A civilized reaction!

beatnic

This is how a civilized society deals with blasphemy.
Or maybe we should attack an Embassy?

http://campaigns.americaneedsfatima.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=453&email=reritchie@gmail.com&fname=Robert&lname=Ritchie&treat=Mr.&utm_source=E0509&utm_medium=email&utm_term=E0509&utm_content=E0509&utm_campaign=21533

jthanatos

Haven't read it yet, here is a clickable link

beatnic

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/09/27/piss-christ-returns-to-new-york-along-with-piss-moses/

This says it more elegantly than I do.

JDH

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

jthanatos

JDH:

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

It is only censorship if there is a law against showing it. If you note the letter they are asking the museum to not show it, not to make it illegal. A private entity has every right to decide what speech is and is not allowed in their establishment. And the groups opposed are going about it the right way saying with their speech that they don't want to see this speech posted and it will affect their monetary choices now and in the future.

JDH

jthanatos:

JDH:

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

It is only censorship if there is a law against showing it. If you note the letter they are asking the museum to not show it, not to make it illegal. A private entity has every right to decide what speech is and is not allowed in their establishment. And the groups opposed are going about it the right way saying with their speech that they don't want to see this speech posted and it will affect their monetary choices now and in the future.

Websters says:

Definition of CENSOR 1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

It appears to me that this group is attempting censorship. Though I agree that their method is admirable, their goal is, nonetheless, to censor this "art".

beatnic

JDH:

jthanatos:

JDH:

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

It is only censorship if there is a law against showing it. If you note the letter they are asking the museum to not show it, not to make it illegal. A private entity has every right to decide what speech is and is not allowed in their establishment. And the groups opposed are going about it the right way saying with their speech that they don't want to see this speech posted and it will affect their monetary choices now and in the future.

Websters says:

Definition of CENSOR 1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

It appears to me that this group is attempting censorship. Though I agree that their method is admirable, their goal is, nonetheless, to censor this "art".

Its more civilized than violence.

JDH

beatnic:

JDH:

jthanatos:

JDH:

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

It is only censorship if there is a law against showing it. If you note the letter they are asking the museum to not show it, not to make it illegal. A private entity has every right to decide what speech is and is not allowed in their establishment. And the groups opposed are going about it the right way saying with their speech that they don't want to see this speech posted and it will affect their monetary choices now and in the future.

Websters says:

Definition of CENSOR 1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

It appears to me that this group is attempting censorship. Though I agree that their method is admirable, their goal is, nonetheless, to censor this "art".

Its more civilized than violence.

Nearly everything is more civilized than violence, but it's still censorship. The jihadists also seek censorship, but they use violence to accomplish it.

jthanatos

JDH:

jthanatos:

JDH:

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

It is only censorship if there is a law against showing it. If you note the letter they are asking the museum to not show it, not to make it illegal. A private entity has every right to decide what speech is and is not allowed in their establishment. And the groups opposed are going about it the right way saying with their speech that they don't want to see this speech posted and it will affect their monetary choices now and in the future.

Websters says:

Definition of CENSOR 1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

It appears to me that this group is attempting censorship. Though I agree that their method is admirable, their goal is, nonetheless, to censor this "art".

So, if someone asks me to put up a Cubs poster in my yard, and I don't because I am a Cards fan... I am censoring them? Or, in this case, I don't care one way or another, but my neighbors don't like it, and politely ask me to take it down, it is censorship?

A person is completely free to express what they want it art. I am completely free to not look at it, and to say I don't want to see it places I go. To use a "ripped from the headlines" example, I would never advocate anything being done to 'Sam Bacile' for his sh!t film, but I sure as heck am not going to support showing it and do my best not to support anyone that does show it with my money.

JDH

jthanatos:

JDH:

jthanatos:

JDH:

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

It is only censorship if there is a law against showing it. If you note the letter they are asking the museum to not show it, not to make it illegal. A private entity has every right to decide what speech is and is not allowed in their establishment. And the groups opposed are going about it the right way saying with their speech that they don't want to see this speech posted and it will affect their monetary choices now and in the future.

