Up there with the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper, "The Money Shot" will inspire young artists for centuries to come..... so to speak....
View attachment 554748
I don't care one way or another about Kamala Harris, but believe she and my other fellow Democrats owe restitution for govt, legal and political abuses that defraud taxpayers voters and other people affected.
This image goes a bit too far to me, and risks insinuating rape or promoting sexual assault on a person against their consent.
If Harris consented and believed this was within free speech as an expression of retort if she really had committed wrongful sex acts, I can accept that.
But if she does not engage in any such acts, where this image implies something else, similar to statements about Dana Loesch deserving to be raped, then I think that is going too far and borders on promoting sexual assault.
This is borderline, similar to the mask of Trump on a plate that was intended to be clearly a rendering, but came across as a real threat against a public official.
I think in borderline cases, it is up to people to decide how to respond. Totally subjective.
I would not agree with posting this and would prefer not taking the risk of it looking like a real message or threat of assault.
I would like to support an open discussion with public figures and speakers, from Dana Loesch to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris on how to address free speech that is legal but borderline slander or defamation, like the families of deceased persons protesting politicized media depictions, or Conservatives being misrepresented as Uncle Toms.
The Liberals argue the denial of masks and vaccines is misrepresentation that is costing lives, while Conservatives argue liberal media censorship caused more deaths and damages by denying early treatment using HCQ and Ivermectin.
Why not have a system to correct contested misinfornation, censorship or defamatory fraud or misrepresentation in the media?
This may all be legal to express opinions etc, but if we resolve conflicts up front, we could use our free speech and media to publicize cost effective solutions to save lives, resources and taxpayer money. Instead of wasting media and millions of campaign dollars promoting more trash and divisive rhetoric that doesn't solve anything.
I say we call for conflict resolution and better use of media.
I believe there are excellent leaders among both Democrats and Republicans, as well as Libertarians and Greens, and Independents, including Christians Progressives and Constitutionalists and even Marxists and Communists, who can facilitate consensus building on better solutions and reforms the public can actually agree on. Without bullying and coercion or insults/attacks back and forth.