from the strike-up-a-conversation-about-censorship dept.
TEDxBrussels has had its license revoked after an organizer dragged the controversial performance artist, Deborah De Robertis, off the stage by force during her presentation there. The parent organization recently has issued a statement on this incident at TEDxBrussels
Today at TEDxBrussels, an independently organized TEDx event, speaker and performance artist Deborah De Robertis was forcibly removed from the stage by one of the event's organizers, who objected to the talk's content.
From Mashable:
According to the TEDxBrussels website, the presenter, artist Deborah De Robertis, was in the middle of a piece addressing past censorship of her artwork. The forcible removal of her from stage was so absurd, reports the Netherlands newspaper NRC Handelsblad, that audience members initially applauded thinking it was a statement about censorship.
From Flanders News:
The organisers of Monday's TEDxBrussels event are refusing to comment on what happened.
TED is a prestigious series of talks in which speakers get a maximum of 18 minutes to spread innovative ideas and tell how they can contribute to a better world. It started off as a 4-day conference in the US state of California.
From Flanders Today:
According to Focus Knack, TEDxBrussels – run by a group of volunteers – was told by De Robertis that she would not show images from her performances as part of her talk. When she did, they decided to shut it down. The New York-based Sapling Foundation, which owns TEDx, did not agree with the move.
TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conferences started 1984 in California and cover most topics nowadays. The talks are intended to be thought provoking and are short, being 18 minutes or less in duration. Some may consider the talks too fluffy and lacking distinct solutions. The parent organization is a nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation with the agenda to make great ideas accessible and spark conversation. TEDx events are independently run and occur around the world. Until just now they used to also occur in Brussels.
From Flanders Today : TEDx Brussels loses license due to censorship
From Flanders News : TEDxBrussels loses licence after incident with controversial artist
From Mashable : TEDxBrussels organizer drags presenter off stage during anti-censorship talk
(Score: 4, Informative) by cocaine overdose on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:30PM (7 children)
The video, for anyone interested. [dhnet.be]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:42PM (6 children)
Shouldn't have let her on stage if they were that concerned about the content of her artwork.
And they should have waited until her presentation was over and banned her for life if they felt she had violated their agreed upon rules.
But doing it in the middle of the presentation was just asking for the streisand effect.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Snotnose on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:31PM (2 children)
They should have turned off the projector and, if she decided to strip, cut the lights in the hall.
Hey, I found a great new hobby! Y'all should try it. It's called Monday Morning Quarterbacking, where you get to watch a video of a stressful event and say how everybody involved screwed up!.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:46PM (1 child)
Yeah, this just screams "I did it on purpose to force them to handle an impossible situation."
Regardless of how they handled the situation, Monday morning quarterbacks would be all over the alternative approaches and how they would have been preferable.
Score +1 for the provocative artist, -1 for the humorless organization that let her onstage in the first place.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @07:33AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driverless on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:42AM
She agreed in advance not to show the controversial/offensive images.
She then did so anyway.
What were the organisers supposed to do? She deliberately and knowingly provoked them into a reaction, and she got what she wanted.
Also, what would have happened if it was a male speaker who showed those images? Would anyone anywhere have condemned the organisers in that case?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:52PM
Garbage logic.
What you've said is the "substituting the field of art for the field of war" equivalent of not letting a military general give a talk because he'd napalm the place?
What you have done and shown, and bombed, in the past is apsolutely orthogonal to what you will do and show in a talk, *even if the talk is about what you have previously done and shown, and bombed*.
They thought it was possible to give a talk about art being censorred without the need to show the censorred works.
*She* thought, or at least pretended, it was possible to give a talk about art being censorred without the need to show the censorred works.
It's possible, for example to give a talk about DeCSS decryption without having any DVDs on show.
It's possible to give a talk about torture without showing any thumbscrews.
Believe it or not, it's possible to give a talk about tha majority of subjects without any visual aids at all!
Anyway, he agreed to that.
That's a contract.
She reneged.
This should not be thought of as a censorship case against TEDx, this is a breach of contract case against her.
