On Freedom of Speech

[DocFrance]

http://www.jeffconews.com/1editorial...-token.subpub=

In the city of Lakewood, about an hour away from me, they're having this publicly-funded art exhibit. On such exhibit sports the quote "A real coward is someone who drops a bomb from a protected space several thousand feet up." Some of you may remember that Bill Maher said this not long after the events of September 11. While it's all good that they can say these things without fear of punishment, it is still a flagrant insult to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice while flying in their so-called "protected space." Not to mention that the display is paid for with tax money.

Anyway, several citizens demanded that the display be removed, and the city council complied. However, the artist got the ACLU involved, and the display is being returned. The artist is also being given a formal apology.

My question is: should speech be protected when it is paid for with tax dollars or publicly funded? The Constitution basically divides controversial speech into two categories - protected and unprotected speech. Things like obscenity and threats are considered unprotected. Flag burning is considered portected. Should this display be publicly funded, or should it be in a private art exhibit (something I and many others have no qualms with)? Would it be considered protected speech if I were to drive up to Lakewood and apply my Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to this display?

And what if someone put up a display that had "Women belong in the kitchen" written on it?

[Raistlin]

I consider that speech, while being rephrehensible, to be protected. It is an act of peaceful protest. He has the right to state his opinion on current events, no matter how vile.
Yes, I believe that sort of thing should be protected.

I think the "women belong in the kitchen" should also be protected, but it's not - it would be considered "sexual harassment" even though men and women are supposedly equal(if a woman said something similarly derogatory about a man, nothing would happen). Those kinds of things are, I consider, political opinions.
However, you also have to look into the intent. If the "women belong in the kitchen" banner was waved outside of a women's organizational meeting or something, it could be considered a public disturbance - and that should not be protected. However, everybody has a right to have and to state their own opinions in a peaceful manner, which should always be protected.

[DocFrance]

I consider that speech, while being rephrehensible, to be protected. It is an act of peaceful protest. He has the right to state his opinion on current events, no matter how vile.
Yes, I believe that sort of thing should be protected.

If she wanted to put her exhibit on her front lawn, or march around the streets carrying a sign with that message one it, fine. However, this was on public property, paid for with local taxes. The people who shared that public property had the right to ask the city council to remove it, which they did. The ACLU should not have been involved, since her civil liberties were not being infringed. There is no "right to force the government to display your message."

[Raistlin]

If she wanted to put her exhibit on her front lawn, or march around the streets carrying a sign with that message one it, fine. However, this was on public property, paid for with local taxes. The people who shared that public property had the right to ask the city council to remove it, which they did. The ACLU should not have been involved, since her civil liberties were not being infringed. There is no "right to force the government to display your message."

Oh, so you can only say what you think on your own private property? What next? Removal of free speech from public schools?

Because it was public property, that means that the freedom of speech is in effect. If it was on private property, then there are private rules. Public property follows the rules of the law and the Constitution.

[DMKA]

What next? Removal of free speech from public schools?

There's free speech in public schools?

I think this should be protected. I drive on roads that are paid for with tax dollars, but I don't think I shouldn't be able to have a bumper sticker saying something similar. After all, those are also my tax dollars, as well as the person being discussed in that article.

[Big D]

Last year in my country, a former American citizen erected a sign declaring "America's shame: war criminal re-elected".
This sign angered another former American, who tore it down and was photographed in the act by a local newspaper. When questioned, he said that the sign was the work of "socialist, communist scum" and that he wasn't doing anything wrong by destroying it, merely exercising his "freedom of expression".

No-one's requiring everyone to like what others say. Disagreement is more productive when it is done without destroying what was originally said.[q=DocFrance]Anyway, several citizens demanded that the display be removed, and the city council complied. However, the artist got the ACLU involved, and the display is being returned. The artist is also being given a formal apology.

My question is: should speech be protected when it is paid for with tax dollars or publicly funded?[/q]An interesting question, but in this case I'd have to say "yes". Her work was, originally, given state approval and funding. The removal of her work came later, and it is that act of removal which could count as an erosion of her right to freedom of expression. If she was originally refused permission for the display, then it wouldn't be a problem. She'd be free to express herself through other means. But the removal of her exhibit took away a form of expression she'd already made.

Imagine if a different artist had made a different work with a different message. For instance, something criticising abortion as "mass murder" or defending it as a woman's right to choice. Would we be happy for such a work to be censored? Would the same furore arise? Too often, the emotion of a situation affects our ability to be objective about it. If it becomes acceptable to silence the voices of those who against whom a vociferous few raise a protest, then we'll be allowing extremists to influence what is or is not deemed 'acceptable' by the state.

Would it be considered protected speech if I were to drive up to Lakewood and apply my Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to this display?

There are other, better ways to disagree. After the "war criminal" sign incident I mentioned, the man behind the sign - as well as numerous letters to the editor - mentioned that if the disgruntled chap really cared about 'freedom of expression', he could simply have drawn up a sign of his own, disagreeing with what was in the original sign. But instead, he felt that his freedom of expression - as well as his political beliefs - were more valid and more worthy of recognition.

