Illegal art should be made accesible

The argument surrounding paedophilia relates to the fact that uncensored online material allows the option for paedophiles to view material containing children. I did not state or imply that looking at this material online makes someone a paedophile. I merely made the point that making illegal art accessible to all people means exactly that. All people can view it, even those with less than desirable intentions. "To ban anything in art can be both politically and socially dangerous. " The issue with a statement such as this, as previously discussed in this debate, is that the internet has broadened what is considered ‘art' to such an extent that it is difficult to distinguish between what is genuine art, and what is just offensive material labelled ‘art' to avoid censorship. Without any system allowing a filtering of offensive material, much of the ‘art' on the internet will contain images and themes that are both offensive and disturbing to people who view them. Further to this, it is necessary to ban some art due to copyright laws, and this law shouldn't be overlooked just because the material is online. In reference to the example you gave of Bill Henson using naked teenagers fifteen years ago without any fanfare, as opposed to the hype surrounding his recent ones, this shows the power of new technology. Many people were exposed to the photographs as a result of the hype around them and their frequency online. The controversy is an example of the power of new technologies in circulating material such as this, allowing more people to be exposed to it and therefore more opinions surface. The material of Hensons photographs is sensitive, and I would argue that they should be censored online and people who just want to view them for their artistic merit should physically view them in a museum. Censorship is an issue that has always been regarded with some disdain by people,especially in a democratic nation but the progress of the new technology of the internet in superceding any offline limitations and regulations in place to protect original work and children, makes some sort of censorship the only option in bringing back some sort of regulation on the flow of information to the world. It is all well and good to say that people want to have the right to view this art but what about those who don't want to view it, what about those children who are too young to be able to understand the decision and stumble across photos of "art" of an obscene nature after typing in some semi-related words into a search engine, images like this are hard to be unseen, and promoting this exhibition on the internet reduces people's choice to see this kind of potentially offensive material. In the youtube video, "BCM301 Class discussion", this is a point made, by exhibiting on the internet, with the knowledge that everyone, all ages, political and religious beliefs varying, can use the technology, you greatly increase the chance of forcing this material down the throat of someone who may not wish to see it through the myriad of pop up images and links that appear on unrelated websites and the innaccuracy of some search engine responses. So is this fair? It is all well and good to say people should be able to view this material to appreciate it as "art", or whatever you define as art this week, but let these people seek it out in a physical art gallery, where limitations of access for those who are too young or choose not to see these images are as simple as shutting a door or asking for an ID card. Some images are hard to forget, in the offline world there is a whole, tiered and strict system for making sure certain images don't affect the wrong people with their lasting impressions without the express permission of said people. Just because the internet makes it possible to shove things down people's throats, it does not mean we have to do it, perhaps if we tried self regulating ourselves more often, extreme measures such as the censorship filter on the internet would not be necessary.