Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnevil9
So, let me get this straight: Placing a crucifix in a jar of urine is okay, but soaking books in it is right out? Got it!
I don't think either is okay, but buying a crucifix and immersing it in a bottle of piss is not vandalism, while damaging or destroying books in a library is, whatever way you choose to do it.
I'm not sure about the MA definition of hate crime, but this sounds like one.
Well, of course they're two totally different. The only thing they have in common is the presence of urine, which is pretty much what I said in my response to Carney's post.
I don't see how I could have said that any clearer.
Originally Posted by Carnevil9
So, let me get this straight: Placing a crucifix in a jar of urine is okay, but soaking books in it is right out? Got it!
I don't think either is okay, but buying a crucifix and immersing it in a bottle of piss is not vandalism, while damaging or destroying books in a library is, whatever way you choose to do it.
I'm not sure about the MA definition of hate crime, but this sounds like one.
One is FREE SPEECH. The other is VANDALISM. As you don't seem to know the difference, I'll explain it to you: if someone wants to sink a book on homosexuality--or a crucifix--into a tank of piss and take a picture of it, people might not like it, but the artist can do that and display it. It's their opinion as all art is. (By the way, are you so sure the crucifix in piss it's about hate? Maybe the artist is trying to prove that the crucifix can survive and inspire even when it's pissed on--maybe it proves the power of that image over all? Do you KNOW for sure what it's saying?).
Do you believe FREE SPEECH should be protected? If you do, then you shouldn't flash that little mad face over the fact that someone's opinion is not equal to a hate crime, however offensive you found it. Or do you want us to do as the Taliban does and jail or kill people for expressing their dislike of a religion?
As with all free speech, you're free to hate it and think the artist should not have done it, you're free to argue with the artist about it, too, speak out against his work, and create your own art to counter his. Either way, as it's the artist's crucifix (or book on homosexuality) he can do what he likes with it--and you don't have to look at the image or give money to the artist or the museum that houses his art.
Meanwhile, if someone throws piss on books in a library, they're not just saying what they think of those books, they're making sure books that don't belong to them can't be read by anyone. They are imposing their prejudice on everyone and hurting the university with their actions. This is VANDALISM. Just as someone walking into a church and splashing urine on that churches crucifix would be vandalism. An act of hate against them or something they espouse in particular.
Please try to keep the two separate from now on. Free Speech is NOT vandalism, and a picture of a crucifix in urine, however despicable to you, is not the same taking down a church's crucifix and tossing it into their toilet. This is why one is protected and allowed and the other is not.
Well, of course they're two totally different. The only thing they have in common is the presence of urine, which is pretty much what I said in my response to Carney's post.
I don't see how I could have said that any clearer.
