Re: The Freedom To Say This Is Unacceptable
by Chele StantonWow, 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 or not)… but let me address one point that seems to have been grossly misunderstood:
For those saying that my article implies limiting our FREEDOM OF SPEECH, you couldn’t be more wrong; and you have missed the very reason for such a piece. Just as this artist has used his FREEDOM OF SPEECH to create (in my opinion) filth, I have used my FREEDOM TO SPEAK out loud to call it for what I believe it is… a total piece of crap… I am exercising MY freedom to say, “This, is unacceptable.”
Where in my article did I say that the artist doesn’t have the right or that we should censor this freedom? I didn’t. There is no veil or subliminal intent to rouse people to censor our speech… I am simply saying that I was outraged at the object that was created and couldn’t believe that NOTHING had been said about it as being a disgraceful, disgusting, and deliberate display of hate and ridicule. Why hadn’t someone said something? As I said, had the image been made of Obama, there would have been news articles and riots in the streets! – That is not an overstatement… it is the truth.
My comment about 9-11 was to reinforce in our minds that we have far more important things to worry about than political discord. The artist’s flippant remark about “no one was maimed, killed, overthrown, etc.” shows his ignorance of the fact that we do have a real enemy, and if we continue to be a “house divided” we will drain our strength in unity to defend ourselves. Republican or Democrat, black, white, yellow, brown, red… whatever our differences, we are Americans, and we all must work together to keep our freedoms.
I would not advocate ANY ban or censorship on FREEDOM OF SPEECH – I never mentioned taking away that freedom or limiting it in any way… Yes, the artist has the right and freedom of speech to make such an object… and Yes, I have the right and freedom of speech to say what I think about it! My family has fought for that very right, and I will continue to uphold it and defend it.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
127 Comments
[...] UPDATE: A NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR can be read here. [...]
If I wasn't such a lady I would draw a cartoon of a big butt with Obama's face on it–considering what comes out of his mouth. But, (alas) I am a lady.
Well, there was this:
I sure read that as suggesting that the urinal was not actually an exercise of freedom of speech.
Not to worry. Left-wingers have the emotional capacity of pre-pubescent children. It doesn't matter what you actually write because they' see whatever confirms their biases and react accordingly. Censorship to them can be the mere expression of disapproval. Hell, you're talking about children who think that any time they shout down a conservative speaker and are told to stfu that their right to free speech is being infringed.
And there is a fuss in Germany over fried chicken fingers being sold under the name "Obama Fingers" — racist, since only black people eat fried chicken. Maybe "Obama Fingers" should have been pork sausages – then what an uiproar we'd have.
But also remember: lefties believe that freedom of speech only applies to those who tell the truth… mainly, them.
PS – Chele, love the red hair…
Yeah, the problem with what you say George is that the posters defending free speech were conservatives and were responding to the quote Ken has put forth.
How long are leftist gonna go to the whip and prod the W. horse along. He's retired, move on. W. is still being exploted as a smoke screen for their Moron in Chief, four more years of this?
I, for one, would advocate boundaries on the Freedom of Speech, especially when National Security is at stake. I suppose it's for this reason that I would want to send every anti-war American reporter back to CONUS from Iraq.
I'm prob'ly gonna get FLAMED for this one…
http://www.isthisthechangeweneed.com/webblog/
I'm pretty white (Irish) and fried chicken is my favorite food. I eat it at every opportunity, in fact, so it's not only black people who eat fried chicken.
Frankly, I don't understand what the issue with that was. I wouldn't eat "obama fingers" 'cause I couldn't stand to eat anything named after that clown, but so what?.
I understood and agreed with Chele's first posting – calling something 'unacceptable' isn't the same thing as quashing someone's freedom of expression. We do need to be free to tell someone what boobs they are for producing or supporting filth. Just because someone created it, doesn't make it "art."
She's right…she didn't say or imply anything about censoring the artist. It is a clear statement about calling the artwork what it is, a display of hate. I'm not sure how you interpreted it otherwise. I think the artist should have done an accompanying piece as a self-portrait…there, I felt pretty darn free to say that.
You're right!
Maybe moveon.org needs to follow their own name and …. MOVE ON. Best yet, move right on to the moon.
I've been meaning to ask: Do they plan on changing their website name to StayHere.org? I suppose they won't do that until there is no right-wing opposition though.
(BTW, I am sure that is not an original jocular question (and not terribly funny either), but I did come to it independently, so please be kind to me.)
