Secret Service Probes Art Exhibit

[MrsSpringsteen]

CHICAGO - The Secret Service sent agents to investigate a college art gallery exhibit of mock postage stamps, one depicting President Bush with a gun pointed at his head.

The exhibit, called "Axis of Evil: The Secret History of Sin," opened last week at Columbia College in Chicago. It features stamps designed by 47 artists addressing issues such as the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal, racism and the war in Iraq.

None of the artists is tied to the college.

Secret Service spokesman Tom Mazur would not say Tuesday whether the inquiry had been completed or whom the Secret Service had interviewed, but he said no artwork had been confiscated.

The investigation began after authorities received a call from a Chicago resident.

"We need to ensure, as best we can, that this is nothing more than artwork with a political statement," Mazur said.

Two federal agents arrived at the exhibit's opening night Thursday, took photos of some of the works and asked for the artists' contact information, said CarolAnn Brown, the gallery's director.

Brown said the agents were most interested in Chicago artist Al Brandtner's work titled "Patriot Act," which depicted a sheet of mock 37-cent red, white and blue stamps showing a revolver pointed at Bush's head.

Brandtner did not return a call to his design studio Tuesday.

The exhibit's curator, Michael Hernandez de Luna, said the inquiry "frightens" him.

"It starts questioning all rights, not only my rights or the artists' rights in this room, but questioning the rights of any artist who creates — any writer, any visual artist, any performance artist. It seems like we're being watched," he said.

Last spring, Secret Service agents in Washington state questioned a high school student about anti-war drawings he did for an art class, one of which depicted Bush's head on a stick.

 

[financeguy]

Yep, the thin edge of the neo-fascist wedge.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Or those dastardly laws that demand that threats of pretty much any nature get investigated. It does seem over the top but those procedures do exist for good reason. When the exhibit gets closed down by the government or the exhibit pulled for it's content I would get worried.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

How is art depicting a stamp a threat? Couldn't you take that and run and start reading things into so many works of art?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

How is art depicting a stamp a threat? Couldn't you take that and run and start reading things into so many works of art?

IT is not directly a threat, but some things are better left unsaid and unexpressed. Art should never be confused with hate. I don't blame the secret service agents at all.

 

[Se7en]

IT is not directly a threat, but some things are better left unsaid and unexpressed.

are you suggesting censorship would be appropriate here?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

are you suggesting censorship would be appropriate here?

For hate speech, why wouldn't it be? Am I wrong for not defending the scum of the earth?

 

[financeguy]

IT is not directly a threat, but some things are better left unsaid and unexpressed.

But what things? And more importantly, who decides?

 

[financeguy]

For hate speech, why wouldn't it be? Am I wrong for not defending the scum of the earth?

If I was an artist, and I wanted to make an artistic commentary about the Patriot Act, then I certainly wouldn't have done so by means of an image of a gun pointing at Bush's head. It is gratuitious and not even very good art.

But as to whether such an image would qualify as hate speech, I'm not really sure.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

But what things? And more importantly, who decides?

Glad you asked. For one thing, I find hate speech appalling. There are ways to make a political statement without sending the message that it would be patriotic to assassinate the president. I personally believe the people as a whole have the right to decide in a democracy, but hatred in particular does not sit well with me.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

If I was an artist, and I wanted to make an artistic commentary about the Patriot Act, then I certainly wouldn't have done so by means of an image of a gun pointing at Bush's head. It is gratuitious and not even very good art.

But as to whether such an image would qualify as hate speech, I'm not really sure.

Then what is it?

 

[Se7en]

For hate speech, why wouldn't it be? Am I wrong for not defending the scum of the earth?

first, i find your assumption that the artist is necessarily "the scum of the earth" laughable.

second, i believe our constitution calls for freedom of speech, not freedom from speech. right?

 

[financeguy]

Then what is it?

Well too be honest I don't know enough about the relevant hate speech or hate crime legislation, vis a vis rights to freedom of expression, to be able to judge. I suppose ultimately it may be tested in the law courts at this stage. As I said, as a work of art it pretty much sucked.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

first, i find your assumption that the artist is necessarily "the scum of the earth" laughable.

I find it laughable that people consider it "art." The intention is not appreciation itself, but to charge negative, hateful thoughts on the president.

Originally posted by Se7en
second, i believe our constitution calls for freedom of speech, not freedom from speech. right?

Yes, but it does not protect HATE SPEECH.

 

[Se7en]

could you point out where that distinction is written then?

also, how can you be so sure that this is an attempt to "charge" thoughts in others rather than a personal statement?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

could you point out where that distinction is written then?

My Business Law book. It is not with me at the moment, but later tonight, I'll be happy to type it out for you.

Originally posted by Se7en also, how can you be so sure that this is an attempt to "charge" thoughts in others rather than a personal statement? [/B]

If you don't see how this "artist" had any malicious intent, I don't know how to break it to you that a fifth grader is capable of drawing better than this.

 

[Se7en]

My Business Law book. It is not with me at the moment, but later tonight, I'll be happy to type it out for you.

no, that won't be necessary. you've more than answered my question already. thanks anyway.

