The Freedom To Say This Is Unacceptable — Updated
by Chele StantonI’m not really one to speak out loudly about much of anything… ask anyone who knows me, they’ll tell you I’m usually quite shy and very easy to get along with… but if you provoke me too much… well, let’s just say… you’d best back up, take your pack and run!
Politics can be an ugly subject for many, but what I don’t understand is why people can’t just agree to disagree instead of taking things so personally? I can respect those who may believe differently from me as long as they understand why and can back up their beliefs with facts. I’m so tired of this “jump on the bandwagon” mentality or follow the “celebrity leader” junk that has become the political norm for the day. After all, do celebrities really know the ins and outs of national security, how to effectively rescue hostages, plan an attack on the enemy?
There’s more to it than just pie in the sky cotton candy dreams and eloquent speech. There are real lives at stake, including yours and mine. You would think by the way political parties attack one another that we are fighting the enemy instead of trying to make our country greater and further along the American way. Why is it that some individuals need to make fun of someone’s opinion that differs from theirs and then make a mockery out of it? But even more than that, why must people take such stabs at the other side of the political spectrum, making a mockery not only out of the person, but out of the office that person represents?
Which leads me to the reason for this article: I came across a picture on the Internet that made my blood boil. I’m sure there are many photos out there that would do the same, but this one in particular hit me because it was, “all in the name of art and freedom of speech.” The photo was of an “art sculpture” (and believe me, I use those words lightly) of one of the most recognizable individuals in the entire world. The object, a urinal; painted in the likeness and image of President George W. Bush, and crafted in such a way so that the bowl of the urinal was his open mouth. One cannot help but see the visual of what that object implied. I was outraged that anyone could even think of creating such a degrading, disrespectful, filthy, reprehensible, juvenile, disgusting, offensive, repulsive, grotesque, insulting piece of excrement; let alone proudly display it in public as a “work of art.”
I hesitated giving any more notice of this most despicable piece of vulgarity, yet as I thought more about it, I became more and more incensed. Why hasn’t someone said something about this? Why haven’t more people been appalled over this blatant disgraceful mockery of our former President? I have to say, if this piece of rubbish had been made in the image of President Barack Obama there would have been numerous stories in the papers, magazines, and newscasts, not just local mind you, but world-wide. The artist would have immediately been labeled a racist, a hate monger, a threat to society… there would have been riots in the streets and serious hell to pay! But as of yet, I have not seen one inkling of a story, in the paper or television news, that addresses this object as being an atrocious piece of disrespect.
Wake up Americans! This is not acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” This is sheer meanness at the expense of another fellow American; a deliberate display of hate and ridicule.
In researching for this article, I discovered a statement from the artist in which he says he’s “grateful to live in a country where we can still express our opinions… and that sometimes it is appropriate to be inappropriate.” He further stated, “No one was maimed, killed, overthrown… in the creating of this art…”
So pardon my “inappropriate” comment if you will when I say freedom of speech, art or expression in this case was used in such a vulgar, degrading, and reprehensible way, that I think this “artist” is a complete ass! And, though it would be most “appropriate” to paint HIS face in MY toilet bowl, I would rather leave you with this thought…
It’s time we Americans stop this infighting among political parties and work together to unite our country as the land of the free and the home of the brave. I hate war. I hate that lives are willingly sacrificed and many innocent lives are lost. I hate the expense, the separation, the hardship on the families, the businesses, the government, so many things… but I realize we live in an imperfect world and we cannot close our eyes to the fact that we have a real enemy, an enemy that will stop at nothing to destroy our way of life simply because we believe differently, and simply because we are Americans (9/11/2001 proved it). The price of freedom is dear indeed, but not nearly so costly as the very LOSS of that freedom.
Make no mistake about it… you wouldn’t want to live without it…
UPDATE: A NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR can be read here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
179 Comments
====Wake up Americans! This is not acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” This is sheer meanness at the expense of another fellow American; a deliberate display of hate and ridicule.=====
It’s a byproduct of the debased and degenerate culture liberals have foisted on the nation. The mental retardation plaguing the left is beautifully displayed in what they perceive as art. They don’t produce works [which they couldn’t anyway] like the Sistine Chapel or Michelangelo’s sculptures, they take pictures of cracks in concrete and call it art. Many great art pieces are divinely inspired and the beauty is reflected in the art. Liberals inspiration comes from the moral gutter and the vast abyss between their ears.
Of course it's freedom of speech. And I'm glad we can see how depraved some liberals are. If the government shut these things up we'd be blind to what idiots are doing.
Dear Chele, stop pulling punches and tell us what you really think! I think the origins of the descent of political discourse in our country trace back in my lifetime (51 y/o) to 1968 or there about. The radicals of that era had a hate filled strategy to change politics in the US. Except for the non-violenence adherents of the civil rights movement, nearly all of the other "rights" movements used decidedly extreme rhetoric to trumpet their causes. And after they were successful at co-opting the Democratic Party, these tactics slowly found their way into the rhetoric and practices of Democratic politicians. By the 80's, sadly, lots of folks on the right began to become more militant in response. And when CNN's Crossfire became a hit by intentionally having opposing sides go tit-for-tat in a big yell fest, (as opposed to WFB's Firing Line) the era of civil, rational debate was over. Now that seems like a quaint curiosity. We, as a nation, are less because of it.
Imagine the left's outrage if Obama's mouth was portrayed as a crapper. Never mind that that''s where he's taking the country.
The problem with freedom is that someone will always do things we don't like. But on the flip side, right to free speach, does not mean the right to be heard.
Here here. Speaking truth to power lady! Awesome stuff. And I agree. Its funny how many on the left prefer to live in a perpetual state of nonreality.
Charges of racism would appear so fast that the laws of physics would be violated and the speed of light would be exceeded, thereby projecting our universe through Bizarro World and into The Phantom Zone
Ya know, I wasn't the biggest Bush fan in the world but I saw this photo and even I think it's completely distasteful. I didn't know it was "artwork" created by an "artist" which just makes it that much more ridiculous.
You know, I wasn't the biggest Bush fan in the world but I saw this photo and even I think it's completely distasteful. I didn't know it was "artwork" created by an "artist" which just makes it that much more ridiculous.
Maybe someone should test this and make an exact replica based on Obama?
Would the teleprompter hold the paper?
of course as the speed of light is exceeded the mass would approach infinity and the entire universe would be consumed by the resulting catastrophe- wait a minute- that's already happening? Sorry…
The biggest irony in the statement by the "artist" who created this monument of stupidity is that the "freedom of expression" banner he waves around so proudly was protected and upheld by President Bush. If Obama has his way, freedom of expression will no longer be allowed unless if fits his particular dogma.
>…This is sheer meanness at the expense of another fellow American; a deliberate display of hate and ridicule.
Ms. Stanton, did you take Civics in high school? Do you understand that protecting unpopular opinions is precisely what the Framers had in mind?
Toiletpromper! I like it! LOL!
I'm sorry, but I disagree vehemently with what you've said.