Websters says:

Definition of CENSOR 1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

It appears to me that this group is attempting censorship. Though I agree that their method is admirable, their goal is, nonetheless, to censor this "art".

So, if someone asks me to put up a Cubs poster in my yard, and I don't because I am a Cards fan... I am censoring them? Or, in this case, I don't care one way or another, but my neighbors don't like it, and politely ask me to take it down, it is censorship?

A person is completely free to express what they want it art. I am completely free to not look at it, and to say I don't want to see it places I go. To use a "ripped from the headlines" example, I would never advocate anything being done to 'Sam Bacile' for his sh!t film, but I sure as heck am not going to support showing it and do my best not to support anyone that does show it with my money.

Just re-read the definitionof censor: "to suppress or delete as objectionable". Is that not what the group in question is doing? If there is a market for this "art" or that film, and you or I use whatever influence we may have to prevent others from being able to see it, I believe that is a form of censorship, or attempted censorship. However, I believe the film has crossed a line and can and should be considered to be treason, and therefore, the persons responsible for it should be held accountable ...but that's another issue altogether

jthanatos

JDH:

jthanatos:

JDH:

jthanatos:

JDH:

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

It is only censorship if there is a law against showing it. If you note the letter they are asking the museum to not show it, not to make it illegal. A private entity has every right to decide what speech is and is not allowed in their establishment. And the groups opposed are going about it the right way saying with their speech that they don't want to see this speech posted and it will affect their monetary choices now and in the future.

Websters says:

Definition of CENSOR 1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

It appears to me that this group is attempting censorship. Though I agree that their method is admirable, their goal is, nonetheless, to censor this "art".

So, if someone asks me to put up a Cubs poster in my yard, and I don't because I am a Cards fan... I am censoring them? Or, in this case, I don't care one way or another, but my neighbors don't like it, and politely ask me to take it down, it is censorship?

A person is completely free to express what they want it art. I am completely free to not look at it, and to say I don't want to see it places I go. To use a "ripped from the headlines" example, I would never advocate anything being done to 'Sam Bacile' for his sh!t film, but I sure as heck am not going to support showing it and do my best not to support anyone that does show it with my money.

Just re-read the definitionof censor: "to suppress or delete as objectionable". Is that not what the group in question is doing? If there is a market for this "art" or that film, and you or I use whatever influence we may have to prevent others from being able to see it, I believe that is a form of censorship, or attempted censorship. However, I believe the film has crossed a line and can and should be considered to be treason, and therefore, the persons responsible for it should be held accountable ...but that's another issue altogether

So does that mean all censorship is not bad? Another far out example. You make a sign that says "Jthanatos is a stupid git" and have it posted at Whiskyfest. I would really not see a sign calling me a stupid git, so I ask those in charge to take it down. Is that censorship? Is it bad censorship?

fla-gypsy

Calling that art is a bit of a stretch I think. Every society practices some censorship and ALL speech is not acceptable even in an open society.

JDH

jthanatos:

JDH:

jthanatos:

JDH:

jthanatos:

JDH:

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

It is only censorship if there is a law against showing it. If you note the letter they are asking the museum to not show it, not to make it illegal. A private entity has every right to decide what speech is and is not allowed in their establishment. And the groups opposed are going about it the right way saying with their speech that they don't want to see this speech posted and it will affect their monetary choices now and in the future.

Websters says:

Definition of CENSOR 1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

It appears to me that this group is attempting censorship. Though I agree that their method is admirable, their goal is, nonetheless, to censor this "art".

So, if someone asks me to put up a Cubs poster in my yard, and I don't because I am a Cards fan... I am censoring them? Or, in this case, I don't care one way or another, but my neighbors don't like it, and politely ask me to take it down, it is censorship?

A person is completely free to express what they want it art. I am completely free to not look at it, and to say I don't want to see it places I go. To use a "ripped from the headlines" example, I would never advocate anything being done to 'Sam Bacile' for his sh!t film, but I sure as heck am not going to support showing it and do my best not to support anyone that does show it with my money.

