Showing posts with label obscenity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obscenity. Show all posts

Saturday, January 29, 2022

Erotic movies versus porn -- times and terms are changing

In a 1964 case, Jacobellis v. Ohio, Supreme Court Justice  Potter Stewart famously declared that it was difficult to define pornography, but that "I know it when I see it " (Less well known is how he continued that sentence: "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

But "porn" has now become such a big category that it isn't even clear that the word retains its original repugnance.  A New York Times story that considers its redeeming features is about a film director whose website characterizes her this way: "Female provocateur and porn film director Erika Lust is creating a new world of indie adult cinema" (It turns out that Lust isn't her original family name...)

 Here's the story from the NY Times:

‘There’s Not Just One Type of Porn’: Erika Lust’s Alternative Vision. The Swedish moviemaker thinks pornography can create a society that sees sexuality as myriad and joyful, and where women’s pleasure matters.  By Mary Katharine Tramontana

*******

And here's another story, which features the megasite Pornhub, in Vanity Fair:

XXX-Files: Who Torched the Pornhub Palace?  BY ADAM GOLLNER

"Pornhub, with its undulating ocean of explicit content, is often ranked among the 10 most viewed websites in the world. More Americans use it than use Twitter, Netflix, or Instagram.

...

"starting in December, a series of legal and P.R. scandals slammed the company. First, a New York Times exposé accused the firm of knowingly hosting child sex abuse materials (CSAM). Antoon denied the charges: “Any suggestion that we allow or encourage illegal content is completely untrue and defies rational reason, from both a moral and business standpoint,” he told me. Still, Canadian senators and MPs called for a criminal investigation. In the uproar, credit card processors suspended payments on the site.

...

"Forty years ago, debates about porn focused on the idea that the sex industry was inherently dehumanizing and rife with abuse. Activist Andrea Dworkin famously argued that porn was detrimental to women, full stop. But not all second-wave feminists agreed. A vocal faction argued for an erotic-positive approach to rejecting sexual repression. The phrase “pornography is violence against women,” wrote Ellen Willis, an influential pro-sex feminist, “was code for the neo-Victorian idea that men want sex and women endure it.”

"The argument remains as contentious as it is unresolved. This fall, the Times published an op-ed by Michelle Goldberg—“Why Sex-Positive Feminism Is Falling Out of Fashion”—citing a TikTok-based “Cancel Porn” movement. Then again, Cosmo contended that “As we all know, women enjoy porn just as much as guys do.” In fact, an estimated one third of Pornhub’s users are women. And the current feminist perspective on the porn debate might best be summarized by Oxford philosopher Amia Srinivasan in her new book, The Right to Sex: Feminism in the 21st Century: “If a woman says she enjoys working in porn, or being paid to have sex with men, or engaging in rape fantasies, or wearing stilettos—and even that she doesn’t just enjoy these things but finds them emancipatory, part of her feminist praxis—then we are required, many feminists think, to trust her. 

...

"The most seismic attack on the company came a year ago—in the form of a Nicholas Kristof New York Times op-ed stating that Pornhub was “infested with rape videos. 

...

"Soon, a merry-go-round of lawsuits started being filed on behalf of underage or nonconsenting victims: an Alabama case invoked the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

...

"When Pornhub released an app last summer directing museumgoers to classic nude paintings, legal action was threatened by the Louvre and the Uffizi. As one Montreal source put it: “They’re in trouble all over the world.”

...

"The new crusaders aim to outlaw the commercial sex industry altogether, regardless of how that might affect sex workers, already a marginalized group. The main outcome of credit card bans on Pornhub—which Mickelwait considers an important victory—was that content creators stopped getting paid. The fallout extended to OnlyFans, the booming subscription-based platform that connects users directly with content creators. In August, OnlyFans threatened to remove all “sexually explicit” content, which would have had a chilling effect on free speech, open expression, and private digital commerce. Under pressure, the company reversed that decision

...

"While the internet continues its Wild West resistance to law and order, porn keeps getting ever more mainstream. (When Facebook and Instagram both went down one day last fall, for instance, Pornhub saw a 10.5 percent traffic spike.) Meanwhile, making porn has become America’s “side hustle,” Ruby told me, describing an expanding movement of makers selling their sexuality online. “People figured out that they could just document that part of their lives and earn an extra two or three thousand dollars a month and feed their families.” Pornhub, OnlyFans, and other digital portals played an integral part in that phenomenon."

Saturday, May 1, 2021

Repugnant language: "How the N-Word Became Unsayable" in the NY Times, by John McWhorter

 The linguist John McWhorter, author of the book Nine Nasty Words,  may be familiar to some readers of this blog through his podcasts with the economist Glenn Loury.  McWhorter, who is Black, published an essay adapted from his book in the NY Times yesterday, called

 How the N-Word Became Unsayable.

He writes:

"Its evolution from slur to unspeakable obscenity was part of a gradual prohibition on avowed racism and the slurring of groups. It is also part of a larger cultural shift: Time was that it was body parts and what they do that Americans were taught not to mention by name — do you actually do much resting in a restroom?"

The fact that the essay spells out the N-word (frequently, in different variations) caused the NYT to publish with it a brief essay about the editorial process, and their decision that an essay about the evolution of a particular word, and how it became repugnant, couldn't be written without printing the word itself :

Why Times Opinion Decided to Publish This Slur. On today’s guest essay by John McWhorter.

"His article both uses and refers to several obscenities — most notably a slur against Black people, the use and history of which is the topic of the essay. Instead of using a phrase like “the N-word” or “a slur against Black people” in this article, we print the word itself. It’s an unusual decision for The Times — and we want to share the reasoning behind it with you."

Monday, October 19, 2020

Censoring repugnant words by algorithm

 Some people like to say things that other people think they shouldn't say.  In the age of the internet, politeness can be (somewhat) automated, by banning certain words.  But of course, words have contexts. Here's a funny story from the Guardian:

Overzealous profanity filter bans paleontologists from talking about bones--A virtual conference was thrown into confusion when the platform hosting the event came with a pre-packaged ‘naughty word’ censor by Poppy Noor.

"Participants in a virtual paleontology session found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place last week, when a profanity filter prevented them from using certain words – such as bone, pubic, stream and, er, beaver – during an online conference.

"The US-based Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) held its annual meeting virtually this year due to the pandemic, but soon found its audience stifled when they tried to use particular words.

"Convey Services, which was was handling the conference, used a “naughty-word filter,” for the conference, outlawing a pre-selected list of words.

"“Words like ‘bone’, ‘pubic’, and ‘stream’ are frankly ridiculous to ban in a field where we regularly find pubic bones in streams,” said Brigid Christison, a master’s student in biology attending the event

...

"Some discovered bias in the algorithm, too. Jack Tseng, a vertebrate paleontologist from the University of Berkley pointed out that the filter had banned the common surname Wang but not Johnson – even though both are frequently used as slang words to describe a man’s genitals."

********

Here's Dr. Tseng's tweet:

Z. Jack Tseng, @Tseng_ZJ

"Wang" is banned but not "Johnson" (both used as slangs). This western-centric filter erasing the surname of 90+ million Chinese but not <2 million people of European descent is unexpectedly on brand for 2020,  ! My PhD advisor is X. **** by the way. "

**********

Previous related posts:


HT: Muriel Niederle


Thursday, July 4, 2019

FUCT up, censorship down in Supreme Court trademark decision

 The WSJ has the story:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks
The decision is a win for California clothing designer’s streetwear brand, FUCT

"The government can’t reject trademarks it deems immoral or scandalous, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
“The First Amendment does not allow the government to penalize views just because many people, whether rightly or wrongly, see them as offensive,” Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote for the court, said from the bench.
"Two years ago, the court struck down a related provision denying registration to disparaging trademarks, which the government had invoked to cancel the Washington Redskins professional football team’s trademark and to reject an application from the Slants, an Asian-American rock band. The same rationale, said Justice Kagan, required invalidation of the restriction on immoral or scandalous marks: The 1946 trademark law, the Lanham Act, was unconstitutional to the extent it “disfavors certain ideas.”
***************
Earlier related posts:

Sunday, February 19, 2017