Full Version: Anti-Bush drawing is "hate-speech"?
A guy makes an art piece titled: "The Tactics of Tyrants are Always Transparent." The guy wins second place in a contest. The contest money is revoked because a patron didn't like the painting, and it was wrapped up and stored away.
http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/arti..._speech?mode=PF
Questions:
1.)Do you believe this to be an assault on the first amendment?
2.)If you do not, how is this case any different than any other first amendment case?
3.)Are we losing our rights?
http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/arti..._speech?mode=PF
QUOTE
An award-winning drawing blaming President Bush for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was pulled from a small-town exhibit over "insurance issues" after a businessman withdrew his $300 prize and called the piece a form of "hate speech."
Artist Chuck Bowden's drawing, "The Tactics of Tyrants Are Always Transparent," won second place in the Redwood Art Association's annual fall exhibit, held earlier this month in Eureka, Calif. In the 11-inch-by-14-inch drawing, a crown and halo-topped Bush stands on a grave, his hand dripping with blood as bodies fall to the ground from the World Trade Center towers in the distance.
Bowden called it a tribute to those who lost their lives in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, and he acknowledged the piece was meant to place blame for the attacks squarely on the shoulders of the president.
But the work upset at least one sponsor. After Bowden's piece was deemed the second place winner by the lone judge, it was quietly bubble-wrapped and stuffed into a closet while 193 other works were prepared for the exhibit's public opening.
"They shouldn't call it `open to art,'" Bowden said of the contest's original call for entries. "They should call it, `open to Republican art' or `open to closed-minded art.'"
An anonymous donor gave $300 in cash to replace the rescinded gift certificate award and Bowden politely accepted. But for the 45-year-old artist, it wasn't simply about the money, it was about the freedom to artistically express unpopular views.
"For local business owners to try to stagnate artistic expression according to their political interpretation of how life should be is not such a good idea," a Bowden told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
Artist Chuck Bowden's drawing, "The Tactics of Tyrants Are Always Transparent," won second place in the Redwood Art Association's annual fall exhibit, held earlier this month in Eureka, Calif. In the 11-inch-by-14-inch drawing, a crown and halo-topped Bush stands on a grave, his hand dripping with blood as bodies fall to the ground from the World Trade Center towers in the distance.
Bowden called it a tribute to those who lost their lives in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, and he acknowledged the piece was meant to place blame for the attacks squarely on the shoulders of the president.
But the work upset at least one sponsor. After Bowden's piece was deemed the second place winner by the lone judge, it was quietly bubble-wrapped and stuffed into a closet while 193 other works were prepared for the exhibit's public opening.
"They shouldn't call it `open to art,'" Bowden said of the contest's original call for entries. "They should call it, `open to Republican art' or `open to closed-minded art.'"
An anonymous donor gave $300 in cash to replace the rescinded gift certificate award and Bowden politely accepted. But for the 45-year-old artist, it wasn't simply about the money, it was about the freedom to artistically express unpopular views.
"For local business owners to try to stagnate artistic expression according to their political interpretation of how life should be is not such a good idea," a Bowden told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
Questions:
1.)Do you believe this to be an assault on the first amendment?
2.)If you do not, how is this case any different than any other first amendment case?
3.)Are we losing our rights?
Not a first amendment issue unless it's the government restricting the speech. In business, money talks, not artists.
If the government had confiscated it, it would be something to worry about. This is just a local art association having an unhappy sponsor and working to make that sponsor happy. That's what art associations do.
I'm sure from the notoriety, someone else will come along and sponsor an exhibit that includes the artist's piece ... if it's really any good.
If the government had confiscated it, it would be something to worry about. This is just a local art association having an unhappy sponsor and working to make that sponsor happy. That's what art associations do.
I'm sure from the notoriety, someone else will come along and sponsor an exhibit that includes the artist's piece ... if it's really any good.
I agree with amf. Without the inclusion of the government this is a non-issue. It cannot be an assult on the 1st ammendment because the government isn't involved in the events.
TOTALLY agree with you guys. But just to set this in concrete....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I agree that it is unfortunate that the artist's prize was revoked, and i also deem it unfortunate that the Patron probably felt pressured to revoke that prize.
1.) No
2.) Congress/Gov't is not involved
3.) I don't think so.
