That's because you haven't thought about it enough. No owner has the obligation to allow the statues. If the voters decide they don't want public resources--their tax dollars--used to display and maintain these statues, why aren't they entitled to remove them?

The First Amendment says only that government may not infringe speech, not that government or anyone else must promote certain kinds of speech.

It's apparently your view that once a statue is erected, it acquires a status as a monument to free speech and may never be removed. I find your beliefs silly in the extreme.

Jim

My post to Keith covers yours too, I think, but I won't call you silly for being wrong.

Jim

I say when people destroy public property they have earned the right to spend a few years in prison. If they want a monument removed there are LEGAL avenues where by that can be done.

^^^^This^^^^

I know where there's an Obama statue on public property. I'm a voter, so I believe I'll go topple that sucker. James says I can.

That's what I'm saying too. The legal way to accomplish it would be to petition city council or by referendum.

Jim

Should a city or state legislature be able to override something that has already been voted on by the people by referendum?

That's immaterial, now that we know it's acceptable to just start a riot and tear it down without being held accountable.

Censorship is good as long as it is legal.

Who's talking censorship? I don't want my taxes going to support memorializing Confederate generals who in fact were traitors to the USA and fought for the cause of slavery.

If a majority of people feel like I do, and vote on it, the statutes will come down.

Jim

Regarding that move, "Song of the South," the expression "tar baby" was once applied to black people. The literal tar baby in the movie could be taken as a metaphor for a black person.

I can understand why a black person would object.

Jim

Oops, they forgot about the voting part.

Jim, what about books, videos and music that enter the public domain. Should people be able to vote to have them destroyed?

What about paintings in public museums?

Have you ever been to Europe, in particular the Vatican Museum and seen how they knocked off all the male phalluses? Do you agree with defacing artwork if the public who owns it wants it done?

What if the public wants black people painted into all the famous scenes that just depict white people?

What if people want to rewrite all the history books, filling them with falsehoods?

Keith

Tyranny of the majority.

What if the blacks don't like where white folks are buried in the cemeteries?

The leftists want to separate us from our history, because a people not rooted in their history are easy to manipulate. People who are ashamed of their history are very easy to manipulate.

Keith

Then, Keith, the First Amendment would give me the rights to speak out and lobby against what those people want.

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that what you say has to be true. Only that you have the right to say it. FOX News and the other networks to a lesser extent are very grateful for this rule.

It would be wrong, imho, to change the textbooks so they promote falsity. But right and wrong don't always comport with what is legal.

Your analogy to books is one I made in the OP. Suppose a group, as often happens, makes a fuss about the inclusion of certain books in a school library. Do you imagine that these books acquire some right to stay there, even though most voters want them removed?

If there were a government book bureau censoring books, the question would have a different answer.

Jim

3. ROBERT E. LEE (1807-70)

The greatest Confederate general of the Civil War, Lee graduated from West Point in 1829, second in a class of 46, and joined the engineers. A Virginian by birth, Lee claimed that he fought for his home state more than for the Confederacy. The Mexican War-During the Mexican War, Lee served with distinction as a member of General Scott's staff at Veracruz in March 1847, and at Cerro Gordo the following month. His eye for reconnaissance and tactical improvisations led to Scott's victories reconnaissance and tactical improvisations led to Scott's victories at Churubusco, Chapultepec, and eventually to the surrender of Mexico City.

Lee worked a desk job from 1852 to 1855 as superintendent at West Point, after which he became colonel of the 2nd U.S. Cavalry and served in the Southwest until shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War. Lee was offered but rejected a top command in the Union army and resigned when Virginia seceded. On June 1, 1862, he replaced wounded General Joseph E. Johnston and took command of the Army of Northern Virginia. The Civil War-Lee became one of those rare generals who thought strategically, broadly designed his tactics, and took chances. He understood the generals of the North better than those generals understood themselves. He came up with the strategy for Major General Thomas J. "Stonewall: Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign during the spring of 1862, making Jackson the most celebrated officer in the Confederacy-until he was later eclipsed by Lee.

In late June, Lee's smaller force bluffed Major General George B. McClellan's army into withdrawing, and two months later Lee outmaneuvered Major General John Pope and defeated the Army of Virginia at the Second Battle of Bull Run on August 29-30. On September 17, with a force half the size of McClellan's Army of the Potomac, Lee repulsed the Federals in a drawn battle at Antietam. After President Lincoln replaced McClellan with Major General Ambrose Burnside, Lee bloodied the massive Union army on December 13 at Fredericksburg. Lee's aggressive instincts were never more evident than at Chancellorsville. He ignored the maxims of warfare, divided his much smaller force, and on May 2-4, 1863, decimated the right flank of the Army of the Potomac with a surprise attack. But his greatest mistake occurred on July 1-3 at Gettysburg, when he was overly aggressive at a time when he should have fought defensively. He admitted the error and withdrew into Virginia.

By 1864 many of Lee's best officers had been killed and there were no more soldiers to replace those who'd been lost in battle. Forced to fight defensively, Lee held off Grant's offensive in the Battle of the Wilderness on ay5-6, at Spotsylvania on May 8-12, and repulsed the Union assault at Cold Harbor on June 3. Those battles cost Grant a third of his men, but Lee couldn't withstand the pressure and withdrew to Petersburg's trenches. It took Grant eight months to flush Lee out of Petersburg and force his surrender on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House.

What Made Him Great? Lee's men adored him. In victory and defeat, they witnessed his great strength of character, his high sense of duty, and his humility and selflessness. Even Northerners accepted Lee as the greatest general of the Civil War.

Besides in my opinion being against the First Amendment, I look on destroying historic, public artwork as falsifying history.

Keith

Every media outlet Americans have access too are grateful for this rule. (except Assange, he doesn't have first amendment rights)