11 ms·

I don't think so. If it is something unauthorized they probably would have removed it in due time. I.e., they would have taken a couple of days to hire professi

by hristov 12y ago

I don't think so. If it is something unauthorized they probably would have removed it in due time. I.e., they would have taken a couple of days to hire professionals to do it. Now they immediately cover it up so that no-one can see it while they arrange for its removal. Why? Obviously they do not want anyone to look at it before it is removed. But why not? It is certainly not offensive in any way. It may prove to be a minor attraction and it will get Brooklyn in the national news. It really does remind one of soviet style suppression.

rosser 12y ago
> It really does remind one of soviet style suppression. If by "one" you mean "you", maybe. No-one is getting gulag-ed or shot for doing this. To liken this response to Soviet-era human rights abuses betrays a pretty myopic view, IMO.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  Hey man, we have Gitmo and all of our black sites around the world. Human rights abuses happen there with 100% certainty and 0% transparency. Oh yeah, and we have the world's largest prison population by far. So maybe not a real Soviet style gulag, just a bunch of smaller gulag-like places to store our undesirables. Sure, it's not as bad as the USSR, but why is this sort of thing permitted whatsoever in a democracy again?
superobserver 12y ago
Not just Soviet-style suppression, but state sponsored censorship. While the local rules of the park may deem that this is simply vandalism, I fail to recall such instances in the US demanding this kind of censoring and it should be pointed out a little more saliently in the article for appropriate effect.
- sigzero 12y ago
  You are kidding right? This has nothing to do with "Soviet-style suppression, but state sponsored censorship". It is the Park service doing its job. It IS vandalism. Plain and simple.
  - superobserver 12y ago
    I was pointing out the limited applicability of "Soviet-style suppression" in the above post - that much is obvious. The rest of my comment stands and your post counts as little more than needless handwaving.
slg 12y ago
I think you are looking at the situation from our little tech bubble. Regardless of all of our opinions on the situation, it is still very political. This guy is actively wanted by our government for possible treason charges. If you believe those charges have merit, then erecting a statue in his honor could easily be classified as offensive. This is part of the problem with our side of the debate. We take it as a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees that Snowden is morally right and that the government is morally wrong. We need to do a better job of convincing the general public why issues like this are important. Erecting a statue of Snowden doesn't do anything besides antagonizing both sides of the debate. EDIT: As this post currently stands at -2 karma, I have to say I am a little disappointed in HN. This isn't Reddit, we shouldn't have brigades of people downvoting comments that bring up gray areas in this debate. I don't think I said anything unreasonable in this comment. However if you do and downvote me, the least you could do is comment about how I am off base.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  There isn't really a legitimate debate, there's the PR department of statism and fearfulness and then the reality-seeking people who decry government power-grabbing and anti-liberalism. Dragnet surveillance is totalitarianism. I guess there are apologists for totalitarianism, but why, if we are a democracy, do we listen to those who actively advocate for tyranny? EDIT: Haven't heard any objection to my points yet, primarily that it's not possible to argue in good faith that someone can be both be well-informed about the effects of dragnet surveillance and still be pro-surveillance.
  - slg 12y ago
    Comments like this reinforce my point. You are basically framing this entire debate as good versus evil. That is not going to change anyone's minds and it serves no real purpose outside of rallying your own side. There is a middle ground between our government can read everything and our government can read nothing. I don't know where that line is, but the only way we find that line is through open debate. Except no side apparently seems willing to engage in that debate.
yongjik 12y ago
Think of it from the point of the park officer. If they notice it, and not cover it up, then it will be read as an implicit endorsement, and will generate an unending amount of gossip and headache. Why would they want it. The result would have been exactly the same if somebody put a bust of Hillary Clinton with letters "Clinton, 45th president of USA", even though Clinton would be a pretty safe choice for a lot of people (including those who hate Snowden).
- aceperry 12y ago
  I doubt the park officers decided by themselves to cover up the bust. I'm sure that they had orders from higher up to do this.
ics 12y ago
They have to wait for someone to move it (maybe someone within the Parks department, they have the equipment at least) but it's worth pointing out that a job in NYC Parks as highly bureaucratic it is desirable. Many employees are professionals (seriously, you have no idea if the guy throwing the tarp happens to have a masters in landscape architecture, or the next guy, or...) and park officers must be designated as special patrolmen by the NYPD. The very first rule of being an "Urban Park Ranger" is: "Under supervision, perform patrols of park facilities as part of a highly visible uniformed division. Ensure the safety and enjoyment of park users and the protection of park property." It's great that we can all discuss the merits of this from our own viewpoints– I fully support the artists here– but it is precisely the job of Parks employees to assist in the removal of any form of unauthorized modifications to the park. Simplest reason? Parks has no idea how the statue was made or how it was installed. What happens if it falls on someone? Or someone climbs it and a piece breaks off? We take it in good faith that this thing is just a harmless statement of expression– Parks employees most certainly should not.
- drchaos 12y ago
  > What happens if it falls on someone? Or someone climbs it and a piece breaks off? How exactly does covering it up help with that? I agree that there are valid reasons for wanting to remove it, but covering it up before that is just ridiculous.
  - ics 12y ago
    I said it elsewhere, but it's just a sign to the removal crew so that they don't have to look [hard] for it. It might be unnecessary, it might just be up the whim of whoever was working that day. We don't know, and so I'm not going to call it a conspiracy. An exception (i.e. protection for the display of public art, even if scheduled for removal) would be pretty great, just not a high priority for our public officials unless we're vocal enough in our support here. Edit: Oh sorry, you meant how does covering up help with the potential of it falling... Not much, except to possibly prevent people from being interested in it and going near it. Only the people who know what it is already would be interested. But I don't think it's actually going to fall, just that if they're going to remove it there's no surprise that it's covered. It's not uncommon at all to see tarped statues in Parks when any sort of maintenance is being done for a variety of reasons.
briandear 12y ago
"Not offensive in any way.." That' certainly subjective. Comparing Snowden as a war hero could be offensive to those that actually fought in wars. If they put it in the Nathan Hale statue at CIA, now that would be ironic. I'm on a the fence about Snowden, however disrespecting a war memorial to prove a point seems to border on tasteless. How about putting a Snowden statue in front of an AT&T store; that would be better messaging in terms of protest without disrespecting actual war heros.
- kelnos 12y ago
  It's also arguable that what they did was disrespecting a war memorial. Today's wars are fought increasingly without conventional military units or weapons. I personally wouldn't consider Snowden a war hero, but I do consider him a hero, and I wouldn't begrudge people the opinion that he is indeed a war hero.

by hristov 12y ago

rosser 12y ago

> It really does remind one of soviet style suppression. If by "one" you mean "you", maybe. No-one is getting gulag-ed or shot for doing this. To liken this response to Soviet-era human rights abuses betrays a pretty myopic view, IMO.

cryoshon 12y ago
Hey man, we have Gitmo and all of our black sites around the world. Human rights abuses happen there with 100% certainty and 0% transparency. Oh yeah, and we have the world's largest prison population by far. So maybe not a real Soviet style gulag, just a bunch of smaller gulag-like places to store our undesirables. Sure, it's not as bad as the USSR, but why is this sort of thing permitted whatsoever in a democracy again?

superobserver 12y ago

Not just Soviet-style suppression, but state sponsored censorship. While the local rules of the park may deem that this is simply vandalism, I fail to recall such instances in the US demanding this kind of censoring and it should be pointed out a little more saliently in the article for appropriate effect.

sigzero 12y ago
You are kidding right? This has nothing to do with "Soviet-style suppression, but state sponsored censorship". It is the Park service doing its job. It IS vandalism. Plain and simple.
- superobserver 12y ago
  I was pointing out the limited applicability of "Soviet-style suppression" in the above post - that much is obvious. The rest of my comment stands and your post counts as little more than needless handwaving.

slg 12y ago

I think you are looking at the situation from our little tech bubble. Regardless of all of our opinions on the situation, it is still very political. This guy is actively wanted by our government for possible treason charges. If you believe those charges have merit, then erecting a statue in his honor could easily be classified as offensive. This is part of the problem with our side of the debate. We take it as a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees that Snowden is morally right and that the government is morally wrong. We need to do a better job of convincing the general public why issues like this are important. Erecting a statue of Snowden doesn't do anything besides antagonizing both sides of the debate. EDIT: As this post currently stands at -2 karma, I have to say I am a little disappointed in HN. This isn't Reddit, we shouldn't have brigades of people downvoting comments that bring up gray areas in this debate. I don't think I said anything unreasonable in this comment. However if you do and downvote me, the least you could do is comment about how I am off base.