1. You ask "why people can’t just agree to disagree instead of taking things so personally." The answer is quite simple. Because the things we disagree about are near and dear to our hearts. They involve our deepest held beliefs. As humans, we naturally take challenges to such ideals personally because they attack the very fibers upon which we've constructed our world view.
2. You also end your article by suggesting that both political parties should stop infighting. Might I ask, first why either group should give up their principles for the sake of "unity"? And which principles should each side abandon?
(cont)
3. You ask why some people "need to make fun of someone’s opinion that differs from theirs and then make a mockery out of it." Well, I'm sorry you don't like mockery, but mockery is simply one form of argument. It is the ideal medium for the powerless to have their points be heard. It is effective, and it is often the only appropriate response — particularly to overly aggressive tactics by the opposing side. Moreover, so the flip what? Politics is a full contact game with very high stakes. If you can't avoid having your feelings hurt, then stop playing.
(cont)
4. Finally, you call the urinal "not acceptable 'freedom of speech, art, or creativity.'" Implicit in that statement is that you have the right to decide what constitutes freedom of speech or what constitutes acceptable art or creativity. Well, I'm sorry but I will never give you or anyone else the power to decide what constitutes free speech or acceptable art. I don't like the urinal either, as I'm sure most people don't, and I'm pretty sure that it will simply vanish from the earth, unremembered like other garbage that passes for art. But for you to imply that there should be limits placed on what people can say or create is so fundamentally offensive to me that my desire to mock you is increasing exponentially as I write this. Perhaps you would like to tell me what books I can read next or what ideas you don't find too offensive?
I am blessed and I truly mean blessed to work out at a gym with a crusty old Marine, a veteran of Iwo Jima, Korea, and two tours in Vietnam. At about 5'6" he still scares me and if it comes down to chosing sides I pick him first, regardless of the size of the other dog. We often talk politics. He's proud of his service but shakes his head and questions whether all the sacrifices, all the death he has seen in three wars was worth it. I remind him it was. I'm not sure the founding fathers intended the 1st Amendment to protect toilet bowl art or NAMBLA or a lot of other trash that hides behind our constitutional protections but I'm grateful for a country where freedom still exists. At the very least I hope toilet bowl artist appreciates the sacrifices others have made so he can "express himself." For some reason I just don't think he does.
Be careful with calling for limitations on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech can do great things for a viewing or listening society. It allows that society to accurately identify their radicals, idiots, and those crass enough to create "art" like this. The 1st Amendment usually is seen to act as sword, but here it acts as a shield to help define those people that we don't need to listen or those that should be mocked when they exercise their 1st Amendment right.
"Wake up Americans! This is not acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” "
Ms. Stanton, this is most certainly acceptable "freedom of speech", and I would defend to the limit that artist's right to publish it. Far more dangerous than any disrespect portrayed in this piece is the mentality of someone who decides that freedom of speech doesn't apply to a work she finds disagreeable. Or disrespectful. Or offensive. And says so on a site devoted to film and media!!!. Ms. Stanton, free speech is not about you and what you think is acceptable. It's about free speech — for everyone. Judging from the approving comments you've received, here is evidence that people on the right not only don't get it this concept, but are just censorious as those on the left.
Yes, it's distasteful. Unfortunately, it's in vogue to denigrate people in the vilest ways possible.
And, while I disagree with the individual who 'created' it…and would gladly take a sledgehammer to it. The oath I swore when I joined the military…specifically that part towards the Constitution. Protects it. By the same token, that same Constitution protects your right to vocally disagree with it. As well as mine.
I consider the individual(s) who would create such mockeries to be the lowest form of life on the planet…but then, that's just my opinion.
That is an excellent point. Their ugliness is displayed for the world to see.
I'm pretty sure the "framers" would have been shocked beyond expression by this display. So much for "original intent"…
But for you to imply that there should be limits placed on what people can say or create is so fundamentally offensive to me that my desire to mock you is increasing exponentially as I write this. Perhaps you would like to tell me what books I can read next or what ideas you don't find too offensive?
While I'm not sure what all of those big words you just said mean, I'm pretty sure I agree.
It started with that whole Don Imus flaperoo. It pains me to see "conservatives" actually trying to promote censorship. They need to be flogged. With sticks. In public.
Sorry, lady who wrote this, but you just went back on 'dish duty'. Stay out of politics. It doesn't suit you well unless you're a signed-in-blood commie. Then it suits you well.
Now, about those dishes?
I guess the other pertinent question is, was the artist funded by the NEA?
LOL! You are so right.
Isn't it incredible how this simple fact is lost on these same people who create and approve of this filth?
Anyone creating such an outrage has lost all right to 'decent discourse' or the right to 'free' speech of any kind. There is a line beyond which one must not go. This is a vulgar and reprehensible example of just that.
Any decent person of any political stripe can EASILY see why it made your blood boil.
Nothing like anything of this vulgarity can possibly be 'in vogue'. Except by those of the lowest of sensibilities.
Making excuses for it only increases one's sense of outrage. There are some things that are just not defensible.
This is one of them.
We must remember that our former president did many good things, agree with him or not.
He kept us safe for 8 years and worked night and day. One day he will be revered , as he already is in many quarters.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention and voicing your views on it.
Art is dead. I think it started dying back in the 70's when some fool started taking old lawn mowers and mounting them on boards and selling them for thousands of dollars to dumbasses in Manhattan.
That art sucks. If some similarly talented but politically opposite "artist" wants to do an Obama-faced crapper, they can. They have to be willing to handle the labeling and double-standard rage that would come their way, but the speech would be protected by the Constitution. The art would of course still suck.
====Judging from the approving comments you've received, here is evidence that people on the right not only don't get it this concept, but are just censorious as those on the left. =====
We share the author’s disgust; no one is advocating limiting these cretins speech.
As much as I dislike the display, I have to agree with your point. Freedom of speech (and expression) does not just apply to speech we like.
Thanks for agreeing Hog. If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is "conservatives" who promote censorship. It's arrogant, it's dangerous, it's ludite, it's cowardly, it's authoritarian… it's leftism.
As a defender of W and an appreciator of toilet humor, I'm conflicted on this.
Actually the origins stretch further back than that. If you look at the politicial cartoons of the 1800's and early 1900's you will find even more disgusting personal attacks and other unsavory accusations and mocking. The reason I think it seems worse now is that we live in a time where with few exceptions, everyone has access to the same amount of information and we have a more politically interested citizenry (discounting the turnout numbers).
I implore any of our more artistic readers/commenters out there to do what Chele brought up. Take the above photo and recreate the exact same "work of art" except change the figure to Obama. Then we could evaluate the reactions and have fun pointing out that nothing is different except who is being mocked and it would show who the true bigoted, narrow-minded, and hypocritical among us are
Thanks. Don't get me wrong, I hate the peice. It's disgusting, its pathetic, its weak. But we cannot start telling people what they can or cannot do — we can boycott, we can protest, we can object — but we cannot limit free speech.
In fact, what the people who say, "they shouldn't be allowed to. . . ____ ." always forget, is that if we start censoring speech, they're not going to be the ones who get to fill in that blank.
