Freedom of Speech or Something More Sinister?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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

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.

And, imvho, no candidate should have SS protection

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

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.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

the slope gets slippery faster than you think

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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

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.

the slope gets slippery faster than you think

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.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think you're seeing something that isn't there. ..... 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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

maybe so, for this particular case

but because this happened, it will be easier next time

This is bad argument, RU - this is an opinion, not a factual assertion, unless you can support it.

Similar to your opining that "the slope gets slippery faster than you think," I don't think you can really back that up - the system seems to work OK right now, after about 230 years of refinement and attack, you know?