Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Old Glory In The Toilet  
User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

Sacramento -- A painting of the United States sinking into a toilet now on display in the cafeteria of the state Department of Justice has raised the ire of the state Republican Party, which is demanding that Attorney General Bill Lockyer remove the image.

The painting -- part of an exhibit of more than 30 works by lawyer artists and pieces with overt legal themes -- has an American flag-painted continental United States heading into a toilet. Next to it are the words: "T'anks to Mr. Bush."


====

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...?f=/c/a/2005/07/20/BAGV0DQLCS1.DTL

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4638 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1668 times:

Does art work fall under the freedom of speech bit of the constitution?


Word
User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

Okay, this is in the state DOJ cafeteria... Yeah, and we wonder why OJ and Jacko got off. What a joke. I strongly disagree with the idea of partisan art being hung in a place where law is supposed to supercede race, religious, and political backgrounds. Whether it's art by Republican or Democrat lawyer/artists, any sort of overtly political theme should not be displayed in a building of law.


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7438 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 1):
Does art work fall under the freedom of speech bit of the constitution?

So if I go and urinate on this "lawyer artwork", am I protected under the right to freespeech?



Made from jets!
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1639 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
So if I go and urinate on this "lawyer artwork", am I protected under the right to freespeech?

No, because you would be damaging artwork owned by the artist. Destruction of property. If you wanted to recreate the artwork and then urinate on it - that would be okay.

QFF


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7438 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1632 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 4):
No, because you would be damaging artwork owned by the artist. Destruction of property. If you wanted to recreate the artwork and then urinate on it - that would be okay.

Oh well, can't blame a guy for trying.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1622 times:

I remember what happened back in 1989/1990 with the Chicago Art Institute student who got flamed for his "art work" of having the United States Flag on the ground for people to step on...it was HUGE news back then...all over the majour networks...

coicidentally, the Art Institute teacher there was my art teacher @ my also college back in 1990...couldn't stand her.....she didn't like me too much either, except for my "fuck happens" SoundGarden t-shirt that I used to wear in college..hehe..bit rebellious back then..



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

Since Republicans made the outcry on this (and, though, not a Republican, I can't stand it myself), I wonder what the outcry from would be if someone painted Hiliary Clinton's face on the porcelain on the inside-bottom of a toilet and tried to display it? Is that still freedom of speech? Both that and this described here are disgusting images, but would the outcry be the same? Would one be judged more harshly than the other? The answer is that the outcry would be different. Republicans would be indifferent (and some laughing) and Democrats would be flailing away. The point is, there's a line that's been crossed here - but, if not, and it's ok to make such representations, then where is the line drawn? Or is there a line? If some people want to have their freedom of speech expressed in such manner, then other people (like me) should have the freedom of speech to decry that use of it.

But then it ends up that whoever feels like they're on the short end of that confrontation cries that they've been wrongfully censored, and then it turns into more arguing and bitterness, and then finally it all dies down (just in time for it to be revived and rehashed here at Anet  biggrin  ).

-R


User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1609 times:

So now maybe the Republicans understand the point of view behind the Ten Commandments Issue? I find that putting both types of images/words in a court of law is tasteless.


"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 2):
Okay, this is in the state DOJ cafeteria... Yeah, and we wonder why OJ and Jacko got off. What a joke. I strongly disagree with the idea of partisan art being hung in a place where law is supposed to supercede race, religious, and political backgrounds.

Yet I'm sure you have no problem with the 10 commandments on display at the capitol?


User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 7):
Hiliary Clinton's

There is a HUGE difference between HRC and a sacred symbol.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 1):
Does art work fall under the freedom of speech bit of the constitution?

Unfortunately, a lot of stupid shit "falls" under the Freedom of Speech article of the US Constitution . . . taking a shit in public likely would too if done by some activist with his/her panties in a wad because some frickin' tree got cut down . . .

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
So if I go and urinate on this "lawyer artwork", am I protected under the right to freespeech

Gawddamn well better be - and I want to see all the same people that raised billy hell about the Quran and Gitmo jump in there to defend you - and when that happens, I'll be elected Pope, PotUS and Prime Ministrer of the UK, all at once.

There's something about the Stars and Stripes that obviously means more to some of us A-Netters than others . . .

Don't desecrate my Flag, or I'll have your ass . . . if course this is the internet, it ain't like I'm gonna fly to where you are and beat you up  wink .


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 1):
Does art work fall under the freedom of speech bit of the constitution?

VR, I think you might have missed the memo... effectively it said something to the effect of '9/11 has forced us to suspend the constitution, and common sense'.