-------DO NOT read what's below this line, move to the next post immediately-------
So i have produced another one of my infamous "guides" (the last one i did was removed =(.. ) I'll make it as simple as possible.
Is this a violation of the 1st Ammendment for Dummies
1.) Is:
--A: (insert institution/business/school/art contest accused of violating 1st ammendment here)
--B: Congress
2.) If A = B, then there has been a violation of your 1st ammendment rights
3.) If A =/= B, your rights have not been violated.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I agree that it is unfortunate that the artist's prize was revoked, and i also deem it unfortunate that the Patron probably felt pressured to revoke that prize.
1.) No
2.) Congress/Gov't is not involved
3.) I don't think so.
-------DO NOT read what's below this line, move to the next post immediately-------
So i have produced another one of my infamous "guides" (the last one i did was removed =(.. ) I'll make it as simple as possible.
Is this a violation of the 1st Ammendment for Dummies
1.) Is:
--A: (insert institution/business/school/art contest accused of violating 1st ammendment here)
--B: Congress
2.) If A = B, then there has been a violation of your 1st ammendment rights
3.) If A =/= B, your rights have not been violated.
QUOTE(Venom @ Dec 11 2003, 07:29 PM)
It cannot be an assult on the 1st ammendment because the government isn't involved in the events.
I feel that this assertion is rather troublesome. If we accept the premise that the government is the only entity capable of infringing upon our rights, then does it necessarily follow that private entitities are incapable of violating our rights? Is there truly a difference between the government censoring a report or individual and a private business firing a "whistleblower"? Is it not generally accepted that private entities can violate our rights? I believe it is the government's job to make sure that public and private organizations in our society do not infringe upon our rights. The patron who pulled back his money is most certainly right to pull his money. That is the right of association. At the same time, the art council violated the artists rights by not displaying his winning peace. I find it particularly chilling that in this 21st century, such things still occur. If the piece was allowed to be on public display, this man's political views would not have made front page news. They would have been displayed and earned him nothing more than obscurity.
QUOTE
1.)Do you believe this to be an assault on the first amendment?
No. The businessman had a right, as did the artist, in deciding whether or not to participate in the art show.
QUOTE
2.)If you do not, how is this case any different than any other first amendment case?
The artist did not lose the prize money based on any laws.
QUOTE
3.)Are we losing our rights?
Yes. We are losing our rights as a result of large corporations and media conglomerates taking more power over our country.
Special interest groups aside, large companies are compromising our rights based on their internal policies. Having worked in corporate America, I have had many of my rights ignored. I actually had management say to me, "You work for us. This is not a democracy."
News media outlets have also been accused of not honoring free speech. This letter from Charlie Reina of Fox News details some of his experiences with the media giant:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tangaroa/115352.html
Our entertainment is even monitored by large companies. Radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks after their anti-Bush sentiments and CBS refrained from airing 'The Reagans' after fear of an advertising boycott.
As amf said:
QUOTE
In business, money talks, not artists.
I fear we are losing our rights as a result of big business, not big government. But that's a different topic:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=4475
I agree that this is not an infringment on freedom of speech for the reasons stated. Only the government is kept to this standard. Private enterprise is free to surpress, bend, distort, and completely turn the truth on its head.
So there you go. Be careful whom you trust.
So there you go. Be careful whom you trust.
As an artist myself, I would have to say I'd certainly be annoyed if my work was not allowed to be displayed. I would be questioning what rule stated that paintings that are graphic or questionable could not be shown.
I can see why a painting such as this would be pulled. It is obvious that those running the exhibit would not want to be associated with a piece as controversial as this. I have no doubt that there will be many who would be highly insulted by a painting that made such a bold statement. Although contemporary artists do tend to strive for something controversial, it would not hurt to be a little less subtle.
However, it is a scary form of censorship. Yes, the government was not involved, but you would hope that citizens of America would be able to tolerate a painting such as this without being manipulated by it, ie giving into the "hate speech". I can see here that art is not covered specifically in the...is it the 1st ammendment. But speech is mentioned, which I would take as meaning communication. Art is simply that - a visual form of communication, and thus I would see it covered by this ammendment. So perhaps it is a violation of American rights, unless conditions of what would be accepted and rejected were made very clear to all entrants prior to submission.
