Ethical Dilemmas in Resistance Art Workshops with Youth
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v15i3.2340Keywords:
privacy, inequality, technology, art, self-expression, digital, social justice, art activism, copyrightAbstract
In 2017 and 2018 [Name of research project] organized two transnational youth resistance art workshops. These workshops addressed online social justice issues and placed emphasis on pushing back against technology-facilitated violence and surveillance in networked spaces. Our engagement with these workshops raised three dilemmas associated with these sorts of resistive social justice art projects. This article explores these dilemmas, which include how to enable the production of digital art in a manner that is attentive to intersectional issues of digital literacy and access; artistic appropriations of sexually explicit, discriminatory or hateful speech and their relation to cultural appropriation; and defamation, privacy, copyright and trademark considerations relating to artistic appropriations. In addressing these dilemmas, examples of regulatory frameworks shaping resistance opportunities and social justice initiatives are highlighted, along with suggestions for addressing these dilemmas for those who may wish to facilitate or engage in youth resistance art workshops in future.
References
Adler, A. (1996). What’s left: Hate speech, pornography, and the problem for artistic expression. California Law Review, 84(6), 1499.
A.V. v iParadigms, LLC, 544 F Supp 2d 473 (ED Va 2008).
A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F 3d 630 (4th Cir 2009).
Bailey, J. (2009). Life in the fishbowl: Feminist interrogations of webcamming. In I. Kerr, C. Lucock, & V. Steeves (Eds.), On the identity trail: Anonymity, privacy and identity in a networked society (pp. 283-301). Oxford University Press.
Brucculieri, J. (2018, February 7). The difference between cultural appropriation and appreciation is tricky. Here’s a primer. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/cultural-appropriation-vs-appreciation_n_5a78d13ee4b0164659c72fb3
Buckingham, D. (2008). Defining digital literacy – What do young people need to know about digital media? In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 73-90). Peter Lang.
Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. Routledge.
Canadian Criminal Code, RSC 1985 c C-46.
Copyright Act, RSC, 1985, c C-42.
Copyright Act, 17 USC § 101 et seq.
Copyrightlaws.com. (2019, February 21). 10 myths about Canadian copyright law. https://www.copyrightlaws.com/10-myths-about-canadian-copyright-law/
Cossman, B. (2002). Lesbians, gay men and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 40(3/4), 223-249.
Creative Commons. (n.d). Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
Diagonal. (n.d.). Diagonal. https://www.diagonalsanturce.pr/
Dorlac v Clairmont Academy, 2007 WL 1747982 (Cal Ct App 2007).
Eubanks, V. (2011). Digital dead end: Fighting for social justice in the information age. MIT Press.
False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden, 15 USC § 1125.
Fernández, M. (1999). Postcolonial media theory. Art Journal, 58(3), 58-73.
Georas, C. (2021). From sexual explicitness to invisibility in resistance art: Coloniality, rape culture and technology. In M. Marron (Ed.), Misogyny across global media (pp. 23-42). Lexington Books.
Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development. New Directions for Youth Development, 96, 27-46.
L.L. Bean, Inc. Drake Publishers, Inc.,811 F 2d 26, 29 (1st Cir 1987).
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Penguin.
MacKinnon, C. (1987). Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Harvard University Press.
MacKinnon, C., & Dworkin, A. (1994, August 26). Statement by Catharine A. MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin regarding Canadian customs and legal approaches to pornography [Press release]. Not Status Quo. http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceCanada.html
Mason v Jamie Music Pub. Co., 2009 WL 2971871 (SDNY 2009).
Matsuda, M. (1989). Legal storytelling: Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim’s Story. Michigan Law Review, 87, 2320-2381.
Matthes, E. H. (2016). Cultural appropriation without cultural essentialism? Social Theory and Practice, 42(2), 343-366.
Medosch, A. (2016). Shockwaves in the new world order of information and communication. In C. Paul (Ed.), A companion to digital art (pp. 353-383). John Wiley & Sons.
Paul, C. (2016). From digital to post-digital – Evolutions of an art form. In C. Paul (Ed.), A companion to digital art (pp. 1-19). John Wiley & Sons.
Pirkle v Oakdale Union Grammar School Dist., 40 Cal 2d 207 (Cal 1953).
R v Sharpe [2001] 1 SCR 45.
Rizvi, F. (1998). Some thoughts on contemporary theories of social justice. In S. Kemmis & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research on practice: Partnerships for social justice in education (pp. 47-56). Routledge.
Ryder, B. (2003). The harms of child pornography law. University of British Columbia Law Review, 36(1), 101.
Schechter, R., & Thomas, J. (2003). Intellectual property: The law of copyrights, patents and trademarks. West Academic Publishing.
Station v Travelers Ins. Co, 292 So 2d 289 (La Ct App 1974).
The eQuality Project. (2019). Art exchange. http://www.equalityproject.ca
The New Kids on the Block v News America Publ'g, 971 F 2d 302, 306 (9th Cir 1992).
Todd, L. (1990). Notes on appropriation. Parallelogramme, 16, 24-33.
Toews, D. (2008). A socially just internet: The digital divide, cybercultural agency, and human capabilities. Studies in Social Justice, 2(1), 67-78.
United Airlines, Inc. v Jeremy Cooperstock, 2017 FC 616 (2017). https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc616/2017fc616.pdf
U.S. Constitution. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
U.S Copyright Office. (n.d). Who Can Register? http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-who.html
Vitores, A., & Gil-Juarez, A. (2016). The trouble with ‘women in computing’: A critical examination of the deployment of research on the gender gap in computer science. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(6), 666-680.
Warner v Lompoc, 2002 WL 31863437 (Cal App 2d Dist 2002).
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Articles are published in Studies in Social Justice under the Creative Commons "Attribution/Non-Commercial/No Derivative Works" Canada licence.
The copyright for the articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles may be used, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. The submission of a manuscript to Studies in Social Justice will be taken to mean that the author understands and agrees to the following:
- the manuscript represents original work not previously published;
- the manuscript is not being considered elsewhere for publication in the same language (publication elsewhere in an alternate language does not preclude acceptance of submission to Studies in Social Justice);
- appropriate written copyright permissions have been secured for republication of any copyrighted material contained in the manuscript;
- copyright for this article is retained by the author, with first publication rights granted to Studies in Social Justice;
- by virtue of its appearance in this open access journal, it is understood that the article is freely available for use, with proper attribution, for educational and other non-commercial purposes;
- reuse of the article for commercial purposes by anyone other than the author requires permission of the author;
- the author agrees to cite Studies in Social Justice as a source whenever h/she later republishes or reuses the article in other platforms.
