Libel, Slander and Defamation: An apology to E & S
I have recently made a post regarding two female artists. The post reviewed their works and character in inappropriate mannerism. Coming from a small island in the Mediterranean sea, where Greek is the native language, I did not know that using such terms were considered as defamation. A foreigner watching the mainstream media in the UK, from R&B and Rap music to contemporary arts and stand-up comedy, comes to consider these words as everyday terms. I walk the streets of Brighton to hear the words 'wanker', 'bitch', 'asshole' and so on in repetition, yet I do not see anyone complaining. Evidently such words are seen in the eye of the beholder, and some people take offend. So it is in my deepest humility that I apologize sincerely for using the term 'bitch' to characterize another person.
This situation has given me the opportunity for self-reflection and a general evaluation of society. Critics of modern society such as Bill Hicks, Trey Parker and Matt Stone -creators of Southpark, George Carlin and Frank Zappa have all used swearing to point a finger to either the individual or the collective society. Without this criticism the world would be a terrible place. Censorship leads to a world in breech of what most people consider the highest law: freedom of speech. To quote from the US First Amendment of the Consitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
We live in terrible times. Times where religion and nationalism have put a ban on words. In the state of New York it is illegal to use the term Nigger. The US TV network Comedy Central refused to air a spoof of Mohammed. In 1985, Frank Zappa appeared before the US Senate, to defend the right of musicians to use inappropriate words in their songs, without labeling and categorizing their albums (what is now seen in albums as 'parental advisory-explicit lyrics'). This is a violation of freedom of speech. To quote from Mr. Zappa's statement: "The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years, dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal's design. It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment Issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation".
In addition "The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of Moral Quality Control Programs based on "Things Certain Christians Don't Like". What if the next bunch of Washington Wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to 'concealed Zionist doctrine'?"
To conclude, "Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are, in my opinion, more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religious Thought [sic], and the Right to Due Process for composers, performers and retailers are imperiled if the PMRC and the major labels consummate this nasty bargain."
When words are censored what makes the society to ban the public concern on world issues such as war? Should we wash away Bansky from our walls because his work offends homophobics? Should the works of Damien Hurst be burned at a public ceremony in the town square for insulting vegetarians?
Let me explain by giving examples through personal experience. Before moving to the UK to study Digital Media, I was a musician and composer in Cyprus. I have in my background more than 80 concerts during 10 years in the genre of rock/experimental/psychedelic and heavy metal music. I have given interviews to national television and zines, appeared in a magazine which referred to myself in the following words: "Andreas' voice is charismatic, and considered as one of the best frontmen in Cyprus, and people always have a story to tell about "that time I saw him perform live". I have also performed 3 times in the UK and with the band which I play drums with have appeared in the UK magazine "Terrorizer" twice. I have also rejected two contracts for refusing to "sell out". Performing live one needs to expect not only bad criticism but also defamation. Especially when one appears on stage wearing skirts, make-up, fishnets, PVC and so on, and even more so when these performances take place in a fundamental orthodox christian society. I have been referred to as a homosexual, devil worshiper, junkie and other terms. In my whole career, I have never, ever sued anybody, never attacked or retaliated to the accusations. Why? Because there is a saying in Cyprus which translates: "A clear sky is not afraid of the storm". In my 3 years residing in the UK, I have never approached my peers in an arrogant way. Most of them do not even know the aforementioned.
So why am I saying this. Quite simple. When an artist comes to give a lecture to a class of 18 people and is sarcastic and ironic about the mass population expression (YouTube), as well as using phrases such as "don't you read books", they should expect a reaction. Because we do read books. Some study religions of the world and learn about the elimination of ego. Some read Elliott and Yeats. Some study impressionism, cubism and surrealism. Others immerse themselves in quantum physics theories. Yet you do not see them attacking your lack of knowledge on the subject. We all have our interests, and no one is better than the person next to her. We are all equal. We are the people who fund other artists work. We are the people, to use the phrase of Palahniuk in his book 'Fight Club', who serve your food, clean your toilets, and guard you while you sleep. We also know the responsibility of the artist and her art as described by Robert Henri. We too, use quotes and cliche phrases to describe our intellectuality. It is because of us, the people, that you the artist makes a living. And you should respect that as we respect you. Action causes reaction, so self-reflection on personal behavior is required, before judging others behavior on you.
The world is but a mirror of ourselves. And if the world uses swear words to describe a person what does that tell us about ourselves? If we censor other people's work should we censor our own for fear of insult to a particular group or individual? If so, where does that put Art in general?