I can see why a painting such as this would be pulled. It is obvious that those running the exhibit would not want to be associated with a piece as controversial as this. I have no doubt that there will be many who would be highly insulted by a painting that made such a bold statement. Although contemporary artists do tend to strive for something controversial, it would not hurt to be a little less subtle.
However, it is a scary form of censorship. Yes, the government was not involved, but you would hope that citizens of America would be able to tolerate a painting such as this without being manipulated by it, ie giving into the "hate speech". I can see here that art is not covered specifically in the...is it the 1st ammendment. But speech is mentioned, which I would take as meaning communication. Art is simply that - a visual form of communication, and thus I would see it covered by this ammendment. So perhaps it is a violation of American rights, unless conditions of what would be accepted and rejected were made very clear to all entrants prior to submission.
It appears from the description of the "art" that Mr. Bowden hates President Bush, but that is not a crime. The government has no responsibility to help him in any way to express his hatred or to provide him an alternative forum if others protest his work.
If there was some sort of implied contract in this contest, he may have some recourse in civil court.
IMHO, political protest or satire is not art, no matter how well done. He wasn't there to put his artistic skills on display, he was there to vent his hatred, or at the least to make a political statement. He chose the wrong forum to express his views.
And I don't agree that it is censorship at any level. The rest of us have the right to not be offended by the rantings of lunatics, even if it isn't stated in the constitution.
Civility in public is expected of a polite society. Acting otherwise can get you arrested.
If there was some sort of implied contract in this contest, he may have some recourse in civil court.
IMHO, political protest or satire is not art, no matter how well done. He wasn't there to put his artistic skills on display, he was there to vent his hatred, or at the least to make a political statement. He chose the wrong forum to express his views.
And I don't agree that it is censorship at any level. The rest of us have the right to not be offended by the rantings of lunatics, even if it isn't stated in the constitution.
Civility in public is expected of a polite society. Acting otherwise can get you arrested.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 16 2003, 07:55 AM)
QUOTE(Venom @ Dec 11 2003, 07:29 PM)
It cannot be an assult on the 1st ammendment because the government isn't involved in the events.
I feel that this assertion is rather troublesome. If we accept the premise that the government is the only entity capable of infringing upon our rights, then does it necessarily follow that private entitities are incapable of violating our rights? Is there truly a difference between the government censoring a report or individual and a private business firing a "whistleblower"? Is it not generally accepted that private entities can violate our rights? I believe it is the government's job to make sure that public and private organizations in our society do not infringe upon our rights. The patron who pulled back his money is most certainly right to pull his money. That is the right of association. At the same time, the art council violated the artists rights by not displaying his winning peace. I find it particularly chilling that in this 21st century, such things still occur. If the piece was allowed to be on public display, this man's political views would not have made front page news. They would have been displayed and earned him nothing more than obscurity.
But the First Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, and like all of the Constitution for that matter, was written to define and limit the activities of the federal government, not private citizens, and the language of it is very specific, i.e. "Congress shall make no law", not "All entities, public and private shall not ...".
You can indeed claim that a private entity is restricting yoor rights ... but you cannot base that claim on the First Amendment. You'll have to find some other ground for it. Perhaps the organization making the award violated their own rules... or perhaps they didn't, I have no idea.
[quote=nebraska29,Dec 11 2003, 07:22 PM]A guy makes an art piece titled: "The Tactics of Tyrants are Always Transparent." The guy wins second place in a contest. The contest money is revoked because a patron didn't like the painting, and it was wrapped up and stored away.[/quote]
The painting was put away because said artist, when asked to assign a value on the painting,
[quote=nebraska29's own link to the boston.com article]Bowden priced his work at $35,000, far exceeding the average cost of the other 193 works on display, which were covered by a total insurance policy of $142,485, according to the Humboldt Arts Council.
Ploss said the association asked Bowden for an appraisal of his art's worth, or receipts from prior sales of similarly priced art. Bowden produced neither and Ploss said the financial risk of showing the work became too great.[/quote]
[quote=nebraska29]1.)Do you believe this to be an assault on the first amendment?[/quote]
No
[quote=nebraska29]2.)If you do not, how is this case any different than any other first amendment case?[/quote]
No federal issue
[quote=nebraska29]3.)Are we losing our rights?[/quote]
No, we are surrendering them like sheep. If we offer them, the legislatures will take them.
