considerable cultural ignorance, and pretty much totally missing the point.
Hugo Voting Ends July 31
July 20, 2016 @ 11:07 am
[…] Best Fan Artist: This may be another No Award category. Thus far, I’ve got Kukuruyo at the very bottom, thanks in part to his penchant for drawing naked/sexual cartoons of underage SF/F girls. […]