Springer: HotAir America radio defends stamp with gun to Bush's head

[Yurt]

Ok, I posted this in another thread, but after hearing the libs defend this, I had to make it a new thread.

Someone was just listening to full of air america and Jerry Springer, yes Springer is now a speaker for them, supported this stamp with a gun to Bush's head BECAUSE IT IS ART. Yet he understands why the SS would be there, but it is ART.

WTF? Any lib brave enough to defend this painting?

Quote:
An artwork containing mock 37-cent stamps showing President Bush with a revolver pointed at his head is part of an exhibit at Columbia College's Glass Curtain Gallery titled 'Axis of Evil, the Secret History of Sin' Tuesday, April, 12, 2005 in Chicago. The exhibit captured the attention of the Secret Service who sent agents to inspect the works last week according to gallery officials. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/050412/480/cx10104121846&e=1

I don't know how to add pics, but if someone feels this pic needs to be seen in the thread to really emphasize this horrible, disgusting act, please feel free.
__________________

 

[nosarcasm]

in Israel there is the campaign by religious settlers to get rid of Sharon
via murder. They have their own collection of T-shirts and kill Sharon
hardware.

Advocating murdering political leaders is wrong and like always it is a slope
that can lead to real violence. While the US is more stable and can
afford more tolerance to stupid T-shirts etc whenever violence is involved
it is right that the FBI investigates if its real or just talk.

For other reasons I dont think it would be right to arrest everyone that has
this lapse of judgement as it would stifle free speech, which is more
important then punishing some retards.

IF I d live in Israel where one PM is already dead Id prefer a more
conservative approach.

 

[insein]

Secret service is on it. If they feel it is any real threat to the president, they will act. Otherwise, its just some jackass exercising his right to be a jackass.

 

[Yurt]

I guess my problem is that this is defended on "artistic" freedom of expression. I know what they mean is "free speech," however, when is art simply not art, rather a suggestion to violence?

Even if the SS determines that this guy is just a jackass, isn't this a slippery slope of erosion, in that, inciting to violence becomes more and more tolerable. I know that test is "immediate" violence, however, it seems to me that someone could see this "art" and place high emphasis on it, because to some, art is a way of life or to others, art imitates life, and thus act out the painting.

 

[insein]

I guess my problem is that this is defended on "artistic" freedom of expression. I know what they mean is "free speech," however, when is art simply not art, rather a suggestion to violence?

Even if the SS determines that this guy is just a jackass, isn't this a slippery slope of erosion, in that, inciting to violence becomes more and more tolerable. I know that test is "immediate" violence, however, it seems to me that someone could see this "art" and place high emphasis on it, because to some, art is a way of life or to others, art imitates life, and thus act out the painting.

But you can also lead the other way. If we deem this offensive today, whats to say someone will deem something far less offensive 2 years from now. then something else quite ordinary, offensive 5 years from now.

People are quick to label things this and that because it doesnt effect them. Then when something does effect them they try to put on the brakes and reverse the tidal wave that was started awhile back.

Take alot of these liberal ideals. Global warming, hitting your kids, gun violence, etc. 50 years ago, these topics didnt exist. Now they have become so mainstream that you are thought of as the asshole if you go against them. 50 years from now, something mundane and everyday that we take for granted might be the most heinous thing people every thought of then.

The problem is that people want to take things away from others simply to feel power over others. People go along with it because they think "yea thats a good idea." Sooner or later though, they expand their idea to something you dont think is wrong but by then its too late and your the asshole for arguing.

 

[KarlMarx]

IF I d live in Israel where one PM is already dead Id prefer a more
conservative approach.

Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy ..... were assasinated.......

Presidents Washington, Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, FDR, Reagan, Ford, Clinton, Bush II..... had attempts made on their lives.......

just how many more Presidents have to be threatened or assassinated before we take "a more conservative approach"?

 

[nosarcasm]

the loyal opposition has not called for the murder of a president for
some time because of his politics. The US is more stable then Israel.


But I see your point. Lots of disturbed people out there that might
go after the President. But what about conspiracy sites. They create
hatred to the whole government system ? I am worried that
once idiots cant spew idiocy anymore I am surely next on the list.

 

[Yurt]

But you can also lead the other way. If we deem this offensive today, whats to say someone will deem something far less offensive 2 years from now. then something else quite ordinary, offensive 5 years from now.

