| Northwest Indiana Discussion http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/ |
|
| what ever happened to out freedoms http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=205 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | tomskag [ Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | what ever happened to out freedoms |
http://www.freep.com/news/locmac/mural18e_20050218.htm its a damn shame |
|
| Author: | Bling Bling [ Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I hope he appeals that decision. It seems like like that is a violation of free speach. |
|
| Author: | Dewey Wilkerson [ Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok I understand that the punishment seems harsh, but some things need to be noted. According to the article, he was issued a variance - thus the government allowing him to paint his mural. So, the first thing is, they didn't suppress him. Second, he was told no letters. He put letters in. Third, again according to the article, there was to be no genetalia. Now here it gets muddy. If they said no genetalia, then he is probably right that that would not include breasts. If in fact it specifically says the term "genetalia", then he might have an argument about semantics or definitions. It also says he was requested to change it and didn't. I agree that we get into a sticky wicket when we try to define "art" and try to come up with words to describe what should and shouldn't be allowed in public view. That's why it is so hard for society to define "pornography". So, as I read it, the guy definitely violated his variance by putting the word "love" up. He probably went against the intent of the governing body when he put bare breasts in his work. He was requested to change it and didn't. I think I would be on his side if he had painted over the words and argued his point about the definition of "genetalia". But, again, according to the article, he didn't. Yep, the punishment might be harsh, but it sounds like they tried to get him to cooperate and he didn't. And please take things you read in the paper with a grain of salt. Papers are in business to sell papers. They write sensational stories to get people interested. Articles are based on the observations of the writer and his/her editors. These folks can and do skew things to support their way of thinking. They are not always lilly white and totally objective. But I will admit the picture in the article shows the guy has talent!!!! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|