User currently offlineGVBIG From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 4):
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
So if I go and urinate on this "lawyer artwork", am I protected under the right to freespeech?

No, because you would be damaging artwork owned by the artist. Destruction of property. If you wanted to recreate the artwork and then urinate on it - that would be okay.

Should be ok, as long as you don't get caught  Wink



Booked it, Packed it, f*cked off!
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

The flag can't just a a symbol of suppoting the nation. It also has to be a symbol, used in protest, of disagreeing with the government and the country.

If this stupid proposed Amenedment to ban flag burning ever became law, then the flag, and the liberty it represents, is cheapened, and those who say they're for liberty in support of such an amendment are liars.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

After nearly forty years of misguided, ill-considered legislation California is bankrupt (except for tax revenues they steal from outside the state) and worse, their silly-ass rules are bankrupting the individual counties.

Then they blame it all on Gray Davis.

Then they sweep Ahnold into office expecting, really believing, that he'd fix everything in six months.

Now you should hear my California friends and family criticise the movie star they cast to play governor!

now this . . .

Some bonehead hires lawyers to create art!

Come on earthquake!



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40066 posts, RR: 74
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1458 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 15):
After nearly forty years of misguided, ill-considered legislation California is bankrupt (except for tax revenues they steal from outside the state) and worse, their silly-ass rules are bankrupting the individual counties.

Then they blame it all on Gray Davis.

Then they sweep Ahnold into office expecting, really believing, that he'd fix everything in six months.

WOW, we agree on something!  Wow!
I voted against the recall anyhow.


As far as the painting goes, it's a very accurate representation of the Bush presidency. This painting is not at all anti-United States. It's expressing how Bush is ruining this great country.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
So if I go and urinate on this "lawyer artwork", am I protected under the right to freespeech?

Perhaps.
But you'd be hauled to the slammer for public indecency.
And you know what happens to pudgy Republicans in San Francisco jails, don't you? Big drag queens named Chableee and Chardonnee make them their bitches.

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 2):
. I strongly disagree with the idea of partisan art being hung in a place where law is supposed to supercede race, religious, and political backgrounds. Whether it's art by Republican or Democrat lawyer/artists, any sort of overtly political theme should not be displayed in a building of law.

I agree. Partisan political art should be displayed elsewhere. The person who allowed this to be displayed should be fired.


User currently offlineTUNisia From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1845 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

People in this country would rather burn the Bill of Rights than the US flag.


Someday the sun will shine down on me in some faraway place - Mahalia Jackson
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Politically motivated art (in which the message is clear, like this) has no place in a governmental building. It needs to go.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 17):
Big drag queens named Chableee and Chardonnee make them their bitches.

I think their last names are Berringer.

Quoting TUNisia (Reply 18):
People in this country would rather burn the Bill of Rights than the US flag.

Sad, but true.


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9515 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1425 times:

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 10):
There is a HUGE difference between HRC and a sacred symbol.

she is a sacred symbol.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
Unfortunately, a lot of stupid shit "falls" under the Freedom of Speech article of the US Constitution . . . taking a shit in public likely would too if done by some activist with his/her panties in a wad because some frickin' tree got cut down . . .

political speech. so, yes.

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 4):
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
So if I go and urinate on this "lawyer artwork", am I protected under the right to freespeech?

No, because you would be damaging artwork owned by the artist. Destruction of property. If you wanted to recreate the artwork and then urinate on it - that would be okay.

correct

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 1):
Does art work fall under the freedom of speech bit of the constitution?

yes

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 7):
Or is there a line?

the line is drawn with restrictions called Time, Place, and Manner.

and even though you're all going to run with going "well, dat dere flag werk ain't time, no place, and no manner."

read up on it before you all go posting blindly about it.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
As far as the painting goes, it's a very accurate representation of the Bush presidency. This painting is not at all anti-United States. It's expressing how Bush is ruining this great country.

I agree.

But it is still a piece of politically motivated art representing one point of view. As such, it should not be placed in a Government building. I suspect that the representation itself without the words "T'anks to Mr. Bush" may have passed muster, but with that placard, this art becomes a clearly partisan political statement.


User currently offlineGreyhound From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1026 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1419 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 2):
Whether it's art by Republican or Democrat lawyer/artists, any sort of overtly political theme should not be displayed in a building of law.

Well put. The guy has a right to express his political views, but having such a strong partisan statement in a public arena where justice is supposed to be blind, that's just screwed up. If you want to protest the flag, express your partisan political views in your office, or OUTSIDE of a courthouse or law building. I don't agree with his art, or necessarily his views, but if he wants to express a personal political belief like he did, might as well let someone put up a painting of the last supper the Department of Justice as well, since it is a freedom of expression and one's own personal belief.



