Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see you don't know where the words about freedom of expression are found so you beat your forehead to a pulp.
I see you could go back to school to learn that the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of speech isn't restricted to the spoken word, or even the printed word.
Of course, if you have the legal cojones to go up against the Supreme Court's numerous rulings protecting free expression, knock yourself out.
While on the topic of "those words aren't in the Constitution", please take time to call up the Secretary of Defense and tell him to disband the United States Air Force.
I voted yes because so much of that crap is done with money from the NEA and that is my tax money. I consider anything created like that to be wrong and it should be destroyed. Oh wait a minute, only artists and others like them have freedom of expression. Which part of the Constitution says anything about freedom of expression? Just wondering since I have never seen the word there, anywhere.
Not the constitution, although sometimes thought to be part of the 1st Amendment. Instead this right is found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights See article 19.
The "Jesus 'porno' art" is protected free speech. The woman's reaction was unfortunate. But then again, her reaction was likely anticipated by the artist and, perhaps, even hoped for. If that was the case, she and her actions became a part of the artpiece.
Plexiglas or any other means of protecting the artwork does not invalidate my statement. If anything, the fact that it was behind plexiglas could be indicative that he knew people would attack it.
Plexiglas or any other means of protecting the artwork does not invalidate my statement. If anything, the fact that it was behind plexiglas could be indicative that he knew people would attack it.
That could be the case and it also could be indicative that he didn't want it to be attacked and was taking precautions. I know thats a difficult concept to grasp, that an "artist" doesn't want his "art" to be destroyed, but more often than not thats the case.
And even IF he did want it destroyed that doesn't make what the lady did legal or alright. She destroyed his personal property. But that doesn't matter either though does it?
That could be the case and it also could be indicative that he didn't want it to be attacked and was taking precautions. I know thats a difficult concept to grasp, that an "artist" doesn't want his "art" to be destroyed, but more often than not thats the case.
And even IF he did want it destroyed that doesn't make what the lady did legal or alright. She destroyed his personal property. But that doesn't matter either though does it?
I didn't say its destruction was legal or right.
And, we don't know what he wanted. I don't endorse its destruction but I'm not surprised that it occurred and neither should he. It is a controversial subject, after all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
