artist sentenced to jail over mural nudity
The Noodle Scoffing Vargr
"We’ve got a war that we’re fighting, spending all kinds of money.
People are dying and here they’re talking about breasts"
Michigan artist sentenced to jail over mural nudity
By Joanne Laurier
24 February 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
In a particularly philistine and backward act, artist Edward Stross
was sentenced to prison last week for his mural depicting a
bare-breasted figure on a building in Roseville, Michigan, in suburban
Detroit. The artist was ordered by District Judge Marco Santia to
serve 30 days in jail, do two years of probation and pay a fine of
$500 for his variation of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Man,”
illustrating a half-naked Eve. Stross was also mandated to alter the
fresco, which he painted on the outside of his art gallery in 1997.
After covering the breast with a black cloth, Stross explained to
reporters that he was in mourning for artists everywhere. “Removing
the work is the ultimate punishment. The jail time is nothing compared
to removing what I painted. ... They’re trying to paint me out as a
criminal.”
At Stross’ trial, Roseville resident Jim Goldwater spoke in support of
the artist, telling jurors that Stross volunteered at a local homeless
shelter and has created a number of murals in the community for free.
He added, “I think it’s disgusting, to be honest with you.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan filed an
emergency motion to keep him out of jail pending an appeal of the
sentence. On Tuesday the ACLU obtained a stay until March 5. City
officials are apparently quite determined to see Stross jailed.
Roseville city attorney John Dolan told the Macomb [County] Daily, “We
don’t believe there is a basis for a stay. He was convicted by a jury
of his peers.” Continued Dolan: “There also aren’t any constitutional
claims that we think have any likelihood of prevailing in this case.”
In a press release, national ACLU Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg
commented, “It is disturbing that an artist can be imprisoned for
replicating a masterpiece from the Sistine Chapel on the side of his
art studio.”
Stross, 43, told the Detroit Free Press: “This is one of the world’s
most famous paintings. This is not my work. It is Michelangelo’s, and
all I am trying to do is brighten up our community. ... They’re trying
to turn my message into something it’s not.”
Wendy Wagenheim, Communications Director of the Michigan ACLU,
explained to the WSWS that Stross had a “good case” which involved the
constitutional right to free speech. “Not only should he not be
jailed,” she commented, “for replicating classical art, but Mr. Stross
has multiple sclerosis and jail is certainly not the right place for
someone with a disability.”
Stross collapsed in his studio Tuesday and was taken by ambulance to
St. John Hospital. His brother told the media, “The stress over this
fight got to be just too much.”
A number of Michigan artists have spoken out against Stross’
victimization. “If it’s good enough for the Sistine Chapel, it’s good
enough for Roseville,” said Lauren Cerand, spokesperson for Emerging
Arts.
Jef Bourgeau, who faced obscenity charges in Pontiac, Michigan, in
2000 for displaying classical art such as Gustave Courbet’s “The
Origin of the World,” told the WSWS: “It’s an absurd case. I had the
same experience in Pontiac. Stross’ is a folk version of Michelangelo.
There is more nudity in your average church. Sex has become one of the
main focuses since the Christian right has gained influence. There has
been an increasing preoccupation by the right wing with what is quite
normal in art.
“To show you how the pendulum has swung, in 1989, Christina
Orr-Cahill, art director of the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, DC,
was fired for canceling the Robert Mapplethorpe [a controversial
photographer] show. Today such a person would be promoted as a hero,
like [former New York mayor Rudolph] Giuliani for censoring the
‘Sensation’ exhibition. Art is becoming a target because it is the one
thing that can speak out against what is happening. Art has always
caused trouble because it is visual and creates a focal point in a
real way. Genuine art takes an oppositional stance. The case against
Stross should be thrown out.”
Tyree Guyton is a Detroit painter and sculptor. In an ongoing effort
in the 1980s and 1990s, Guyton created the Heidelberg Project, an
artistic transformation of two city blocks of blight on Detroit’s east
side. The renowned open-air installation—a standing reminder of the
city’s social decay—has been continuously attacked by city officials
and was partially bulldozed under the administration of Coleman Young.
Tyree and his associate, Jenenne Whitfield, spoke with the WSWS about
the Stross case. “It’s really ridiculous, making an issue out of
breasts. We’ve got a war that we’re fighting, spending all kinds of
money. People are dying and here they’re talking about breasts,” said
Tyree.
Jenenne interjected: “An atmosphere of fear is deliberately generated
by the powers that be. They want people to walk around with blinders.
When people feel that they can’t be heard—that’s a dangerous
situation.”
“People who don’t know anything about art are making these kinds of
decisions,” added Tyree. “They are afraid of art that talks about what
is happening. Here is an artist that painted a picture on his own
private property. Where is the first amendment freedom of speech? We
can send kids to Iraq. American soldiers can torture people all over
the globe. And in Detroit, they are getting rid of art programs and
closing down the schools. Something is definitely wrong with this
picture.”
In near-identical circumstances, the ACLU filed suit in January
against the city of Pilot Point, Texas—north of Dallas—and its police
department for coercing an art gallery owner, Dwight Miller, into
removing a version of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” on the
exterior wall of his gallery. Miller was also forced to cover the
mural after police threatened to arrest him under a pornography
statute.
“It is unconstitutional for government officials to censor a work of
art because it might offend a small group of people,” said ACLU of
Texas Director Will Harrell. “It is also a misuse of resources to have
our law enforcement officials act as art critics.”
The Pilot Point police repeatedly threatened to prosecute Miller under
a criminal statute that targets those who abuse children by selling or
displaying hard-core pornography. In response, Miller covered Eve’s
breasts with a banner that read “Crime Scene.”
“The threats against Mr. Miller by law enforcement were baseless and
wholly inappropriate. The Farmers and Merchant’s Gallery mural is no
more pornographic than the Sistine Chapel or countless other works of
art portraying classical nude figures,” argued the ACLU director.
---
"Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar."
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
ma...@kitfox.com
> "We've got a war that we're fighting, spending all kinds of
money.
> People are dying and here they're talking about breasts"
>
> Michigan artist sentenced to jail over mural nudity
> By Joanne Laurier
> 24 February 2005
>
I am constantly surprised by the immorality the religious right will
sink to to support what they consider to be ethical. Perhaps I
shouln't be; perhaps I should be more cynical by now.
Why is there such a kick on these days toward censorship? If you show
a woman's breast, you're anti-morality. If you criticise the war,
you're anti-Americian. If you suggest evolution has a lot of
scientific evidence and creationism does not, you're anti-Christian.