LOL!! Nice levity.
Who gets to decide what is "… acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” ?
"This is sheer meanness at the expense of another fellow American; a deliberate display of hate and ridicule. "
Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it isn't freedom of speech – it most certainly is that. What should we do, pass laws prohibiting mean displays of hate and ridicule?
Now that would be unAmerican.
"With [i]sticks[/i]"?
What – no "Leather Whips"? ;^)
"With sticks"?
What – no "Leather Whips"? ;^)
"But as of yet, I have not seen one inkling of a story, in the paper or television news, that addresses this object as being an atrocious piece of disrespect. "
Maybe that's because there are much, much, much more important things going on in the world than the work of an unknown artist.
Of course there are more important things to report on. Like Rush Limbaugh, right?
Oh, please. If this toilet had Obama's likeness it would be the MSM's top story for the week, and divert our attention from what is really going on. Actually this week's diversion is the AIG "scandal". While Barack spends Trillions we're all outraged by millions?
Good comments, Andrew.
So, we have look at bad or ugly art sometimes. It's a small price to pay for our freedoms.
Chele – the artwork made you think, didn't it? It created a reaction in you. It probably wasn't the reaction the artist shared, but a reaction none the less. It reenforced your personal political and artistic beliefs.
"But as of yet, I have not seen one inkling of a story, in the paper or television news, that addresses this object as being an atrocious piece of disrespect. "
- Well, you've just done it.
And, from a practical point of view, you never want to deprive the opposition of its potential for jumping the shark. A "Bush Urinal" may be a politically acceptable statement now, but in a few years I suspect the market will be considerably reduced. By then Obama voters may be as hard to find as those who pulled the lever or dimpled a chad for Carter. By the same reasoning I object to a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. I want to encourage my political opponents to express their point of view thusly. It's so much easier when you opponents marginalize themselves.
Unfortunately, we have already started down that slippery slope with the enactment of so-called "hate crimes".
Kevin is right…discourse has always been full of disgusting personal attacks and other unsavory accusations except for a few short periods…for instance the twenty years after world war two. After going through the depression & then having to fight off the japanese & the nazis with virtually no help from the rest of the world, and then having to stand up to the russians with only weak european help, our national discourse was almost pleasant. Now that the suffering of that era is being quickly forgotten, discourse has gotten worse & worse. Especially with the idiotic leftist "deconstruct everything" strategy, whereby if you aren't perfect, you are supposed to shut up. Who exactly is perfect, anyway?? The fact is, if you can't be civil and argue respectfully, then it is clear that your argument is nonsense.By the way, my mother in law & I disagree on everything, except that we need to respect each other's right to an opinion. We argue, but always goodnaturedly, never namecalling & no strawman arguments allowed. It works out well, and we never walk away hating each other. Of course this requires an intelligent argument on both sides, which is rare these days.
Yeah, it would get some play. Would it be the top story for a week? Eh, maybe for an afternoon, which would be an afternoon too much. I don't know, though, I think its a bit early before artists start casting Obama's likeness into toilets. Give it another week and I'm sure an enterprising soul will think of something.
Shoulda known you'd get there ahead of me. I want my politicians to behave. I want my pastors to behave. I want my kids and my grandkids to behave. Anyone else is fair game. This "artist" is vile. So what? Screw him! He was making a political statement. Well, if I were an artist with my political persuasion, I would do exactly what someone above worried would bring out the cries of racist. Make an Obama bowl. Stick big ears on it, and forget to flush. My anger is directed at the idea of using public funds to pay for most of these lefty visual screeds. If private parties want to pay for this crap (pun intended), let them. If private galleries want to show them, let them. But get this junk out of libraries and public museums. But don't be using my money for this. Another reason why I have absolutely no truck with public funding of the arts. If they're any good, they'll get a sponsor.
"discourse has always been full of disgusting personal attacks and other unsavory accusations except for a few short periods…for instance the twenty years after world war two…"
Wait, what about the Red baiting of the 50s?
Oops. This was in reply to Scooby.
Andrew Price has illuminated the essence of this issue when he claims the areas of disagreement are "near and dear to our hearts." That's the problem. The politically correct moral relativists of the left, have internalized their issues as feelings. (It's probably more correct to say that their feelings are actually the "source" of their positions.) Those on the right have their principles rooted in thought, and ultimately truth. The moral relativists deny the existence of truth. To criticize the moral relativists' "positions" is to attack their self esteem. The rabid responses, the distractions, name calling, and "artistic" replies that we've become accustomed to seeing are simply the effusion of a scorned ego, with nary a nod to analysis of fact or thoughtful reasoning.
Great minds think alike!
I have no intention of being the least bit nice about the current crop of Democratic politicians. Making nice doesn't work. These people are socialists, race-baiters and America-haters. Why would I possibly want to be reasonable with them? The First Amendment was designed specifically to protect what the liberals call "hate speech." I hate what Obama and his gang are doing to this country, and I intend to use a great deal of hateful speech in opposing it. If there were any possibility that liberals could learn to fight clean, use civilized discourse, and avoid vicious attacks, I might agree with this "can't we just all get along" nonsense. But liberals are like mad dogs. They can smell fear, and they can smell weakness. The last thing on earth I am worried about is whether or not a liberal thinks I'm a racist, or a homophobe or any other kind of phobe because I express my disgust for their fake compassion in no uncertain terms. They call it "hate speech." I call it "plain speaking."
The fact is, this is correct. Obama is posed to take away all of our freedoms, even his liberal and black buddies. Bush was FOR freedom, well Obamas actions indicate he is ANTI. besides, he cheated
The fact is, the MSM is left tilted biased and fullofhate
jody…what about respect for the office of the president?? Just yesterday Bush announced that he would not criticize Obama one way or another. Unpopular opinions are one thing, attacking the institutions that keep our country together is not just mean & hateful, it approaches treason and the artist should be thankful that the restrictions on political speech obama seems to be trying to usher in hasn't started yet. The artist would be lucky to escape with his life in most countries. You need to look at the larger picture instead of picking a side and defending it right or wrong.
I can't wait for the Obama toilet. I wonder how well that would go over.
no one said the artist should be allowed to have his free speech. We just object to the low, vile disgusting level to which he has sunken. He has a right to free speech but not the right to be heard. If you cannot be civil, then your argument is nonsense. You're always civil andrew, you should get this.
sorry, that was supposed to be "artist shouldn't be allowed to have his free speech"
"Wake up Americans! This is not acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” "
"Either it's ALL okay, or NONE of it is" – Kyle Broflovsky.
People showcase their ignorance in all kinds of ways.
While one man chooses to create urinal "artwork" of an ex-president, another might choose to, say… give 25 NTSC DVDs to the Prime Minister of the UK…
(I guess that last is "performance art", huh? Laurie Anderson would be proud…)
I agree wholeheartedly!! Very well put.
By the way, "without the flush" — hilarious!
Thanks. Very nicely put. Why should we limit our rights just because some jerks make ugly art.
