Complete and Utter Disgrace

No, it certainly wouldn't. The absence of Federal or State funding would not stop the artist from creating the work.

The absence of a government funded soapbox is not an infringement on free speech.

If any taxpayer money went to fund this artist's project then it's more accurate to say that coercing taxpayers into funding political speech in this manner is an infringement on their first amendment rights.
Click to expand...
Then for it to be equal you'd have to take away funding from every institution of higher education in the country otherwise it would be unequal and a punishment on exercising free speech.

Just because you don't like the speech doesn't make it any less valid and deserving of protection. Would you making the same argument if a student had made an art project listing all the names of POWs and anti-war individuals were protesting it?


No, that's merely a load of crap response form you. Show me the State University, which this one is, that receives even 60% of it's budget from student tuition. This STATE University is typical of most and receives most of its funding, including its Art Dept., from the State and Federal Government.
Click to expand...
Nossir.
http://www.umaine.edu/admin_finance/FY07/UMS05_SRECNA.pdf

Net student fees 92,371
Federal, state, and private grants and contracts 58,729
 
Let 'em piss on the flag if thats what they want to do at school. They are just looking for attention. Some will grow out of it.

Casing a net brouhaha is what they really want to do.

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? How 60s tripe..much, better one issuppose they desecrated the flag and no one cared. Oooo look at the kiddies Mabel pretending they are .....revolutionaries, how cyu-ute.

WildsnoreAlaska TM
Click to expand...
Y'all should read all the info before posting. :p She was doing a social experiment, to find out if people would talk on it. She wasn't pretending to be a revolutionary or trying to make a statement about the country or war.
 
As much as I hate to see this happen I am reminded of a quote in "The American President"

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"

Even though this is just from a movie, I think it still holds true!
 
The First Amendment is not about protecting popular speech, as that needs no protection. I don't need a constitution to protect my right to say that puppies are cute, as that statement is popular and no one wants to stop me from saying it. On the other hand, if I want to say that I support the clubbing of baby seals, that right is protected because it NEEDS to be protected.

When I joined the military, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, not just the ones that I didn't agree with. The true test of your support of freedom is to support someone with which you disagree.

Now, to the school argument, I do not believe that the FedGov should be supporting ANY schools (regardless of their flag waving status), because that is not within the just powers granted to the FedGov, but that is a separate issue.
 
It really is freedom of expression and has been adjudicated as such in similar demonstrations in the past but I wonder how the UMF would have dealt with nooses on doors or perhaps some of the Islamic cartoon parodies instead of the flag, hate crimes, no doubt.
Click to expand...

Nooses on doors, at least, must be taken in the context of history and generally constitute an implied threat (not protected speech). No threat was involved with this display. Islamic cartoons are a stickier issue, as it's arguable that they could be construed as an attempt to incite violence against a group (not protected speech, IIRC)...I don't agree with that assessment, and think they should be protected, but I can (somewhat) see the other side of the issue. Who is this demonstration trying to incite hatred for? Veterans? Not really.
 
More than conversation, it also ignited angry comments from those who identified themselves as veterans or republicans.
Click to expand...
interesting...

sooo? if a student wanted to proudly display a Nazi flag on the wall the school would have provided the thumbtacks? by allowing a student to do this on school property the school is saying this kind of thing is OK. this goes beyond tolerance.

liberal= somebody who's mind is so open his brain falls out.

free speech means you will not be censored or prosecuted for what you say/ express. This is not a free speech issue.

I'll bet if I go to that school and flick a cigarette butt onto the the ground in front of campus security they would tell me to pick it up. they should have said that to this student.
 
sooo? if a student wanted to proudly display a Nazi flag on the wall the school would have provided the thumbtacks? by allowing a student to do this on school property the school is saying this kind of thing is OK. this goes beyond tolerance.
Click to expand...
The sign of a really weak argument is someone immediately going to "Nazi" references and examples.

If the nazi flag was used in an expressive and creative way that was not meant as intimidation or used in an aggressive way it is valid. I have sen it done.