29th, Let's Go!
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

Quoting Greyhound (Reply 23):
Well put. The guy has a right to express his political views, but having such a strong partisan statement in a public arena where justice is supposed to be blind, that's just screwed up.

Maybe we should do the same for the Ten Commandments, since it's become such a strong partisian statement for the right in a public arena where justice is supposed to be blind.

Deal?


25 SlamClick : Sorry, but your attempt at dialect failed utterly. I have no idea what you were trying to say here. Try expressing that idea as yourself, some of us
26 Greyhound : I agree... either tolerate both or tolerate neither. One way or another.....
27 Falcon84 : Unfortunately, there's a group of extremists in this country, who, for them, it's their way or the highway, and they'd agree to get rid of the first
28 STLGph : ugh, old schoolers. here is Time, Place, and Manner. Time, place and manner restrictions may be placed on expressive activities that occur in or on p
29 Allstarflyer : Agreed, but most of us, I believe, would adhere to that there is no manner acceptable for flag-burning. It's twisted - the flag is the symbol for the
30 SlamClick : Okay STLGph I understand "Time, Place and Manner." What I was questioning was your use of dialect. Specifically the quote attributed to us all. Again,
31 Post contains links STLGph : i'll make a deal. you come to stl and we be chill. by the end of the night, you'll get it completely. and i'll buy the first five rounds. or for a sh
32 Jaysit : And we did. The Supreme Court ruled that no "Thou shalt not" stuff in Court Houses. The issue with this Flag Flushing painting with Dubya's name by i
33 SlamClick : Okay, I did that. It was rather lame and not particularly accurate. Worse, it does not reverse-translate so I could not discern which of the dialects
34 STLGph : i'm with you there! i've written strongly worded letters disappointed they don't have a "reverse" feature. and what ethnic group would that be? are y
35 Cwapilot : Falcon84...a group of extremists for whom it is their way or the highway...hmmm, I guess you have become familiar with the leftwing radicals that are
36 STLGph : that's probably the best comment i've ever heard anybody make on this topic.
37 SlamClick : You have a degree in mass communication? Did it come in a cereal box? You are a sorry ass communicator. Where IN THE HELL did you go to school? "dat d
38 MD11Engineer : The way I understand it, this piece of art could also mean that traditional American values, like freedom, democracy and justice are being flushed dow
39 STLGph : if you weren't so obtuse yourself and would have mentioned this the first time, we wouldn't have a problem, now would we? i can communicate just fine
40 SlamClick : That would be my understanding of it. The controversy, I suppose, is between three points of view. 1. It is a personal artistic expression by a free
41 SlamClick : So what, now I have to start watching a bunch of ESPN to understand the reference? No thanks. I do note, however that you still decline to put your o
42 Cwapilot : SAMClick...it appears that he used the "Redneck" dialect on the Dialectizer. From what I have seen on this forum, Redneck bashing is acceptable and ev
43 SlamClick : If you read some of the intervening posts, I though he intended a racist remark. sLam click
44 Cwapilot : Yes, I realize that...but he didn't, so it's all okay....
45 STLGph : for Time, Place, and Manner... i think it's important that Time, Place, and Manner restrictions should be pointed out. when such art/"art" is display
46 Swisskloten : But of course athletes, celebs and rich people are never convicted no matter how brutal the crime or how good the evidence so I say the artwork is qu
47 DC10GUY : I like it. That piece sums it all up nicely. Bravo well done.
48 Lehpron : What does two sets of 13 regular people who decide the fate of another have anything to do with the department of justice? Way to go for the generali
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rant: Why Don't People Flush When In The Toilet? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 04:23:41 by LTU932
Ad Featuring 2 Pilots Stuck In The Toilet. posted Sat Jul 29 2006 12:06:09 by AI
Unusual Object In The Toilet posted Sun Jan 18 2004 02:36:34 by AvianceGirlUK
Microsoft Goes In The Toilet posted Wed May 7 2003 21:07:56 by MSY-MSP
A Return To The Bad Old Days In Football posted Sun Mar 19 2006 19:40:20 by Cosec59
Paying For Use Of The Toilet In Amsterdam posted Tue Nov 29 2005 12:05:02 by BNE
Pettitte Back In The Bronx. posted Sat Dec 9 2006 00:02:19 by NIKV69
How Many People In The U.S. With Your Name? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 01:50:42 by Diamond
Disaster In The Making: Reality TV posted Thu Dec 7 2006 16:10:49 by MDorBust
Studying Abroad In The Netherlands posted Wed Dec 6 2006 18:28:27 by Garnetpalmetto