Actually she never said they didn't have the right BUT that while it was freedom of speech, expression whatever; it was not acceptable freedom of speech.
" This is not acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.” "
If I were to — say — tell my child this, I would be implying I expect a change in a future behavior. It is a strong statement, condemning a certain form of speech, art, or creativity. You were wise to re-examine.
You wrote in your previous article: Wake up Americans! This is not acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.”
That can only mean one thing. To YOU that toilet art is so obnoxious that it is not an _acceptable_ expression of free speech, art or creativity. It's that word "acceptable" that bothers me. It suggests that because you find it unacceptable, you would, if you could, ban it. Of course, now that you've read the perfectly understandable responses to your original statement you're saying that's not what you meant at all. I accept that. But I have to question why of all the bad art that is currently on display in the U.S., you would get in such a twist about this particular piece. It is so silly, so childish, so banal, so ineffectual, that it is not worth two words of commentary. You should see what's on display in New York right now: art installations that glorify individual terrorists, that depict Cuba as a paradise, and so forth. In addition, if you think this toilet piece was so disrespectful of Bush, you might want to take a look at some early American political cartoons. Back in the early 19th c. newspapers routinely carried mocking and scatological depictions of politicians — of all parties — that would raise most modern eyebrows. No one got outraged, they just retaliated in kind. But that was a more rough-and-tumble age of course …
Very aggressively written for a re-examination if you ask me. I'm going to hold off judgment until I see future articles.
I'm not going to flame you. There have always been exceptions to free speech: threats of violence and speech that leads to injury. That covers yelling "fire" in a theater (for example) or giving out information that would lead to the death or injury of US troops or operatives.
Is it just me, or does Chele resemble a certain Agent Perky?
Perfectly willing to take you at your word as far as intent goes, though I'm still a bit perplexed by what "This is not acceptable freedom of speech" MEANS, then. If it's NOT acceptable (with no qualification of "in my home" or "in a public place") then it's "not-to-be-accepted," which is tantamount to saying that it ought to be removed.
Apparently you and all those that agree with you are far too stupid to tell the difference. She doesn't like the stupid urinal and neither do I. That doesn't mean that either of us advocate the censorship of this moron's feeble attempts at art.
You libertarians need to get a grip already, and stop acting like victims. It's getting old.
THANK YOU.
I kept seeing all these accusations that you were advocating some sort of censorship and was puzzled. I skimmed the article quickly last night so I figured I missed something. I read it very carefully this morning and there was nothing like that! And yet… people kept yammering about the same thing.
I will not defend this sort of trash. I will speak out about it. Thank you for doing so as well!
Insulting people isn't going to help this. LOTS OF PEOPLE had concerns with what she wrote. Nobody refused to acknowledge anything. To the contrary those commenters you MOCK made it very clear that they supported the right to condemn and the right to disapprove, but not the right to censor. Maybe you should check that dictionary yourself. English: it's a wonderful language with lots of ways to say things.
I think a conservative artist should make an essentially identical urinal based on Obama and see how fair a claim of "free speech" gets him with the Usual Suspects.
Suzie1 — The artist is, supposedly, an adult. Therefore, disapproval shouldn't be taken as a tacit order to change, or else. I, too, think that the piece is trashy and immature — but I'm sure the "artist" will find someone who hates George Bush enough to buy the worthless piece of tripe. So what?
TPC — What, exactly. is it that you'll be judging? Whether Ms. Stanton writes in a less aggressive style; or says things more acceptable to you? I think you were looking for an apology – and none was warranted or offerred.
If leftists want to be taken seriously by thinking people, they are going to have to stop their constant sniveling and whining over every perceived slight or supposed insult. Leftists and obots are fast gaining a reputation for gross hypocrisy for doing or saying something and turning around and crying because a Conservative did or said the same sort of thing to them.
I'm going to assume you're a troll because you speak like one. Now go back to your cave.
Maybe you should read the original aricle, where there was not the slighest mention of censorship.
To claim that you aren't suggesting limitations on free speech is preposterous. You didn't say that the speech was unacceptable; you said that the freedom to say it was unacceptable. I find that unacceptable.
What utter nonsense.
How is saying that something is unacceptable the same to you as censorship?
What you want is people to approve of this sort of garbage that's passed for art. I will not.
Don't assume I haven't read it. I read it three times and I read almost all the posts and I read this one and all the posts. She never uses the word censorship, but the article clearly is calling for censorship. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
Asking for a handout already, Mr. Schwartz?
