Censorship at Sunstone?

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

Wait....just pictures of naked kids are child pornography?? 'Cause that would mean my parents are felons, with a whole baby album full of "kiddie porn" in their attic.

They took pictures of us in our baby tub. There's one of my brother, so delighted by the beach, that he whipped off his shorts and diaper and ran down the shoreline, wiener to the wind.

Most are baby and toddler pictures, but there's one of me, about age 11, washing my hair in the sink, topless. I had no breasts yet. Because I was a kid. I hadn't hit puberty yet.

Equating "naked kids" with "child pornography" minimizes actual child pornography.

Were these photographs, or were they drawings? Were they in any way sexual images?

I don't know the presenter involved. I didn't make it to even digital Sunstone. I have no horse in this race. But the context really ought to matter before equating any sort of image of a naked child with kiddie porn.

I can understand some images might be borderline, but I think in most cases, we can apply a little common sense as to whether they depict children in a sexual manner or just....naked.

[Kishkumen]

Wait....just pictures of naked kids are child pornography?? 'Cause that would mean my parents are felons, with a whole baby album full of "kiddie porn" in their attic.

They took pictures of us in our baby tub. There's one of my brother, so delighted by the beach, that he whipped off his shorts and diaper and ran down the shoreline, wiener to the wind.

Most are baby and toddler pictures, but there's one of me, about age 11, washing my hair in the sink, topless. I had no breasts yet. Because I was a kid. I hadn't hit puberty yet.

Equating "naked kids" with "child pornography" minimizes actual child pornography.

Were these photographs, or were they drawings? Were they in any way sexual images?

I don't know the presenter involved. I didn't make it to even digital Sunstone. I have no horse in this race. But the context really ought to matter before equating any sort of image of a naked child with kiddie porn.

I can understand some images might be borderline, but I think in most cases, we can apply a little common sense as to whether they depict children in a sexual manner or just....naked.

I think it is very unfortunate that Lindsay initially used that defamatory and dubious language. Fortunately, Cheryl Bruno was able to persuade her that she was at legal risk for using such terms in connection with Gazelam, and she wisely edited her comments.

Yeah, I remember my parents' nude pictures of us kids. It used to be that people thought nothing of having such images.

But, to be fair to everyone here, that was then, not now.

A real important question here is one of consent. This situation has to be read in the context of the #MeToo movement, I think. Pictures of a sensitive nature published without the informed consent of the person appearing therein is something that is not going to be treated as it might have been in the past. Think about those women whose nude pictures have been circulated without their consent, sometimes for revenge.

Children cannot consent. If we have now realized that consent is crucial, and I am relieved that we finally have realized this, how do we deal with such images--though not pornographic or designed to titillate--when consent just is not possible?

Do we have a choice? What is the ethical and moral thing to do? These are tough questions and gravely important issues.

Now, there is no question in my mind that Gazelam had no intention of harming any kids. We are, however, in an environment where anything that appears to raise issues of consent is going to be a real hot potato. People are going, understandably, to err on the side of caution.

I really, really wish that Sunstone had made as much time to communicate with Gazelam as they did to put together a panel of experts to discuss the art that Gazelam had no intention of displaying at Sunstone. It could be that we would not be having this conversation right now.

[drumdude]

It's not Sunstone's job to push the boundaries of the law and test legal interpretation. They steered wide around the issue, wider than they probably had to, but that was intentional. Even if he said he had taken the images out of his presentation, it could have been possible for him to miss one, or pull up the old slideshow, or a host of other accidents.

I think Lindsay made the right decision, although it sounds like she could have done a better job communicating it to him.

[Res Ipsa]

Yes, as I said, it is a complicated and fraught situation. I have to hand it to malkie, as he was able to pry more information out of Lindsay Hansen Park than anyone else has so far, including Gazelam. On the one hand, it looks pretty cut and dried, child nudity? You gotta cancel. As a legal question, certainly there is not even a question here.

On the other hand, with all of the time spent to assemble a team of experts to determine whether Gazelam’s art was too risky, there stood the phone and the computer, providing ample opportunity to reach out to Gazelam or any of their co-presenters to ask whether the offending images were going to be *shown* at Sunstone. It is my understanding that they were not, but Gazelam could have also been given the choice not to show them or not to present.

I notice Lindsay said that Sunstone had had the experience of two presenters switching up their presentations in the past. This statement addresses their lapse in communication with Gazelam. I ask, “which two presenters and what presentations?” It is easy to breeze past this and not consider that Lindsay knows Gazelam personally, has hosted them at Sunstone and featured their art before, and interviewed them on the Year of Polygamy podcast.