cryoshon 12y ago
There isn't really a legitimate debate, there's the PR department of statism and fearfulness and then the reality-seeking people who decry government power-grabbing and anti-liberalism. Dragnet surveillance is totalitarianism. I guess there are apologists for totalitarianism, but why, if we are a democracy, do we listen to those who actively advocate for tyranny? EDIT: Haven't heard any objection to my points yet, primarily that it's not possible to argue in good faith that someone can be both be well-informed about the effects of dragnet surveillance and still be pro-surveillance.
- slg 12y ago
  Comments like this reinforce my point. You are basically framing this entire debate as good versus evil. That is not going to change anyone's minds and it serves no real purpose outside of rallying your own side. There is a middle ground between our government can read everything and our government can read nothing. I don't know where that line is, but the only way we find that line is through open debate. Except no side apparently seems willing to engage in that debate.

yongjik 12y ago

Think of it from the point of the park officer. If they notice it, and not cover it up, then it will be read as an implicit endorsement, and will generate an unending amount of gossip and headache. Why would they want it. The result would have been exactly the same if somebody put a bust of Hillary Clinton with letters "Clinton, 45th president of USA", even though Clinton would be a pretty safe choice for a lot of people (including those who hate Snowden).

aceperry 12y ago
I doubt the park officers decided by themselves to cover up the bust. I'm sure that they had orders from higher up to do this.

ics 12y ago

They have to wait for someone to move it (maybe someone within the Parks department, they have the equipment at least) but it's worth pointing out that a job in NYC Parks as highly bureaucratic it is desirable. Many employees are professionals (seriously, you have no idea if the guy throwing the tarp happens to have a masters in landscape architecture, or the next guy, or...) and park officers must be designated as special patrolmen by the NYPD. The very first rule of being an "Urban Park Ranger" is: "Under supervision, perform patrols of park facilities as part of a highly visible uniformed division. Ensure the safety and enjoyment of park users and the protection of park property." It's great that we can all discuss the merits of this from our own viewpoints– I fully support the artists here– but it is precisely the job of Parks employees to assist in the removal of any form of unauthorized modifications to the park. Simplest reason? Parks has no idea how the statue was made or how it was installed. What happens if it falls on someone? Or someone climbs it and a piece breaks off? We take it in good faith that this thing is just a harmless statement of expression– Parks employees most certainly should not.

drchaos 12y ago
> What happens if it falls on someone? Or someone climbs it and a piece breaks off? How exactly does covering it up help with that? I agree that there are valid reasons for wanting to remove it, but covering it up before that is just ridiculous.
- ics 12y ago
  I said it elsewhere, but it's just a sign to the removal crew so that they don't have to look [hard] for it. It might be unnecessary, it might just be up the whim of whoever was working that day. We don't know, and so I'm not going to call it a conspiracy. An exception (i.e. protection for the display of public art, even if scheduled for removal) would be pretty great, just not a high priority for our public officials unless we're vocal enough in our support here. Edit: Oh sorry, you meant how does covering up help with the potential of it falling... Not much, except to possibly prevent people from being interested in it and going near it. Only the people who know what it is already would be interested. But I don't think it's actually going to fall, just that if they're going to remove it there's no surprise that it's covered. It's not uncommon at all to see tarped statues in Parks when any sort of maintenance is being done for a variety of reasons.

briandear 12y ago

"Not offensive in any way.." That' certainly subjective. Comparing Snowden as a war hero could be offensive to those that actually fought in wars. If they put it in the Nathan Hale statue at CIA, now that would be ironic. I'm on a the fence about Snowden, however disrespecting a war memorial to prove a point seems to border on tasteless. How about putting a Snowden statue in front of an AT&T store; that would be better messaging in terms of protest without disrespecting actual war heros.

kelnos 12y ago
It's also arguable that what they did was disrespecting a war memorial. Today's wars are fought increasingly without conventional military units or weapons. I personally wouldn't consider Snowden a war hero, but I do consider him a hero, and I wouldn't begrudge people the opinion that he is indeed a war hero.