Freedom of Speech or Something More Sinister?
 

A controversial art exhibit was raided and shut down before it could be viewed in NYC yesterday.

According to the NY Times blog: Cityroom, Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama”.

The artist thought his racist views were protected under the Constitution because he was expressing himself through his art. Wrong.

Not 30 minutes after Arboleda set up the gallery across the street from the New York Times building, police, feds and secret service swooped in to shut the art exhibit down. While police covered the offensive storefront window with brown paper, Arboleda was led away in handcuffs to be “interrogated”.

Arboleda, 27, learned the hard way that freedom has its limits. Later, in an interview, he said: “It’s art. It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media.” He added, “It’s about the media.”

http://sandrarose.com/2008/06/05/the...ism/#more-1362

that's horrible

Do you think he really intended the exhibit to be an artistic take on "character assassination?"

Seeing the pictures of the exhibit, i don't think that was the guys intention at all. It was very wrong to say the least.

I was only offended by the picture of his children and the caption.

I would have like to have seen the Hillary gallery as well.

All in all, this isn't as repulsive to me as the chick who was allegedly giving herself miscarriages.

I am not saying people don't have the right to their own opinions about it -- I support his right to create as well as the rights of the dissenters.

I was more amused by his depiction of a large black penis.

He should've kept this as a blog, if for no other reason than it being an entertainingly PERSONAL reflection.

I am ignoring you now. Thanks.

The fear of the big black phallus strikes again.

it doesn't matter if he did or not

his right to express himself was squashed and so was my right to see it

This censorship is absolutely ridiculous. Unless there is somewhere he outlined a plan of assassinating or harming either one of them, no action should of been taking. This is Bull. If you are offended, good, its art, its suppose to effect you... but other than effecting those who view the art, they should have evidence that he was actually going to cause damage in somewhere if the police were going to take action.

exactly

Eh...it matters for the sake of discussion in this thread.

not really....he said "I want to express this" and was denied that right, and I was the denied my right to see it. Whether he meant what he expressed or whether anyone gets it doesn't really matter at all.

It's a clear violation of the first amendment.

So do you think he really meant it as "character assassination" or was he bullshytin'?

I'm a pretty big proponent of the 1st Amendment, but anyone with a breath should know that you do not put the word "assassination" anywhere in the same vicinity of someone under secret service protection. They take that pretty darn seriously. And the guy didn't do himself any favors by bolding just the word "assassination" in red. Based on the pictures, they did mainly seem just stupidly offensive (I agree that using the picture of his daughters was way below the belt and the penises pointing to the "Once you go Barack..." saying, I mean really, that's bordering on juvenile), but the nooses hanging everywhere and the painting with Obama in the foreground and the image of RFK ominously over his shoulder probably were more than a little over the line. And I agree, it would have been interesting to see the Hillary pictures, I can only imagine the level of misogyny on display.... His saying this is about the media is a cop-out -- if he's truly an artist who wants the right to his expression, then at least admit to what you're expressing.

And that's exactly why I'm wondering the point behind saying "I was talking about character assassination." I hate people who have the audacity to do something and then bullshyt about their motive or what they did.

I'm saying either way, it was illegal and immoral for the pigs to shut him down

this time it was art you didn't like (or more accurately, art you don't think you would have liked, as your right to see it was taken away)

next time it might be a song or a book

as far as the artists is concerned, he seems like a wretched human being, but he 's still an artist, has the right to make and show whatever art he wants, and I have the right to see it.

Nevermind, RU OX Alum.

Nevermind why?

Are you agreeing to disagree?

No, we have to be talking about the same thing to disagree.

In a nice way, I was telling you to sit your butt down if you aren't going to answer my question.

I answered your question. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE ART IS "SINCERE" OR NOT IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE PROTECTED

You're the one trying to bring in all these qualifiers. None of them matter.

If they shut this down, there is NOTHING to stop them from shutting down other exhibits, plays, music gatherings, etc.

And if you're not offended that your rights were violated, I have serious doubts as to your patriotism.

Here we go.

No.

It was taken there. Don't blame me.

fyp

RU OX Alum, I really don't know what you're talking about.

You're searching for something that I'm not offering right now. Sorry to disappoint you.

Sure there are. Every right has reasonable restrictions placed on it. Not sure this qualifies, but I don't think your assertion is correct.

It is very sensationalist exhibit but I don’t think it should have been shutdown.

There was a similar incident in Houston; the Secret Service inspected an exhibit at the Art Car Museum after they received reports of anti American Activity. They didn’t shut the museum down however.

I totally understand and support the secret service investigating perceived/alleged threats against high level government officials but does censorship really prevent an assassination attempt?

I'm confused? :confused:

How did he get 2 XXXL pictures of an erect Black looking penis with all the vessels protruding photos printed? Wouldn't that raise some freaky-deaky red flag to Homeland Security? Would that in the patriot act? http://www.pledgepark.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

Is it just me, or does the "artist's" name sound like a minority name? Maybe I'm wrong for this, but it really bothers me when one "minority" group has beef with another...at the end of the day we are all minorities...Or maybe he is just venting because neither candidate is from his particular ethnic group:confused:

ROTFLMAO!!! You are too much. Maybe he went into Fedex/Kinkos and said, "Could you please print this really big penis for me just this once http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/i...nocent0001.gif

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.