In no way is this true.

I can have an "artistic endeavor" of holding a gun to my head in Central Park, but unless I clear it with, say, the police etc. (getting permits, letting them know, roping off an area, putting up signs) to show that it is indeed a "sincere" effort, I will likely be taken into custody for my own care. I likely should be.

We can come up with numerous similar corner cases, but it's clear that you are taking your well-noted extreme Libertarian stance a bit too far here.

It 100% matters whether this was sincere, both in judging the validity of closing the display and in judging the "artist" herself.

What? I said this wrong, you asked me why, I told you why. I don't get what you're talking about either, then, in that case.

Thank you, drive through.

I figured that out, which is why I told you "nevermind." ;)

well yeah, you need a permit, but they can't deny you one just because they don't like it.

and if you went through with it, then it counts as an artistic effort, whether you mean it or not. You could be faking the motivation for holding a gun to your head, but you still have a right to due it (barring lack of proper paper-work of course)

hmm

maybe not right away, but it starts "well, this guy didn't mean it, so he's gone" and then a while later a few guys who it wasn't sure if they meant it, and they're "gone" and then anyone who does something not in line with "public morality" is somehow "gone" and by then it's too late. Think about it.

I think slippery slope arguments are often legitimate, but free speech, as of yet, had not been totally destroyed despite restrictions.

Of course, in Canada and Europe, something not in line with political correctness...

Perverts!!!

Dude probably already has HIV... That's why he wrote all that--suicide note, etc.


I know bad AKA Monet...

I agree w/ everything you said. The pics of his children were more than below the belt, IMO.

Here's the Hillary gallery...

http://www.theassassinationofhillaryclinton.com/

Thanks!

Within the full context of the Clinton/Obama exhibits together, it seems that the artist was talking about character assassination and not assassinating through killing. If the artist him/herself isn't expousing sexist and racist views, he/she could've been talking about the sexist and racist views of the media (and the nonmedia who participate in the character assassination).

Obama's exhibit had a stronger impact on me because the images were more powerful.

Thanks for posting that, it at least satisfied my curiosity. Honestly, I didn't think it was nearly as inflammatory as the Obama one. In fact, the thing that stood out the most to me was that he (or she?) still got in a racist dig on the Hillary side (the campaign posters wall).

"The cure to N*****itis."

I'm really curious if the artist will say he/she is making that statement or that he/she is depicting a media portrayal.

...and let's all remember...there are 2 asses in ASS ASS ination... ***heheheh***

...it only took one to create his 'art'

and the other is akin to opinions....

If you have to apply for a permit....pretty sure they can deny you one fairly easily. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they really don't have to tell you shit about why you aren't getting one either. I've been involved with getting permits to hold events in public and have been rejected before with no explanation.

Oh Chaos and Dionysus--yeah, PP--whoops, already there!!! LOL!!!