Aside - I fully support her right to expose blatent hypocrisy at the cost of her own modesty (which perhaps she doesn't value that highly). I totally disagree with the arty-farty-woo-woo she's wrapped her political statements in, she's weakened the argument supporting her action with it, to be honest, but still she has a point. It would have been better if she'd have just kept her legs open, but her mouth shut.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:54PM
They were concerned enough to have an agreement with her about the parameters her presentation would conform to. Thus removing their concern. Then she stabbed them in the back.
If she were not a nasty little troll (IMO), then she would have discussed censorship. Perhaps even shown suitably blurred images of her alleged art form. Discussed any number of things about how people react and why.
But she did not do that. I believe she had no intention of doing that. I believe her intent was to troll the organizers into an impossible situation. Which she did. I think the only useful thing to come of it is to discuss exactly how much force should be used to rightly deal with such situations. If I stand nude in Times Square, there is a possibility that force will be used to remove me. (And you might not want to see such a thing.)
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:41PM (2 children)
Ideas worth spreading. [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:56PM (1 child)
"Thighs worth spreading"
I wonder if the security grabbed her by the pussy.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:55PM
It was Brussels. They probably aren't as interested in making America great again.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Funny) by takyon on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:51PM
TEDx: The TEnDrils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference)#TEDx [wikipedia.org]
Looks like they sparked a conversation here.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:56PM (11 children)
Quick web search with her name shows a well known sex offender. What did the organizers expect when they allowed her on stage?
It is another question if she should be drag out afterwards or not.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:09PM (9 children)
Maybe if you stretch the definition wider than she stretched her legs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure [wikipedia.org]
As for French law, she wasn't charged for her 2014 performance and was cleared of other charges.
https://blog.artfido.com/nsfw-performance-artist-reenacts-the-painting-the-origin-of-the-world/ [artfido.com]
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/nude-performance-artist-acquitted-french-court-1121558 [artnet.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Snow on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:18PM (6 children)
TRANSLATION: "The court ruled her actions did not constitute public exposure due to being female."
(Score: 5, Funny) by takyon on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:27PM (3 children)
I encourage you to dress up as Batman, except for a completely bare crotch and exposed penis, and swing it around at your nearest major art museum. Be the change you want to see in the world.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Snow on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:57PM
Spiderman would be a better fit so I could show off my webslinger.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:46PM (1 child)
Taken from Einstein: https://image.ibb.co/gztc5H/einstein1.jpg [image.ibb.co]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:22PM
I dare you: do Hawkings!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:56PM (1 child)
Not exactly. Even near Houston Texas, nude beaches are not considered indecent exposure because the "intent to shock or offend" is not present, primarily due to the nature of the venue - secluded, hard to access, and generally known as a nude beach. Even if observers do stumble into the scene and become shocked and offended, they should have known better - so ruled a Texas judge on numerous occasions.
Now, in this case, she does seem intent on shocking or offending, but French and Belgian law may be much more lenient on the subject than Texas, the bit about "can't even see the genitals due to the pubic hair" being a valid French defense would suggest so. Were I to represent the "offense" in a legal case, I would point out the nature of the presenter, the primary focus of her prior art, and the fact that she made no attempt to hide this history when proposing a presentation on the subject of censorship. Then we can get into the history of artistic performers such as Jim Morrision, et. al. and their tendency to revert to the base form of their expression when on stage, regardless of pre-show agreements. If the pre-show agreement did not spell out penalties for breach of agreement, I would suggest that the TEDx organizers have no further recourse in this matter.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by insanumingenium on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:36PM
I doubt the pubic hair hiding anything was anything more than a polite fiction if it was ever stated at all. The image I have seen she is manually spreading her labia. I would imagine the non sexual motivation was the important portion.
(Score: 5, Funny) by MostCynical on Tuesday March 13 2018, @11:17PM
Not guilty, due to not shaving.
Vive la France!
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:56PM
She did not "reenact" the painting, and in fact in her explanation of what she was doing she clearly and deliberately contrasted what was so different.
And that final quote clearly indicates whoever wrote it never saw the footage of her quite clearly showing her flange.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:36PM
That's such a crude term. I prefer to say "See (C) you (U) next (N) Tuesday (T)". And... You call that art? Looks more like underwear shitstains to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:02PM (1 child)
These TED circuses make Kadarshians look respectable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:29PM
I have to disagree. *Nothing* can do that.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:25PM
Reporter: How do you think you got the title of most ironic conference in the world?
