"The Stonecoast instructor also said as an aside that "the statues should come down." I didn't have the chance to say I agree with her on most of them, but it ought to be left up to the owners, whether public or private. If public, the democratic process should decide."

Jim
Then read this.

and yet the side James support is encouraging this attack on free speech by giving them the green light to do it.

Just because someone is good at debating points doesn't mean one has wisdom.

Obviously James is saying that the public has the right to cutail free speech, if they disagree with it. I disagree with James's belief and find it abhorrent.

Many liberals support banning speech they don't agree with in violation of our First Amendment rights.

Keith

That is a blatantly wrong misinterpretation of what James has said. Reread what he wrote and understand it before you refer to it as "abhorrent"

"The statues are part of free speech"
then
"I agree with her that most of them should come down."

When they tear down the Statue of Liberty, I'll be impressed.

You are cherry picking sentences to make your point while ignoring a key point.


Do a couple of you have a score list by your computer? Instead of trying to understand what James is saying it seems like a couple people are always trying to "score points" against him.

You won't be alone.

Everyone is trying to make a point. That's what discussions are about. And James deliberately starts imflammatory threads, then gets his feelings hurt. Along with his buddies.

The point of a discussion is to inform or become informed. You cannot win a discussion, if you are incorrect you then have a chance to become correct and that is a "win". If you educate someone that is a good thing for both parties.

Quit trying "win" and "score points", no one is keeping tally.

I like James and have defended him on a number of occasions. I don't see any other meaning in what he wrote than that the voting public can trample the First Amendment rights of other Americans who created and paid for public art, that they don't like.

Under James's theory, when books, music and video becomes public domain, the public can vote to destroy them too. Paintings in public museums could be found offensive, voted on and destroyed A single vote could lead to the destruction of some of the greatest artistic and intellectual works in all of history. That would be truly abhorrent.

Keith

As for me I normally don't comment on James posts

you must be....you want to be heard, but censor everyone else. Sound familiar?

If you have not noticed I am not a strong proponent of Democracy for this reason. Just so we are all on the same page let me post the 1st amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No were does it say that once a piece of art is installed in a public space that it is to be a permanent fixture. If 60 years ago your town decided to put up a statue of Che Guervara would you oppose its removal?

show me were I have recommended censorship

For those interested in what is happening here in Connecticut, New Haven is now seemly looking for elimination of all things European https://www.newhavenindependent.org/

All because a high school student decided that she did not like the statue of Christopher Columbus that had been erected quite sometime ago by Italians who came here seeking a better life....

That's to me how it starts, first the statues, then the institutions... anything with European history to it...

The thing that concerns me is this has been on-going for a while, the serious discussion of getting the land back to it's original owners, the native people - and with things starting to snowball... it won't be long before these talks are presented once again.

People at the plant are getting very concerned, the older folks anyway with talk of dogs and guns filling the air...

I know one thing that's positive coming out of these statues being removed: Lots and lots of support for President Trump, even people who did not like him see our current President as the only way to keep things from getting worse, so lot's of support for a 2nd term in these parts...

But I take this statue removal thing very seriously - because I see it as a gateway to further problems down the road.

Note: I just now really edited this post, after re-reading it I said to myself this totally came out wrong... and Gary's oh boy comment could not have been more accurate.

Sorry about the original post - I'm just really mad about how all our history is being erased.

oh boy

Since the subject in this thread is really the first amendment, let's look at it from that point of view.

James has said that if it is private property, the the owner should decide. I agree with that.

But IF it is on public property , then it belongs to all of us.

Now what the 1A says is that government can't engage in prior restraint of speech.....in the public square. I think we all agree with that....at least those of us who believe in Constitutional government and the rule of law.

So if we accept that artwork is free speech..........and I do............then the statues are free speech AND if they are on public property, it is my opinion that the government does not now have the authority to remove them. WHY....because I believe that a decision to remove a statue or piece of art would not be based on a "content neutral" basis. That is a NO NO! It would be no different than if Robert Maplethorpe's (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) CHRIST had been removed because it offended Christians.

Consider the 16 foot statue of Lenin in downtown Seattle. ( Actually I think that one is on private property) but it will work for discussion. Most of us would probably be fine with removing that statue. But if we did we would be in the wrong because our objection would be based on content...or what the statue represents.

I mentioned in the thread on Woodrow Wilson that I think he was a racist. Should we all vote to decide whether or not to rename anything with his name on it ? I think not.

So my bottom line is that the decision to remove any statue should NOT be part of the democratic process. If voters can vote to remove a statue, those same voters can...and WILL.......vote to prohibit your speech against removal. That seems like a very slippery slope to me.

Maybe a solution would be to sell & move the 'offending' statues to private ground......................but I doubt it. The left is never satisfied.

Those are two very different things.

If someone graffitis a political message on a government building should we preserve the graffiti as to not infringe on his speech?

No because that act was illegal in the first place