Freedom of Speech or Something More Sinister?

[DSTCHAOS]

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

[RU OX Alum]

that's horrible

[DSTCHAOS]

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

[wolffootball37]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

[Senusret I]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

Sometimes more than a mouthful is just too much.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Sometimes more than a mouthful is just too much.

I am ignoring you now. Thanks.

The fear of the big black phallus strikes again.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

it doesn't matter if he did or not

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

[a.e.B.O.T.]

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.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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

exactly

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

it doesn't matter if he did or not

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

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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'?

[nittanyalum]

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.