"Hate Speech" In America v. The Western World

SCARY MAGAZINE COVER

A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect."

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean's violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.

As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

It's hate speech!" yelled one man.

"It's free speech!" yelled another.

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.

The Maclean's article, "The Future Belongs to Islam," was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called "America Alone." The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

"In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment," Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called "The Exceptional First Amendment."

"But in the United States," Schauer continued, "all such speech remains constitutionally protected."

Interesting read.

I thought about posting this myself. It marks an interesting distinction, especially in the case quoted above.

Jesus. How the HELL did I not know about this? Ah, well. I'd love to be able to take issue with the sneering and self-satisfied tone of that article, but the simple fact is that Canada is the US's inferior in this very specific area. Our hate-speech laws are downright inane. They are almost never enforced, but are on the books nonetheless.

It really is amazing, the pathetic and litigious drones who believe themselves incapable of encountering opposing views.

Nice to see that the USA is still #1 in something.

Well from my short experience Ireland and Britain has gotten far more accepting of downright dangerous ideas never mind just plain old foul language and nudity than the US has and that is where the article falls down for me. The US has hate speech laws like everyone else, in some cases more so, and this really comes down to the prevailing winds at the time how these are enforced. I'd be interested to hear what nossid has say about the Scandinavian countries as well as Holland and Denmark but unless I miss my mark they are pretty liberal countries for thought and expression. After all which countries had the guts to print the now famous Mohammed cartoons? To pick 6-7 countries as the Western World and then tar us all with the same brush is quite narrow minded.

However, let me turn this around on where the real difference is. Everyone should be allowed to say what they like with the proviso that if they are going to defame, slander or libel someone they can be taken to court. Unfortunately the US decided on some odd distinction for public figures. Here is a article outlying the issue. For a very good example of this look at the attack adds on television or indeed the now famous "swift boating" of Kerry. I'm not claiming that our politicians would be any better but they cannot defame, libel or slander opponents, or indeed anyone else, unless they are willing to face the courts or vice versa. We've all now seen decades negative campaigning and its effect on American politics and I'm not sure anyone can agree its been good.

Just to be clear, we in Ireland have had our problems with free speech (Section 31 would be the prime example) in the past but it has gotten far better. The Late Late Show invited David Irving to speak on national television which heartened me no end as a supporter of free speech after UCC backed out. I'm not so sure many countries would give David Irving the time of day never mind access to one quarter of its population.

Now I'll leave you with one of the best speeches on the subject by a militant atheist, pro-Iraqi war alcoholic who is highly entertaining and well read to boot. Watch it before commenting furthur as its pretty watertight if a little uncomfortable at times. Oh and Morrolan, he is in the University of Toronto so you might take heart from it.

Staats wrote:

I thought about posting this myself.

Same, though I was going to go with a thread title of something like, "Legal Experts Opine US Has Too Much Free Speech."

Quintin_Stone wrote:

"Legal Experts Opine US Has Too Much Free Speech."

Compared to other countries it doesn't so I doubt they would. Like I said above the article is terribly selective and self congratulatory. I can think of a handful of countries that are far more liberal in terms of speech.

Having weaker defamation laws hardly constitutes more free speech either.

I normally can't stand Maclean's as I think it's just a rag with the journalistic quality of your average US cable news network but this is ridiculous. "We don't agree with something you said so we have a right to sue and get money!" Idiocy. If you don't like what a magazine says, you get to write a letter to the editor and tell your friends not to read it. You aren't entitled to money or an apology.

They've got the right to say (and publish) whatever they wish, at least in America they do, but I somehow feel that people are missing the point when they act like douchebags and cry "freedom of speech" when someone calls them on it. Our freedom of speech is a very precious thing. It'd be nice if people would respect the trust it connotes rather than diminish it by using it to shield things that should never have been said in the first place.

Axon wrote:

The US has hate speech laws like everyone else, in some cases more so, and this really comes down to the prevailing winds at the time how these are enforced.

The US has hate crime laws, which are of suspect constitutionality, but hate speech laws are a local creature and are generally eviscerated on First Amendment grounds. Any hate speech law is going to have to include either libel/slander (already illegal) or pass the "imminent lawlessness" test (likely already actionable as assault).

You really can say/print pretty much what you want in the U.S. That doesn't mean you can't be sued, but speech is very rarely a criminal act.