I would say that there is mockery and then there is mockery. You cannot expect anything meaningful to be accomplished if the only discourse is full-on leftist smear mockery. Now, Anne Coulter style mockery where the barbs come accompanied by facts and a point does leave one room to make a good counter point.
But with most leftist mockery, you are left defending your character and your ancestry or leaving them undefended to be savaged by a pack of lying moonbats while you gamely struggle on with your original well-constructed argument. In the end, no matter how salient your points may be, your audience no longer cares because they're convinced you sacrifice human babies to the dark deity Rove by the light of the crescent moon … or something.
The difference is that in the 1800's, I was not expected to pay for your method of speech. Now all these "artists" want to be on the public dole, meaning, you and I actually are indirectly, and unwillingly, responsible for this crap
I would agree that people have the right to express themselves, but I sure do wish there was no public endowment for the arts that meant my tax dollars may have funded this like it did Piss Christ.
He's free to make it, but why should I be forced to subsidize it via government endowment. If the work is really art and appeals to a broad segment of the populace on its own merits, I'm sure he doesn't need my hard-earned nickels and dimes.
I wonder if any NEA funds paid for this "art"?
"I was outraged that anyone could even think of creating such a degrading, disrespectful, filthy, reprehensible, juvenile, disgusting, offensive, repulsive, grotesque, insulting piece of excrement; let alone proudly display it in public as a “work of art.”
Thank you Chele, for putting that into words. When I saw the photo, it made me want to vomit. I am so ashamed of the people who would do this, and other acts such as this, that they are Americans.
As a Graphic Designer with a fine art and commercial art background, I'm feeling a little bi-polar here. While this piece of "art" certainly is offensive, it is obviously meant to be. We could all talk about what we think art is "supposed" to do but all I'll claim for now is just that art should engage the viewer. I'd say we're all pretty engaged! This piece has created strong reactions, which its creator wanted. Does this make it art, let alone good art? I don't know. Art is entirely subjective. What I do know is that as much as I dislike it, as insulting as it is, as mean as it is, by virtue of the subject matter it falls squarely under political speech. The Supreme Court broke speech down into 3 categories: that which is fully protected by the first amendment (political the best example); that which is protected but might be harmful is speech that can be regulated (advertising, etc.) and that which receives no protection: obscenity. I don't think this qualifies under the last category.
Though I don't like it, (hell, I don't even consider it "art") I'm very, very reluctant to even entertain the notion of censoring it. I know we conservatives take a beating every day and I know we're sick of it. Still he/she is free to make it. I'm free to ignore it. Or better yet, expose it for the piece of cr*p it is.
Controversial art is as old as cave paintings. Someone will always be offended.
Lastly, I don't go along with the "can't we all just get along?" political argument. I don't vote for candidates to get along with the other side. I vote for them to crush the other side, ideologically speaking, because I believe our side's ideas are what's best for our country.
No, we're beyond Limbaugh. The subject of this weeks two minutes of hate is the haplass execs at AIG who received the compensation that their contracts said they'd get. You know the contracts signed over a year ago … that the committee grilling Liddy has known about for 3 months … tha awards those bonuses Treasury has known about for the same period of time … that we're all supposed to hate on while Congress slips Socialized Health Care and Cap and Trade into the Budget under the radar without us noticing.
But by all means, lets hang these guys in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's downright McCarthyesque only we're hunting those dirty Capitalist Pigs now!!
Kevin said: "Take the above photo and recreate the exact same 'work of art' except change the figure to Obama. Then we could evaluate the reactions and have fun pointing out that nothing is different except who is being mocked and it would show who the true bigoted, narrow-minded, and hypocritical among us are"
Only problem, the narrow-minded, hypocritical bigots are incapable of grasping this. And the artist who would do this will get shafted by the PC police, and none on the left will care about the hypocrisy.
I haven't eaten today, so I think my sugar level had dropped to dangerous levels. This banning speech of any kind concept always gets me going, and I guess I read it at the worst possible time. One of my mock trial babies grabbed me after she graduated from Stanford Law and said that she always enjoyed my presentations, but her favorite part was when I would start to discuss free speech. First the jacket would come off. Then the tie. It usually ended with me throwing an eraser at the chalkboard. Guess not much has changed in twenty years.
The Framers had in mind political speech, not "opinion" in general.
No some things are NOT okay. All things are NOT equal.
And that's the deeper problem about this entire issue, and one that no one seems to be pointing out: we are to the point where people cannot even distinguish the difference between art and filth like this.
That's why even people who are disgusted by it feel compelled to defend it instead of calling it what it is – a filthy insult to a former president of our country, who has done NOTHING to deserve such disrespect and ugliness.
For me this type of vile ultra low character assasination began, in my lifetime with the job the Dems did on Robt. Bork. But censorship of speech is not the answer. Unfortunately there are folks who are chipping away at what is and what is not permitted speech, i.e. McCain-Feingold. To me this is an ominous portend of what could be coming down the road. I also believe that if the Dems were serious about getting rid of Bush, it seems that the signing of that blatently un-constitutional bill, violated his oath of office. And wouldn't that have been an impeachable offense?
I'm not an "artist" and neither is the person who made the Bush Urinal, but what we simply need is someone with artisitic capabilities to make a small statue of Obama standing behind a bent over Keith Olbermann (who's pants are pulled down to his ankles). Next to Olbermann, also bent over, are Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, David Letterman, Katie Couric, et. al. The statue could be titled "Sodomizer in Chief," or "Anything for the Cause," Etc. You get the idea. If any leftists complain., simply recite the mantra of "Freedon of Speech!"
You know what's most pathetic? The same people who support this vile, so-called work of art and scream about "FREE SPEECH!" if anyone dares to call it out for the disgusting piece of filth that it is, are the same people who didn't say a word in defense of the Mohammad cartoons or the films 'Submission' and 'Fitna'.
You know it's true.
Thanks, Mo. I specifically went out of my way to say that I hated what Obama and his gang were doing, rather than saying I hate him. Glad you caught that nuance. However, when it comes to Michelle, well . . . .
"With sticks"?
You're agreeing with dish lady even as you think you are disagreeing with her.
You're saying there are certain notions so far out of fhe mainstream they shouldn't be discussed.
Its not a cry for censorship. Its a cry for the idealism of basic decency. Some ideas are so offensive they shouldn't be discussed generally. This is not 'You can't', but 'You should know better'.
Typical. Contrast this with President Bush's refusal to voice any criticism of the sitting president. Pity that scumbags-in-chief Clinton and Carter couldn't do the same during W's tenure. Bush continues to be a class act.
Logic, I disagree. I read the article as a thinly-veiled call to censorship. Rather than going through the entire article, let me present two quick points.
1. She begins by setting this entire column up as an "us" v. "them" dichotomy, with "us" being the moderate forces of unity and "them" being our "enemies", those who would engage in political disputes, i.e. mockery, and thereby endanger lives — note the assertion that "real lives are at stake, yours and mine". Through this set up, she vilifies her subject and makes herself the arbiter for the united majority — she sets herself up as the defender of "the American way".