So I guess this comes down to not trusting Gazelam, and choosing not to reach out to Gazelam in anything but a terse, organizational notice of removal. Fair enough. I get that questions of artistic nudity are too fraught, particularly when images of children are involved, and there is no question that such images should not be displayed at a public gathering in this country. It’s just a sad commentary that it is easier to assemble a battery of experts and shoot off a terse email than it is to pick up the phone and call a friend.

Thanks to malkie for managing to extract this statement from Lindsay. Another case of who you know, unfortunately, and evidence that quiet attempts to work with people get nowhere. It is only when Ramus Stein posts this in a public forum that some kind of fulsome explanation of process is published. Good grief.

Maybe I'm not understanding the facts here. Hanson referred to people purchasing the decks of the different presenters. I assumed that meant that, in connection with his planned presentation, Gazelam Ale created a tarot deck for each presenter, including himself. Those decks were made available for sale. I don't see that as being art completely unconnected with Sunstone. Were decks going to be sold during the conference?

It does seem to me that a better solution was available. Refund the purchase price of the decks. Do not have the decks for sale at the conference. Contact GA and make sure he did not intend to display pics of nude children as part of his presentation. But hindsight is 20-20.

It is a real shame that Gazalem feels alienated from a conference he loves.

[Kishkumen]

It's not Sunstone's job to push the boundaries of the law and test legal interpretation. They steered wide around the issue, wider than they probably had to, but that was intentional. Even if he said he had taken the images out of his presentation, it could have been possible for him to miss one, or pull up the old slideshow, or a host of other accidents.

I think Lindsay made the right decision, although it sounds like she could have done a better job communicating it to him.

I guess I am not following you, drumdude. Who is asking that Sunstone push the boundaries and test legal interpretation? Apparently steering wide around the issue meant this: find someone who has done something controversial and withdraw their invitation to speak without discussion.

There were no images to take out of their presentation. There was nothing to "miss." No old slide show. No accident of the kind you are talking about to make. Their presentation was on the history of tarot. Period. The abstract for the session says nothing about them displaying their own decks.

So, let me present to you an alternative scenario in which Gazelam actually did plan to show a PowerPoint (I am not aware of such plans, but just for the sake of argument):

Lindsay gets some troubling emails about some tarot decks that were purchased by people who planned to attend this session. Lindsay picks up the phone and calls her friend Gazelam.

L: "Hey, Gazelam, I got some complaints about your tarot deck. People are worried that you are presenting at the conference."

G: "Oh. Well, the cards are art. They do contain artistic nudity."

L: "Oh. Cool. Be that as it may, are you planning to show those images in your presentation?"

G: "No, my presentation is on the history of tarot, not my deck."

L: "Oh, good. Well, listen, I know this is a hassle, but we would prefer that you not use a visual presentation. That way we can all be assured there will be no accidental displays of images that may offend some people."

G: "Gee, well, that makes my presentation almost impossible to do. I spent a long time working on it."

L: "Yes, I know. I am really sorry. I wish we had other options here, but right now these issues are particularly sensitive, so we have to ask that you not share your screen during your presentation. In fact, we may have to turn off your camera."

G. "I guess I have to pull out then. This is really upsetting to me. I wish you would trust me."

L: "I do trust you, Gazelam, but Sunstone cannot take the risk. I am representing Sunstone, and I hope you can understand that if there were a mistake, it could be a major problem for the entire organization."

G: "I really feel awful. I wish you could trust me, but I guess I see what you mean. Since I can't do my presentation without a PowerPoint and you may not even let me appear on camera, I have to withdraw."

L: "OK. I respect that. We will refund your registration, naturally. Right now things are really crazy with the conference, but I hope we can work this out after Sunstone is over. Let's talk again."

Oh, and guess who controls whether there is screen sharing in Zoom? Not the individual presenter but the host. The person running the session can remove any participant and shove them in their own virtual room at any time.

[Kishkumen]

Maybe I'm not understanding the facts here. Hanson referred to people purchasing the decks of the different presenters. I assumed that meant that, in connection with his planned presentation, Gazelam Ale created a tarot deck for each presenter, including himself. Those decks were made available for sale. I don't see that as being art completely unconnected with Sunstone. Were decks going to be sold during the conference?

Ah, I see the possibility for some confusion here, although I am not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. This is what I understand:

There is a Facebook group called Mormonism and Western Esotericism. We have Zoom conferences about aspects of the topic. One of them was on Mormon Tarot, and it featured several artists who were working on decks. The presenters had such a great time that they decided to propose a Sunstone session. Two of the MWE presenters were also motivated to publish the decks that were close to finished at the time of the Zoom meeting. The third is still working on his.