This is not to say there aren't multitudes trying to change this fact, but as of now the U.S. stands as a bastion of free speech.

EDIT: Point conceded that as recently as the 1950's, the Supreme Court briefly tried to vacate the First Amendment.

They've got the right to say (and publish) whatever they wish, at least in America they do, but I somehow feel that people are missing the point when they act like douchebags and cry "freedom of speech" when someone calls them on it. Our freedom of speech is a very precious thing. It'd be nice if people would respect the trust it connotes rather than diminish it by using it to shield things that should never have been said in the first place.

Did you read the article? It's not particularly shocking.

Morrolan wrote:
They've got the right to say (and publish) whatever they wish, at least in America they do, but I somehow feel that people are missing the point when they act like douchebags and cry "freedom of speech" when someone calls them on it. Our freedom of speech is a very precious thing. It'd be nice if people would respect the trust it connotes rather than diminish it by using it to shield things that should never have been said in the first place.

Did you read the article? It's not particularly shocking.

Just sayin's all.

Axon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

"Legal Experts Opine US Has Too Much Free Speech."

Compared to other countries it doesn't so I doubt they would. Like I said above the article is terribly selective and self congratulatory. I can think of a handful of countries that are far more liberal in terms of speech.

Having weaker defamation laws hardly constitutes more free speech either.

Except the article specifically contains quotes from people who think the US freedom of speech protections are probably a bit too broad.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Except the article specifically contains quotes from people who think the US freedom of speech protections are probably a bit too broad.

And my point is the Dutch and the Danes are far more liberal societies so why would "experts" single out the US. Even the Scandinavian countries are very open to the point that politicians take public transport to work. I'm not saying the US doesn't have a great template in its contitution, our own is modelled after yours and has served us well, but its very difficult for me to except that the US has greater free speech when you get boobs censored out of the Witcher.

I'm not implying that anything is legally upheld but there is a collective at work that imposes a puritanical ethos on the country. It maybe a very simple thing but allowing one type of censorship, in this case nudity and bad language, on syndicated television is a very thin edge of the wedge. This is a route Ireland took and it ended up with the censoring of films, music, art and finally politicians.

LilCodger wrote:

This is not to say there aren't multitudes trying to change this fact, but as of now the U.S. stands as a bastion of free speech

I don't disagree with that. Of course the US has very strong free speech laws. The bone I was picking with the article is that it ignores the fact that there are countries in the Western World that have no hate crimes, my own for example. It also ignores one of the most controversial statements made against Muslims recently was in Denmark and the Danes viewed that entirely as a free speech issue.

Where exactly the US lies in the great league table of free speech I'm not sure but it would be very high. However assuming that it will always be there is because of the First amendment is a tiny bit naive. People can be silenced all too easily.

Axon wrote:

Even the Scandinavian countries are very open to the point that politicians take public transport to work.

Nothing to add but: huh? On to substance:

Axon wrote:

very difficult for me to except that the US has greater free speech when you get boobs censored out of the Witcher...

It also ignores one of the most controversial statements made against Muslims recently was in Denmark and the Danes viewed that entirely as a free speech issue.

These are both money driven decisions. The former is the typical voluntary rating board issue (i.e., making sure people can find the game at Wal-Mart, etc.), while the latter is more interesting. I suspect we have a larger population of Muslims in this country (Wikipedia states 92% of Danes are of Danish descent) , and there is probably self-censorship at work to keep them buying newspapers. One of the byproducts of decades of racial strife is tactfulness by those whose income comes from advertising.

Staats wrote:

Nothing to add but: huh?

I'd really like Nossid to clear this up as he is Finnish but I do have friends from Sweden and the only point I was trying to make is the Scandinavians have a very "live and let live" attitude. Sorry about that as that wasn't clear at all. Lets park that

Staats wrote:

These are both money driven decisions. The former is the typical voluntary rating board issue (i.e., making sure people can find the game at Wal-Mart, etc.), while the latter is more interesting. I suspect we have a larger population of Muslims in this country (Wikipedia states 92% of Danes are of Danish descent) , and there is probably self-censorship at work to keep them buying newspapers. One of the byproducts of decades of racial strife is tactfulness by those whose income comes from advertising.

Whatever drives the decisions, it still ends up with the same result. The rating boards aren't doing the censoring. Wal-Mart is. Smyth's Toy Store over here has no problem selling The Witcher and its primarily a kids toy store. The same can be same for Tesco* which is Ireland's and the UK's largest supermarket chain. Wal-Mart is calling the shots and I find that a little troubling for the industry as a whole.

