Secret Service Probes Art Exhibit - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-13-2005, 05:14 PM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:04 PM
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 is online now  
Old 04-13-2005, 05:16 PM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
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...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-13-2005, 05:16 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:04 AM
The King Has No Clothes: But Saying So Might Land You In Prison


Quote:
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.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-13-2005, 05:18 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:04 PM
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)
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-13-2005, 05:40 PM   #35
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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)
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.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-13-2005, 05:53 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:04 PM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-13-2005, 09:46 PM   #37
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 11:04 AM
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.
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 04-13-2005, 09:59 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:04 PM
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
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 03:49 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 07:04 AM
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.
__________________
foray is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 06:17 AM   #40
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Is Guernica hate speech too then?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 06:22 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
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 is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 06:24 AM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

(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.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 06:30 AM   #43
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-14-2005, 06:30 AM   #44
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy



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!
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 06:50 AM   #45
The Fly
 
jessi-ma-ca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 259
Local Time: 04:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
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


Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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
__________________

__________________
jessi-ma-ca is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com