TEDxBrussels: You see this irony amplifier? The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Reporter: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
TEDxBrussels: Exactly.
Reporter: Does that mean it's more ironic? Is it any more ironic?
TEDxBrussels: Well, it's one ironicker, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most conferences, you know, will be ironicking at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your stage. Where can you go from there? Where?
Reporter: I don't know.
TEDxBrussels: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Reporter: Put it up to eleven.
TEDxBrussels: Eleven. Exactly. One ironicker.
Reporter: Why don't you just make ten more ironic and make ten be the top number and make that a little more ironic?
TEDxBrusselsl: [pause] These go to eleven.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:38PM (2 children)
Isn't the TEDx crowd Al Gore's audience? Not sure if I'd rather see this woman's snatch or hear his bloviations. And to think that he was almost our president, and probably would have done better than GWB.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:46PM
Depends on if you want the stench to be literal or metaphorical.
(Score: 2) by Uncle_Al on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:35PM
Manbearpig
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:40PM (15 children)
This is not censorship, this is reacting to a breach of contract.
A better solution would have been to call it TEDxxx, though.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by unauthorized on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:14PM (2 children)
That is a double dichotomy. You can censor someone and use a breach of contract as the vehicle of your censorship.
Not that we have any reasons to believe the breach of contract angle in the first place, it rings very much like a "saving throw" made by the organizers. Personally I'm inclined to disbelieve them, given their conduct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:29PM
Isn't a double dichotomy a quadrotomy? Two plus two and all that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:53PM
Hmm, I am going to have try that on khallow. Nothing else seems to get through to him. Is "bad faith" enough to breech, um, a contract?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:34PM (3 children)
Only if her contract said "no photos of your art" and maybe "don't re-enact your art live"
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:01PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:12PM (1 child)
So it has been reported, *after* the event.
What did they *actually* say, or write, in a contractually enforceable way?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 14 2018, @11:24PM
I'm curious why you'd expect to see an explanation of their view of the event before it happened. Time generally moves forward, explications of the unexpected follow, rather than precede.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Informative) by insanumingenium on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:42PM (1 child)
Literally dragging her off stage is censorship, and potentially assault. The motivation for action might be debatable, but the act is absolutely to prevent her from speaking at that moment. Contracts are enforced in court, not by bodily dragging people around while super ironically exposing them.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday March 15 2018, @08:45AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:02AM (5 children)
The overrated mod is mine. Censorship is censorship. If I tell my son he can't swear, that is censorship. If your employer tells you to clean up your language, that is censorship. If your company prohibits you emailing clients, that is censorship. And, if government tells you that you cannot talk about $controversial_issue that is censorship. For Tedx to prevent a speaker from performing whatever the hell he/she wishes to perform, that is censorship. Censorship may or may not be justified in some cases, but as a generality, it is unjustified. The fact that you may or may not agree with that censorship is only an agreement. That does not justify censoring.
In this case, I think the speaker was a nasty little twat, and I have no desire to see her performance. That still doesn't change the fact that she was censored. Violently censored, at that.
Do I agree with that censorship? Ehhhhh - undecided, actually. The broad should probably be confined in an asylum, where she may express herself in whatever manner she likes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:20PM (1 child)
Are you seriously stating that teaching a kid manners and that there are arbitrary rules to be followed is a form of censorship to get upset about? Not only that, the kid is free to choose other words to express their sentiments. You have censored nothing, you've only forbidden culturally unacceptable terms of speech. They can still say what they want, they just have to choose another way to say it.
And if you used work resources that way while I was paying you to spread the good word that you're a nigerian prince and using the company resources to do it, you're fired. That isn't censorship. that's an acceptable use policy to shield the company from liability in case the employee does something stupid.
Your government example is correct.
Don't confuse freedom of speech with the right to work.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:35PM
Those words are your own, not mine. If you read my post, you would have seen that censorship is censorship, whether I agree with the censorship or not.
The problem here is, that people tend to evaluate censorship, then to agree or to disagree with that censorship - which is right and proper. But, then they decide that "Because I approve of this censorship, it's not really censorship!" And, THAT is the lie that I was addressing. I ask you, "Do you approve of censorship?" You answer, "No!" Then you turn around and scold your two year old for using a "naughty word".