The other point, according to nationmaster Denmark population is about 2% Muslim while the US is around 1%. Just for interest the UK, Germany and France are 2.7%, 3.7% and 5% respectively. As far as I remember the issue began after a writer found that she couldn't get an artist to illustrate her children's book. The paper Jyllands-Posten, which is the Danes most popular broadsheet, decided to find people who would illustrate Muhammad as they would be a liberal paper (in the classic sense) and thought it was an free speech issue. As far as I understand the rest of the world relied on University papers to reprint the pictures. Of course no one was legally stopped from reprinting them but stopped they were none the less.

*Couldn't get the direct link to work but its down the bottom of the list. Perhaps there might be a few more example there that Wal-Mart don't stock?

You're missing the point of free speech a little bit. Don't worry, most Americans do as well. Free speech is not about forcing others to hear your speech. Free speech is not about boobies on TV, or in an art gallery. Free speech is not about forcing a company to carry your product.

Free speech is about being able to say what you want without fear of governmental reprisal. No prison, beatings, killings, deportations, etc. Free speech is about creating a marketplace of ideas. Some ideas are going to win in the marketplace. Many American interest groups want their freedom both ways. They want their free speech to be protected, so it is in the marketplace, and they want your free speech suppressed, so that it is not.

It makes all the difference in the world if Wal-Mart chooses not to carry a product versus the government forbidding the existence of that product. No one forces you to shop at Wal-Mart.

As to the Muslim community outcries? Nowhere in any philosophy I have read does the "right not to be offended" exist.

As to the U.S. vs. the Western world (when did we leave "the West"?), the data points are all over the place. As a general rule, one is usually safe saying "there is no First Amendment in Europe". The difference is that free speech is codified here, while it is frequently left to the whim of the "laid back attitude" in Europe. Sometimes (see since late 2001), the laid back attitude lapses.

LilCodger wrote:

As to the U.S. vs. the Western world (when did we leave "the West"?), the data points are all over the place. As a general rule, one is usually safe saying "there is no First Amendment in Europe". The difference is that free speech is codified here, while it is frequently left to the whim of the "laid back attitude" in Europe. Sometimes (see since late 2001), the laid back attitude lapses.

This is certainly not the case in Sweden. The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression and The Freedom of the Press Act are two of the four fundamental laws of the Swedish Constitution. While there is a "laid back attitude" it's also firmly supported by the law.

While you can publish and say whatever you want you may be taken to court afterwards, much like I imagine it being in the US and elsewhere, with the major difference that we don't sue when we get offended or upset over here. The difference in attitude towards the court system and its use is big enough that it warrants mentioning.

Axon wrote:
Staats wrote:

Nothing to add but: huh?

I'd really like Nossid to clear this up as he is Finnish but I do have friends from Sweden and the only point I was trying to make is the Scandinavians have a very "live and let live" attitude. Sorry about that as that wasn't clear at all. Lets park that

Swedish, but close enough. I'm not sure what you were getting at, but politicians are generally pretty close to the rest of the people when it comes to moving about freely among the public without security etc. This was brought into question when Anna Lindh (the then Minister for Foreign Affairs) was stabbed to death while shopping in a department store in central Stockholm in 2003. The consensus as I recall it was to not let that distance the politicians from the general public, but I don't have any data on what the actual result was. Anyway, side track that I'm not sure where it was going, but since I was addressed I figured I would give it a try.

nossid wrote:
LilCodger wrote:

As to the U.S. vs. the Western world (when did we leave "the West"?), the data points are all over the place. As a general rule, one is usually safe saying "there is no First Amendment in Europe". The difference is that free speech is codified here, while it is frequently left to the whim of the "laid back attitude" in Europe. Sometimes (see since late 2001), the laid back attitude lapses.

This is certainly not the case in Sweden. The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression and The Freedom of the Press Act are two of the four fundamental laws of the Swedish Constitution. While there is a "laid back attitude" it's also firmly supported by the law.

While you can publish and say whatever you want you may be taken to court afterwards, much like I imagine it being in the US and elsewhere, with the major difference that we don't sue when we get offended or upset over here. The difference in attitude towards the court system and its use is big enough that it warrants mentioning.