What this all is is anti-intellectual. Public discourse has been
replaced by charasmatic jingoism and distraction.
The case in this thread sounds like a group of vengeful city councilors
who already hated this artist for other reasons and are using 'public
decency' as a club to subdue him. The frightening part is that law
enforcement acted upon it and the 'moral values' folks rallied around
to give it a semblance of public support.
This painting was a reproduction of Michalengelo's work, and of
important cultural value. But this is overridden by fundimentalists
who for some reason think that depictions of breasts are indecent.
Why? I don't see how a rational person could conclude that the
depiction of breats hurt society. My only guess is that this stems
from the same anti-sexual psychosis that prompted mideval Christians to
whack the genitals off statues or fundimentalist Muslims to shroud
thier women.
The paranoia in America will eventually die down, and the
anti-intellectualists will once again be seen for the throwbacks they
are. But in the mean time, a lot of great artists and thinkers will be
crushed under the boot of religious immorality and patriotism.
Hopefully 2008 will see a new blossoming of the soul and sense of this
continent.
Mark McKay
--
http://www.kitfox.com
BR
> But this is overridden by fundimentalists who for some reason think
> that depictions of breasts are indecent. Why? I don't see how a
> rational person could conclude that the depiction of breats hurt
> society.
Because humanity hasn't come to terms with that powerful force known as
"procreation".
j_a_p...@yahoo.com
The Noodle Scoffing Vargr wrote:
> For all our furry artists, esp. ones who draw prawn, out there:
>
> "We've got a war that we're fighting, spending all kinds of
money.
> People are dying and here they're talking about breasts"
>
> Michigan artist sentenced to jail over mural nudity
> By Joanne Laurier
> 24 February 2005
>
> Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the
author
>
> In a particularly philistine and backward act, artist Edward Stross
> was sentenced to prison last week for his mural depicting a
> bare-breasted figure on a building in Roseville, Michigan, in
suburban
> Detroit. The artist was ordered by District Judge Marco Santia to
> serve 30 days in jail, do two years of probation and pay a fine of
> $500 for his variation of Michelangelo's "Creation of Man,"
> illustrating a half-naked Eve. Stross was also mandated to alter the
> fresco, which he painted on the outside of his art gallery in 1997.
>
roseville. I think I've seen this guys work, if he's the one who paints
on the side of Gonzo's, an airbrush shop.
-Jeff Pullen-
L. Parker
> I am constantly surprised by the immorality the religious right will
> sink to to support what they consider to be ethical. Perhaps I
> shouln't be; perhaps I should be more cynical by now.
I fear, Sir, that many Christians have forgotten the meaning of their
own beliefs. I think they need to review their definition of the word
"love." Nowhere is it defined as persecution.
On the behalf of many of them, I apologize.
- LP
ma...@kitfox.com
support? If this story is as it's described, he could probably use
some well wishers knowing the community supports him.
Kathmandu
"The Noodle Scoffing Vargr" <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:421ddbc7...@news.usenetzone.com...
> For all our furry artists, esp. ones who draw prawn, out there:
>
> "We've got a war that we're fighting, spending all kinds of money.
> People are dying and here they're talking about breasts"
>
> Michigan artist sentenced to jail over mural nudity
> By Joanne Laurier
> 24 February 2005
>
Ok, I think this thing is really silly but to play the devil's advocate
here, what are the people who run the government and police supposed to do?
There is a law, on the books that states in no uncertain terms there is to
be no public display of nudity, including artwork. Now, reguardless how
nutty this can be interpreted in this age of right wing idiocy, the people
in charge of enforcing duely accepted laws are required to enforce them
reguardless of their personal convictions. A police officer is not supposed
to pick and choose what laws to enforce, and can get into big trouble for
not doing his job.
The artist is in clear violation of the law, a jury of his peers convicted
him. It is how our justice system works. It doesn't matter that it is from
the inside of a church or a bare breasted ad for beer, if its against the
law.. its against the law. Had the picture been displayed inside a building,
I doubt anyone would have cared and probably not been against the law.
I know it sounds strange but there are some cities and towns that don't want
20 foot breasts painted on the sides of buildings. If you don't like that,
you need to work to get the law changed or move. Keep in mind, the original
painting is from the 'inside' of a church, not painted like grafitti on the
outside.
Me personaly? I think there should a lot more bare breasts in the world. I
think if a man can walk down the street without a shirt, a woman should too.
I would gladly trade a picture of a bare breasted woman for every picture of
a long haired jewish hippie nailed to a couple of crossties wearing a
prickly hat I've ever seen. In fact I think the entire thing is silly and a
waste of taxpayers money but that never stopped a politition..ever.
The Green Troll
> Michigan artist sentenced to jail over mural nudity
> By Joanne Laurier
> 24 February 2005
> Stross was also mandated to alter the
> fresco, which he painted on the outside of his art gallery in 1997.
How do you get paint to stick to a fresco after it dries?
What if someone paints Judge Santeria's face over the breast, as if he
might be suckling?
What if Stross just refuses to change a thing?
> like [former New York mayor Rudolph] Giuliani for censoring the
> ?Sensation? exhibition.
Yet his wife delivered a vagina monologue.
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/freedom>
Snow Leopard
"Kathmandu" <Kath...@yomomma.com> wrote in message
news:cvmh0t$1unl$1...@velox.critter.net...
>
> Ok, I think this thing is really silly but to play the devil's advocate
> here, what are the people who run the government and police supposed to
do?
Didn't the story say that the mural had been up since 1997. If it's a law,
they should have taken care of it 8 years ago, not suddenly today.
>
> The artist is in clear violation of the law, a jury of his peers convicted
> him. It is how our justice system works. It doesn't matter that it is from
> the inside of a church or a bare breasted ad for beer, if its against the
> law.. its against the law.
It was the law that blacks couldn't drink from certain water fountains and
so forth. Law, in and of itself, can never be a guarantee of what is morally
tolerable.
*purr*
Snow Leopard
"L. Parker" <anon...@example.net> wrote in message
news:cvlp9c$1c7c$1...@velox.critter.net...
> ma...@kitfox.com wrote:
>
> > I am constantly surprised by the immorality the religious right will
> > sink to to support what they consider to be ethical. Perhaps I
> > shouln't be; perhaps I should be more cynical by now.
>
> I fear, Sir, that many Christians have forgotten the meaning of their
> own beliefs. I think they need to review their definition of the word
> "love." Nowhere is it defined as persecution.
