Aparently mocking Bush is now right out

Exhibition closed over Bush portraitNo link to the picture, unfortunately.

Well thats free speech for you. All the porn you can handle, but you can't scorn the Pres.

Y'know, while it was a shitty thing to happen, I really wish people would understand what "freedom of speech" means before they use the phrase. It means that yes, he can create a portrait of Bush made up of monkeys. It does not mean that anyone has to display his work.

"Then this manager saw the piece and the guy just kind of flipped out. 'The show is over. Get this work down or I'm gonna arrest you,' he said. It's been kind of wild."

Edited again: Okay, screw it, the image file is really fighting me tooth and nail. So here's just a link to the blog where I found it.bloggyI like the color scheme.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-14-2004 09:47 AM

Yeah. The manager told him to take it down, which is totally within the manager's rights, and in no way violates Savido's freedom of speech. He threatened to arrest him, which is shitty, but also doesn't amount to violating Savido's freedom of speech since I'm reasonably sure the manager of the Chelsea Market doesn't have the right to arrest anyone.

Yeah, I thought that.

LOL. Actually, most rights clauses to freedom of expression specify that the person should not be prevented from their expression by means of social status - status such as property rights. The right to speak freely never has meant only privately; the right is meaningless unless it appies publicly. All Dan's positionb reveals is that freedom of expression and property rights are diamterically opposed.

And what part of this implies in any way that you have the right to put your work up on someone else's property?For instance, I don't own a house. Let's assume for the moment that you do. If I paint "the guy who lives here likes to have sex with sheep" in three-foot-high letters across the front of your house, and you try to stop me, am I guaranteed the right to do so because my freedom of expression is not to be curtailed by social status?Hell, if I want to paint, "strawberry ice cream is tasty" in inch-tall letters on your house, do I have the right to do that?The answer: of course I don't. And if he wanted to walk around the streets of New York wearing his painting as a sandwich board, that'd be very much within his rights.However, privately owned property (such as the Chelsea Market) isn't public, is it? No, they're really not. Freedom of speech means only one thing: you have the right to say what you want. It does not mean that anyone, even the manager of the Chelsea Market, has to help you say it.

quote:

---

And what part of this implies in any way that you have the right to put your work up on someone else's property?

---

A gallery is a public space just like say a newspaper or TV station; it is a venue for the dissemination of infoirmation. The owners choice to restrict expressions which they find politically offensive is a restriction of the freedom of speech.

quote:

---

Hell, if I want to paint, "strawberry ice cream is tasty" in inch-tall letters on your house, do I have the right to do that?

---

No, becuase my house if a purpose-built domicile, not a purpose-built information channel, unlike a gallery.

quote:

---

No, they're really not. Freedom of speech means only one thing: you have the right to say what you want. It does not mean that anyone, even the manager of the Chelsea Market, has to help you say it.

---

As I understand it, the first appearance of the issue was specifically in the context of access to news pages, although this is proving impossible to trace as there are so many net references to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is meaningless unless we are referring to public speech.FVrex, what restriction can be exerted on my singing in the shower? De facto, none, nor has there ever been in history. I can mutter obscentiies about Pharoah while out in the field and no-one would care. Speech has only ever been constricted in PUBLIC venues; and the PROTECTION of speech necessarily impliues those public venues.If you open a gallery, you are creating a public venue, and if your state has free specch legislation, then you should be affected by it. Else as I already pointed out, free speech is as empty and meangingless a concept today as it was in ancient Egypt; it protects nothing.

Thanks for the link to the pic. I thought it was pretty cool. I don't even find it inflammatory, though I guess it is supposed to make a derogatory connection between Bush and Apes?My first question would be if the person thought it wasn't right to be there because it was somewhat political and not just about animals?My second would be how do we know the guy wasn't upset that gorillas were the ones being insulted?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are simply being nonsensical. Whether a space is open to a public or not, a privately owned gallery is PRIVATE PROPERTY.There is only so much space that the owner of a gallery has available and so some art is going to have to get selected out. It is most natural for them to select out the stuff that they don't like.Also an ownder may be trying to cultivate a certain mood or environment in the space. Perhaps overt political speech is not part of that mood. Or having anything which might by critical or controversial in nature. Heck, he may even want a rightwing environment.In any case, the owner of an art gallery by necessity must censor and so that they censor want they don't want is not any more against free speech as their denial of any other work.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Where, exactly, are you getting this idea? Just because the owner of private property chooses to make it available to the public, that doesn't mean it is owned by the public. You've got your asshat on backwards, Contracycle. The owner is the one making the speech by offering up the gallery/newspaper/what-have-you. By attempting to tell the owner what he/she must put in their venue of speech, you are attempting to curtail their rights.Think of it this way... you are shouting on a street corner, but no one is listening. I walk by, carrying a megaphone. You tell me to give it to you. I say no. I have not stifled your rights. If you try to forcibly take the megaphone from me, you have stifled mine. The fact that a megaphone is a means of disseminating information is irrelevant. So? And as always, Savido has the right to take his message out in public, just like anyone else. No one has taken that right from him. Percy? If you're reading this, I want the title of this forum changed from "Evolution vs. Creation" to "Dan Rules". Take down that blue and red graphic, and replace it with a picture of me giving a thumbs up. Don't you trample on my rights by saying no... this is a venue open to the public, with the intent of disseminating information.

Yeah, I thought it was neat, too. You wanna talk over-reactions, I think closing down the exhibit over this painting pretty much takes the cake.

I know how outraged contracycle would be if some numbskull tried to get the owners of a purpose built information cahnnel such as, say, some website to restrict expression he found politically offensive. After all, he's always been such a staunch supporter of freedom of speech.regards,
Esteban "Purpose-Built" Hambre