People are quick to label things this and that because it doesnt effect them. Then when something does effect them they try to put on the brakes and reverse the tidal wave that was started awhile back.

Take alot of these liberal ideals. Global warming, hitting your kids, gun violence, etc. 50 years ago, these topics didnt exist. Now they have become so mainstream that you are thought of as the asshole if you go against them. 50 years from now, something mundane and everyday that we take for granted might be the most heinous thing people every thought of then.

The problem is that people want to take things away from others simply to feel power over others. People go along with it because they think "yea thats a good idea." Sooner or later though, they expand their idea to something you dont think is wrong but by then its too late and your the asshole for arguing.

I see your point on the "slippery slope," however, there are concretes today that will not slip down that slope. For instance, if I, a private citizen, call or better yet write you and threaten to kill you; heck maybe I even paint a pretty little picture with your face taking front stage and then a big gun pointing at your head; the police, FBI would be all over me. Now I know that politicians (public figures, but notice, movie stars get more protections, even though they are labeled the same) must endure more statements against them than myself.

Where does this end though?

We can say, well, this guy is just making a statement. Exactly what the MSM said. My question is, what "statement" is he making? A circle with a diagonal line through its inner core would simply mean "no more." But a GUN to the head? What does this statement mean? Does it simply mean "no more?" Surely there are other methods to convey one's opinion than using a weapon that fired once at the close of range would beyond a shadow of a doubt cause immediate death.

This brings me to my ultimate question:

The test for inciting violence or the overthrow of government is, "immiedate" threats. In additions, there is the incitement of immediate violence, that which is likely to cause those listening/seeing the image to violence. The test is not measured in the number of people, rather, what the reasonable person listening/seeing such message would do.

Now you and I would not do that. But what about the "reasonable" democrat? Furthermore, what reasonable democrat would make this painting? If none, then we can only conclude that a radical democrat made this painting directed at a radical audience that would see/listen to his/her message and put a gun to the presidents head.

 

[007]

But you can also lead the other way. If we deem this offensive today, whats to say someone will deem something far less offensive 2 years from now. then something else quite ordinary, offensive 5 years from now.

People are quick to label things this and that because it doesnt effect them. Then when something does effect them they try to put on the brakes and reverse the tidal wave that was started awhile back.

Take alot of these liberal ideals. Global warming, hitting your kids, gun violence, etc. 50 years ago, these topics didnt exist. Now they have become so mainstream that you are thought of as the asshole if you go against them. 50 years from now, something mundane and everyday that we take for granted might be the most heinous thing people every thought of then.

The problem is that people want to take things away from others simply to feel power over others. People go along with it because they think "yea thats a good idea." Sooner or later though, they expand their idea to something you dont think is wrong but by then its too late and your the asshole for arguing.

This isn't your everyday, simple, generic, freedom of speech, expression we're talking about here. We're talking about *POINTING A FREAKING PISTOL AT THE PRESIDENTS HEAD*!!! If not by WORDS then by representation, you can get yourself in a whole lot of deep shit implying you're going to OFF THE PRESIDENT.

Whoever these fuckers are, they should be dealt with and their asses thrown in jail. They're probably of the same crowd that was earlier writing in a book about assasinating the President. They're ultra, leftist, militant, liberals. "COMMUNISTS".

This shit should NOT be allowed... PERIOD.

 

[musicman]

Thie liberal stance on this particular "artistic expression" is especially interesting in light of the grand mal seizures they were having over Tom DeLay's statements a week ago. Apparently, taking judges to task is tantamount to attempted murder, but promoting the image of a gun to the President's head is just good clean fun.

It can all get pretty confusing, unless you remember that there are two sets of rules.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

i bet if we printed stuff with a gun to john kerry's head, we would not be allowed to call it art.
maybe i will paint something like that and enter it into the local liberaville art festival...oohh, the insanity that would follow :clap1:

 

[insein]

i bet if we printed stuff with a gun to john kerry's head, we would not be allowed to call it art.
maybe i will paint something like that and enter it into the local liberaville art festival...oohh, the insanity that would follow :clap1:

You should. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Only make it Hillary or someone that at least has a semblance of leadership in that joke of a party. Oh the field day the media would have and the cover up of the Bush stamp there would be.