Just re-read the definitionof censor: "to suppress or delete as objectionable". Is that not what the group in question is doing? If there is a market for this "art" or that film, and you or I use whatever influence we may have to prevent others from being able to see it, I believe that is a form of censorship, or attempted censorship. However, I believe the film has crossed a line and can and should be considered to be treason, and therefore, the persons responsible for it should be held accountable ...but that's another issue altogether

So does that mean all censorship is not bad? Another far out example. You make a sign that says "Jthanatos is a stupid git" and have it posted at Whiskyfest. I would really not see a sign calling me a stupid git, so I ask those in charge to take it down. Is that censorship? Is it bad censorship?

This may be the heart of it. Should there be limits to free speech, (as the gypsy suggests) and does censorship always have a negative connotation (as you ask)?

I guess that all depends on the history of the society you live in. Our Supreme Court has upheld the rights of individuals to be hateful jackasses on many occasions. Given that history, attempts to supress expression is censorship in our society, but are the efforts of some to prevent or suppress outrageous speech (like this "art", or "the film", or the Westborough Baptist Church, or the KKK, etc.) a bad thing? Should there be limits to freedom of expression in a free society, or should the expression be tolerated, even though 99% would probably agree that some expression is distasteful, hateful, offensive, and often can even be destructive?

I'm no attorney, but I think the "stupid git" sign may be an example of why we have slander and libel laws.

jthanatos

JDH:

This may be the heart of it. Should there be limits to free speech, (as the gypsy suggests) and does censorship always have a negative connotation (as you ask)?

I guess that all depends on the history of the society you live in. Our Supreme Court has upheld the rights of individuals to be hateful jackasses on many occasions. Given that history, attempts to supress expression is censorship in our society, but are the efforts of some to prevent or suppress outrageous speech (like this "art", or "the film", or the Westborough Baptist Church, or the KKK, etc.) a bad thing? Should there be limits to freedom of expression in a free society, or should the expression be tolerated, even though 99% would probably agree that some expression is distasteful, hateful, offensive, and often can even be destructive?

I'm no attorney, but I think the "stupid git" sign may be an example of why we have slander and libel laws.

See, I think this is were the confusion sets in. They are not asking for a government law or action. That is the only thing the 1st amendment deals with, "Congress shall make no law...". All we are saying is private entities should be free to display or not display what they like, and, we should be free to tell them what we would like them to display or not display. TELL THEM, not force them.

I think this the crux of the whole previous treason debate. Piss Christ is protected speech, no matter how distasteful, and because those that dislike it are calmly signing petitions asking individual displays to remove it, it should stay protected. If someone made Piss Muhammad and people rioted, blowing up embassies, it would now be treason and should be removed by law? Now think of the lesson gleaned from this... If you call for removal by petition or by riot, you are a censor, and ridiculed. However, calling for removal by riot, your censorship will not only work, it will get the original maker sent to jail.

To summarize my belief, both Piss Christ and Piss Muhammad should be protected 1st amendment speech, but MY rights to say I don't want to see stuff like that and to not hang it in any art gallery I own should be equal to their rights to hang it wherever the owners allow.

Damn, how awesome would it be to own an art gallery? I would just wander around drinking Scotch all day pretending to know what I was talking about.

phobicsquirrel

JDH:

"Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and I'm convinced that in the end, somebody will not be pleased with the creation of this "art".

Personally, I find this "art" just about as distasteful and repugnant and disgusting and offensive as the Jonesborough Baptist Church, but in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued and protected, if repugnant speech is not protected, then no speech will be protected. I was not pleased that American Naz*s were allowed to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie, but I believe it says something about the strength of our values that we can allow this behavior to exist, because if they are free to demonstrate their hatred, then others are also allowed to demonstrate their Love for humanity. God Bless America.

Good luck with the censorship campaign, but the guys behind it are pissin in the wind.

Very true, that was F'd up though. However when a bunch of unarmed students and other people get the full force of police around the country for marching or protesting banks there is something wrong, especially when like you said american *** didn't get any of that.

Let us not forget that fucked up baptist church that protests at soldiers funerals. That is just sick.