If you don't see how this "artist" had any malicious intent, I don't know how to break it to you that a fifth grader is capable of drawing better than this. [/B]

all i'm saying is that you don't know what his/her intent was. neither do i. so it's silly to jump all over it. personally, it does nothing for me. i'm neither moved to defend or support the artist his/herself. it's the censorship issue that bothers me more than anything. i don't really think there is any cause for shutting this down, barring some random hate crime law i suppose...which would be a little silly in my opinion.

also, i am 22 and couldn't draw that well.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/18.html

Group Libel, Hate Speech.--In Beauharnais v. Illinois,104 relying on dicta in past cases,105 the Court upheld a state group libel law which made it unlawful to defame a race or class of people. The defendant had been convicted under this statute after he had distributed a leaflet, a part of which was in the form of a petition to his city government, taking a hard-line white supremacy position and calling for action to keep African Americans out of white neighborhoods. Justice Frankfurter for the Court sustained the statute along the following reasoning. Libel of an individual, he established, was a common-law crime and was now made criminal by statute in every State in the Union. These laws raise no constitutional difficulty because libel is within that class of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment. If an utterance directed at an individual may be the object of criminal sanctions, no good reason appears to deny a State the power to punish the same utterances when they are directed at a defined group, ''unless we can say that this is a willful and purposeless restriction unrelated to the peace and well-being of the State.''106 The Justice then reviewed the history of racial strife in Illinois to conclude that the legislature could reasonably fear substantial evils from unrestrained racial utterances. Neither did the Constitution require the State to accept a defense of truth, inasmuch as historically a defendant had to show not only truth but publication with good motives and for justifiable ends.107 ''Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech, it is unnecessary . . . to consider the issues behind the phrase 'clear and present danger.'''108

 

[financeguy]

Should a sledgehammer be used to crack a wall nut?

 

[Se7en]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...or abridging the freedom of speech. so which class of speech is not protected here? i don't see any distinctions. are you suggesting that some activist judge is interpreting constitution to fit his agenda?!?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

...or abridging the freedom of speech. so which class of speech is not protected here? i don't see any distinctions. are you suggesting that some activist judge is interpreting constitution to fit his agenda?!?

The same argument could be used - although ineffectively - against gun control.

If these stamps had a homosexual in the place of President Bush with "Patriot Act" on it, would you see no need to restrict hate speech?

 

[verte76]

This is a difficult situation. I personally find the idea of drawing a picture of someone holding a gun to the President's head repulsive. But should this be *forbidden*? I don't think so. I would never do such a picture. But you don't tell someone not to draw or paint something that's not in the best of taste. You don't investigate an art department because you don't like something they put in an exhibition. That's too Orwellian.

 

[Se7en]

The same argument could be used - although ineffectively - against gun control.

If these stamps had a homosexual in the place of President Bush with "Patriot Act" on it, would you see no need to restrict hate speech?

it isn't so much a serious argument as it is a bit of irony.

personally, i think a more worthwhile venture is to try and attack problems at their root. i don't see how censorship does this. it's just a reaction to something you don't like. if someone put a gay person on the stamp, go out there and rally against them. make your voice for equal rights and respect be heard. don't restrict individual rights.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

When the speech is defamatory and hateful, I have issues with it. The goal of defamation is to stir people up, so in response, I wonder who gets hurt by a healthy amount of censorship. If this high schooler had half a heart, he would've kept his work at home instead.

 

[BVS]

If I was an artist, and I wanted to make an artistic commentary about the Patriot Act, then I certainly wouldn't have done so by means of an image of a gun pointing at Bush's head. It is gratuitious and not even very good art.

But it worked. It was a comment about the Patriot Act, and the government used such laws to investigate the art that spoke about those very such types of intrusion. The artist knew what he/she was doing.

 

[BVS]

Glad you asked. For one thing, I find hate speech appalling. There are ways to make a political statement without sending the message that it would be patriotic to assassinate the president. I personally believe the people as a whole have the right to decide in a democracy, but hatred in particular does not sit well with me.

Wow that's what you interpreted from that?

It could be a terrorist pointing a gun at the President and the artist making a comment how we have the patriot act to help stop such things.

It could be a comment on how the patriot act isn't really working since someone got past all security and roadblocks in order to get this close to the president with a gun.

I find your assumptions dangerous.

 

[BVS]

If these stamps had a homosexual in the place of President Bush with "Patriot Act" on it, would you see no need to restrict hate speech?

Could you have thought of a worse analogy?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I personally find the idea of drawing a picture of someone holding a gun to the President's head repulsive. But should this be *forbidden*? I don't think so. I would never do such a picture. But you don't tell someone not to draw or paint something that's not in the best of taste. You don't investigate an art department because you don't like something they put in an exhibition. That's too Orwellian.

I agree, that's how I feel about it. Remember that "piss Christ" art a few years ago? That disgusted me, but it does get weird/scary when people try to censor artistic expression. Art is supposed to be thought provoking and extreme sometimes. I prefer Monet and Renoir, but that's just me

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Wow that's what you interpreted from that?

It could be a terrorist pointing a gun at the President and the artist making a comment how we have the patriot act to help stop such things.

Yeah right. What would the probability of this be?

It could be a comment on how the patriot act isn't really working since someone got past all security and roadblocks in order to get this close to the president with a gun.

I find your assumptions dangerous.

Just as i find your "it could be anything that doesn't deliberately attack the president" rationality unfounded.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Could you have thought of a worse analogy?

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.