I think it is naive to say that Christianity is ONLY about love. Certainly
the deity of the Old Testament is one of the most vengeful, petulant and
intolerant deities in the literature. The intolerance exhibited by Yahweh is
reflected in the texts that make up the greater portion of the Bible.
Jesus may be the new Covenant, but Paul has no shortage of spleen,
intolerance and (where women are concerned) outright misogyny himself.
To say that Christianity is only about self-righteous intolerance is eqully
one-sided. The difference is there never seems to be much in the way of a
concerted effort to really put an end to the intolerance. It's the
equivalent of leaving prison reform to prison officials, or congressional
reform to politicians. Christianity seems to be incapable of reforming
itself from within. What we get instead are weak acknowledgements not to
throw out the bathwater (the religion) with the baby (the practitioner).
Hate the sin, not the sinner, right? Oh wait ... that would be exactly the
opposite of what I just said.
*nuzzle*
Samantha, the Chocolate Wombat
Genitals are penis, testicles, ovaries, vulva, etc. Breasts are
secondary sexual characteristics.
One might also point out that there are so many stupid laws on the
books that the government has the power to keep you always on the
edge of the knife. You're probably breaking some law right now and
you don't even know it and the only way you'd ever know it was if
someone decided they wanted to give you a bad time.
Fishnets and garters and breasts the size of volleyballs pimping a
car might have fit within the rules, and is certainly much more
vulgar than a tasteful bare breast, and yet there are scores of
billboards 40 feet high with this very image on them. This wasn't
about sexiness, it was about someone with a stick up their butt
being a jackass.
I would bet you anything you could go through that town and find no
less than a hundred corinices with naked cherubs or statues of
partially bare women in fountains. I suspect the controversy isn't
about nudity at all. It was about him depicting God creating Eve
instead of Adam. Heavens forbid anything other than cannon.
Just hope you never anger someone enough that they start looking up
obscure laws where you live and then demanding that you obey them.
In article <cvmh0t$1unl$1...@velox.critter.net>,
L. Parker
faith would come up with, having studied it in only a cursory manner. I
can understand that; it's a reasonable deduction.
However, there is quite a bit more to it than that, and it certain can
be difficult to understand.
Honestly, I'm not here to defend the people or the religion, and I have
absolutely ZERO desire to get into a long debate over it.
- LP
Snow Leopard
> Your words reflect exactly the understanding someone from outside the
> faith would come up with, having studied it in only a cursory manner. I
> can understand that; it's a reasonable deduction.
You are assuming I have an only cursory understanding of it, which isn't
exactly fair. Rather I posted a cursory post, in an effort to make the point
without setting off all kinds of fireworks. My conclusion is quite
considered, quite non-cursory, and so forth. I'm sorry that it seemed
ill-thought out to you.
>
> However, there is quite a bit more to it than that, and it certain can
> be difficult to understand.
This is really a bit insulting, LP. There's nothing difficult to understand
about it.
When the premise is that you must ACCEPT, regardless of all evidence, well
yes, that does become hard to understand. When all reason and intuition say,
"This is ridiculous" yes, it's hard to understand. When you are expected to
put out your own eyes in order to remain blind to the truth, yes, it's a bit
difficult to understand. When the mental tortures demanded in order to make
sense of something take on absurd dimensions, yes, it's difficult to
understand. When my faith tells me, "This is wrong," and the response is
"That's the devil talking,' and when I say, "Who says?" and they say, "God
tells me" and I say, "That's the devil talking" and they say, "Blasphemer"
... yes, that's a little difficult to understand.
But in terms of what is going on with all of this stuff, it's not difficult
to understand at all.
*mrows*
Kathmandu
"Samantha, the Chocolate Wombat" <cir...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:421ee95f$0$46554$c0de...@dsl.net...
> Actually, the law reads, 'No Genitalia' far different from nudity.
> Genitals are penis, testicles, ovaries, vulva, etc. Breasts are
> secondary sexual characteristics.
State of Michigan Act 33 of 1978 does state: "Nudity" means the lewd display
of the human male or female genitals or pubic area. But there is this little
line that reads " or, if the person is female, breasts" You will find that
little exception in just about every obscenity law out there, that is why ya
can't walk down the street topless if you are female. HB4360 states Crimes;
obscenity; disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor; include
allowing minor to examine and require businesses to display sexually
explicit matter only in restricted areas.
I don't think the painting constitutes "lewd" or the definition of "harmful
to minors" but I am not a lawyer.
>
> One might also point out that there are so many stupid laws on the
> books that the government has the power to keep you always on the
> edge of the knife. You're probably breaking some law right now and
> you don't even know it and the only way you'd ever know it was if
> someone decided they wanted to give you a bad time.
You are right, although I am not doing it in publc where others can see it.
I am also not willfully thumbing my nose at local government either.
>
> Fishnets and garters and breasts the size of volleyballs pimping a
> car might have fit within the rules, and is certainly much more
> vulgar than a tasteful bare breast, and yet there are scores of
> billboards 40 feet high with this very image on them. This wasn't
> about sexiness, it was about someone with a stick up their butt
> being a jackass.
>
Actually, its about people not wanting nude breasts painted on the side of a
building in their community and using laws on the books to get it removed. A
jury of his peers felt he was guilty. It's a lot of people with lots of
sticks up their ass and unless there was some mistake committed during the
trial, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it.
> I would bet you anything you could go through that town and find no
> less than a hundred corinices with naked cherubs or statues of
> partially bare women in fountains.
That I can't say, there may be or not, I dunno. Then again an 8 foot tall
classical bronze statue with a bare breast isn't the same as a flesh
colored, 20 ft breast on the side of a building. "Community Standards" is
pretty broad and open for interpretation.
I suspect the controversy isn't
> about nudity at all. It was about him depicting God creating Eve
> instead of Adam. Heavens forbid anything other than cannon.
I'm confused here but last I heard God did create Eve... then again me being
an athiest I might have missed some little detail somewhere. Me being a bit
more cynical I suspect it was an artist looking for fame by creating a
controversial piece of art then willfully defying local government to get
his name in the media... looks like it worked too.
> Just hope you never anger someone enough that they start looking up
> obscure laws where you live and then demanding that you obey them.>
I hope not too, but it happens all the time and keeps lawyers ass deep in
BMW's and fancy booze. In this instance there were no obscure laws used, in
fact it was a shiny new law for the most part.
