4 ms·

They took due care to choose materials that would not harm the monument. Public monuments and property are there for the enjoyment and use of the public, if th

by pharke 12y ago

They took due care to choose materials that would not harm the monument. Public monuments and property are there for the enjoyment and use of the public, if that usage does no harm it should be allowed. The placing of this bust pushes the limits of this usage but should still be considered fair use and free speech since the artists did no harm. Even though it will cost whatever the wages and rates for the equipment needed to move it will be, I would argue that this cost could be avoided in a freer country by sanctioning this type of protest so that the artists could come forward to remove it themselves (I'm sure they would have interest from galleries or individuals for this piece) or better yet there could be a popular vote on whether to keep it.

sigzero 12y ago
There is NO WAY this is "fair use and free speech". You can't even make that argument with a straight face.
- pharke 12y ago
  To me, this is akin to chaining yourself to a tree in a public park to protest its removal or to a fixture in a courthouse or city hall or placing posters or drawing with chalk in such locations. This statue is about as permanent a fixture or modification as that would be. https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-demonstrations-and-protests https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-demonstrat... It has been argued before http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-72-2-Mach.pdf http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe... If there's a case to be made protecting graffiti on private property I would say there is a case for protecting graffiti on public property if it is the public's will to do so http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=mlr http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... EDIT: o_o
  - superobserver 12y ago
    Interesting pattern of feigned disbelief in the comments here. Anyway, I thoroughly agree with your assessment.

by pharke 12y ago

sigzero 12y ago

There is NO WAY this is "fair use and free speech". You can't even make that argument with a straight face.

pharke 12y ago
To me, this is akin to chaining yourself to a tree in a public park to protest its removal or to a fixture in a courthouse or city hall or placing posters or drawing with chalk in such locations. This statue is about as permanent a fixture or modification as that would be. https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-demonstrations-and-protests https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-demonstrat... It has been argued before http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-72-2-Mach.pdf http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe... If there's a case to be made protecting graffiti on private property I would say there is a case for protecting graffiti on public property if it is the public's will to do so http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=mlr http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... EDIT: o_o
- superobserver 12y ago
  Interesting pattern of feigned disbelief in the comments here. Anyway, I thoroughly agree with your assessment.