An individual CANNOT censor anything. Only governments can.
And that's the problem I've had with the so-called conservatives who've jumped on this, pretending that there's no objective difference between what the hate-filled left vents out their spleen and real art, as if our individual condemnation of one means we must condemn all and so forth. That's the LIBERAL notion, that there is no truth, beauty, or art; that it's all relative, etc.
The fact is, I totally agree that this urinal art is an abomination and ought to be condemned by every thinking person on Earth. Guess what? That doesn't require a government to ban or prosecute the artist. It's no different than calling for a boycott. Not that difficult of a concept, except people have a knee jerk reaction to thinking that it must mean a government boycott (probably because we're always being brainwashed by the Left to thinking that EVERYTHING is political).
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that so long as it's not the government doing the removal. If this guy has this crap in his personal studio, fine. He can keep it there. If it's in the public square, we as the public have every right to ask that it be removed. Again, this is not a difficult concept. Artists aren't owed a platform. They must earn it, or own it themselves.
I don't see why it's so difficult for people to see that there's a difference between saying something is unacceptable and saying something is prosecutable.
"I don't see why it's so difficult for people to see that there's a difference between saying something is unacceptable and saying something is prosecutable."
Thank you! I cannot believe the stuff I've been reading here. They can't seem to get it through their heads that condemning something is not the same as banning/censoring it. As though (like you said) individuals had the ability to do that anyway!
Look at the title of her article: "THE FREEDOM TO SAY THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE." You don't see that as a call for censorship?
Unless, of course, there actually is a fire.
It is her freedom to write that this art is not acceptable. Not that it should be banned and the artist brought up on charges. When your child uses dirty language or talks back to you do you use the term this is not acceptable? I think the comparison of child to adult reader of this article is completely different.
There have been many speeches by members of congress that I've found unacceptable and pieces of art work that I have found unacceptable. Just because I find them unacceptable doesn't mean I'm going to actually change anything except voice my discontent for them.
I'll second your comments. When someone unequivocally says " This is not acceptable…” they are making that conclusion based on some kind of guideline. Everyone of us make value judgments internally all the time. It's when we "aggressively" apply that to someone else's expression that raises the red flags. Especially in a political sense. We have to look no further than the renewed interest the Left has in the Fairness Doctrine to know they have no qualms about labeling our speech as "unacceptable". The questions that should then become obvious are: just what the heck IS acceptable and who decides?
The quote never called for censorship that is being arbitrarily put into the sentence as "intent."
She is speaking of her own outrage at this piece of artwork. If she had called for a government "Art Czar" to censor what passes as art then I would jump on board with everyone. I think her anger and outrage is being misconstrued to mean censorship.
Even though a mild conservative storm has developed out of this article it's still great to see that everyone firmly believes in freedom of speech.
Oh really you stomped all over my dreams of becoming a cult leader. That is a form of censorship, I like to think that you are a member of the "Pipe Dream Crusher Club"
Andrew: There's absolutely no reason to flame you. There have always been boundaries on freedom of speech. Originally, as the Founders intended, it meant only political and religious speech, and thus was in the First Amendment along with the freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
As a great Supreme Court Justice said, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." There will always be exceptions, and a mere sixty years ago, this entire discussion would have been meaningless since everyone, including the courts, accepted the idea that the Constitution did not protect obscenity. It took the Warren Court to stretch the definition of obscenity beyond all recognition, and a long line of cases converted the clear meaning of "speech" into "demonstrative" free speech. Hence, Bush-faced toilet "art."
Part 1
Of course not! Good grief, how utterly ridiculous this thread has become – on what is supposed to be (and usually is) a conservative and thoughtful site.
I'm saying this for the last time because I am sick beating my head against a wall:
She has every right to say this so-called art is unacceptable. She also has every right to say that the freedom to make this so-called art is unacceptable. That is not censorship! That is expressing an opinion, which is supposedly what you're defending.
Individuals do not censor things like this. As PeterPike said in another comment, We don't even have the power to do so if we wanted to!
Having opinions about this "art" is not censorship. Get that through your heads already, people!
Part 2
Someone touched on something that as I think about it, I think is the basis for all this ridiculous confusion we're seeing on this topic.
We are completely brainwashed in this culture to never make any sort of value judgments. (And especially when it comes to art.) One piece of art is just as good as any other. Saying anything other than that equals limiting someone's free speech.
That's why people like the author of the post and myself and the others speaking out about this "art' in a negative way are viewed as being in favor of censorship. It doesn't matter if the word is actually used, the fact that we think people shouldn't be doing stuff like this – even though we have NO ABILITY or even desire to stop them – is looked at as censorship.
Chele, for what its worth, I had assumed from your initial post that you were bemoaning the culture's lack of respect and not implicating any form of government's view/performance towards the same.. If I had thought you had implied any government control on what's proper to be said I would definitely let you know on my views, earlier.
That stated, I believe that the concepts of courtesy and civility are a defense mechanism for our species. If not for these, we would rip apart our society over disrespect… And, I hope that I'm wrong, but I see an apocalypse coming because we don't know or respect our neighbors as many are driven to desperation from the economy.
"For those saying that my article implies limiting our FREEDOM OF SPEECH, you couldn’t be more wrong; and you have missed the very reason for such a piece. Just as this artist has used his FREEDOM OF SPEECH to create (in my opinion) filth, I have used my FREEDOM TO SPEAK out loud to call it for what I believe it is… a total piece of crap…"
Well, yes. However, you must understand what fragile souls these leftists are: any sort of disagreement is so threatening they feel they are being silenced.
You see, free speech is for them to speak Truth to Power and not for unenlightened folks like us to point out how boorish they are. (Okay, my preferred term is not "boorish" but I do not know what sort of profanity filters are on here so I'll go with that.)
Once you realize that, you can simply ignore it and go on with calling them on their behavior.
What a nightmare! – This is typical of the exact problem in today's society: Ignorant and Childish people armed with a keyboard. And lacking any perspective because, apparently, many do not know history or have any compunction about enforcing their own views on 'society' while removing any right to any dissent they do not agree with. They chatter on and on about the Article Author's use of the word 'Unacceptable' as some sort of censorship.
Obviously uneducated and inarticulate in discourse they attack and attempt to achieve the very result our Author highlighted by her article.
Screaming, in your face attacks whether personally experienced or from words flowing from a keyboard the desired result is to silence the dissenter and 'censor' any idea or comment they do not like. I am with Flubber. Let's just see how quickly the lefties and Kos types start beating on the ole TomToms if they did make a urinal of Obama as was done of George W. Bush. It is just as disrespectful ,distasteful and unacceptable as it was of George W. Bush but they would be apoplectic over it ready to set their hair on fire and therein lies the proof and validity of her argument.
As with everything else, when leftists falsely accuse conservatives of desiring to censor them, they are PROJECTING. This is what they've done in higher education with speech codes, and this is what they would like to do with government bureaucrats and transnational institutions.
There's no need to try to explain that there's a difference between public condemnation and a call for censorship. A reasonably bright ten year old understands it.
She wrote that this art piece is not acceptable. The toilet upset her and she's outraged that no one commented on how it's in bad taste. I concluded that she felt artist have no respect for a former President and would not done the same piece with Obama's likeness. You concluded that she wants censorship. I read the article with no prejudice, so I didn't see that.
We are arguing about the Freedom of Speech in a place that has censorship. It's some computer enigma but it's still there. Just some crazy irony that hit me around 1 o'clock in the morning.
Your arguing against censorship in a censorship environment. Not that I'm for it but it's something to think about.
The reason no one has said anything about the urinal is because it doesn't have much influence anyway. Everyone knows that leftists think this way of Bush, so what insight would we gain?
To quote a favorite movie line"What we have here, is a failure to communicate!"
The reason for this failure is the refusal of some (ahem) "commenters", on this thread and others far too numerous to mention, to acknowledge the simple fact that words mean things!
Look peeps, condemnation is not even close to censorship.Neither is disapproval. My friends on the fringe, there's no need to believe me. You could look this stuff up.Try any dictionary, that's what they're for.
This little episode reveals the difference between Leftists and just about everyone else. In the Leftist mind, since they're all about being self-assured of their moral superiority over all others and also feel that they need to use political power to control society so that their morality can be established by force, for someone to say something is unacceptable means they intended therefore for the Govt to then make it unacceptable legally.
After all, why would someone view something as unacceptable and NOT want to really make sure it's Unacceptable?
Whereas , most other people, understand the difference between a public non-governmental condemnation and demanding Govt tryanny.
So when the Leftists see her strong langauge they think to themselves "Well if I was that opposed to something, I'd surely want the force of law to impose that everywhere.. so therefore so must the author"
But as with most things the Left thinks about the Right.. they're wrong and just Projecting yet again.
Yeah Dan.. I'm sure she had no idea what her own intent was , and you, some utter stranger, do know.
Typical sanctimonious Leftist .
I'll agree with you on issues of national security. This grand idea of telegraphing what our military plans to do next seems preposterous. Here's the date we plan to leave Iraq so just sit tight till then enemy. I even question the airing of military tactics or advanced weapons. I loved the program on Discovery about them but some of the weaponry and ideas seemed very simple to introduce in the battlefield against us.
I certainly agree with you that anti war reporters should either stay home or enter the battle field at their own risk. They should never be embedded with our troops.
I guess depending on how you look at your statement your condoning the same thing you are against. If the same terms applies through out. I find that acceptable and unacceptable all at the same time.
I'm overjoyed that everyone values the freedom of speech in this thread.
I don't think Chele was calling for a ban on artist that create despicable art she is expressing her outrage at them.
It's her opinion that this is unacceptable. That's not a call for censorship. You can either agree or disagree.
I'm glad to see the author clarify her position. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, since I am one of those who read it as a call to censorship or banning things we find offensive. I, too, saw the header "The Freedom to Say This is Unacceptable," and everything that followed became mere surplusage. Apparently, she meant morally unacceptable, or socially unacceptable or something along those lines. That would be a good source for arguments as well, but at least it wouldn't be government censorship.
When I posted yesterday, I pulled out all the stops when it came to censorship in relation to constitutional rights. Based on the author's explanation, I think my argument (and those of a great many others) remains valid, just not as to what the author says she actually meant.
That said, a great many of us objected further to the argument that we must avoid resorting to the tactics that the left employs. Most of us concluded that this was a discussion of art and political propaganda rather than what we expect of our polticians, pastors and families. I still contend that if we lived in more civilized times, we could simply tsk-tsk the opposition for their crudity. But these are not only not civilized times, they are dangerous times. We need attack dogs who are willing to get down in the mud and wrestle with these jerks. And though we support this "artist's" right to produce obnoxious trash, we also made it it very clear we oppose public funding of it. I personally oppose all public funding of the "arts" because it necessarily raises the faux arguments about censorship by the governmental agencies doing the funding.
Do you have free speech if you are a visitor in someone's home? Can you say what you would like in the home of say, your pastor? Of course you can but if you say something that offends them or they find distasteful you might be asked to leave or at the very least corrected or asked to change your tone.
A website is someone's INTERNET home, they have every right in the world to moderate and ban whomever they like.
Where did people get the idea that they can roam around saying and doing whatever they would like without facing any sort of consiquence…because of the 1st Amendment? The 1st Amendment only guarantees your right to say something, it doesn't say anything about people having to approve of it.
Your first sentence cuts right to the core of the issue.
So many people seem to froget this. A few years ago, if i remember correctly, a famous star was angry that her movie was not doing well and accused right-wingers of violating her free speech and censoring her film. She seemed to think Americans had an obligation to pay thier money to see her work.
We have the right to free speech. We don't have the right to be heard.
Even in their claims for "free speech", the Left advances lockstep censorship of any contrary ideas. "Free speech" means freedom for them to "push the envelope"–with your public dime–with pieces of (almost literally) crap such as that illustrated, and then to accuse anyone who objects as an enemy of free speech.
One of the first REAL rights destroyed by the Left through activist courts has been the right of communities and municipalities to adopt and maintain standards of decency and decorum. It has been destroyed by a radical interpretation of individual rights which our founding fathers would have viewed with revulsion.
It's just her opinion as it being 'unacceptable'. No big deal. HOwever, I saw the same thing as Ken did in the original post
unacceptable “freedom of speech…"
if Chele had left that part out of her post, the entire response would have (IMO) be different.
It took the Warren Court to stretch the definition of obscenity beyond all recognition and subvert the entire premise behind the responsibilities of the national govt. (can I say that I think the Warren Court did more to ruin this country than anything in recent modern history?)
Sorry Mo, i gotta disagree with you here in the general theory of the topic.. the toilet was not "art" (that we agree on), but to me saying something is "unacceptable" is a step toward saying that this sort of 'art/garbage' should not be allowed.
If I tell one of my co-workers that them doing something is "Unacceptable", that means I don't want it to happen again, ever. I saw the same thing with the one line Chele wrote (the rest of her post I was in agreement with.) that a few others saw.
Sorry Mo, i gotta disagree with you here in the general theory of the topic.. the toilet was not "art" (that we agree on), but to me saying something is "unacceptable" is a step toward saying that this sort of 'art/garbage' should not be allowed.
If I tell one of my subordinates at work that them doing something is "Unacceptable", that means I don't want it to happen again, ever. I saw the same thing with the one line Chele wrote (the rest of her post I was in agreement with.) that a few others saw.
Heinlein once wrote something along the lines that the lack of civil discourse and rudeness was the biggest sign of a decaying society. (Which was sort of ironic, since he used to state "Say No and be rude about it" to get your message across prior to that comment)
It's the first time I heard it, and I like it a LOT! KUDOS!
Spook, still laughing.
It's not the leftists I'm having a problem with! It's the (I'm assuming) conservatives on this site who are behaving the same way!
I honestly cannot believe what I have been reading here.
"It is just as disrespectful ,distasteful and unacceptable as it was of George W. Bush but they would be apoplectic over it ready to set their hair on fire and therein lies the proof and validity of her argument."
Exactly.
Part 1
So basically, you're saying that all this ridiculousness came about because of the title? Because that is the only place where something could possibly have been misconstrued to think she was advocating for censorship.
The first time I read this, it was very late. So read the first few paragraphs to get the general idea of what was going on and skimmed the rest. I'm sure I saw the title, but just in passing. After much back and forth I have somehow managed to squeeze my brain into the format where I might possibly read that sentence the way some people seem to have read it. (I would've NEVER come to that interpretation on my own, because saying something is unacceptable – whether art itself or the freedom to make it – does not equal censorship.) Yet from all I’ve read here, it seems that’s the way many people took it.
(Cont.)
Part 2
But I'm guessing then that people only read the title, because there is absolutely nothing in the rest of the article that supports such an interpretation. Or they did read the whole thing, but instead of being reasonable and thinking, "Hm. Since the bulk of the article is not advocating any sort of censorship, maybe I am misunderstanding the title." they… twisted the entire article to fit their misunderstanding of the title?
First, I didn't read the "This" the way that you did in the title "The Freedom to Say This is Unacceptable." The line can be taken at least two ways: "The Freedom to Say This is Unacceptable" and "The Freedom to Say This is Unacceptable". Personally, I think it's a brilliant play on words to take it BOTH ways. Namely, Chele is saying she has the freedom to say something is unacceptable, but yet the freedom for her to say something is unacceptable is itself unacceptable (and judging by the various responses, it seems she was right).
BTW, nowhere did she call for Government to say it's unacceptable. I never saw this as anything other than her personal opinion. Finally, the only reason an objective difference in art would be "hard to evaluate" is because we, as a culture, have surrendered our soul.
I'm one of the "so-called" conservatives who jumped on the original article. I see a subjective difference between crap art and high art, but an objective difference would be hard to evaluate. The difference between a Bush faced toilet and a plain old toilet is not objective because the ultimate underlying purpose is the same in both cases. And as a conservative, I hate the Bush "art" but I use the indoor plumbing. The real problem with the author's original article is not what she said, but what a large number of very reasonable posters inferred from the language.
Most conservatives believe that freedom is a God-given right, and government's job is to protect it, not to limit it. The author's original wording said "The Freedom to Say This is Unacceptable." It is not at all unreasonable to infer from that title that a particular God-given freedom is unacceptable, and since the government is charged with implementing that freedom, government would be the determiner of whether or not that freedom can be limited. That sounds like censorship–government censorship. The full text of the original article did not go a long way to modify that inference.
The author has explained what she meant. I take her at her word. But it was not crazy for conservatives to jump on what genuinely seemed to us to be a call for government censorship. "Freedom" is built into the Constitution that defines the limits of government, so as the article was originally posed, the leap to thinking the author meant the government shouldn't allow this particular "freedom to say this" was not a long one.
There's nothing hypocritical about this. You've misconstrued what Free Speech is, as well as the actual wording of the First Amendment, which happens to begin with "CONGRESS shall make no law…" and which has historically been applied to state governments as well.
If this was a government website, it would be hypocrisy.
Well put.
That's the only way the article could've been read. To see how people have read it as some call for censorship has left me… baffled.
I'm just going to let you reply from now on. You keep saying what I would like to say, but in a much more effective way, LOL!
Not all that is unacceptable is criminal (just as not all that is criminal is unacceptable). And what's wrong with saying that you never want to see another Bush urinal? Why do you insist that she meant it was unacceptable politically instead of unacceptable morally? I find adultery unacceptable, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ask Congress to imprison adulterers. After all, not all that is immoral is illegal; and not all that is illegal is immoral. And if you view unacceptable through a moral lens, which Chele clearly was doing, then you'll see that saying it's unacceptable/immoral is not the same thing as saying it should be illegal.
That should be read as "The freedom to say 'this is unacceptable,'" not "The freedom to say this, is unacceptable."
We all need to relax and realize that artists are pussies – the University I went to was predominantly an art school and they were all gigantic pussies that would smoke their clove cigarettes in the local coffee shop or basement bar and wax poetic about how the world "should" be. Fact is, they are cowards – I mean, the reality is, this artist's worst fear will be actually reading the article. No one is going to attack him (or her) physically. Now, if they want to be brave, they can put an Obama urinal right next to this one and tally up who pees in whose mouth. That still wouldn't be artistic to me, but at least I would give the "artist" credit for having the balls to do it.
Well put, thank you. I don't think it's such a jump to interpret the word "unacceptable" as "This should not be allowed." I take the author at her word (in her supplemental note) that she did not intend to promote government censorship, but, as you already expressed, "it was not crazy for conservatives to jump on what genuinely seemed to us to be a call for government censorship. "
THANK YOU! That's what's been troubling me all the time, and I could not put a finger on it. (Maybe because of all the insanity that has followed.)
That's how I read it! And other people read it the second way. You are so right – if it had been written that first way, maybe all of this confusion could've been avoided. (Or you know, maybe not. You never know these days, LOL.)
remember the scene from Airplane where the main character is on the beach with his girlfriend and he is telling her all about his "secret" mission to attack a foreign enemy. He tells her everything, where they will come in, when they will come in, how they will get there, etc. and then she asks, "well when will you be coming home?" and he says," I can't tell you that, it's top secret." That scene was about 25 years ahead of its time!!
Even then, if "this" refers to Chele's post and not the urinal "art", then it's fine saying it the other way too.
Since that one line is so ambiguous, it requires people to actually read the entire post to get context. This used to be something they taught in school (reading comprehension), but now very few people grasp it.
Note that this also shows the danger of headlines in newspapers. People read a headline and think they know the column, when in fact they know nothing (although, to be fair, they usually know nothing even after reading most columns too…).
"Well put, thank you. I don't think it's such a jump to interpret the word "unacceptable" as "This should not be allowed.""
I sure do think it's a jump. A ridiculous one, at that. Expressing moral outrage at something does not mean advocating government censorship.
How people continue and continue to make that association is beyond me.
Very nicely put, both you and Lawhawk. Like I said, I'll withhold judgment on what Chele said until I see future work, thought the first article and the angry tone of this one do not give me confidence.
Maybe the problem lies with the word 'unacceptable' itself. She's talking about something being morally unacceptable, not legally, where it should therefore be stopped. (I'm using the word 'legally', but that's not the right word I want. If I think of a better one, I'll change this.)
Let's say one of your employees is shopping on ebay when they should be working. That's not objectionable in itself, but when it happens during work time, it does become objectionable, and you as a supervisor have the right and the authority/ability to make them stop. They can choose not to stop, and face the consequence of being suspended or fired.
But let's say a fellow employee without the authority to do anything about this sees that same person wasting time with ebay when they should be working. They can express their disapproval to the person and even to a supervisor who could then take action. But they themselves couldn't do much about it. All they could do is express the disapproval at this wrong behavior.
(I've probably made things worse at this point. Oy.)
Apparently it is beyond you.
Maybe the problem lies with the word 'unacceptable' itself. She's talking about something being morally unacceptable, not legally, where it could therefore be stopped. (I'm using the word 'legally', but that's not the right word I want. If I think of a better one, I'll change this.)
Let's say one of your employees is shopping on ebay when they should be working. That's not objectionable in itself, but when it happens during work time, it does become objectionable, and you as a supervisor have the right and the authority/ability to make them stop. They can choose not to stop, and face the consequence of being suspended or fired.
But let's say a fellow employee without the authority to do anything about this sees that same person wasting time with ebay when they should be working. They can express their disapproval to the person and even to a supervisor who could then take action. But they themselves couldn't do much about it. All they could do is express the disapproval at this wrong behavior.
(I've probably made things worse at this point. Oy.)