Snow Leopard
"Snow Leopard" <snowleopardt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvnoaj$1j66$1...@velox.critter.net...
> > Your words reflect exactly the understanding someone from outside the
> > faith would come up with, having studied it in only a cursory manner.
> > However, there is quite a bit more to it than that, and it certain can
> > be difficult to understand.
*nuzzles you*
Upon further reflection, it's been a while since I've been called ignorant
and stupid so abruptly. *laugh* I'm going to assume that that wasn't your
intention, but it's a reasonable deducation, ne? *purr*
*pats*
But, since you don't want to debate, why don't you explain these
hard-to-understand mysteries to my kitty-brain. I realize that you won't be
defending Christianity, but your own version of it, so don't worry about
long debates having to defend the indefensible. I am interested in people's
spiritual beliefs anyway; at least when those beliefs stem from a genuine
spirituality, and not from "baser" human instincts.
Maybe such a thread would more properly belong in ALF? Or emails? It's up to
you. I hope you won't back away fromt he opportunity.
*purr*
The Noodle Scoffing Vargr
vanquished be until great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill
shall come against him.
>Upon further reflection, it's been a while since I've been called ignorant
>and stupid so abruptly. *laugh* I'm going to assume that that wasn't your
>intention, but it's a reasonable deducation, ne? *purr*
>
>*pats*
>
>But, since you don't want to debate, why don't you explain these
>hard-to-understand mysteries to my kitty-brain. I realize that you won't be
>defending Christianity, but your own version of it, so don't worry about
>long debates having to defend the indefensible. I am interested in people's
>spiritual beliefs anyway; at least when those beliefs stem from a genuine
>spirituality, and not from "baser" human instincts.
>
>Maybe such a thread would more properly belong in ALF? Or emails? It's up to
>you. I hope you won't back away fromt he opportunity.
Christianity is about hate, it defines itself by exclusion and the
bible is packed full of hate speech.
People can whine all they like about "jesus loving people" and bull
like that, but jeebus is quoted as saying that he comes to set son
against father and family against faimily.
Also, if we judge the churches by deeds, not words, pearls of glass
for ingots of gold is their trade.
BR
<Megasnip>
There's a reason we don't discuss religion* in AFF, you know.
*There's others too, but that's never stopped us either.
Juan F. Lara
The Noodle Scoffing Vargr <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>People can whine all they like about "jesus loving people" and bull
>like that, but jeebus is quoted as saying that he comes to set son
>against father and family against faimily.
And you keep wanting to start revolution.
- Juan F. Lara
Brian Henderson
<snowleopardt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It was the law that blacks couldn't drink from certain water fountains and
>so forth. Law, in and of itself, can never be a guarantee of what is morally
>tolerable.
It has nothing to do with morally tolerable, it has to do with
legality and in this case, what he did WAS ILLEGAL! There's no
question that what he did was illegal. He was found guilty by a jury
of his peers and punished for his crime. Like it or not, he was in
the wrong.
Now you might not like the law, but whether or not you like it, you
are still obliged to follow it or face the consequences.
Brian Henderson
>What if Stross just refuses to change a thing?
Then he can be fined, face losing his business license and possibly
face jail time. He can refuse all he wants, there are consequences
for his actions (or inactions) though.
L. Parker
Thank you for stopping this discussion (or at least attempting to), BR.
Snow Leopard, I'm sorry I appeared to call you stupid. I certainly don't
think you are, and you're right - that wasn't my intent.
I also apologize in advance for not continuing the discussion. Stopping
here is my acknowledgement of the fact that I think everyone here
already has their beliefs meted out. Thus, the debate would likely bring
enlightenment to no one on either side, and in the end, would be pointless.
Sorry, but it's warm enough where I live. I don't like arguments that
generate more heat than light.
- LP
Snow Leopard
> I also apologize in advance for not continuing the discussion. Stopping
> here is my acknowledgement of the fact that I think everyone here
> already has their beliefs meted out. Thus, the debate would likely bring
> enlightenment to no one on either side, and in the end, would be
pointless.
If you don't want to continue it in public, then continue it in private.
*purr*
Snow Leopard
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3k1v11log2v6jrori...@4ax.com...
> It has nothing to do with morally tolerable, it has to do with
> legality and in this case, what he did WAS ILLEGAL! There's no
> question that what he did was illegal. He was found guilty by a jury
> of his peers and punished for his crime. Like it or not, he was in
> the wrong.
In the wrong legally. One can be in the wrong legally, and in the right
morally, as Rosa Parks was or Gandhi. As were millions of Russians under
Stalin.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
ma...@kitfox.com
www.aclumich.org/attachments/gonzowall.jpg
www.aclumich.org/attachments/gonzocloseup.jpg
Come on, people. You can barely see these breasts. You almost need
someone to point out they're there. This persecution is not coming
from a single minded law enforcer who has taken it upon himself to
bring to justice every minor violation he comes across. This is the
act of a pinhead who is so freaked out by the idea that people have
sexual organs they are running paraniod and finding fornicators under
every rock they turn.
The art work is patriotic propaganda, for heaven's sake. They should
be applauding this.
Unfortunately, 'family values' is taking us far away from what should
be a prioirty for Americans - liberty and ethics. And saying that it
is just to persecute this artist simply because there is a statue on
the books is wrong. Laws are meant to enforce good conduct, not
replace it. Judges are given leeway because there are a lot of unusual
cases wher a strict application of the law is not appropriate. This
case cries out for common sense to be applied.
It would be interesting to know if the judge's or juror's hands were
tied on this case by overly restrictive legislation or pushy lawyers.
In any case, this is a poor example to set.
BR
> In the wrong legally. One can be in the wrong legally, and in the right
> morally, as Rosa Parks was or Gandhi. As were millions of Russians under
> Stalin.
And visa versa. Telling which is were the fun begins.
Rick Pikul
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:02:07 -0800, "Snow Leopard"
> <snowleopardt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It was the law that blacks couldn't drink from certain water fountains and
>>so forth. Law, in and of itself, can never be a guarantee of what is morally
>>tolerable.
>
> It has nothing to do with morally tolerable, it has to do with
> legality and in this case, what he did WAS ILLEGAL! There's no
> question that what he did was illegal. He was found guilty by a jury
> of his peers and punished for his crime. Like it or not, he was in
> the wrong.
The problem with that position is that the law itself is illegal.
> Now you might not like the law, but whether or not you like it, you
> are still obliged to follow it or face the consequences.
