Well it smacks of tiresome shock telly to me, but if they really want to broadcast it suitably late and with a warning, I can think of no reason to stop them if they're not doing anything illegal.

Best thing that could happen would be for everyone to give this crap a miss, then maybe they'll get back to making proper TV again!

(That said, they did broadcast The Real Derek and Clive on Chrimbo Day, and I can't think of any other channel that would have dared, so there's hope for them yet!)

Appears I may have been to hasty here (who'd credit it? )

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2614643.stm

The above story says the programme will only be broadcasting a few stills of the bady eating, and is an examination of extreme Chinese art ... so isn't any sort of made-for-TV stunt.

And someone had to say it ...

I want ma baaaaby back, baaaaby back riiiiibs!

Fair enough it's just stills, but lets just say the TV programme was just a 30 minute programme where said artist spent the entire programme muching the entire baby to the bone and talking about how it tasted. Assuming it wasn't illegal (which apparently it isnt), would this be OK to show on TV?

---

by Funky Monkey
Fair enough it's just stills, but lets just say the TV programme was just a 30 minute programme where said artist spent the entire programme muching the entire baby to the bone and talking about how it tasted. Assuming it wasn't illegal (which apparently it isnt), would this be OK to show on TV?

---

If it was suitably late, no laws were being broken and there was about 5 minutes of warnings beforhand, yep.

Then again, I'm the person who doesn't see any reason why the uncut version of Calligula can't be shown on TV, so what do you expect?

Thats just sick if you ask me.

---

by Byron
Well it smacks of tiresome shock telly to me, but if they really want to broadcast it suitably late and with a warning, I can think of no reason to stop them if they're not doing anything illegal.

Best thing that could happen would be for everyone to give this crap a miss, then maybe they'll get back to making proper TV again!

---

I have to agree here It's in bad taste, but on a commercial channel, as long as it's not breaking any laws, there's nothing other than common decency to stop them. And that's not something that is going to stop them these days is it ?

That's disgusting!!!! Some people are just so sick it's frightening!

I don't even want to go there When I read about this I physically felt like throwing up

The guy eating the dead babies, that's sick. The programme, I don't really see anything wrong with it.

Not got a problem with it. As long as it is on at a decent time with a warning I reckon they should show whatever they want on tv.

As for the act itself, i don't think it's sick, i think it's extremely intruiging, and i'll certainly be looking into what they do, how they do it and why.

la la la, I just found out this was a fake so I'm editing my post, tra la la...

(Edited by killer 31/12/2002 01:57)

Warning: The link contains a graphic image of what could be an artist eating a dead baby that may disturb some readers

www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm

(Edited by Staff 31/12/2002 19:29)

---

by Funky Monkey
Fair enough it's just stills, but lets just say the TV programme was just a 30 minute programme where said artist spent the entire programme muching the entire baby to the bone and talking about how it tasted

---

That'd be pretty dull telly... like 30 minutes of someone eating anything and saying how good it tasted (although far more controversial, of course). A lot of people's concept of what is art clashes with modern artists' views these days, and I'd rather not comment until I've seen the programme. Personally, I think people should be allowed to watch whatever they like, although there should be warnings beforehand.

I am waiting for the day they put a warning on before Big Brother... "Beware - This programme can become extremely addictive and will often dull the brain"!

I dont believe snopes has actually proved that it is a fake.

The artist in question does appear to have claimed to have eaten said baby (as can be seen in the BBC news article) where he says:

"No religion forbids cannibalism."

"Nor can I find any law which prevents us from eating people. I took advantage of the space between morality and the law and based my work on it."

That the baby is just a dolls head stuck on a duck's carcass is purely conjecture on snopes' part.

---

by Lori
(quotes)

That'd be pretty dull telly...

---

Certainly would - but then so is hours on end of watching some people in a house.

---

Personally, I think people should be allowed to watch whatever they like, although there should be warnings beforehand.

---

I fundamentally think people have a RIGHT to watch anything they like (ie, i dont strictly believe in censorship), but at the same time I think programme makers have an obligation to think about the content they put out.

I'll use an analogy - in the thread on the BNP I stated that people should have free speech which means you should be able to say anything you like. However, I still feel its irresponsible to use that right to free speech to promote violence. In the same way I think Channel 4 are notorious for cashing in by using shock tactics that generate huge audiences - its a similar strategy to Benneton's marketing campaign which while claiming to be radical was in fact just selling lots of product.

So if anything its Channel 4 I have a beef with


(Edited by Funky Monkey 31/12/2002 16:26)

Cannibalism is disgusting, and this isnt artistic at all. Maybe if it wasnt a person who has no choice in the matter and never had the decision whether they wanted to be eaten, as well as a little baby then I would be okay with it.

I think they should show this if it inspires artistic people to create something good and beautiful, but if they're just trying to shock people for "tacky" TV, then I think thats awful as you should respect the dead, and not use their body for shameless things.

Wouldn't they have to get consent from the parents or relatives of the baby? I don't see how anyone could willingly give up their child's body to someone for them to do such a disgusting thing to

Sick, sick sick... real or fake, just the thought of it makes my stomach turn... absolutely abhorrent

Couple of thoughts come to mind:

Art - There seems to be a prevailing opinion in this country and throughout most of the west that art is about looking at serene and tranquil pictures that look like what they say they are. While valid, this seems limiting to me. To me (and others) art is about the human condition. It's about things we think are pretty to look at. It's about things that move us. Maybe connect us. It is also about things that challange us.

While I cannot help feeling repulsed by the eating of a still born child, I still find myself asking why. Why is the eating of human flesh that never saw life any more repugnant than eating the flesh of an adult rabit or a baby lamb? I'm left wondering what it is the artist is trying to convey, or even just examine, by doing this. It challanges me, it makes me think. And that can be only a good thing.

As such I feel this does qualify as art, and that as such it is a suitable topic for a TV program.

Consent - This is a still born child. It never saw life and could therefore never give or refuse consent. This is no different to me than the use of birth control and the rights of .. erm, this is starting to over step family friendly so I'll stop there. I guess the 'dults here know what I mean, whether they agree or not.

So as long as consent has been given by the parents then I can see no other issues.