Freedom of Speech or Something More Sinister?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

I answered your question.

No.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DSTAlwaysRightAboutEverything

I've stated my opinion, so this thread should be closed now.

fyp

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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.

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

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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

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.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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)

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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)

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.

[AKA_Monet]

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

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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)

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

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.