Tell that to the people who pass illegal laws.
--
Phoenix
Chris Sobieniak
BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net (Brian Henderson) wrote:
>It has nothing to do with morally tolerable, it has to
>do with legality and in this case, what he did WAS
>ILLEGAL! There's no question that what he did
>was illegal. He was found guilty by a jury of his
>peers and punished for his crime. Like it or not, he
>was in the wrong.
>Now you might not like the law, but whether or not
>you like it, you are still obliged to follow it or face
>the consequences.
Which is probably why I'm glad to be in Ohio, though I don't know what
kind of law they might have against public nudity in artwork in that
case.
From the Master of Car-too-nal Knowledge...
Christopher M. Sobieniak
--"Fightin' the Frizzies since 1978"--
Snow Leopard
"Rick Pikul" <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.26...@sympatico.ca...
> > Now you might not like the law, but whether or not you like it, you
> > are still obliged to follow it or face the consequences.
>
> Tell that to the people who pass illegal laws.
*nuzzles a Pikul's, as ever, apt observation*
The fact that laws are not retroactive is a crucial cornerstone of "justice"
(however badly executed over the years), but there is one exception that I
would be in favor of.
Namely, when a law is proven to be unconstitutional (especially by the
Supreme Court), then sanctions should be placed on the authors particularly,
but anyone who voted 'yes' for the law. These sanctions apply
retroactively. There would be an enhancement for the authors, when it is
demonstrated that there was a particular perversity in drafting the illegal
law.
*purr*
Snow Leopard
> Snow Leopard wrote:
>
> >
> > If you don't want to continue it in public, then continue it in private.
> >
>
> leave bad feelings on both sides of the debate.
Why do you assume that a discussion of your spiritual beliefs with me would
be a waste of time and would leave bad feelings on both sides of the debate?
*mrows*
The Green Troll
> "Samantha, the Chocolate Wombat" <cir...@armory.com> wrote in message
> news:421ee95f$0$46554$c0de...@dsl.net...
> > obscure laws where you live and then demanding that you obey them.>
>
> I hope not too, but it happens all the time and keeps lawyers ass deep in
> BMW's and fancy booze.
Tail the prosecutor, judge, and jurors. Find them breaking laws.
Expose them as criminals.
-- Buster <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/freedom>
The Green Troll
> Certainly
> the deity of the Old Testament is one of the most vengeful, petulant and
> intolerant deities in the literature.
Could anyone be more deserving of damnation?
> The intolerance exhibited by Yahweh is
> reflected in the texts that make up the greater portion of the Bible.
Those scriptures are generally misinterpreted, except at
<http://www.rev.net/~aloe/bible>.
> Christianity seems to be incapable of reforming
> itself from within.
Why bother, when one can convert to Ajivika at
<http://www.rev.net/~aloe/ajivika>?
-- Father Pedophilio Dickinson
BR
> Trust me, it's nothing personal. You are one of the more reasonable
> people on here. I just don't think it worthwhile to go there.
Hey everybody! Let's go to Funkytown. :)
BR
> Namely, when a law is proven to be unconstitutional (especially by the
> Supreme Court), then sanctions should be placed on the authors
> particularly, but anyone who voted 'yes' for the law. These sanctions
> apply retroactively. There would be an enhancement for the authors, when
> it is demonstrated that there was a particular perversity in drafting
> the illegal law.
That would lead to a stagnant legal structure, because no one will take a
chance on being "innovative" when it comes to the law.
BR
> Why do you assume that a discussion of your spiritual beliefs with me
> would be a waste of time and would leave bad feelings on both sides of
> the debate?
You specifically? Who knows. Otherwise the answer to the question is,
precedent.
L. Parker
> Why do you assume that a discussion of your spiritual beliefs with me would
> be a waste of time and would leave bad feelings on both sides of the debate?
>
> *mrows*
>
>
It's not an assumption. It's a deduction based on observation of past
discussions of religion within the furry community. It's just not a good
idea, and is one I decided years ago to avoid.
Trust me, it's nothing personal. You are one of the more reasonable
people on here. I just don't think it worthwhile to go there.
- LP
Precious Roy
news:5f6363d3.05022...@posting.google.com:
> http://www.rev.net/~aloe/ajivika
Do not believe these Ajivikaic lies.
--
Precious Roy
Precious Roy
Makin' lots of suckers
Out of girls and boys
RandomNess
one thing that has been overlooked. It is not just that there
is nudity, but the city ordinance also says there should not be
any lettering, which he violated with adding the word "LOVE".
From http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/emuralist19e_20050219.htm
The Zoning Board of Appeals in 1997 granted Stross a sign-ordinance
variance to paint the 1,100-foot wall. But it had caveats: no
genitalia or letters.
So, the guy gets a permit that says no genitalia or letters, and he
sorta adds one and definately adds the other. <shrug> Anyways, I
think the problem lies with the ordinance and the jerks who passed
it. But this guy did agree to a set of rules and broke it... Hope
he wins though.
In article <16511-422...@storefull-3133.bay.webtv.net>,
chrism...@webtv.net says...
L. Parker
> The people are united in wanting decent healthcare and education for
> all. :D
>
> ---
> "Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar."
And jobs. And clean air. Don't forget those. Those are important. :)
- LP
M. Mitchell Marmel
BR <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> That would lead to a stagnant legal structure, because no one will take a
> chance on being "innovative" when it comes to the law.
Considering that all the US and state laws on the books now would fill
several semi-trailers in hardcopy form (or a moderate sized U-Haul on
CD-ROM), do we really NEED more?
-MMM-
"Anarchy: It's not the law, just a good idea."
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TaliVisions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sawyercatunleashed
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/furry_city/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/losgatosafterdark/
BR
> Considering that all the US and state laws on the books now would fill
> several semi-trailers in hardcopy form (or a moderate sized U-Haul on
> CD-ROM), do we really NEED more?
Proably because "common sense", isn't as "common" as it use to be.
M. Mitchell Marmel
(nodnods sadly) Or as sensible.
-MMM-
Heavy boots of lead fill this vargr with dread
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
"common sense", is rarely "sense".
What people acutally mean by commons sense is "what makes common sense
to ME"
---
"Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar."
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
iBuck
move.
And appealing up the chain of courts with an argument that the law or
it's enforcement in the particular case, is a violation of the first
admendment, is a perfectly valid way of getting the law changed..
