They can deny it to you for other reasons, though. There are limits to everything, even one's right to express themselves.

Right but I don't think the issue was the he didn't have a permit. And it's not like it was outdoors and loud and in a park.

As far as he was being where he was, that is between him and the property owner/manager.

And seriously, if a permit like that was denied, the event would most likely still happen, just some place else.

First off, I wouldn't be too quick to say what the authorities did was "illegal." It's well established that even Free Speech has its limits, such as the well-known "you can't shoud 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." There are laws against threatening assasination, so it was appropriate for the authorities to investigate,.

Second, at least get you facts traight before you start excoriating the "pigs"; they didn't shut him down. From yesterday's NYTimes: Secret Service Detains Artist Over ‘Assassination’ Exhibit

Note a few relevant points (emphasis mine):

New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents briefly detained and questioned an artist on Wednesday morning as he installed an exhibition with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama.”

The artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up the exhibition in a vacant storefront at 264 West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan, and had finished stenciling letters of the title on the plate glass windows at street level.

The police and Secret Service agents arrived about 9:30 a.m., and building workers quickly covered over the title with large sheets of brown paper and masking tape.

. . . Shortly after 11:30 a.m., Mr. Arboleda called reporters to say he had been released. “The Secret Service had to do a whole questionnaire with me,” he said. “It was about an hour of questioning. They asked if I owned guns, if I was a violent person, if I had ever been institutionalized.”

Mr. Arboleda said he answered “no” to the questions. Nonetheless, he said, the Secret Service asked him to take down the exhibition’s title from the window.

. . . Special Agent Eric P. Zahren, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, emphasized in a telephone interview that the agency was not seeking to shut down the show.

“We did not shut down that exhibit or request that anybody else shut it down,” Agent Zahren said. “This was brought to our attention, we went out there and had a conversation with the individual, but we did not shut it down.”

Speaking to reporters around noon, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said Mr. Arboleda had been questioned because the police wanted to determine his motives. “Obviously, they could be interpreted as advocating harm to protectees,” Mr. Kelly said. “Both of the senators, of course, are now being provided Secret Service protection.”

. . . Comments touching on assassination during this political season have hit a nerve, and the safety of Senator Obama, the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee, has been an issue. When he was assigned Secret Service coverage in May 2007, it was the earliest point in a campaign that a candidate had been given protection.

With any freedom comes the responsibility. This guy should be thanking the police and Secret Service -- without them, his "art" wouldn't have gotten nearly as much attention.

:)

http://www.theassassinationofart.typepad.com/

actually they did shut it down

they took things down from the walls and covered the windows


whether they uncovered the windows and put things back up doesn't change the fact that (at least for a while) they shut him down

He should not be thanking them. They gave him the publicity because of their own actions.

And, imvho, no candidate should have SS protection

I don't see anything in the NYTimes article or in the Sandra Rose blog entry that says that anything was taken down from the walls, just that workers (or, says Rose, police) covered the lettering on the window temporarily.

Read carefully. They detained him on Wednesday morning. The show was set to open on Thursday. They did not shut him down -- at most they delayed his completing the installation of the exhibit by a few hours, because that's what he was doing on Wednesday.

IMVHO, no candidate should need SS protection. But welcome to the real world (where, it just so happens, today is June 6.)

ETA: It didn't sink in with me until I gave the link for June 6 that this show was to open (and the NYTimes article makes it sound like it was maybe only going to be open for one day) on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. He died 40 years ago today, but he was shot 40 years ago yesterday. I'm thinking that wasn't a coincidence.

The 40th anniversary of his assassination has been discussed for the past week in the media. It reminds us of what happens when there is a threat of change.

It is really interesting that someone would say that candidates shouldn't have SS protection, in light of the assassination of public figures.

Yes, I've heard some good stories on it, and it has taken me back to remembering watching his funeral on TV. I just hadn't put the pieces together as far as this story went.

'Course, some would say that Hillary Clinton brought Kennedy's assassination up first.

they still took him away from his work by force....still wrong

the slope gets slippery faster than you think

This artist could've conveyed the point in a much more effective manner without all the confusion. He chose not to and took the risk. He found out the consequences. Oh well.

Thanks for posting that link, it was pretty interesting. I actually find myself very much in agreement with this section:
And I loved the description (and pictures) of the friends carrying sections of the big penis photo all around town.

While we may disagree on whether taking him away from his work for questioning was wrong, that's a completely different issue from whether his First Amendment rights were violated.

Don't worry -- I know the slippery slope well.

I also know that sometimes there's more (or maybe less) to the story than what initially appears in the news or on a blog.

all these points are valid

although I disagree. I think that by taking him away from his work, just the timing of it, makes it seem like something was fishy about it. Like, if they acted as soon as he started, then I would agree that questioning him about wouldn't violate the first amendment, but the night before it opens when he was finishing work on it makes it seem to me (maybe not apparent to everyone, but I see it) as a [possible] attempt to keep the show from going, which would be censorship.

I think you're seeing something that isn't there. They detained him the morning before the exhibit was to open, when the work he was finishing was to put the name of the exhibit on the windows. Until the guy started putting the name up, it seems relatively safe to assume that nobody knew much if anything about the exhibit -- even the landlord said he didn't know anything about the exhibit until it actually went up. Once he put the title on the windows, others could see his "assassination theme." The police and SS came when they heard about it -- pretty promptly, it appears -- to question him and make sure there wasn't anything more to it than art.

They didn't ask him to remove or close the exhibit. I just don't think there's more to it.

maybe so, for this particular case

but because this happened, it will be easier next time