(cont)
Isn't our classy President, who joked with the Irish Prime Minister and guests about drinking and wearing lampshades on their heads, having these installed in the White House?
You nailed this one. Why in the world are we supposed to give up the things we believe in just for the sake of unity?
I agree.
Actually when I first saw that picture, I wondered why Obama's skin was so light. The ears look about right.
Anyone got Gimp that can darken it a bit, then post it? P-shop if you got it?
I would have loved to have seen that!
Very insightful on all points. I see Bork as the moment things turned as well. And I see McCain-Feingold as an intollerable restraint on freedom of political speech.
Mockery has its time and place. Let me point out, by way of irony, that right after Chele lambasts "mockery", she herself mocks the artist and the piece:
1. When she calls the work an "art sculpture" or "work of art", she puts those phrases in quotes.
2. After calling it an "art sculpture" she adds, "(and believe me, I use those words lightly)".
3. She calls it "this piece of rubbish".
4. She calls the artist "a complete ass".
5. She puts the word "artist" in quotes.
6. And she says "it would be most 'appropriate' to paint HIS face in MY toilet bowl."
So much for ending mockery.
[...] This artwork seems to be very acceptable to the art world….. as long as it is not of the “One” [...]
I suspect it was not a pretty sight.
"Wake up Americans! This is not acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” This is sheer meanness at the expense of another fellow American; a deliberate display of hate and ridicule. "
Well, they do HATE President Bush with frightful intensity. I just saw "Frost/Nixon" with a woman of a certain age who was an impressionable adolescent during the Watergate scandal and subsequent Nixon resignation. And there it was again, that HATRED, so hot and so immune to civil discussion.
I think what you want is a return to civility where the lowest common denominator of interaction includes the recognition of the other's basic humanity and human dignity. But unfortunately, the media and hollywood, leaning rigidly left, the current arbiters of our society's mores are overly invested in the slash and burn levels of hatred to diminish the conservative voice.
Ha, that said, I am coming to feel that same burning disrespect and distrust, approaching the dehumanizing hatred, for the corrupt politicians and their scapegoating of America's business titans as they and the current administration shove socialism down our throats. So, I guess I am probably not in a position to judge the leftist's hatred of Bush – glass houses and all that.
The other point I would make is simply this. While I do not have the right to censure you I do have the right to an expectation of discretion from you. You have the right to show adult media however I have the right to expect that you will show it in a private enough venue that children do not see it. I do have to however allow you a venue where you can show it. I have no problem for instance with local laws stating adult nightclubs have to be in a certain area on the outskirts of town but not one that denies the existence all together.
Unity through the politics of Division. Welcome to the New American Way of hope and change. I have to agree that the artist has every right to create whatever they see fit. However, l see no benefit to we the people and nothing to promote the general welfare here. Why do we have to pay for it when we get absolutely nothing from it?
Perhaps therein is the clue and the relevance to this work of "art". I think the artist got the wrong driving force behind it but that definitely looks like where this country is headed. Still, I see no reason that we the people should be required to pay for the ride there.
Agree,
Yes your honor I did beat him with a ballbat and broke both his legs. He will limp the rest of his life. On the bright side it was because he owed me money and therefore I was careful to explain how much respect for members of his race and religious group I had while I did it.
Wise man defendant otherwise I'd have to double your sentence.
How bizarre has our legal system come too.
Have you not heard. Cheney was in this week because Rush was too busy at the golf course. It must be true Obama's White House secretary said it. I loved his lame attempt to cover himself when the reporter called him out on his uncivility.
We have a bunch of clowns in office. I fully expect them to see how many insurance executives they can fit into a hybrid next.
It isn't the 'freedom' to say this that is unacceptable ,
but the choice
to produce and promote this is unacceptable
to reasonable people like us , Miss Stanton.
Freedom is always acceptable, given the alternative.
The rage against W. removed reason from the political debate in 2008,
and resulted in the election of a feckless demogogue,
just as rage against Ford, and G.H.W. Bush brought weak rudderless men to power.
~~~~
Does the "artist" make urinals in 'mocha' with a larger pair of ears and a teleprompter?
Would I get a Secret Service visit if I installed one like that?
Being the target of double standard rage is something that artists used to live for. Anger can be just as valuable of an emotion as admiration.
The problem is that the role of the artist as agitator was co-opted by the left and they became part of the religion, which now walks lock step with a scary cult of personality and a government that wants to dictate culture. The Bohemians have become Uniformists.
That same oath was taken by all of the politicians in office who are so willfully trying to destroy our freedoms as well. My greatest fear is that we will have to defend our constitution against enemies of the domestic variety very soon.
Actually it should be Uncle Sam bending over, cowering in fear and Obama with a jar of vaseline in his hands and and an unsavory look on his face.
The sad thing today with Obama is that the left has given up dissent against the power of the President. I hated what they said about Bush, but I thanked God every morning to wake up in a country where the President was criticized. But the one reliable even slightly admirable quality about leftists is now gone in their blind allegiance to Obama in most cases.
That doesn't count. The commies/traitors deserved it.
"a filthy insult to a former president of our country, who has done NOTHING to deserve such disrespect and ugliness."
Which does NOT mean that it is not art, or creativity, or protected free speech.
"Art" is NOT a designation of quality. We can go back and forth over whether or not this is bad art or good art, if the guys brilliant or middling or just a hack… but distasteful or not it IS art and thus he IS "allowed" to make it. And you're allowed to say you don't like it, or make another piece in response, or ignore it, or whatever.
Living in a free society means dealing with people saying, writing, painting or sculpting things you might disagree with. And YES, I'd say the same thing if it was a freaking Obama sculpture.
I couldn't agree with Ms. Stanton more, and having just read the comments on this blog…well, several of you just made her point again. What is happening to Americans? Have we ceased teaching our children – and adults – any semblence of manners, morals, patriotism and integrity? 'Freedom of speech' doesn't mean that you can deface, demoralize and destroy someone…simply bacause you've had a bad day. It means you can voice your OPINION regarding the government – and the running thereof – without being shot by said system. Many countries wouldn't allow you that satisfaction. Pick your fights carefully, though. It's very hard to respect the opinion of an individual – regardless of political beliefs – when they cannot produce an intelligent thought.
Darn, you're smart
"Who gets to decide what is "… acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” ? "
According to the constitution no one.
According to the FCC, the FCC.
"Who gets to decide what is "… acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” ? "
According to the constitution, no one.
According to the FCC, the FCC.
And the finished work could be entitled: "Am I My Keeper's Brother?"
Guys like that spent their entire lives sacrificing themselves for the country, so they're expecting to see a better payoff than a leftward lurch. These things have to happen in cycles though. Right now, we're not just in an economic recession, we're also in a recession of political enlightenment. It'll come back though, as it did in the 90's. This country's still young, so there are lessons it needs to learn. We need to give the left enough time and resources to fully discredit itself.
Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us? Almost all of these responses are agreeing with her sentiment, but disagreeing with her proposed solution of limiting free speech.