BR
with dread wrote:
> BR <brodr...@comcast.net> shall never vanquished be until great Birnam
> wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:16:56 -0600, M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
>>
>>> Considering that all the US and state laws on the books now would fill
>>> several semi-trailers in hardcopy form (or a moderate sized U-Haul on
>>> CD-ROM), do we really NEED more?
>>
>>Proably because "common sense", isn't as "common" as it use to be.
>
> "common sense", is rarely "sense".
>
> What people acutally mean by commons sense is "what makes common sense
> to ME"
True as far as it goes. However the "common" in "common sense" arises in
part from the commonality in the universe.
The other things that have given us such a bountiful amount of laws is
that the worlds more complicated. We can do things that we were unable to
do before, and the other is *some* people's desire (unconscious or not) to
avoid the consequences of the bad choices they make.
iBuck
>crime. Like it or not, he was in the wrong.
And there's an appeal in the works, as he's entitled to under the law,
that has at least the posibility of the vacation of his conviction or
the overturning of the law in question.
The matter isn't settled yet...
The enforcement of laws can have concenquences for the law as well.
Juan F. Lara
The Noodle Scoffing Vargr <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The people are united in wanting decent healthcare and education for
>all. :D
Go ahead and play dumb like that.
- Juan F. Lara
Snow Leopard
"BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.26....@comcast.net...
Considering the current excess of law noted elsewhere, maybe that would be a
good thing.
But I disagree. What it would lead to would be more carefully crafted laws.
Naturally, of course, the sanctions would (like criminal law) be on a
graduated scale. If, for example, the constitutional violation hinged on
human rights issues, the penalty might be ... oh, say, death. :p But if it
hinged on technological issues, or legal procedure, it might just be a stiff
fine. Etc. I'm sure it could all be worked out to everyone's satisfaction.
*purr*
Snow Leopard
It would appear that the general drift of the US since its founding was to
assert a vast number of freedoms to people, and then to systematically
reduce them, as the foolishness of that original idealistic impulse became
more and more apparent to the ruling elite.
It is actually similar to the problem encoutnered by makers of revolutions.
The sentiments that galvanize and motivate those who would change the
government must give up those ideals as soon as they ARE the government.
*purr*
Snow Leopard
If we had good food along with the healthcare, we'd have clean air.
*purrs playfully*
Snow Leopard
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109438236.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Thus the sodomy laws were reversed. *purr!*
Chris Sobieniak
(RandomNess) wrote:
>I remember reading about this particular incident,
>and there is one thing that has been overlooked. It
>is not just that there is nudity, but the city
>ordinance also says there should not be any
>lettering, which he violated with adding the word
>"LOVE".
Heh, if there had to be a safe and kosher way of doing it, I'd be
wanting to do public artwork of bulky men, who would be nude, but lack
any definition beween their legs (and for a good reason)! That seems
fair to me (pretty much effective and easier to accept perhaps when you
don't put sex into nudity that way)!
mouse
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Okay - for reference, here are photos of the mural in question:
>
> www.aclumich.org/attachments/gonzowall.jpg
> www.aclumich.org/attachments/gonzocloseup.jpg
>
> Come on, people. You can barely see these breasts. You almost need
> someone to point out they're there. This persecution is not coming
> from a single minded law enforcer who has taken it upon himself to
> bring to justice every minor violation he comes across. This is the
> act of a pinhead who is so freaked out by the idea that people have
> sexual organs they are running paraniod and finding fornicators under
> every rock they turn.
Yeah I wasnt sure what they were refering to for a minute.. tho from the
sounds of it it might the letters thing too. I dont think this guy should
be in jail at all, thats just insane ... murals and stuff like this are
pretty cool, but at the same time, obviously there does have to be
regulation with it.
Im pretty sure that even if you wanted to just paint your house say..dayglo
green and purple... you actually might not be allowed to depending on where
you live. While people should be able to do what they want with property,
its understandable that the local government/neighborhood should also have
some control over the matter occassionaly.
Brian Henderson
<snowleopardt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In the wrong legally. One can be in the wrong legally, and in the right
>morally, as Rosa Parks was or Gandhi. As were millions of Russians under
>Stalin.
Morality doesn't mean a damn thing. The law is the law. You follow
the law or pay the consequences. Your personal feelings don't mean a
damn thing in the eyes of the courts. You break the law, you pay for
it.
Deal with it.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
> Tell that to the people who pass illegal laws.
By definition, a law cannot be illegal. It might conflict with other
laws, and this can be challenged, as is often done, by people who are
tried under one of the conflicting laws.
But that's for the courts to decide, not some guy who figures the hell
with it, he's just going to ignore it. That's how the system works,
like it or not.
Brian Henderson
>And there's an appeal in the works, as he's entitled to under the law,
>that has at least the posibility of the vacation of his conviction or
>the overturning of the law in question.
>
>The matter isn't settled yet...
>
>The enforcement of laws can have concenquences for the law as well.
Which of course is fine, and how the system is supposed to work. But
if his guilty conviction is upheld on appeal, will you accept that
he's actually guilty and deserves his punishment?
Snow Leopard
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m3k221hptmkmv22t7...@4ax.com...
It's been a long time since I've seen anyone so mesmerized by the Law,
Brian.
What you are trying to say is that, "Behavior X is illegal. Behavior X was
done. Therefore, the punishment follows. Therefore, the punishment is
deserved."
Your "argument" (such as it is) is subject to any number of refutations,
since it contains as many assumptions as assertions. On strictly logical
grounds, yes, the Jews deserved to be gassed to death, since that was what
was legal under Nazi Germany. Did they deserve it?
Yes, you are correct--Blacks in South Africa DID warrant being flogged
nearly to death for any number of minor infractions of the apartheid laws,
because that's what the law called for. Did they deserve it?
I recall you advocated assassinating the president. Does that fall under the
category of national combatant? What about the time you said, "Bush should
be killed" and someone agreed with you? That'd make the two of you guilty of
conspiracy to commit murder--25 to life in California, for instance. You did
Behavior X. The punishment follows.
Do you deserve it?
When you break a law, and you're convicted of it (whether you are guilty or
not), you pay the price. But whether or not you deserve it is completely
unanswered by that process.
*purr*
Precious Roy
news:cvrvbf$cot$1...@velox.critter.net:
The thing I love about your serious posts is that the idiotic *purr* at
the end makes the whole effort worthless because I burst out laughing.