[quote=nebraska29,Dec 16 2003, 10:55 AM]I feel that this assertion is rather troublesome. If we accept the premise that the government is the only entity capable of infringing upon our rights, then does it necessarily follow that private entitities are incapable of violating our rights? Is there truly a difference between the government censoring a report or individual and a private business firing a "whistleblower"? Is it not generally accepted that private entities can violate our rights?[/quote]
As has been pointed out to many here in threads on gun rights, the case of US v. Cruikshank establishes that there is no federal issue for rights infringement by private citizens.
The defendants in Cruikshank were originally convicted under the Enforcement Act of 1870 of conspiracy, to deprive Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, both "of African descent and persons of color," of many of their rights, privileges and immunities.
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Tillman had each of the following rights violated. (In bold are quotes from the original indictment, restated for the record, which the Court later addresses point by point, including correcting the premise that rights are granted.)
The "right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose."
The right to be free from depravation, "of their respective several lives and liberty of person, without due process of law."
The right of, "free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property' enjoyed by white citizens."
To be free "in the exercise and enjoyment of the rights, privileges, immunities, and protection granted and secured to them respectively as citizens of the said United States, and as citizens of the said State of Louisiana, by reason of and for and on account of the race and color' of the said persons."
The right of, "the free exercise and enjoyment of the several and respective right and privilege to vote at any election to be thereafter by law had and held by the people in and of the said State of Louisiana."
To not be, "put in great fear of bodily harm, injure, and oppress' the same persons, 'because and for the reason' that, having the right to vote, they had voted."
And finally, all the rights listed in the constitution, "in their several and respective free exercise and enjoyment of every, each, all, and singular and several rights and privileges granted and secured' to them 'by the constitution and laws of the United States."
The federal foundation of all of these horrendous rights violations was found to be non-existent.
[quote=US v. Cruikshank]Because the matters and things set forth and charged in the several counts, one to sixteen inclusive, do not constitute offences against the laws of the United States, . . . [/quote]
If being disarmed, kidnapped, tortured and lynched by a private entity is no federal rights violation, I would assume that the right to have a piece of artwork displayed by a private entity is not a federal 1st Amendment issue either.
[quote=nebraska29]I believe it is the government's job to make sure that public and private organizations in our society do not infringe upon our rights.[/quote]
The Enforcement Act which did that on private conspiracies, was struck down by US v. Cruikshank. I guess you could have another go at it, but that authority over the action of private citizens is regarded as a police and judicial power of the state governments.
[quote=nebraska29]The patron who pulled back his money is most certainly right to pull his money. That is the right of association.[/quote]
Absolutely
[quote=nebraska29]At the same time, the art council violated the artists rights by not displaying his winning peace. I find it particularly chilling that in this 21st century, such things still occur.[/quote]
The piece was pulled for liability reasons, everybody is worried about being sued.
[quote=nebraska29]If the piece was allowed to be on public display, this man's political views would not have made front page news. They would have been displayed and earned him nothing more than obscurity.[/quote]
If Bowden had honestly estimated the piece's worth, it would have been shown. He's making out though, in obscurity the piece was realistically worth a couple hundred, now, after his big, "my rights were infringed" cryfest, some Bush hater will give this "artist" his $35,000.00.
Only in America!
The painting was put away because said artist, when asked to assign a value on the painting,
[quote=nebraska29's own link to the boston.com article]Bowden priced his work at $35,000, far exceeding the average cost of the other 193 works on display, which were covered by a total insurance policy of $142,485, according to the Humboldt Arts Council.
Ploss said the association asked Bowden for an appraisal of his art's worth, or receipts from prior sales of similarly priced art. Bowden produced neither and Ploss said the financial risk of showing the work became too great.[/quote]
[quote=nebraska29]1.)Do you believe this to be an assault on the first amendment?[/quote]
No
[quote=nebraska29]2.)If you do not, how is this case any different than any other first amendment case?[/quote]
No federal issue
[quote=nebraska29]3.)Are we losing our rights?[/quote]
No, we are surrendering them like sheep. If we offer them, the legislatures will take them.