For some real inner conflict, I'd like to see Mrs. Stanton's reaction to Team America. It's the equivalent of Hollywood as the urinal.
you're only right… back in the time when all discourse was filtered through the MSM there was a more polite tone, if no other reason then the Fairness Doctrine dictated such. After the Marxist radicals of the 60's took over the Democratic Party and ran us off the rails in the Peanut Carter era, conservatives found a voice. And, after Ronaldo Maximus smote the nefarious doctrine we never looked back.
Thus enter the left wing rage machine (as opposed to rage against the machine, ho ho ho) which absolutely cannot abide dissent. Once again, they are running us off the rails and rational people are sitting up and taking notice. We may be less now, but one senses yon worm beginning to turn. Check out
'The One's' precipitous slide in the polls…
In some places, throwing shoes gets you jail time, before that, there were some places that would have you put through the chipper.
Say what you will about GW, but he remains a class act. He respects the office, unlike his numbnutted counterparts that have besmearched his honor and still continue to do so .. George announced that he refuses to comment on Obama's performance – as it is not his place. I say that History will be kind to this villified man.
It's not the urinal, but there is the list of Bush pictures where someone oh-so-cunnningly put pictures of chimps making similar facial expressions next him. My husband has that one and is carefully gathering Obama pictures to place on the other side of the chimp pictures to finish the collage. Bush-chimp-Obama.
Oh, he informs me someone else beat him to it. He's simply expanding the original and refining it by adding more or better pictures as he finds them.
We listened to eight years of "Bush is Hitler." And with the exception of a few raw-meat pundits like Ann Coulter, the right blandly spoke of the harshness of their opponents. Harshness? Opponents? The speech was vile, and these nutbags are the enemy. Civilized discourse for McCain worked so well that this slimy, smooth-talking stealth jihadist is now President. So here's mine for the day: "Obama is a commie bastard crook." Anyone offended? Was that too harsh? Tough! I'll reserve my civilized discourse for church, courtrooms, and around small children.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the plumbing coming from the head looks like a cross. It is such a striking comment on Bush's faith, that not only is it revolting and insulting to Americans of all political parties, but also to people of all faiths!
I should also add that if anyone thinks this is a new phenomenon, they watch too much TV. Look at the things the Adams and Jefferson parties said about each other. Check out the newspaper attacks on Andrew Jackson. Take a look at the political cartoons depicting Abraham Lincoln as an ape. Did anyone out there actually think that the ape idea for depicting a politician was something new? The left has not forgotten that part of history, and continue to use it apace. Only conservatives have been stupid enough to fall into the wussiness trap. And at least for now, who's winning?
"I hate what Obama and his gang are doing to this country, and I intend to use a great deal of hateful speech in opposing it."
THANK YOU! I have been stunned at this constant attitude of not saying a single negative word about Obama and what he and his administration are doing to this country. I can understand the desire to not be like the Bush-haters were for 8 years. Of course we don't have to be that way.
But why don't we remember that they 1) hated Pres. Bush PERSONALLY and 2) they hated him for reasons that were MADE UP! I do not hate Obama personally. I do hate what he is doing to this country. My hatred of his actions are based upon facts – his own words and actions. That is a HUGE difference from what we endured for 8 years!
What – no "Leather Whips"? ;^)
Stop helping me. Those memories are still painful.
I don't like it either and the "art" in the picture makes me gag and I just turn it off. But I definitely believe that what goes around, comes around. And in the case of President Obama, I have no doubt that some smart entrepreneur out there will create a bobblehead or something with the head of a teleprompter and make millions selling it next Christmas.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
2. She then attacks the "art" using the very specific phrase — "This is not acceptable 'freedom of speech, art, or creativity.'" The use of the word "acceptable" in this context means that she is taking the position that this object is beyond the bounds of "freedom of speech." As such, she implies that "we" (the united) have the right to censor this villain's "art". (For good measure, she then merges this argument into a statement about 9/11.)
Note also that she never once concedes that this "artist" had the right to do what he does.
Logic, if you saw this post at Hufpo and it said the same things about a statue of Ronald Reagan, would you still think she's not calling for censorship?
Any such negative representation of Obama would likely be deemed racist and/or “hate speech” and subsequently banned and the artist prosecuted. He is as close as you can get to “untouchable” in this free country of ours. Any angry artist want to prove me wrong? I hope so.
AndrewPrice,
I agree with you even though in the case of this artist I wish I did not have too. Can we all at least agree the guy is a dill weed. It is one thing to say that someting should not have been made (an example of Chele's freedom of speech) but another to actually proscribe it from being made. If many people express their outrage at such a thing the author might rethink his distribution of it. In protecting the rights of this artist let's not be too harsh on those that would denounce it. So long as the denouncement is just that, words. Same thing goes for the right to boycott. If you state something I find offensive and I refuse to buy product from you I am not censuring you. Only if I mandate that your goods not be bought am I crossing the line.
"Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us? Almost all of these responses are agreeing with her sentiment, but disagreeing with her proposed solution of limiting free speech."
Please note that I didn't say ALL responses. SOME _are_ in fact agreeing with her about the limit on freedom of speech, others appear to be agreeing merely by not disagreeing, and still others would like to destroy it themselves. I would also add that this is such a stupid, lame, childish, and ultimately boring manifestation of this kind of art (for want of a better word) — that I would not be surprised if some liberals/Bush-haters feel the same way.
Why is it that we all agree even though this is not a "right wing" website? I will tell you why – all us taxpayers can agree, and it makes no difference, as more than 50% of voters now pay no taxes. Violence is the only means to correct this situation, and we will not revolt until we have lost so much, that dying over it is a minor consideration.
Thanks. I agree and that's why I think the left is much more prone to taking politics personally. I think you also have to consider that the left's views simply don't sell with people, so they are less capable of making logical arguments and must instead rely on emotional appeals, distrations, and outright lying.
Individualist,
Absolutely. As Americans, it is our right to express our outrage, to boycot it, to protest anyone who would display it, to shun the artist, and to mock the artist. If I am a museum, I have the right to refuse to show it. If I am an art salesman, I have the right to refuse to sell it. We just don't have a right to use the government to ban it.
We have a "freedom of speech", we do not have a "right to be heard".
Very good point. And that's the problem when we start wandering down the road of deciding what is "acceptable" speech. After you present your list of things we can no longer talk about, I get to present my list, there's not much left.
Moreover, it is simply ridiculous to assume that the other guy's list is going to be short and only cover "extreme inappropriateness." If you want a sneak peek at the left's lists, look at political correctness.
Don't even get me started on "thought crime"!!
Actually looks a lot like Clinton and seeing him with his mouth open and getting pissed on is more believeable.
Andrew, I think by this post, I'm with you 100% on the argument. As long as the original creator of this piece isn't drawing any funds from the NEA, (There's that age old argument!) then he's free to make whatever he wants.
He better be prepared to have the wrath of Bush supporters come down on him though for the creation of this piece… See the previous discussion about the 76-flag artwork and the "Hidden message". Maybe this artist should hold a forum to explain himself? (although we know what his 'explanation' would be.)