Understood. I wasn't trying to imply that it doesn't exist, simply that it wasn't a given in any democracy, as many seem to think. Britain has become somewhat Orwellian lately. Germany, France and Austria are understandably touchy about free speech. I think "Holocaust denial laws" are what gets many into trouble. It is illegal to deny the Holocaust, but say what you want about anyone else? That's just asking for trouble.

If the fanatical guy on the street corner can incite violence with his words, you have likely failed someplace other than your speech laws. When ideas and words become crimes, America is lost.

nossid wrote:

While you can publish and say whatever you want you may be taken to court afterwards, much like I imagine it being in the US and elsewhere, with the major difference that we don't sue when we get offended or upset over here. The difference in attitude towards the court system and its use is big enough that it warrants mentioning.

Not to be picky, but those both tend to fall under the US freedom of the press. Freedom of speech is a broader freedom, granted to all, without need for a media badge, printing press, or broadcasting station.

LilCodger is right that most censorship in the US is self-censorship, driven by a desire to appeal to a broader audience (by, for example, getting a PG-13 movie rating instead of R). Importantly, the MPAA and other ratings boards are generally not government organizations. If you want to talk about oppressive censorship in the US, you should focus more on issues of economics and public relations.

wordsmythe wrote:
nossid wrote:

While you can publish and say whatever you want you may be taken to court afterwards, much like I imagine it being in the US and elsewhere, with the major difference that we don't sue when we get offended or upset over here. The difference in attitude towards the court system and its use is big enough that it warrants mentioning.

Not to be picky, but those both tend to fall under the US freedom of the press. Freedom of speech is a broader freedom, granted to all, without need for a media badge, printing press, or broadcasting station.

I'm not sure what you're picky about. If it is that "publish and say" implies that the speech referred to was only from the press, then that's not what I intended and can be chalked up to a language snafu. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are separate here as well, as you can see from the laws linked earlier.

Sweden's newest fundamental law is the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. A debate on the need for a separate fundamental law regulating the radio and TV broadcasting sector emerged in the 1970s. After a number of discussions and commissions of inquiry, the Riksdag adopted a new fundamental law which entered into force in 1992.

From what I can tell looking at this and the full (albeit English) text, it still seems like this is about the media.

wordsmythe wrote:
Sweden's newest fundamental law is the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. A debate on the need for a separate fundamental law regulating the radio and TV broadcasting sector emerged in the 1970s. After a number of discussions and commissions of inquiry, the Riksdag adopted a new fundamental law which entered into force in 1992.

From what I can tell looking at this and the full (albeit English) text, it still seems like this is about the media.

Yeah, my bad. That is the law we usually refer to when speaking about these issues as it has additional protections while expressing yourself on radio, TV etc. and that's what is most often debated. I probably should have referred to Chapter 2. Fundamental rights and freedoms in The Instrument of Government, which is another of the four parts of the constitution. It starts off with:

Art. 1. Every citizen shall be guaranteed the following rights and freedoms in his relations with the public institutions:
1. freedom of expression: that is, the freedom to communicate information and express thoughts, opinions and sentiments, whether orally, pictorially, in writing, or in any other way;
2. freedom of information: that is, the freedom to procure and receive information and otherwise acquaint oneself with the utterances of others;
3. freedom of assembly: that is, the freedom to organise or attend a meeting for the purposes of information or the expression of opinion or for any other similar purpose, or for the purpose of presenting artistic work;
4. freedom to demonstrate: that is, the freedom to organise or take part in a demonstration in a public place;
5. freedom of association: that is, the freedom to associate with others for public or private purposes;
6. freedom of worship: that is, the freedom to practise one’s religion alone or in the company of others.

Those are the relevant fundamentals that cover most of what the US first amendment does, with the rest further down. Oh, and now that I've properly confused you and spent all this time typing I should probably point out that I'm not a lawyer, just in case there was any doubt about that :).

Having read that, I don't see any real differences with America's system, though the application may be different.

nossid wrote:

Interesting stuff

Sorry, I had it in my head you were Finnish. Don't know why and I should have checked. No offence intended. You can label me Welsh if you like Should have remembered you were Swedish seeing as half the people I game with are Swedish. Still thanks for clearing that up. The overarching point I was making that the Swedes at least are a very open and free society right down to your politicians openly walking the streets and mingling with the public. Perhaps I'm reading a little too much into it .

Still the links to your Constitution do help me look less of an idiot and thanks for joining the discussion.