[quote=nebraska29,Dec 16 2003, 10:55 AM]I feel that this assertion is rather troublesome. If we accept the premise that the government is the only entity capable of infringing upon our rights, then does it necessarily follow that private entitities are incapable of violating our rights? Is there truly a difference between the government censoring a report or individual and a private business firing a "whistleblower"? Is it not generally accepted that private entities can violate our rights?[/quote]
As has been pointed out to many here in threads on gun rights, the case of US v. Cruikshank establishes that there is no federal issue for rights infringement by private citizens.
The defendants in Cruikshank were originally convicted under the Enforcement Act of 1870 of conspiracy, to deprive Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, both "of African descent and persons of color," of many of their rights, privileges and immunities.
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Tillman had each of the following rights violated. (In bold are quotes from the original indictment, restated for the record, which the Court later addresses point by point, including correcting the premise that rights are granted.)
The "right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose."
The right to be free from depravation, "of their respective several lives and liberty of person, without due process of law."
The right of, "free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property' enjoyed by white citizens."
To be free "in the exercise and enjoyment of the rights, privileges, immunities, and protection granted and secured to them respectively as citizens of the said United States, and as citizens of the said State of Louisiana, by reason of and for and on account of the race and color' of the said persons."
The right of, "the free exercise and enjoyment of the several and respective right and privilege to vote at any election to be thereafter by law had and held by the people in and of the said State of Louisiana."
To not be, "put in great fear of bodily harm, injure, and oppress' the same persons, 'because and for the reason' that, having the right to vote, they had voted."
And finally, all the rights listed in the constitution, "in their several and respective free exercise and enjoyment of every, each, all, and singular and several rights and privileges granted and secured' to them 'by the constitution and laws of the United States."
The federal foundation of all of these horrendous rights violations was found to be non-existent.
[quote=US v. Cruikshank]Because the matters and things set forth and charged in the several counts, one to sixteen inclusive, do not constitute offences against the laws of the United States, . . . [/quote]
If being disarmed, kidnapped, tortured and lynched by a private entity is no federal rights violation, I would assume that the right to have a piece of artwork displayed by a private entity is not a federal 1st Amendment issue either.
[quote=nebraska29]I believe it is the government's job to make sure that public and private organizations in our society do not infringe upon our rights.[/quote]
The Enforcement Act which did that on private conspiracies, was struck down by US v. Cruikshank. I guess you could have another go at it, but that authority over the action of private citizens is regarded as a police and judicial power of the state governments.
[quote=nebraska29]The patron who pulled back his money is most certainly right to pull his money. That is the right of association.[/quote]
Absolutely
[quote=nebraska29]At the same time, the art council violated the artists rights by not displaying his winning peace. I find it particularly chilling that in this 21st century, such things still occur.[/quote]
The piece was pulled for liability reasons, everybody is worried about being sued.
[quote=nebraska29]If the piece was allowed to be on public display, this man's political views would not have made front page news. They would have been displayed and earned him nothing more than obscurity.[/quote]
If Bowden had honestly estimated the piece's worth, it would have been shown. He's making out though, in obscurity the piece was realistically worth a couple hundred, now, after his big, "my rights were infringed" cryfest, some Bush hater will give this "artist" his $35,000.00.
Only in America!
QUOTE
I feel that this assertion is rather troublesome. If we accept the premise that the government is the only entity capable of infringing upon our rights, then does it necessarily follow that private entitities are incapable of violating our rights?
Uh-huh Nebraska. You are a private entity yourself. If you elected the government to tell you to obey the regulations it sets for itself then technically if the government decided that something you said infringed on what someone else believed, you could be censored by the government. The constitution is a law for the government to follow.
This is a BIG point that everyone should keep in mind. The more rights you take away from what you deem "big business" or "large corporations", the more rights you take away for yourself and your kin on down the line. Giving them an unassuming name that puts no face to the personal side of business keeps people from remembering that corporations are not owned by robots, but by people, whether you like them and their suits or not, taking away their rights takes yours away too.
QUOTE
Is there truly a difference between the government censoring a report or individual and a private business firing a "whistleblower"?
