Art censorship laws effectively protect the public from indecency by ensuring that graphic information is only given to those who are age appropriate. It does not hinder creativity in the public forum but provides a guideline to what may be suitable to expose. Art censorship should not be made more rigid as it would be counter productive to artistic expression, therefore the current laws are sufficient in protect the public and the artist.
The arts represent a unique avenue of human expression. Creativity is not easily taught in our schools or packaged. It is a gift bestowed on a lucky few. Censoring artistic expression often results in the small-minded being given the opportunity to create a wasteland. Who are we to judge now whether a sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art is any more or less pornographic than an iconic Italian nude?
Art censorship laws go far enough in protecting the public from indecency. When we look at art we should be looking deeper then just the surface. This means that indecency in statues and artwork is not that noticeable because we have grown to accept that some art will go beyond what is on the canvas.
I think that art censorship laws go far enough to protect the public from indecency. I think that a lot of art has to be viewed in a special forum and isn't always available in the public. But as far as art that might be considered offensive, I think the art censorship laws do a good job of protecting the general public.
Art censorship laws do not go far enough in protecting the public from indecency. Most art that ends up being censored has already exposed itself to some people before the appropriate authorities can remove it from the public eye. Art Censorship laws should prevent indecent art from ever being displayed in the first place.