Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Fucking librullsss

    There is a huge difference between a depiction of a nude and Karen Finley's insertion of yams into various orifices and then eating them. If you can't see it, then I truly feel sorry for you and your stunted sense of aesthetics.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    There is a huge difference between a depiction of a nude and Karen Finley's insertion of yams into various orifices and then eating them. If you can't see it, then I truly feel sorry for you and your stunted sense of aesthetics.
    Who?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    There is a huge difference between a depiction of a nude ... etc.
    Oh Mercy!

    Um ... um ... now I forget what I came in to say!

    What was the subject again?

    ~ Auntie Mame :p :p :p
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,778
    Sorry Ody ...

    The devil made me do it! :eek: :D

    In reality, I agree with you in here.

    ~ ABC
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Who?
    Karen Finley. A "performance artist" who used to cover herself in chocolate while ranting about men crapping on women. and inserted yams into various orifices and then ate them. She was one of the NEA grant recipients that almost got the program derailed, and would have if the left hadn't gone berserk over the threat of the federal government not paying for "art".
    Quote Originally Posted by ABC in Georgia View Post
    Sorry Ody ...

    The devil made me do it! :eek: :D

    In reality, I agree with you in here.

    ~ ABC
    I know. And it was a good post. It's always fun when a genteel lady gets a case of the vapors over something like that. I'll get the smelling salts, you just relax. :D
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    So this person was Constitutionally protected to deface public property?
    The operative particular in this discussion is that the medium was chalk on a public sidewalk. The temporary nature of it makes a difference. So no, he isn't categorically protected to deface public property, but he might be protected in making a temporary statement in a common medium or practice like chalking the sidewalk.

    Example- there are sand sculptors who create their works on the public beach at Treasure Island. They often put a little sign in front of the sculpture like "Jesus praying at Gethsemane". The police do not prosecute these people, even though it might be in violation of a littering or signage law. So if a political artist sculpts four bodies in the sand and puts a sign up that says, "The cops kill people." to take any action against him, would be an attack on political speech.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Before you sound off about arresting others, people speed all day. There just aren't enough patrol officers to catch them all. However, the cop has to pick and choose who to pull over. There isn't anything nefarious about it. They can't catch everyone but they can catch some.
    There is if there is an illegal reason for his choice of whom to pull over. The fact that the police may not have ever enforced the law applied to chalking a public sidewalk previously doesn't mean that they can apply it with the intent of stopping political speech.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    .............piffle..............
    The city dropped the charges and didn't re-arrest him. Are they now selectively non-enforcing? Surely they have the manpower to drive by city hall and see the sidewalk chalkers in action. Or perhaps they realized they were about to be bitchslapped?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The operative particular in this discussion is that the medium was chalk on a public sidewalk. The temporary nature of it makes a difference. So no, he isn't categorically protected to deface public property, but he might be protected in making a temporary statement in a common medium or practice like chalking the sidewalk.
    Cool. So, I can come along and pelt your home with every imaginable form of feces that I can find. After all, it's not permanent. You can wash that off just fine. It's only temporary. And I'm making a statement by hurling turds at your house, so my "speech" is protected there to the exclusion of your property rights.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The operative particular in this discussion is that the medium was chalk on a public sidewalk. The temporary nature of it makes a difference. So no, he isn't categorically protected to deface public property, but he might be protected in making a temporary statement in a common medium or practice like chalking the sidewalk.

    Example- there are sand sculptors who create their works on the public beach at Treasure Island. They often put a little sign in front of the sculpture like "Jesus praying at Gethsemane". The police do not prosecute these people, even though it might be in violation of a littering or signage law. So if a political artist sculpts four bodies in the sand and puts a sign up that says, "The cops kill people." to take any action against him, would be an attack on political speech.
    I'll remember that if someone makes a sand sculpture or sidewalk chalk art of God damning gays to hell. Something tells me your tune will be somewhat different.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •