Secret Service Probes Art Exhibit

[BVS]

I'm just giving other interpretations, because that's what art is about.

I would just be careful about jumping to assumptions and calling it hate, for that can be hate in itself.

 

[BVS]

Thanks for dodging the question altogether rather than either ignoring it as it was not directed at you, or answered with a well-thought response. Really, way to bear the fruit.

The analogy doesn't work. One is an individual who loses certain privacies due to being a public figure and the other is a group.

Apples and Oranges...

 

[deep]

The King Has No Clothes: But Saying So Might Land You In Prison

Richard Humphreys, a resident of Portland Oregon, was sentenced to three years in jail after he made a joke about President Bush during Bush’s March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls. The joke included the line "I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," which was taken as meaning Humphreys wanted to douse Bush in flammable liquid and set him ablaze. A bartender overheard and immediately alerted the police to the activities of this dangerous terrorist. The actual arrest was obviously made before September 11 but the way that event changed the mindset of the American authorities no doubt contributed to the ridiculous three year prison term, which was handed out in June 2002. This story was originally reported by CNN, who mysteriously chose to remove the article from their website just a few weeks after its appearance.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

That's fine if you believe they are open to interpretation. I on the other hand don't see how it is intended from a positive, or even rational line of thought.

I label it hate speech because I see it not as an expression for the means of appreciation and adoration, but a drawing fueled by what other than hatred of the president.

If it isn't hate, what is it?
(this isn't the first time I asked)

 

[BVS]

That's fine if you believe they are open to interpretation. I on the other hand don't see how it is intended from a positive, or even rational line of thought.

I label it hate speech because I see it not as an expression for the means of appreciation and adoration, but a drawing fueled by what other than hatred of the president.

If it isn't hate, what is it?
(this isn't the first time I asked)

It's thought provoking expression. Sometimes thought provoking expression can have hate in it, but it can also have love.

All art is open to interpretation, the artists has not told you a thing so to not see how it can be positive is a very dangerous assumption. Take U2's 'Wake Up Dead Man' for example. Some see it as a desperate prayer to Jesus, others see it as a mocking middle finger to God. Different interpretations and some can be very dangerous to side on.

 

[verte76]

Let's suppose you're going to call it "hate speech". "Hate speech" isn't against the law in the U.S. It actually is in some countries like France. Brigitte Bardot got fined for some stuff she put in her autobiography which was allegedly "hate speech". Anyway, we don't do that kind of thing here. We can abhor and despise certain kinds of expressions that express hate, but it's not illegal. And if it's not illegal, you can't arrest the people who are saying it. I deplore the depiction of anyone with a gun to his head, but that doesn't make it illegal. Immoral, perhaps. Illegal, no. It's not the same thing.

 

[Abomb-baby]

You ppl are all missing the point. The art was deemed by the Secret service to have some possible threat value and it was investigated. It would have been invstigated regardless of who was in office. The secret service investigates all known possible threats against ANY president. I personally think the artist did this for the salacious value of it all. A real artist wouldn't have had to stoop to so low a level.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Straight out of my Law textbook:

Unprotected Speech The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that certain types of speech will not be given any protection under the First Amendment. Speech that harms the good reputation of another, or defamatory speech, will not be protected. Speech that violates criminal laws (such as threatening speech) is not constitutionally protected. Other unprotected speech includes "fighting words," or words that are likely to incite others to respond violently.

The Supreme Court has also held that obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court has grappled from time to time with the problem of trying to establish an objective definition of obscene speech. In a 1973 case, Miller v. California, the Supreme Court created a test for legal obscenity, which involved a set of requirements that must be met for material to be legally obscene. Under this test, material is obscene if (1) the average person finds that it violates contemporary community standards; (2) the work taken as a whole appeals to a prudent interest in sex; (3) the work shows patently offensive sexual conduct; and (4) the work lacks serious redeeming literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit.

Because community standards vary widely the Miller test has had inconsistent applications, and obscenity remains a constitutionally unsettled issue. Numerous state and federal statutes make it a crime to disseminate obscene materials, however, and such laws have often been upheld by the Supreme Court, including laws prohibiting the sale and possession of child pornography.

Business Law Today
Standard Edition
Sixth Edition
Miller/Jentz

 

[foray]

Of course it's art if it's presented as art, Mac-wannabe. The question is whether it's a good piece of work, and in the Patriot act stamp eg, to me it's quite a lame artistic attempt. However, although the law is not there to serve as an arbiter of taste or art critic, I still am in favour of freedom of speech.

f.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Is Guernica hate speech too then?

 

[financeguy]

Is Guernica hate speech too then?

NO! Some art is permitted. However, other art is against the President, and is therefore un-American and un-patriotic and therefore must be banned.

 

[financeguy]

(2) the work taken as a whole appeals to a prudent interest in sex;

Surely that should be "appeals to a prurient interest in sex", not prudent? Now I am worried as I have a prurient interest in sex.

 

[BVS]

You ppl are all missing the point. The art was deemed by the Secret service to have some possible threat value and it was investigated. It would have been invstigated regardless of who was in office. The secret service investigates all known possible threats against ANY president. I personally think the artist did this for the salacious value of it all. A real artist wouldn't have had to stoop to so low a level.

I don't think anyone's missed the point. If it was any other president we don't know if this piece of art would have been made, we don't know if a painting would have been deemed "a threat". I've seen a lot worse and never heard of it being deemed a threat.

Once again the artist made their point.

 

[Angela Harlem]

NO! Some art is permitted. However, other art is against the President, and is therefore un-American and un-patriotic and therefore must be banned.

hey, the hippy could have been symnpatheitc to communism too!

 

[jessi-ma-ca]

I wonder who gets hurt by a healthy amount of censorship.

i dont understand when censorship can be a good thing. it inhibits freedaom of speech, freedom of information, and government accountablity.

on one hand you say censorship is ok, then quote the US Supreame court decisions. What you call hate speech is not constitutionally protected, form the extract below, but that does not automatically mean that such types of speech/art /language, should be censored

Straight out of my Law textbook:

Unprotected Speech The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that certain types of speech will not be given any protection under the First Amendment. Speech that harms the good reputation of another, or defamatory speech, will not be protected. Speech that violates criminal laws (such as threatening speech) is not constitutionally protected. Other unprotected speech includes "fighting words," or words that are likely to incite others to respond violently.
Business Law Today
Standard Edition
Sixth Edition
Miller/Jentz

i just believe in the political rights of all people. once some censorship is allowed, its an easy slide to the banning of other freedoms. the erosion of rights is a slow process. this particular example of art is not really a big deal is the larger scheme of things. but once all these little things are compounded... rights are easily eroded over time... that’s all

 

[verte76]

As an artist I'm familiar with no-talent "artists" who can only use shock value to attract attention to their work. We don't have anyone like that in my studio. It just so happens that we are all autistics, and for whatever reason many autistics are artists. We all sell our work, win competitions, get companies to use our work for their cards, I recently sold a picture to some corporate big shots and it's in their permanent exhibit. End of bragging rights rant. Is this morality? Are we talking about something that's "right" or "wrong"? Is this law? That's not the same thing. I take the "slippery slope" argument in censorship of art: if you decide it's OK to censor something because it's too shocking, they'll decide it's OK to censor something else, then something else...........and then they'll clamp down on anything that's controversial. Two of our artists do work that could be considered "controversial". Call something you don't like trash, junk, or something stronger, but don't try to get it banned. That's dangerous.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

In agreement with the majority here-it's merely a piece of artwork, the idea that artwork can be censored bothers me, too. All censorship does is silence ideas, ideas that, some of which, if stifled long enough, can finally be brought to the forefront in a hell of a lot more violent means. Censorship merely sweeps issues under a rug as a way of getting people to pretend they don't exist-well, that doesn't really solve the problem now, does it?

Not to mention, I would think that if the artist really wanted to hurt the president or something, they wouldn't have wasted their time making this artwork, they would've instead been formulating a plan to actually hunt him down and do whatever it is they wanted to do.

And ditto BVS' continuing statement about how they're only proving the artist's point by giving so much attention to this. Also keep in mind that art only means something to people who let it mean something to them. Otherwise, it's just a painting/drawing/sculpture/what have you.

Angela

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Surely that should be "appeals to a prurient interest in sex", not prudent? Now I am worried as I have a prurient interest in sex.

Ironic you quoted only the part that had to do with the failed California law. Just to clarify.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Nobody has to agree with me whatsoever, and if you don't see it as hate or defamation, you're entitled to believe that.

I on the other hand think that "art" is a piss poor excuse to squeeze in the most despecable, perverse commotions, and amplifying via horrible drawings the idea that it is okay, even patriotic, to assassinate the president. I'm not crying for the cretins. If they get banned, it's their own fault. You can push all the tasteless garbage you want and claim art or freedom of speech, but I draw the line when it is nothing but hate and utter lunacy, possibly something the DNC would even reject. (that last part was a hint of sarcasm, okay, back on topic.) Do I believe art should be censored? Only very rarely. They can have their anti-Bush pot party, but I don't blame secret service at all. May the scum of the earth eat their words.

 

[BVS]

Nobody has to agree with me whatsoever, and if you don't see it as hate or defamation, you're entitled to believe that.

I on the other hand think that "art" is a piss poor excuse to squeeze in the most despecable, perverse commotions, and amplifying via horrible drawings the idea that it is okay, even patriotic, to assassinate the president. I'm not crying for the cretins. If they get banned, it's their own fault. You can push all the tasteless garbage you want and claim art or freedom of speech, but I draw the line when it is nothing but hate and utter lunacy, possibly something the DNC would even reject. (that last part was a hint of sarcasm, okay, back on topic.) Do I believe art should be censored? Only very rarely. They can have their anti-Bush pot party, but I don't blame secret service at all. May the scum of the earth eat their words.

Along with your hatred of anything liberal one other thing is made clear by this post; you are not an artist.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

and amplifying via horrible drawings the idea that it is okay, even patriotic, to assassinate the president.

Yes, there is a gun pointed at Bush's head, but does that automatically mean that they're promoting assassination of the president? That gun to his head could mean a number of things-perhaps the artist is saying that Bush himself isn't in charge of everything here, that all the other people in the administration, such as Cheney or Rumsfeld or someone like that, were forcing him to comply with their ideas of what should be done, and the "force" part came in the form of a gun at his head. Or perhaps it was a way of showing that anything Bush's administration does to another country is going to come back at them someday. Or something else along that line. Who knows.

Also, if someone's stupid enough to try and assassinate a president simply because they saw it done in a piece of artwork, I wouldn't blame the artist for that one, I'd blame the person who attempted the assassination for being stupid enough to do something just 'cause they saw it somewhere.

Angela

 

[BVS]

Yes, there is a gun pointed at Bush's head, but does that automatically mean that they're promoting assassination of the president? That gun to his head could mean a number of things-perhaps the artist is saying that Bush himself isn't in charge of everything here, that all the other people in the administration, such as Cheney or Rumsfeld or someone like that, were forcing him to comply with their ideas of what should be done, and the "force" part came in the form of a gun at his head. Or perhaps it was a way of showing that anything Bush's administration does to another country is going to come back at them someday. Or something else along that line. Who knows.

Oh, no we can't have other interpretations this isn't art this is hate.

Also, if someone's stupid enough to try and assassinate a president simply because they saw it done in a piece of artwork, I wouldn't blame the artist for that one, I'd blame the person who attempted the assassination for being stupid enough to do something just 'cause they saw it somewhere.

Angela

Ok that's it, I'm reporting you, I think you may be a threat.

 

[financeguy]

Ironic you quoted only the part that had to do with the failed California law. Just to clarify.

What are you on about? You didn't make clear it was a failed law, the impression given was that the test had been created by the Supreme Court. Anyway I was just being humorous, no need to get uptight.

 

[verte76]

Couldn't a similar case be made to make the Ku Klux Klan illegal? They're always yelling and screaming violent stuff. Obviously I've never been to a Klan rally, but there's no telling what their speakers say. I think they are a bunch of holes, but hey, don't ban them. The only group in the United States that wants to make the Klan illegal is the Communist Party.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Along with your hatred of anything liberal one other thing is made clear by this post; you are not an artist.

I think you missed my point. Yes, I draw and make computer art by the way. My point is this - take your most negative, hateful thought and express it, then refer to it as "art" and you will probably get away with it. Is it wrong for me to dislike the picture, and care less if it is intervened by the secret service? And since when is assassinating the president a "liberal" thing? Because if that's the case, then yes, I hate anything liberal.

 

[BVS]

I think you missed my point. Yes, I draw and make computer art by the way. My point is this - take your most negative, hateful thought and express it, then refer to it as "art" and you will probably get away with it.

Art is expression. Sometimes revealing your darkest feelings will curb you from actually acting out. That's one of the things art is.

Is it wrong for me to dislike the picture, and care less if it is intervened by the secret service?

No, you can dislike anything you want. But it shouldn't be censored or investigated. You should care about censorship, because if this is first your religious views aren't far behind.

And since when is assassinating the president a "liberal" thing? Because if that's the case, then yes, I hate anything liberal.

No, it's the fact that you always have to throw some type of reference about anyone's who's anti-bush as a pot smoker or immoral, etc. That gets old.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Being disgusted with the thought of an assassination is NOT a religious concept. It's a reasonable concept, and it should be a universally rational concept. Those of you who deny that it's an assassination, would you mind passing whatever it is you're drinking over here? Come on! It couldn't be more obvious, and I sit here laughing at the irrational excuses of what it "could" be. Would a liberal make a statement that the patriot act isn't doing enough to protect us? Use your head! A liberal would be more inclined to make a statement that it's an invasion of privacy. By the way, if thinking the same way about the Klan makes me a commie, count me in. I have presented examples directly quoted from my business law textbook that state that not every form of speech is protected by the First Amendment. To further pound in the truth, you can't say "bomb" on an airplane. If you do not like these laws, you are free to ramble all you want, but remember that defamation is not always protected. Some like myself consider this defamation.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

What are you on about? You didn't make clear it was a failed law, the impression given was that the test had been created by the Supreme Court. Anyway I was just being humorous, no need to get uptight.

When it's a Me vs. Everyone Else line up, I do what I need to prevent anyone else to get carried away. I just wanted to clarify, although, yes, I realize you were being humorous. Sorry if I was overly uptight.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Yes, there is a gun pointed at Bush's head, but does that automatically mean that they're promoting assassination of the president? That gun to his head could mean a number of things-perhaps the artist is saying that Bush himself isn't in charge of everything here, that all the other people in the administration, such as Cheney or Rumsfeld or someone like that, were forcing him to comply with their ideas of what should be done, and the "force" part came in the form of a gun at his head.

What does this have to do with the Patriot Act?

Also, if someone's stupid enough to try and assassinate a president simply because they saw it done in a piece of artwork, I wouldn't blame the artist for that one, I'd blame the person who attempted the assassination for being stupid enough to do something just 'cause they saw it somewhere.

Obviously I'd blame the assassin first and foremost as well. However, if there was a way to prevent the assassination from happening, that didn't hurt anyone except the feelings of a treason-bound high schooler, than why not?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Heh, BVS .

What does this have to do with the Patriot Act?

...you weren't referring to the Patriot Act in the post I quoted there, you were referring to artwork. At least, that's what I read it as-if I misread your post, I apologize.

Also, we aren't "smoking" anything. Perhaps the artist did express the idea of assassinating the president, but we're just trying to point out that things aren't always what they automatically appear to be, that art can have many different interpretations to it, too. You'll see support for assassination of the president, whereas someone else could see something totally different.

And nobody here is saying they aren't disgusted by the concept of assassinations-if you'll recall, lots of people here said they thought that that was a dumb idea for a piece of artwork to begin with (assuming, of course, once again, that that's even what they were saying with that piece). It's just that while we may think the concept for the art piece is dumb, we still don't support it, along with art of any other kind, being censored. That doesn't comply with the concept of free speech that America prides itself on.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Obviously I'd blame the assassin first and foremost as well. However, if there was a way to prevent the assassination from happening, that didn't hurt anyone except the feelings of a treason-bound high schooler, than why not?

Well, censoring a piece of artwork sure wouldn't be the way to solve the problem. Sure, the artwork may be gone, but that doesn't mean the thoughts are gone, too. Get to the root of the problem, which may lie in the kid's mind, or in the policies of the government, or whatever. Don't go around censoring things-like I said, all that does is sweep the problem under the rug and make it look like it doesn't exist.

Angela