Yes, and when they go to their boss or announce across firm-wide e-mail, "this is unacceptable behavior" what are they doing? They're asking the boss to stop the practice. That's why saying that someone having the FREEDOM to do something is UNACCEPTABLE is a call to censorship.
I guess I did make things worse.
I suggest you find PeterPike's comments. He's explained it better than I ever could. I'm done with this.
Your post has clarified for me the core problem with this whole issue.
People think that freedom of speech means they can say whatever they want, wherever they want, in whatever way they want. And if by doing so there are consequences – whether that is disagreement with what you've said, or being asked to leave someone's home or a public place, or being put on moderation on a web site or even being banned – then they scream about their freedom of speech being taken away.
THAT'S the real issue. It's not about art. It's not really even about freedom. It's about people's perception that freedom means they can do and say anything they want and no one can dare to say a word about it. If they express disagreement in any way, it's viewed as censorship and people start screaming about their free speech rights being violated.
(Trying again.)
U2Dave's comments have clarified for me the core problem with this whole issue.
People think that freedom of speech means they can say whatever they want, wherever they want, in whatever way they want. And if by doing so there are consequences – whether that is disagreement with what you've said, or being asked to leave someone's home or a public place, or being put on moderation on a web site or even being banned – then they scream about their freedom of speech being taken away.
THAT'S the real issue. It's not about art. It's not really even about freedom. It's about people's perception that freedom means they can do and say anything they want and no one can dare to say a word about it. If they express disagreement in any way, it's viewed as censorship and people start screaming about their free speech rights being violated.
Sorry man. I just didn't want you having your heart broken when it all went wrong?
By the way, I've deleted my post above because I want to clarify it. While I thank Ms. Stanton for clarifying that she does not endorse censorship, I stand by my criticisms of her article.
No worries, Mo… besides between the two articles Chele pretty much cleared up (at least to me) any confusion that resulted from the original post..
(Yes, I'm typing this from my work computer too – providing my network security people don't block the site
)
This just dawned on me in the wee hours of the night but, WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN A PLACE WHERE WE DO NOT HAVE IT.
How many of you have been kicked into moderation and never had your post posted. We are arguing on a sight that is practicing censorship of the unacceptable. What makes it unacceptable is some computer enigma of word recognition or phrase recognition. I'm not saying that I'm for censorship in general but this site keeps the talk clean which is a refreshing change.
Yet we're all still here arguing about the intent of Chele's sentences not what she actually said and whether that is an infringement on the first amendment. OH SWEET IRONY. We're all hypocrites…
"Note that this also shows the danger of headlines in newspapers."
Yep. And I think the writers of those headlines know this and use it to deliberately mislead. And because our attention spans are growing smaller every day, we see the headline and come to a conclusion about the topic, without even bothering to find out what the facts of the matter really are. Just like those who read the title of this article and made a whole case around it, without paying attention to what was being said in the article itself.
I won't tell!
We're all on the same track here. As you said, you didn't read "this" the way that I and a great many others did. And yes, many of us read the article all the way through, and still came up with a different conclusion from yours. That's the point.. The article, however well-intentioned, was so muddily written as to allow for two opposite conclusions as to what the intent of the author was. The author has issued a clarification, and that seems to clear up the confusion.
No. I"m saying that the title led many of us to read the entire article all the way through, and our conclusion was different from yours. That's all. You didn't see it as a call for censorship, we did, and I still contend we weren't unreasonable. There is a great deal in the article beyond the title which led us to that conclusion.
Since you, Peter Pike, a large number of reasonable readers, and I all seem to have the same ultimate beliefs about censorship, it only makes sense that if the article produced both adulation and opposition from people who otherwise agree with each other, the fault lies with the lack of clarity of the author, not the views of the readers.
I agree that the one line was ambiguous, but not the entire post. And while it is a writer's job to write as clearly as possible, it's also a reader's job to read what's written rather than to invent what's written. Again, nowhere in her post did she mention anything about government at all. The whole idea of government censorship came from people's assumptions, not from what was written down. And that is just sloppy reading.
Don't take offense at this; I don't mean to imply that you (Lawhawk) are stupid or anything. I think that this is simply the de facto position of most Americans. We read certain key words and assume context for them that has nothing to do with the writer's context, and then crucify the writer for our misinterpretation! I think that's what's gone on here, because we're used to reading leftists who DO use terms in that manner.
You must be logged in to post a comment.