Finn dAbuzz wrote:
This isn't a question of freedom.
To the extent that someone censored an art piece, that was one among many, this is about freedom of expression. Because someone finds a painting objectionable does not give that person a right to censor it for others.
If Rep Hunter and his fellows were attempting to ban the painting from ever being shown anywhere, it would be.
I doubt it. This painting won a contest in Baltimore. There is nothing obscene about the painting and had they not removed it in the first place, I doubt we'd even know of it's existence.
Smoking pot is now legal in DC (something I'm personally not against) but does that mean the government must allow anyone who enters the Capital the freedom to smoke a joint?
If they have a contest where someone has to smoke pot in the most creative way possible and then that person wins a contest juried by other pot smokers that was sponsored by their congressman, sure. They should be allowed in the Capital bldg and smoke pot all day. I think smoking is banned in doors though so that would probably be a sticking point.
I don't have a major objection to this artwork being displayed, (I think its lousy art but by taste isn't a criterion) but I respect those who do and the Capitol is a symbol of E Pluribus Unum as much as it is of freedom. As such, it should avoid the display of any artwork that obviously engenders marked division among the polity. That's really not such a hard row to hoe.
Yes it is. Who gets to judge what engenders marked division?
Do you find this painting offensive?
I bet there are more than a few people who find Columbus landing in the new world quite offensive. His enslavement and mutilation of the natives he found,
should be enough to warrant that no painting depicting his "heroism" should be in the Capital bldg, right? Yet there is, right in the Rotunda of all places!
So, who do we want to decide what is art and what isn't? What gets to stay and what has to go? I never thought you'd have been one for censorship.