But you have to remember that the Nazi flag is a historical symbol of persecution, tyranny and death. Are you comparing the American flag to the Nazi flag?
 
sooo? if a student wanted to proudly display a Nazi flag on the wall the school would have provided the thumbtacks? by allowing a student to do this on school property the school is saying this kind of thing is OK. this goes beyond tolerance.
Click to expand...

Again, depends on the context. In many contexts, a Nazi flag can be seen as an implied threat or an attempt to incite violence. In others, I'd say it's a perfectly acceptable form of expression. Well, maybe acceptable is the right word, but protected to be sure.

Also, allowing it on school property is not endorsement. So no, it is just tolerance.

I'll bet if I go to that school and flick a cigarette butt onto the the ground in front of campus security they would tell me to pick it up. they should have said that to this student.
Click to expand...

In this case, it's fairly obvious that you have no intention of picking up the cigarette butt later...it's simple littering. This is in no way analogous to the situation at hand.
 
I am not calling anybody a Nazi, I am merely using the example (OK, a poor one) that the school providing floor space for the desecration of the flag is offensive and in poor taste. and that is similar to providing thumbtacks for the hanging of anything that is universally offensive.

I am just saying that I am offended by both the display of the Nazi flag and the desecration of the American flag.
I suppose a comparison was made, but not that they are the same.

I am not proposing any drastic action either, just pondering if it is OK to tolerate intolerance.
 
I am not proposing any drastic action either, just pondering if it is OK to tolerate intolerance.
Click to expand...

Except that flag desecration is not intolerance. Of anybody. Except maybe flags. It's not like they were burning flags while calling for people to discriminate against veterans or anything. So it's not really relevant.
 
I am just saying that I am offended by both the display of the Nazi flag and the desecration of the American flag.
Click to expand...
Which is understandable but both are covered under freedom of expression. That it offends you doesn't make it wrong to do.

I think a more appropriate analogy would be to question whether or not the school would allow a different student to perform a similar social experiment by placing Nazi flags on the floor and seeing how many people intentionally step on them or even pick them up and throw them in the trash.

I'm guessing they probably would.
 
This is shock art just like the abortion art on another thread. The creators lack any real creativity so they rely on peoples shock and outrage to spread the word. Seems to be working for them too. Now they can just sit back and enjoy all the buzz about their "art" without having to put any real thought or effort into it.
 
Last post on this thread here because I guess I wasn't clear enough on my first post.

Red, just sayin I believe it's wrong and that it was in poor taste for that school to allow that "social experiment". The school and student have every right to do it, I just don't agree with it.
 
I would like to think were I there I would have paused, looked it over for a few seconds, then begun picking up the American Flags from the dirty floor... Had they tried to stop me, then they would have gotten a fast, hard, and maybe physical, demonstration of MY First Amendment rights...

denny
 
Y'all should watch the movie "Frisco Kid", starring Gene Wilder and Harrison Ford. For one thing, it's hilarious. But it has a very important message near the end, when Rabbi Belinsky (Wilder) realizes what he has done: he was willing to sacrifice his friend's life for the Torah he was carrying. His friend's life wasn't his to give, and the Torah was just a book. My point (and I think his) is, if he wanted to sacrifice his own life for what the book represented, that was wonderful, but when you try to impose that sacrifice on others, you demean the very symbol you are trying to protect.

(this sounded good in my head, but I'm having a hard time writing it so that it makes sense :confused:)
 
then begun picking up the American Flags from the dirty floor... Had they tried to stop me, then they would have gotten a fast, hard, and maybe physical, demonstration of MY First Amendment rights...
Click to expand...

Where does the First Amendment allow you to damage another's property, or to attack them?

You are confusing the desire not to be offended with the right to free speech. How is that display hurting you? If you take that display and throw it in the trash, are you not taking someone's property? That is not speech, that is stealing.

And BTW, if a person wants to hang a Nazi flag, that is also protected speech. As offensive as it is, it hurts no one. It does not infringe on anyone's rights. Again, true freedom is the ability to do the unpopular thing. Popular speech needs no protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top