Yes, the government is a large entity with rule over the land, this would be an abuse of power by the government, whereas if done by business, it is the expression of their right to do as they please with their business, without the government telling a man how to run his life. See the coralation between "Big Business" and you?
QUOTE
Is it not generally accepted that private entities can violate our rights?
That's right. What a man does is his business, not the government's, unless otherwise agreed upon through a social contract. For instance. If I live in Texas and all the people in Texas (through representation) agree that it goes against one persons rights to steal from another, then anyone in Texas must live by that law. By being in Texas, you'd be agreeing to those terms. But those terms cannot be in violation of the Constitution, the government's law for governing itself.
QUOTE
I believe it is the government's job to make sure that public and private organizations in our society do not infringe upon our rights.
The government stepping into this matter would infringe upon the business man's rights.
QUOTE
The patron who pulled back his money is most certainly right to pull his money. That is the right of association. At the same time, the art council violated the artists rights by not displaying his winning peace.
Was this a government-run art display? Besides, his painting was ugly and poorly done. I saw it on Drudge and it looked like a three year old had done it. $35,000??? Hello? Yeah, this is reality...I'll be creeping in any minute now.
QUOTE
I find it particularly chilling that in this 21st century, such things still occur.
You can't possibly be that disturbed that the government wasn't allowed to tell these free citizens what to do could you?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 12 2003, 12:22 AM)
3.)Are we losing our rights?
I think so, shredding the constitution has been a specialty of the Bush Administration.
To add to the discussion, I submit this recent article from the San Francisco Chronicle -- link here.
Apparently, free speech only exists in the location Bush speaks provided you are praising him and not protesting his policies. The following is a quote from the article:
QUOTE
The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone."
Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' "
Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' "
The first amendment clearly states:
QUOTE
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Therefore, Bursey had every right o be holding up a "No War for Oil" sign in the midst of other people holding up signs of support. He was not a violent protestor and I think that his arrest is a blatant disregard for first amendment rights.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jan 8 2004, 07:55 PM)
The first amendment clearly states:
Therefore, Bursey had every right o be holding up a "No War for Oil" sign in the midst of other people holding up signs of support. He was not a violent protestor and I think that his arrest is a blatant disregard for first amendment rights.
QUOTE
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Therefore, Bursey had every right o be holding up a "No War for Oil" sign in the midst of other people holding up signs of support. He was not a violent protestor and I think that his arrest is a blatant disregard for first amendment rights.
I hope you agree that McCain/Feingold was unconstitutional based on the same premise.
QUOTE(Hugo @ Jan 9 2004, 03:30 AM)
I hope you agree that McCain/Feingold was unconstitutional based on the same premise.
Yes I would agree that McCain/Feingold is also unconstitutional and a horrible judgement as well.
I never thought I would be saying this but I wholeheartedly agree with a quote by an NRA official:
QUOTE
Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, called the ruling "the most significant change in the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which tried to make it a crime to criticize a member of Congress."
It was a close vote at 5 to 4 and I believe it was the wrong decision.
Everyone should have the right to protest and express dissent regardless of who it is they do not agree with.
Yes, speech is not free if you are forced to limit it to an area where the audience is smaller.
The problem with the artist's Anti-Bush drawing was that he was unable to comply with the requirements stipulated (as per the boston.com article quote which was previously quoted by nebraska29's link) rather than an infringement of The First Amendment. IMO...$35.00 would have been a stretch in the asking price. I have seen better art at "The Starving Artists" shows. 
QUOTE (nebraska29's own link to the boston.com article)
Bowden priced his work at $35,000, far exceeding the average cost of the other 193 works on display, which were covered by a total insurance policy of $142,485, according to the Humboldt Arts Council.
Ploss said the association asked Bowden for an appraisal of his art's worth, or receipts from prior sales of similarly priced art. Bowden produced neither and Ploss said the financial risk of showing the work became too great.[QUOTE]
QUOTE (nebraska29's own link to the boston.com article)
Bowden priced his work at $35,000, far exceeding the average cost of the other 193 works on display, which were covered by a total insurance policy of $142,485, according to the Humboldt Arts Council.
Ploss said the association asked Bowden for an appraisal of his art's worth, or receipts from prior sales of similarly priced art. Bowden produced neither and Ploss said the financial risk of showing the work became too great.[QUOTE]
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.