LilCodger wrote:

It makes all the difference in the world if Wal-Mart chooses not to carry a product versus the government forbidding the existence of that product. No one forces you to shop at Wal-Mart.

But isn't the end result is the same. I would argue its worse. Unelected and unanswerable body gets to decide what is acceptable for the gaming audience. While in theory you could buy it elsewhere, in practice the alternative doesn't even exist and games are censored for the US market because Wal Mart is the 800lb Gorilla. The Witcher is a prime example of this. Worse again is the default stance by our favoured media to automatically limit its scope of expression. What other topics fail to even make it of the drawing board in the face of this self-censorship? One, personally, I don't buy.

LilCodger wrote:

You're missing the point of free speech a little bit. Don't worry, most Americans do as well. Free speech is not about forcing others to hear your speech. Free speech is not about boobies on TV, or in an art gallery. Free speech is not about forcing a company to carry your product.

To be fair I never said anyone should be forced to listen to or buy anything. Freedom of choice after all. However art, whatever form it takes, is surely protected under freedom of speech. Even flag burning is protected under the First Amendment. You might think that boobies on TV aren't that important but its a freedom that television producers don't have. The question is how far does that go now? I'll make one more point while you are musing on that question.

LilCodger wrote:

Free speech is about being able to say what you want without fear of governmental reprisal. No prison, beatings, killings, deportations, etc. Free speech is about creating a marketplace of ideas. Some ideas are going to win in the marketplace.

As an Irishman I totally accept the first part. Equally, as an Irishman I reject the second part. The problem with the "marketplace of ideas" is you end up with a tyranny of consensus. Watch the video I linked earlier as it clearly argues that you have the right to speak but you have the duty to listen as well. As Hitchens put it "don't take refuge in the false security of consensus".

From my experience that one voice or idea that is only a minority is more important to hear than the dominating idea. If you want a clear example of this look at the media in the US in the run to the Iraq war and soon after it. Opposing views are labelled as anti-American (a phrase I despise) or unpatriotic (not far behind either) to the point that they are shouted down, even bullied. News stations avoids unpopular news as it might hurt their ratings. Once something is repeated often enough it becomes fact and very dangerous paths are taken. Again, I've seen the exact same type scenarios play out here in this country and it might not be the government doing the censoring but its just as pernicious none the less. Again, probably worse because people think they are hearing a fair and balance arguement.

What we have is what is needed. Anything more is asking for trouble. Anything more is forcing speech upon an audience, willing or otherwise, and that is an abomination.

While in theory you could buy it elsewhere, in practice the alternative doesn't even exist and games are censored for the US market because Wal Mart is the 800lb Gorilla.

Did Wal Mart carry Audiosurf? I think Dylan is doing okay...

That is the beauty of capitalism, and the reason free speech and free markets tend to go hand in hand. Free speech guarantees you a platform, it just doesn't dictate the size of that platform. Maybe you start on your front porch. Maybe you start on a sidewalk in the park. If your idea really is good, folks will offer you larger platforms.

For an analogy, Cincinnati was the home of a controversial Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit when I lived in the area. If you are unfamiliar with his work, his middle period was, um, interesting. Think men in chaps with bullwhips. Folks called for the art gallery not to show his work or be closed down (I completely disagree), and folks called into question the public funding of "the arts" (I somewhat agree and have debated). Should Wal Mart be legally obligated to carry poster size prints of Mapplethorpe's work? You will have great difficulty convincing me that it should be so.

You might think that boobies on TV aren't that important but its a freedom that television producers don't have.

Sure they do, just not on the public airwaves. If you want to argue that there shouldn't be public airwaves, that's a different thread.

You can decide to attend a peace/war/Klan rally. You cannot force me to drive you there. You cannot force me to attend with you. Well, not legally anyways.

Equally, as an Irishman I reject the second part. The problem with the "marketplace of ideas" is you end up with a tyranny of consensus. Watch the video I linked earlier as it clearly argues that you have the right to speak but you have the duty to listen as well.

This is true, but the answer lies in education, not legislation. We should legislate morality as little as possible. We outlaw murder and theft on the basis of rights to life and property, not the moral failure of murder or theft. If you legislate the speech platforms, you are turning "freedom of speech" into "the right to be heard".