[Raistlin]

Oops, realized I missed a question.

Would it be considered protected speech if I were to drive up to Lakewood and apply my Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to this display?

Asbolutely not. It would be considered destruction of property - a crime.

[LH]

Should this be protected speech? Hell yeah. Dissent is the backbone of a free society. I am willing to fight for free speech.

Should we have to pay for something with our tax money that we do not support? Ideally, no. But the price you pay for funding artistic endeavors is that somewhere down the line there will be a publicly funded work of art that you don't agree with. The only way to prevent this would be to stop all funding completely, which is ridiculous. Maybe your tax dollars are supporting an artist who expresses opinions you don't agree with, and mine are supporting a war I don't agree with. That's just what happens in such a vast, diverse culture. It's not an ideal situation but it's as fair as it can get without stripping all government programs of funds altogether.

[fire_of_avalon]

I'm very confused. Was she contracted by the state to make a work? How was her art funded? Was it funded at all, or was it selected to be in the exhibit?

And she doesn't deserve an apology. There's nothing to apologize for. "I'm sorry we moved your rock for a while, but we were forced to put it back, even though we didn't want too. We were also forced to write this letter. Hope it makes you feel better. (Psych!) Love, Us fellers"

But if her art was just sitting there, not hurting anybody and not costing money, then yep, I think it should be left on exhibit. But if she was contracted by the government to do something artistic, well, I'm sure this wouldn't have happened at all. Even if her opinions aren't her own, and belong to that of a mainstream blabber who talks out both sides of his mouth.

If tax dollars weren't spent to create the art, then there's no valid reason for it's removal.

[LH]

If tax dollars weren't spent to create the art, then there's no valid reason for it's removal.

And if they were?

[Raistlin]

I think the state funded the entire exhibit itself - not the individual art stuff. Either way, it hardly matters.

[Casey]

IMO I hate the ACLU, but its why we have our first-amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly. ACLU defends what people say, like what Neo Nazis say, KKK, and what left wing nuts like what Ward Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc. I wish freedom of speech was limited, people cant say anti-american comments. But that signifys what a great country we live in today.

The ACLU even filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. They're a terrorist group, everything they say, and as much as the U.S. government does to protect us. They're not helping at all. They dont even have a plan for fighting the war on terror, so I dont even see how they can say somthing like that.

So as you can see, my opinions are heavily biased against the ACLU...

Should this display be publicly funded, or should it be in a private art exhibit (something I and many others have no qualms with)? Would it be considered protected speech if I were to drive up to Lakewood and apply my Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to this display?

The Sledge Hammer sounds like a good idea, though you might get in trouble.

[Big D]

[q=noname]what left wing nuts like what Whinsten Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc. [/q]Who? Winston Churchill was England's Prime Minister during the Second World War. Never heard of this Whinsten fellow.

The ACLU even filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional.

So if someone believes a law is unconstitutional, they should just put up with it? Like, if the state decides to re-introduce slavery?

They're a terrorist group, everything they say, and as much as the U.S. government does to protect us.

Opposing oppression and discrimination does not make one a terrorist group.... unless, of course, you believe that the US government is a terrorist group.

The Sledge Hammer sounds like a good idea, though you might get in trouble.

How about if someone took a sledge-hammer to a pro-war, pro-conquest, anti-Arab artwork?

[Casey]

[q=noname]what left wing nuts like what Whinsten Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc. [/q]Who? Winston Churchill

Not the former Prime Minister of England, he's dead. Though his parrot Charlie is still alive and well. . Im talking about the Ward Churchill that said comments about 'america deserving 9/11' and he is a Colorado proffesor.

So if someone believes a law is unconstitutional, they should just put up with it? Like, if the state decides to re-introduce slavery?Opposing oppression and discrimination does not make one a terrorist group.... unless, of course, you believe that the US government is a terrorist group.How about if someone took a sledge-hammer to a pro-war, pro-conquest, anti-Arab artwork?

No like I stated, what anyone says wither its the Churchill fellow from Colorado Universty blasting away how 'america deserved 9/11' to what that guy said about the Airforce. You have the right to say it, it just signifies what a great country we live in today.

And I still consider the ACLU a terrorist group, its just that what they did to Donald Rumsfeld filing a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. Im just repeating myself. Its just they dont even have a plan on the war on terror to began with, so what is their say? Enemy combatants deserve lawyers, its unconstitutional to be imprisoned without trial, when they're enemies of war! POWs.

And as far as the ACLU goes, I thought it was a organization apart from the government.

[The Captain]

I believe his name is Ward Churchill.

Just a question in passing, was Maher serious or making a joke? He is a comedian, and oftentimes, comedians make statements such as these to provoke or to stimulate, not really to be taken seriously.

Take care all.