Some people date it back to when Marcel Duchamp signed a fake name on a urinal, appropriately enough. (Although I give Duchamp more credit than this guy, considering he was trying to make an artistic point rather than a political cheap shot.)
Disagree big time Stormy… as long as you don't bring harm to another person, you're free to say what you want about another person. However, you better be prepared to deal with the cconsequences for what you say/do/make.
"My anger is directed at the idea of using public funds to pay for most of these lefty visual screeds. If private parties want to pay for this crap (pun intended), let them. If private galleries want to show them, let them. But get this junk out of libraries and public museums. But don't be using my money for this. Another reason why I have absolutely no truck with public funding of the arts. If they're any good, they'll get a sponsor."
Exactly! We should not be forced to pay for this garbage. The arts should be funded by the private sector–not the government (with our money). I wonder how many private museums or talent scouts would pay good money for this tacky crap.
"Anyone creating such an outrage has lost all right to 'decent discourse' or the right to 'free' speech of any kind. There is a line beyond which one must not go . . . "
Praying to God (out loud) at a college graduation ceremony would be considered outrageous by the same liberals who have no problem creating or funding (with our money) this POS. Unfortunately, when we put the government in God's place and let it decide who gets to say, write or create whatever–and what kind of art is forbidden–we give creeps like Obama and Pelosi absolute power over our expression. I understand the outrage over the crapper, but unless we want to hasten our descent into the crapper of Obama's making, we'd best govern ourselves in this regard. Those who fail to do so will garner enough contempt from Americans who still have class. And at least it gets us talking and motivates some (with the requisite talent) to create real art–which, we can hope, would not depend on government funding to reach those still capable of appreciating it.
Ironically I put this poem up on my blog just yesterday:
Anti-War
Necessary evil.
This goes without saying.
Or
so it should.
To be anti-war is to be.
To be anti-warrior is to be the opposite of right.
Liberal.
Wrong.
Who isn't?
This goes without saying.
Or
so it should.
To understand necessity is to be the opposite of left.
To understand necessity is to be the opposite of wrong.
Conservative.
Right.
Stand against evil.
This goes without saying.
Or
so it should.
To go to war to stand against evil is to be the opposite of left.
To go to war to stand against evil is to be the opposite of wrong.
Conservative.
Right.
Nobody wants it.
This goes without saying.
Or
so it should.
To be anti-war is to be.
To be anti-war regardless is to be the opposite of right.
Liberal.
Wrong.
http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com/
You know, I am seriously thinking about doing something very similar myself: Scour the Internet for pictures degrading to George W. Bush, remake the same picture with Barack Obama, put the two pictures side by side in the same image, and underneath the two would be a caption: "FREE SPEECH", or maybe "IS DISSENT STILL PATRIOTIC?" Then post the image somewhere that allowed comments, because the reactions should be interesting, particularly from the Obamaphiles and the Bush-haters.
Would the topics of Tipper Gore or the Fairness Doctrine happen to be in any of those lectures?
Free speech is a hotbutton issue for me too. My liberal friends have no idea how intense of a violation the Fairness Doctrine is, and what a slippery slope it creates.
Presumably Jody would have had exactly the same response if someone had made a urinal or a toilet that looked like Barack Obama and invited you to p*** or s*** into Barry's oversized mouth. Right? Because protecting unpopular opinions is precisely what the Framers had in mind, right?
You show me where I have said he's not allowed to make it. (Or where the original poster of the article said that.) I skimmed the article last night because it was so late and I was tired. I figured I missed something because several people were crabbing about it. Now that I read it again in the full light of day, I see that nowhere is she saying this guy isn't allowed to make his so-called art.
I'd love to see how much you spoke out on behalf of the artists who did the Mohammad cartoons – and got death threats over it. Or on behalf of Geert Wilders' 'Fitna'. He lives under 24 hour guard.
But because it's President Bush everyone suddenly everyone becomes an "art" lover and jumps up to defend it. Spare me.
[...] J.T. placed an interesting blog post on The Freedom To Say This Is UnacceptableHere’s a brief overviewI’m not really one to speak out loudly about much of anything… ask anyone who knows me, they’ll tell you I’m usually quite shy and very easy to get along with… but if you provoke me too much… well, let’s just say… you’d best back up, take your pack and run! Politics can be an… [...]
And it was probably funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. Your tax dollars at work.
Tipper Gore was just beginning to get on a roll about that time. The discussion was fairly interesting because it was really about the absolutists versus the moderates, and on that issue, I was a moderate (yeah, I tend to choke on that word). The absolutists were more at war with each other than with us moderates. There were two kinds of absolutists. Those who believed that certain lyrics were obscene, and ought to be banned outright versus those who believed that there should be no censorship at all. We moderates took the stand that children have always been a Constitutionally protected class, so we believed that government had no place in forbidding the objectionable lyrics, but a limited and very cautious role as it related to children (sort of like the MPAA ratings system for the RIAA). Tipper wanted to force record and performing artists to clean up their acts or lose their contracts, so she was too much on the absolutist side for my tastes. But I wasn't throwing too many erasers over that one.
Ronald Reagan recognized the unfairness of the fairness doctrine before most of us oh-so-intelligent lawyers thought much about it. His prescience about the doctrine is the only reason we now know what a very dangerous thing the doctrine is. The subject came up as a sidebar issue, but until he eliminated it, we mostly didn't even realize what a terrible invasion of free speech it truly was. Its potential reinstatement today is a far hotter issue than was its revocation back then. Another reason to know that lawyers frequently don't know best. Were I discussing it with students today, it would probably be a twelve eraser lecture. Rather than a slippery slope, I see it as a mile-high cliff.
Maybe it's just me but as soon as I saw the urinal, the first thing that came to mind was a stall right next to it, and inside is a crapper, where you poo into Hopey's mouth.
Absolutely, we should not be forced to pay for this. Please don't mistake my opposition to censorship as support for this jerk or his "art", or for government support for art. I would be very opposed to tax money going to pay for this "art."
Thanks Mark. I agree entirely regarding the NEA. I also agree that free speech is not a "right of acceptance" either.
I should add that we Constitutional purists believe firmly that the Framers intended to protect only two types of speech—-religious and political. Commercial speech was always subject to government regulation, to a greater or lesser extent. The Framers never intended to protect obscenity, because it was commonly accepted throughout a wide swath of America that protecting obscenity wasn't even worth considering. It took the Warren Court to start finding stranger and stranger exceptions to that common understanding, and casting them in constitutional concrete. Today's so-called LAPS test (the Miller-Roth obscenity test) says that the work, taken as a whole, and applying contemporary community standards, must be lacking in serious literary, artistic, political.or scientific value. Beside being nearly impossible to enforce or interpret, this test notably uses only one of the Framers' original protected classes of speech—-political. Under the current legal standard, children are about the only ones that can be forbidden to see or hear obscene works. Personally, I don't like it much, but I prefer to err on the side of freedom over censorship.
yes! and i don't know president bush personally, but his public person gave a tremendously powerful example of how to "react" to the insults. he ignored them, or if faced with them, seemed to transform the energy hurling towards him into his class act! i saw more of a support for freedom of expression from president bush than i see with this current administration.