Axon wrote:
nossid wrote:

Interesting stuff

Sorry, I had it in my head you were Finnish. Don't know why and I should have checked. No offence intended. You can label me Welsh if you like Should have remembered you were Swedish seeing as half the people I game with are Swedish. Still thanks for clearing that up. The overarching point I was making that the Swedes at least are a very open and free society right down to your politicians openly walking the streets and mingling with the public. Perhaps I'm reading a little too much into it .

I think that a large part of this comes down to the size of the country in question. Sweden is about 1/20 the size of the US in terms of land mass, and 1/25 the population. Sweden, for example, is roughly the size of California, but with a population size closer to that of North Carolina (or, for that matter, the Chicagoland metro area). The population density is roughly that of Iowa. I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that most members of state governments tend to walk around without security details or police escorts.

Chicago's Mayor Daley rides his bike to work, and has been known to take detours to check out various civic projects, including sneaking in unlocked doors at major construction sites and later criticizing those responsible for lax safety and security precautions. Nobody goes around accusing Da Mayre or Chicago of being radically open or free, as far as I know

No doubt that size matters. The smaller your population is the fewer homicidal nutjobs you'll have.

I do see Sweden as a very open and liberal country, but we are far from immune from politicians who will throw out our liberties for political gain, disguised as protecting the nation from the illusive terrorists and vague outer threats. This was demonstrated yesterday when a horrible surveillance law ("Lex Orwell") got passed after much outrage and political play. The moderates and liberals in the majority pushed it through in an act of betrayal that can never be forgiven.

The only upside I can see is that during the next 15 months before it's in effect we'll see a movement emerge that pushes for encrypting all traffic. This is something that will hopefully benefit everyone.

LilCodger wrote:

That is the beauty of capitalism, and the reason free speech and free markets tend to go hand in hand.

The Chinese might be re-writing that bit.

LilCodger wrote:

For an analogy, Cincinnati was the home of a controversial Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit when I lived in the area. If you are unfamiliar with his work, his middle period was, um, interesting. Think men in chaps with bullwhips. Folks called for the art gallery not to show his work or be closed down (I completely disagree), and folks called into question the public funding of "the arts" (I somewhat agree and have debated). Should Wal Mart be legally obligated to carry poster size prints of Mapplethorpe's work? You will have great difficulty convincing me that it should be so.

I, too, lived in Cincinnati at the time and that's not quite what happened. The Cincinnati sheriff forcibly closed the exhibit and arrested the museum director on charges of pandering obscenity, among others. A judge overturned the closure the next day and the director was eventually acquitted of all charges. The real 'questionable' work that got everyone in tizzy was not men in chaps, but a picture of crucifix in a jar of urine. It, and others, were actually kept in a separate area of the exhibit that was restricted to people who were 18+. The Mapplethorpe exhibit went on to set attendance records for the museum.

OG_slinger wrote:
LilCodger wrote:

That is the beauty of capitalism, and the reason free speech and free markets tend to go hand in hand.

The Chinese might be re-writing that bit.

They think they are, but they are breaking down. They really aren't a free market, but that's another thread.

OG_slinger wrote:

Mapplethorpe stuff

I wasn't really trying to portray what happened, but okay. Certainly wasn't our finest moment. I honestly forgot about the urine crucifix. For some reason I was thinking that was a Warhol work. The pic that kept getting shoved in my face was the one of a man with a bullwhip handle in an "unfortunate" place. I'd much rather have memories of a jar of urine. I will admit that I did not visit the gallery.

My point stands that forcing a retail establishment to stock Mapplethorpe's work is not morally superior to forcing the art gallery not to display his work.

The Mapplethorpe story is, I think, a good example of the system working as it is intended. Sure, local folks might get offended and take objection, but ultimately (and quickly) the ruling came down that opposition groups can't stifle free expression.

The Piss Christ controversy, on the other hand, I think is a different issue. In that case, it wasn't a question of whether potentially sacrilegious expression was allowed, but whether it would be actively promoted by the government. It's a tricky issue, because we as a nation decided that we value art and want to generally fund and endorse art, so that withholding funds for works based on the work's perceived message works to passively restrict that work. I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts not being very carefully set up. We endorse the arts, certainly, but the legislative process amounted to a platitude duct taped to stacks of cash instead of a careful drafting of a process for how to endorse the arts.

Tangent: (Perhaps a better idea would be to more strongly subsidize the raw materials and other resources needed for the arts, such as granting extra benefits for spaces dedicated for performance, practice, and display--focusing on removing the economic restrictions to art that come from overhead and overpriced supplies.)