Kathmandu
<ma...@kitfox.com> wrote in message
news:1109377062.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Okay - for reference, here are photos of the mural in question:
>
> www.aclumich.org/attachments/gonzowall.jpg
> www.aclumich.org/attachments/gonzocloseup.jpg
>
> Come on, people. You can barely see these breasts. You almost need
> someone to point out they're there. This persecution is not coming
> from a single minded law enforcer who has taken it upon himself to
> bring to justice every minor violation he comes across. This is the
> act of a pinhead who is so freaked out by the idea that people have
> sexual organs they are running paraniod and finding fornicators under
> every rock they turn.
Actually it is about an artist who was granted an exception to a sign
ordinance (i.e. a law banning signs over a certain size or on the sides of
buildings etc.). The exception stated "no genitalia or letters" and he
decided to do both. He was given plenty of opportunity to make changes that
he had agreed to in order to get the waiver. In other words he reneged on
his promise not to include letters or genitalia (state of Michigan includes
female breasts as genitalia).
1997 he gets a waiver to paint a mural on a building, so long as it wasn't
advertising nor offensive. (letters or genitals). Paints the mural and
basically tells the city "fuck you" and paints letters and genitals.
1997-2003 the city tries to work with him asking him to cover the breasts
which he does then later says "fuck you" to the city again and again.
2003 Someone files a complaint. I think it was some lady walking with her
young son or something like that, I don't remember off hand. Now the city
has to take action because he is in violation of the law and their hands are
tied.
2005 City says "fuck you" to the artist, has him arrested and is found
guilty with a jury of his peers. He basically committed fraud by agreeing to
the conditions of a waiver then reneging on it and violating state and local
law to boot.
There is no great injustice here, no Rosa Parks or Gandhi martyr here and no
violation of the first amendment. The guy is an ass and the authorities were
more than lenient with him. The Supreme Court has upheld the position that
the government has the right and obligation to regulate speech. You have the
right to speak your mind but you can't do it at 3 am with a bullhorn or yell
fire in a crowded movie theater just for laughs. They can also pass laws
prohibiting how and where you put your message, i.e. the placement of
advertisements like the federal law prohibiting billboards within 1000ft of
an Interstate Hiway or the ban on cigarette ads on TV. It also means the
government can say you can't paint murals or advertising on the side of a
building ( lots of cities have this ordinance). The government has every
right to punish you if you violate those ordinances or even the conditions
of a waiver granted in good faith.
The sad part is the next person who wants to paint a mural on a building
will likely be denied because of this ass hole.
There may yet be a little cosmic karma at work here since this guy will
likely go to jail and be anal raped by his five cell mates over a really
ugly painting.
The Green Troll
> Heh, if there had to be a safe and kosher way of doing it, I'd be
> wanting to do public artwork of bulky men, who would be nude,
Geezers with big, floppy breasts.
> but lack
> any definition beween their legs (and for a good reason)!
Paint well-defined scars where the anti-humanist censors have hacked
off their genitals.
-- Buster <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/freedom#nude>
Snow Leopard
"Kathmandu" <Kath...@yomomma.com> wrote in message
news:cvs0jv$deo$1...@velox.critter.net...
>
> There may yet be a little cosmic karma at work here since this guy will
> likely go to jail and be anal raped by his five cell mates over a really
> ugly painting.
A few too many episodes of Oz here. :p
*mrow*
Snow Leopard
"Precious Roy" <ju...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:Xns960A229D8CC95...@216.196.97.136...
<snip>
> The thing I love about your serious posts is that the idiotic *purr* at
> the end makes the whole effort worthless because I burst out laughing.
Do you cry at the purr on the end of my unserious posts?
Laughter is the best medicine, short of morphine ... and antibiotics ... and
pyrithione zinc. It's good you should laugh, and important to remember it's
not all deadly serious.
Apparently, the traditional Greek classical trilogy of tragedies actually
ended with a fourth satyr play. That is, after three festivals of gloom, a
ribald, regenerative farce comes on to offset the tragedy. So, the idea is
hardly new.
*purr*
Brian O'Connell
And more sugar. And shoes. Shoes for industry.
Brian O'Connell
Mmmmyeah, imagine how much trouble we would have been saved if George
Washington, et al, followed England's laws. Would have prevented a whole ton
of hassles, millions of deaths, etc.
M. Mitchell Marmel
"Brian O'Connell" <doge...@comcast.net> wrote:
> And more sugar. And shoes. Shoes for industry.
Shoes for the dead!
Snow Leopard
"M. Mitchell Marmel" <marm...@vrx.net> wrote in message
news:marmelmm-6EC1B7...@news.critter.net...
> In article <cvth3l$2og$1...@velox.critter.net>,
> "Brian O'Connell" <doge...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > And more sugar. And shoes. Shoes for industry.
>
> Shoes for the dead!
>
Therefore, shoes for the dead industry.
*purr*
M. Mitchell Marmel
"Snow Leopard" <snowleopardt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > And more sugar. And shoes. Shoes for industry.
> >
> > Shoes for the dead!
> >
>
> Therefore, shoes for the dead industry.
Someone get this deprived child some Firesign Theatre albums, please?
iBuck
>that he's actually guilty and deserves his punishment?
Only if you'll accept the overturning of the law if it comes to that,
without muttering the words "judicial activisim" or "special intrest
groups"...
Considering Mich eventually overturned the cussing canoeist, I think
the odds are on the artist's side...
Charles Groark
> In article <cvtn3q$594$1...@velox.critter.net>,
> "Snow Leopard" <snowleopardt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>And more sugar. And shoes. Shoes for industry.
>>>
>>>Shoes for the dead!
>>>
>>
>>Therefore, shoes for the dead industry.
>
>
> Someone get this deprived child some Firesign Theatre albums, please?
>
> -MMM-
>
Charlie
Rick Pikul
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:58:00 -0500, Rick Pikul <rwp...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Tell that to the people who pass illegal laws.
>
> By definition, a law cannot be illegal.
Wrong, what do you think a law being ruled unconstitutional means?
Most nations have laws about laws, either written, (as in the US and
Canadian constitutions), or made up of centuries of precedent.
> It might conflict with other
> laws, and this can be challenged, as is often done, by people who are
> tried under one of the conflicting laws.
Which is just what it happening in this case. Why do you think that the
ACLU got involved?
> But that's for the courts to decide, not some guy who figures the hell
> with it, he's just going to ignore it. That's how the system works,
> like it or not.
Part of how the system works is for people to intentionally violate
illegal laws, then to either use the resultant charges as a base for
challenging the law, or to use the fact that it was ignored when the law
is later challenged.