In conclusion, we should learn to take everything more lightly, even humorous. We should burst the bubble that surrounds us, and learn that we are not the warm little center of the world. We should accept criticism in any form, and rise above it, since we are better than the accusation. Some criticism is constructive, some is not. Some people express themselves in ways that are unacceptable to others. But we shouldn't ban Christmas just because some are not Christians. Neither should we burn churches because science tells us to be atheists.
I apologize once more for using inappropriate terms to express myself. It was not my intention to insult anyone, and I hope that my expression in a second language and not my mother tongue will be taken sensibly, and that this post will be regarded as my own personal belief system, ideology and thought pattern. I accept the disapproval of my ideas, but I must be honest to myself in order to be honest to others. To use me as a scapegoat only makes the Holy Inquisition as an acceptable form of structuring and molding society and the individual. To attack freedom of speech only brings a Big Brother society into being.
Thank you for your time, and sincere apologies once more.
This situation has given me the opportunity for self-reflection and a general evaluation of society. Critics of modern society such as Bill Hicks, Trey Parker and Matt Stone -creators of Southpark, George Carlin and Frank Zappa have all used swearing to point a finger to either the individual or the collective society. Without this criticism the world would be a terrible place. Censorship leads to a world in breech of what most people consider the highest law: freedom of speech. To quote from the US First Amendment of the Consitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
We live in terrible times. Times where religion and nationalism have put a ban on words. In the state of New York it is illegal to use the term Nigger. The US TV network Comedy Central refused to air a spoof of Mohammed. In 1985, Frank Zappa appeared before the US Senate, to defend the right of musicians to use inappropriate words in their songs, without labeling and categorizing their albums (what is now seen in albums as 'parental advisory-explicit lyrics'). This is a violation of freedom of speech. To quote from Mr. Zappa's statement: "The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years, dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal's design. It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment Issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation".
In addition "The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of Moral Quality Control Programs based on "Things Certain Christians Don't Like". What if the next bunch of Washington Wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to 'concealed Zionist doctrine'?"
To conclude, "Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are, in my opinion, more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religious Thought [sic], and the Right to Due Process for composers, performers and retailers are imperiled if the PMRC and the major labels consummate this nasty bargain."
When words are censored what makes the society to ban the public concern on world issues such as war? Should we wash away Bansky from our walls because his work offends homophobics? Should the works of Damien Hurst be burned at a public ceremony in the town square for insulting vegetarians?
Let me explain by giving examples through personal experience. Before moving to the UK to study Digital Media, I was a musician and composer in Cyprus. I have in my background more than 80 concerts during 10 years in the genre of rock/experimental/psychedelic and heavy metal music. I have given interviews to national television and zines, appeared in a magazine which referred to myself in the following words: "Andreas' voice is charismatic, and considered as one of the best frontmen in Cyprus, and people always have a story to tell about "that time I saw him perform live". I have also performed 3 times in the UK and with the band which I play drums with have appeared in the UK magazine "Terrorizer" twice. I have also rejected two contracts for refusing to "sell out". Performing live one needs to expect not only bad criticism but also defamation. Especially when one appears on stage wearing skirts, make-up, fishnets, PVC and so on, and even more so when these performances take place in a fundamental orthodox christian society. I have been referred to as a homosexual, devil worshiper, junkie and other terms. In my whole career, I have never, ever sued anybody, never attacked or retaliated to the accusations. Why? Because there is a saying in Cyprus which translates: "A clear sky is not afraid of the storm". In my 3 years residing in the UK, I have never approached my peers in an arrogant way. Most of them do not even know the aforementioned.
So why am I saying this. Quite simple. When an artist comes to give a lecture to a class of 18 people and is sarcastic and ironic about the mass population expression (YouTube), as well as using phrases such as "don't you read books", they should expect a reaction. Because we do read books. Some study religions of the world and learn about the elimination of ego. Some read Elliott and Yeats. Some study impressionism, cubism and surrealism. Others immerse themselves in quantum physics theories. Yet you do not see them attacking your lack of knowledge on the subject. We all have our interests, and no one is better than the person next to her. We are all equal. We are the people who fund other artists work. We are the people, to use the phrase of Palahniuk in his book 'Fight Club', who serve your food, clean your toilets, and guard you while you sleep. We also know the responsibility of the artist and her art as described by Robert Henri. We too, use quotes and cliche phrases to describe our intellectuality. It is because of us, the people, that you the artist makes a living. And you should respect that as we respect you. Action causes reaction, so self-reflection on personal behavior is required, before judging others behavior on you.