All I'm asking is, how about we end the hypocrisy? I approve of some censorship, you approve of some censorship, damned near everybody approves of some censorship. You approve of some that I do not approve of, and vice versa. Which is cool - everyone is entitled to their opinions and preferences. But, let's end the hypocrisy.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:35PM
I agree with that. Just to get it out of the way.
We can go into infinite recursion about whether to label it censorship. Regardless of the labeling, those are examples of prohibition of expression that I would support. People shouldn't have someone else's offensive form of expression forced upon them. She seems to have agreed to discuss censorship, and agreed to do so without engaging in certain forms of expression. If she didn't want to agree, she could find other venues for her expression. If she violated the agreement, I think the organizers are within their right to non-violently get her off stage. Seeing the video, it does not seem violent to me. Merely assertive that they are removing her by force, against her wishes, the wish to violate her agreement.
The same with the workplace. There simply are things you do not do in the workplace. One cannot both complain about a hostile work environment, and then complain that my right to show my genitals is being censored! Or even complain that my right to say offensive, hurtful, hateful things is censored. If I agreed not do engage in those forms of expression, then I should abide by that. If I don't like the terms, then I should find employment at a place that allows generally offensive behavior and language.
You can choose to label it censorship rather than an agreed upon framework for what is acceptable behavior. Maybe public indecency laws are prior restraint and censorship! Oh my! But I would point out there are places one can go to practice one's believe in nudity. I am not judgemental if one wishes to go to such a place for that purpose. If they do so in public, I am all for the full force of the law coming in to play.
We can dance around it all day. Everyone has to live with other people. At all points in human history there have been acceptable norms. With consequences for violating them. I think this is as it should be. People who have an expanded definition of acceptable are free to use their own venue to practice such expanded notions, as long as it is legal.
The government censoring things that are considered within acceptable norms is definitely what I would call government censorship. Especially when the acceptable norms are that it should be okay to criticize the orange one, whether you like that particular color or not.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday March 15 2018, @01:43PM (1 child)
And for TED to prevent a TEDx event from being run the way the local organisers think it should be run?
Genuinely curious - it does seem to fit your definition of censorship.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 15 2018, @02:01PM
Yes, that it is. But, of course, TEDx is free to forego the license from TED, and do an anti-TED, or alt-TED, or TEDy - or whatever.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:24PM (3 children)
Why are you so afraid of a little pussy?
I'm a big fan of pussy myself.
In fact,
I like pussy, man.
do you like
pussy, man?
I like pussy
Soylentils
I like
pussy, man
Would you like pussy
Here or there?
I do like pussy
Here or there.
I do like pussy
Anywhere.
I do like
pussy, man.
I do like pussy
Soylentils
Would you like some pussy
In a house?
Would you like some pussy
With a mouse?
I do like pussy
In a house.
I do like pussy
With a mouse.
I do like pussy
Here or there.
I do like pussy
Anywhere.
I do like pussy, man.
I do not like pussy, Soylentils.
With apologies to Ted Geisel.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:41PM (2 children)
Would you find it offensive to
Some people would find the substitution offensive. Others would find the lack of such substitution offensive.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:11PM (1 child)
Penis. Cock. Johnson.
Vagina. Pussy. Snatch.
Perhaps some folks would find both offensive. I don't find either to be offensive. But then, I'm generally not bothered by references to human bodies and/or their constituent parts. I'm not so sure why others might be, given that it's all perfectly natural and normal.
Life is so much more enjoyable when one has a sense of humor.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of penis (well, except my own), but I try not to be judgemental.
My point was that a number of posters, based on their comments on this topic, seem to dislike female genitalia. Possibly even females as well.
Personally, I like females. And their genitalia.
So I thought I'd share, if for no other reason (and it looks like I succeeded, given that I was downmodded beyond what was necessary to get me to '-1') than to piss off the SN chapter of the "He-Man Woman Haters Club."
Those guys have a lot in common with these folks [wordpress.com], and are seemingly just as intolerant.
Vive la difference! [oxforddictionaries.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:17PM
I can definitely agree with that.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.