Sunstone accepted the proposal. Lindsay, I think, made an electronic poster advertising the session. It did not contain references to G's deck or any artwork from the deck. G, I know, did advertise their deck in the private Facebook group, but not, to my knowledge, in connection with Sunstone. I do not believe Sunstone was mentioned in that very limited advertisement. I do not know of any other advertisements of the deck, so I can only speak of the one I saw in the private Facebook group, and the one on Etsy, neither of which referred to Sunstone. G was not selling the deck at Sunstone, as far as I know. For one thing, G has only produced 50 decks and the few remaining copies are in the shopping carts of like seven people per deck.

It does seem to me that a better solution was available. Refund the purchase price of the decks. Do not have the decks for sale at the conference. Contact GA and make sure he did not intend to display pics of nude children as part of his presentation. But hindsight is 20-20.

It is a real shame that Gazalem feels alienated from a conference he loves.

I feel badly because it seems very likely that the people who contacted Sunstone about GA were in that private Facebook group. I don't know for sure, but it very well could be the case. That would have been the one place where it would have been easiest to infer some connection between the deck and Sunstone, as both the session and the deck were advertised there, just not in reference to each other.

Honestly, I hope they (Sunstone and GA) work things out. I hope Sunstone does a better job dealing with this kind of thing next time. As it fell out, it looks like a textbook case of Mormon tattle-tale culture run amok. Ordinarily, however, I think Sunstone does great work and LHP has been a real savior to the organization. It just so happens that Mormon culture is poorly adapted to handle these things in a mature way.

[Res Ipsa]

Maybe I'm not understanding the facts here. Hanson referred to people purchasing the decks of the different presenters. I assumed that meant that, in connection with his planned presentation, Gazelam Ale created a tarot deck for each presenter, including himself. Those decks were made available for sale. I don't see that as being art completely unconnected with Sunstone. Were decks going to be sold during the conference?

Ah, I see the possibility for some confusion here, although I am not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. This is what I understand:

There is a Facebook group called Mormonism and Western Esotericism. We have Zoom conferences about aspects of the topic. One of them was on Mormon Tarot, and it featured several artists who were working on decks. The presenters had such a great time that they decided to propose a Sunstone session. Two of the MWE presenters were also motivated to publish the decks that were close to finished at the time of the Zoom meeting. The third is still working on his.

Sunstone accepted the proposal. Lindsay, I think, made an electronic poster advertising the session. It did not contain references to G's deck or any artwork from the deck. G, I know, did advertise their deck in the private Facebook group, but not, to my knowledge, in connection with Sunstone. I do not believe Sunstone was mentioned in that very limited advertisement. I do not know of any other advertisements of the deck, so I can only speak of the one I saw in the private Facebook group, and the one on Etsy, neither of which referred to Sunstone. G was not selling the deck at Sunstone, as far as I know. For one thing, G has only produced 50 decks and the few remaining copies are in the shopping carts of like seven people per deck.

It does seem to me that a better solution was available. Refund the purchase price of the decks. Do not have the decks for sale at the conference. Contact GA and make sure he did not intend to display pics of nude children as part of his presentation. But hindsight is 20-20.

It is a real shame that Gazalem feels alienated from a conference he loves.

I feel badly because it seems very likely that the people who contacted Sunstone about GA were in that private Facebook group. I don't know for sure, but it very well could be the case. That would have been the one place where it would have been easiest to infer some connection between the deck and Sunstone, as both the session and the deck were advertised there, just not in reference to each other.

Honestly, I hope they (Sunstone and GA) work things out. I hope Sunstone does a better job dealing with this kind of thing next time. As it fell out, it looks like a textbook case of Mormon tattle-tale culture run amok. Ordinarily, however, I think Sunstone does great work and LHP has been a real savior to the organization. It just so happens that Mormon culture is poorly adapted to handle these things in a mature way.

Thanks for the clarifications, Reverend. The facts make much more sense to me now. I hope Sunstone and GA are able to work things out and there are some lessons learned.

[Ramus_Stein]

Thank you guys for this conversation about what happened. I am still sad for Gazelam. I agree with Res Ipsa when he says that they could have done a better job of handling this at Sunstone. I was thinking of proposing something for the next meeting, and even though I do not do art the idea that people are tattling on others to get them thrown off the program is a real buzz-kill.

[Kishkumen]

Thank you guys for this conversation about what happened. I am still sad for Gazelam. I agree with Res Ipsa when he says that they could have done a better job of handling this at Sunstone. I was thinking of proposing something for the next meeting, and even though I do not do art the idea that people are tattling on others to get them thrown off the program is a real buzz-kill.

I sympathize, Ramus. On the whole, however, I think you are pretty safe. This was a very unusual set of circumstances. Sunstone is really a good organization under good leadership. You should feel confident that your proposal will be treated respectfully.

[Bought Yahoo]

The reality is that anything approaching child erotica, even in the form of drawings, can land someone with an arrest and on the published perv list. Happened to a friend of mine who was on the HC. Nasty stuff. Best to steer widely clear of that stuff in your organization and to distance the organization from the propogater.