The world is but a mirror of ourselves. And if the world uses swear words to describe a person what does that tell us about ourselves? If we censor other people's work should we censor our own for fear of insult to a particular group or individual? If so, where does that put Art in general?
In conclusion, we should learn to take everything more lightly, even humorous. We should burst the bubble that surrounds us, and learn that we are not the warm little center of the world. We should accept criticism in any form, and rise above it, since we are better than the accusation. Some criticism is constructive, some is not. Some people express themselves in ways that are unacceptable to others. But we shouldn't ban Christmas just because some are not Christians. Neither should we burn churches because science tells us to be atheists.
I apologize once more for using inappropriate terms to express myself. It was not my intention to insult anyone, and I hope that my expression in a second language and not my mother tongue will be taken sensibly, and that this post will be regarded as my own personal belief system, ideology and thought pattern. I accept the disapproval of my ideas, but I must be honest to myself in order to be honest to others. To use me as a scapegoat only makes the Holy Inquisition as an acceptable form of structuring and molding society and the individual. To attack freedom of speech only brings a Big Brother society into being.
Thank you for your time, and sincere apologies once more.
An intelligent and well written post. Dan
ReplyDeleteThank you Dan, much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteyes, i totally agree too. a great response to this incident which has created a very interesting topic of debate. i believe its outrageous that they want to take legal action, but at the same time rather ammusing. i look forward to monday.
ReplyDeleteJon
on one front the points on zach's post here https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6272938655204231831&postID=8739503418835096656 apply. once a person begins to emerge in any arena then they have to expect a diversity of views about their work and about themselves. i'd be happy to invite ellie back in to respond also.
ReplyDeleteon another level i think the particular language employed does matter. you make a good defense here of your right to use any term or phrase. but just because a term which some consider hostile or to embody prejudice can be used doesn’t mean it has to be. is it that effective always to use expletives or terms which might in one context be seen as racist or sexist as provocative shorthand for instance? gary younge is someone who has written intelligently about ‘political correctness’ and related myths.
thinking out loud: perhaps etiquette or politeness has some value. in one situation a term may be appropriate, an example healthy self-deprecation, comedic, ironic. in another situation the same phrases might be examples of either ignorant insensitivity or represent open bigotry. who’s prerogative is it really employ the language we are discussing? notice btw my laughable attempts to avoid. we happen to be surrounded by new media where conventions are not yet established and that is part of the problem, the complexity. the discussion is a useful one to have and there are no simple answers.
on one front the points on zach's post here https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6272938655204231831&postID=8739503418835096656 apply. once a person begins to emerge in any arena then they have to expect a diversity of views about their work and about themselves. i'd be happy to invite ellie back in to respond also.
ReplyDeleteon another level i think the particular language employed does matter. you make a good defense here of your right to use any term or phrase. but just because a term which some consider hostile or to embody prejudice can be used doesn’t mean it has to be. is it that effective always to use expletives or terms which might in one context be seen as racist or sexist as provocative shorthand for instance? gary younge is someone who has written intelligently about ‘political correctness’ and related myths.
thinking out loud: perhaps etiquette or politeness has some value. in one situation a term may be appropriate, an example healthy self-deprecation, comedic, ironic. in another situation the same phrases might be examples of either ignorant insensitivity or represent open bigotry. whos perogative is it really employ the language we are discussing? notice btw my laughable attempts to avoid. we happen to be surrounded by new media where conventions are not yet established and that is part of the problem, the complexity. the discussion is a useful one to have and there are no simple answers
Your comments have brought a balance to the overall debate. You seem to imply some form of regulation should exist, and I agree depending on the medium of expression. Some more thought on the matter is required on my behalf.
ReplyDeleteThe issue here seems to be where to draw the line between personal and professional criticism.
ReplyDeleteOf course all artists must deal with the former. But when they make autobiographical art, by definition the personal becomes professional. Artist, then, beware...
Art is subjective, and opinions are important. But choosing your words carefully can mean the difference between your criticism being perceived as insightful comment or reactionist rant.
Thanks Mike. I agree I got a bit carried away, intentionally. In my effort to point out the errors of the artists I became that error. It might be the through-the-looking-glass concept or that "our consequences dictate our course of action". I will try and have more self-control on this matter.
ReplyDelete