As to Freedom of Speech, I must disagree. This may show a definite lack of taste or dignity, which has been in vogue since December 2000. However along with The Pursuit of Happiness, we have the right to not use our God given brains for anything other than inflating our sometimes over sized craniums.
Although I must say that this does not surprise me. After all one group in the San Francisco area wanted to rename the local Hyperion plant or trash dump, I forget which, to George W. Bush.
As Americans we have the freedom to express ourselves in a manner that is offensive, undermining, rude etc.. What many (I'm looking left here) lack is the discipline to hold back.
And I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote "…[T]he right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon…has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right." in support of his 1798 Virginia Resolutions would laugh you out of the park.
I think infantile displays like this say more about the artist than the subject.
So you are arguing that false, scandalous, and or malicious speech against the Office of the President should be criminalized?
It was the same thing to them, Peter.
That's what I've been trying to get at. But everyone is so used to crying 'FREEEEEEEEEE SPEEEEEECH!' that we do not even have the discernment to look beyond that, to the "art" itself.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. No one is stopping fools like this from spewing their filth in the name of art. But we have to speak up about it!
> I have every right to say…
Yes you do. At least until one of your fellow posters deems it unacceptable and takes it from you.
Yes and yes.
Geez, did everyone around here sleep through high school Civics, Government and U.S. History?
The only unpopular opinions that get people up in arms are the ones that are POPULAR – meaning, hatred of President Bush, of conservatives and their views, of Christians. So save your preaching for someone else.
No one is stopping this man from creating or selling this. You will not stop me and others who choose to speak out about it.
No it wasn't. Just take a look at how much pornography was allowed to be published in early America…
"You show me where I have said he's not allowed to make it."
What, then, was I meant to infer by: "Wake up Americans! This is not acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” " and "No some things are NOT okay.", precisely?
"I'd love to see how much you spoke out on behalf of the artists who did the Mohammad cartoons – and got death threats over it. Or on behalf of Geert Wilders' 'Fitna'. He lives under 24 hour guard.
You DO realize where the "It's all okay or none of it is" quote came from, right? I mean, I attributed it, you can look it up and everything…
most of the "red-baiting of the 50's" was spot on…they were communists & in the employ of the soviet union…this was admitted by the russians when they released the verona excerpts. Just like alger hiss…he was also proven to be a russian agent….this was also adnitted by moscow
not criminalized….and not censored by the gov't either….but ostrasized by society. You have the right to be as big a jerk as you like, but we do not have to like or respect you in any way, shape or form. Carter & clinton are the only expresidents from the l;ast sixty years to violate conventions & openly criticize their predecessors…bush had way too much class to commit such a low life action
add that famous blunt-smoking derby to O's head
It is not OK to have a Presidential Urnial, but it is OK to have pictures of someone pissing into Jesus mouth in the name of ART. What is AMERICA coming to? Would it be OK to have a "Little Black Sambo" horse hitch in front of the WHITE HOUSE?
Our privacy and civil liberties have been sorely compromised by the Bush Administration which has set the state for Obama to pull his abominations in concert with the puppeteer orchestra. Our country has been sold out and it seems we are on a runaway train to a place where freedom and security, trust and good-will have been torn asunder. The president should be respected, but free speech (and truth) is a more vital common interest.
Someone may have pointed this out–but many years ago an artist placed a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it art.
We are witnessing the decline and fall of civilization. Get with the program.
Absolutely! I can't stand the idea that we're supposed to give up our values just to get along.
Disagree big time Stormy… as long as you don't bring harm to another person, you're free to say what you want about another person. However, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences for what you say/do/make.
Yes, although I wouldn´t elevate this to the level of "opinion" any more than a turd on your doorstep qualifies as oratory. But as the "artist" himself says, "sometimes it is appropriate to be inappropriate", so I have every right to say that the price of freedom for this guy ought to include a punch in the face.
"As a defender of W and an appreciator of toilet humor, I'm conflicted on this. "
Never underestimate the restorative power of comic relief.
[...] I am amazed at the passionate responses this article received… it certainly ruffled some feathers… thank you for all of your words (whether I agree with them [...]
The left is absolutely religious about it. All of that SDS Guerrilla Theater BS and "Bring the War Home" silk-screened nonsense during Vietnam and now that neo-soviet HOPE poster.
It wouldn't be any less valid if we started to make pro US military posters hearkening back to WWII than it was for Obama's promoters to take his slogan from Rosie the Riveter.
No, I didn't mistake your opposition to censorship as an endorsement of tax-payer funding for garbage posing as "art." No worries there. Maybe I've become desensitized to some of this crap (and its "super-edgy", mush-minded liberal creators)–except for the so-called art that is blasphemous (the crucifix in the jar of urine, for example), which still makes my blood boil every time.
When we say, "<So-and-so> should not be allowed to create something like this," we then have to ask ourselves, "Okay, if someone does it anyway, how should he be punished? And on what charges should he be convicted (criminal obscenity?)? And who gets to decide who's guilty of creating offensive material and who isn't?" I believe in objective morality. I believe in absolute truth. But I do NOT believe in giving a government absolute power over the people's expression (written, oral, artistic, whatever), because only God deserves that kind of trust (to rule wisely and perfectly–and in the best interest of those whom He governs–in every single case. If we create a "Ministry of Decency," for example, in order to seek out and punish all who create offensive material (in all its forms), who gets to decide what is offensive and how the perpetrators should be punished (possibly "re-educated" as residents/students in "Obama's Kulture Kamp")? I think the founding fathers realized this.
I believe in personal responsibility–and the potentially reformative power of consequences. Unfortunately, there's no way to censor crap like this without playing right into the hands of Obama and others like him.
Can I get that in black?
And can you make the ears just a little bit larger?
Oh, and can I have teleprompter next to it so I can read while I’m just sitting there? After all, it 's where the best ideas for our new nation come from.
Maybe I could also write myself notes on the toilet paper.
"I discovered a statement from the artist in which he says he’s “grateful to live in a country where we can still express our opinions"
No thanks to people like this "artist" or the Democratic party, who hate the concept of free speech. Getting Rush Limbaugh off the air is their immediate goal.
Who exactly is trying to stop you from speaking out? I don't see anyboyd telling you that you can't give your opinion. People are just saying that they will oppose any attempt to cross over voicing your opinion and trying to ban this guy from doing whatever it is he's doine.
but what I don’t understand is why people can’t just agree to disagree instead of taking things so personally?
Because to the left it isn't just politics, socialism is their religion.
No they won´t. There are many here arguing against censorship, and the rest is just understandably upset. Many people say "I´m gonna bust a cap in your ass", yet very few actually do exactly that.
I was outraged that anyone could even think of creating such a degrading, disrespectful, filthy, reprehensible, juvenile, disgusting, offensive, repulsive, grotesque, insulting piece of excrement; let alone proudly display it in public as a “work of art.”
I agree – it should be modified to look like Rahm emmanual – he definitely has a "potty" mouth
You must be logged in to post a comment.