--
Phoenix
Silver Seams
news:1109274578....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> The case in this thread sounds like a group of vengeful city councilors
> who already hated this artist for other reasons and are using 'public
> decency' as a club to subdue him. The frightening part is that law
> enforcement acted upon it and the 'moral values' folks rallied around
> to give it a semblance of public support.
Actually, from some of the articles I've read, I got more of the
impression that the artist deliberately brought on the controversy, though
whether for "any publicity is good publicity" or because he didn't like
the law isn't really clear to me, though I suspect the former. Either
way, the city council had told him what wasn't allowed. 'Tweren't just
the nudity, either, as he'd been told "no words" (probably a restriction
intended to regulate advertising, not a decency code) and he put "Love" on
it, evidently just to be ornery.
--
http://www.silverseams.com/ - Fursuits, plushies, and other stuff
http://www.furbid.ws/cgi-bin/auction.pl?alluser&Silver_seams
Precious Roy
>> The thing I love about your serious posts is that the idiotic *purr*
>> at the end makes the whole effort worthless because I burst out
>> laughing.
>
> Do you cry at the purr on the end of my unserious posts?
>
No, I just think it's silly.
Snow Leopard
> Precious Roy
> Precious Roy
> Makin' lots of suckers
> Out of girls and boys
And this is Shakespeare? Is it deliberately perversity or an impressive
display of unself-awareness at work here?
*pfft* (Better?)
*nuzzle*
Samantha, the Kooky Nose
her and stuff? Also neglecting that the naked cherubs and 'HOPE' had been
on the mural prior to the 'problem' and that what sparked off the war
was souley the nipples and none of the other ornamentation?
I know, I know. You like to paint over details that disagree with you
but... Gosh. At least try to come up with a better defense.
In article <cvs0jv$deo$1...@velox.critter.net>,
Snow Leopard
"Samantha, the Kooky Nose" <cir...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:4222aec6$0$46546$c0de...@dsl.net...
> Aren't you glossing over the parts where he painted a censored banner over
> her and stuff? Also neglecting that the naked cherubs and 'HOPE' had been
> on the mural prior to the 'problem' and that what sparked off the war
> was souley the nipples and none of the other ornamentation?
Nipples always are the root of the problem, aren't they.
*purr*
Brian O'Connell
news:cvubp2$da1$1...@velox.critter.net...
They're the root of all evil, or at least that's what 9 out of 10 child
molesting priests have said.
Snow Leopard
"Brian O'Connell" <doge...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cvugas$evp$1...@velox.critter.net...
> They're the root of all evil, or at least that's what 9 out of 10 child
> molesting priests have said.
Yep, money's got nothing on nipples. If you want to seduce me, a well-placed
tweak works more reliably than a $50.
*schnurr*
BR
> Nipples always are the root of the problem, aren't they.
Considering breasts are just well-developed sweat glands. They shouldn't
be.
Juan F. Lara
Brian O'Connell <doge...@comcast.net> wrote:
>They're the root of all evil, or at least that's what 9 out of 10 child
>molesting priests have said.
People use the image of the child-molesting priest the same way they use
the image of the Jewish usurer. Both are tools to generalize and dehumanize
a group of people, be it Catholics or Jews, and promote bigotry against them.
- Juan F. Lara
Heavy boots of lead fill this vargr with dread
until great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against
him.
>Actually, from some of the articles I've read, I got more of the
>impression that the artist deliberately brought on the controversy, though
>whether for "any publicity is good publicity" or because he didn't like
>the law isn't really clear to me, though I suspect the former. Either
>way, the city council had told him what wasn't allowed. 'Tweren't just
>the nudity, either, as he'd been told "no words" (probably a restriction
>intended to regulate advertising, not a decency code) and he put "Love" on
>it, evidently just to be ornery.
it's always easy for those who are moral cowards to blame the victime.
---
"Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar."
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Heavy boots of lead fill this vargr with dread
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>Ok, I think this thing is really silly but to play the devil's advocate
>here, what are the people who run the government and police supposed to do?
>There is a law, on the books that states in no uncertain terms there is to
>be no public display of nudity, including artwork. Now, reguardless how
>nutty this can be interpreted in this age of right wing idiocy, the people
>in charge of enforcing duely accepted laws are required to enforce them
>reguardless of their personal convictions. A police officer is not supposed
>to pick and choose what laws to enforce, and can get into big trouble for
>not doing his job.
The police do a job, and that is to keep the status quo and serve the
interests of the ruleing classes. The police are the enemies of
freedom and liberty.
>The artist is in clear violation of the law, a jury of his peers convicted
>him. It is how our justice system works. It doesn't matter that it is from
>the inside of a church or a bare breasted ad for beer, if its against the
>law.. its against the law. Had the picture been displayed inside a building,
>I doubt anyone would have cared and probably not been against the law.
By your logic, segregation was wonderful because it was legal at the
time.
Shame on you!
Heavy boots of lead fill this vargr with dread
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>In article <422068ee...@news.critter.net>,
>The Noodle Scoffing Vargr <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>The people are united in wanting decent healthcare and education for
>>all. :D
>
> Go ahead and play dumb like that.
PLease find me some working class people who don't want decent
healthcare free at point of use and decent free education and lower
taxes on them, and higher taxes on the rich to pay for that. :)
L. Parker
is art! We have to be emotional! And if emotion is involved, then as the
furry community, we are compelled to use the emotions of anger,
frustration, and rabidness! Your logic doesn't have a place here! Now
shut up and stop contributing reasonable thought to this conversation.
</facetiousness>
- LP
Precious Roy
$csi$1...@velox.critter.net:
>> Precious Roy
>> Precious Roy
>> Makin' lots of suckers
>> Out of girls and boys
>
> And this is Shakespeare? Is it deliberately perversity or an impressive
> display of unself-awareness at work here?
>
> *pfft* (Better?)
Ouch. ;)
It's from the late-90s MTV rock-and-roll sock puppet comedy show Sifl &
Olly, actually.
Precious Roy was this guy that made absurd products that Sifl & Olly would
do skits about selling, such as edible sandals, plankton in a jar, etc.
Sock puppets are funny.
--
iBuck
Oh, by the way, I don't expect to hear any fussing from you when the
RIAA comes after you for your copyright infringment, after all if the
trial goes against you, it's because you -deserved it- for breaking the
law...
BR
with dread wrote:
> PLease find me some working class people who don't want decent
> healthcare free at point of use and decent free education and lower
> taxes on them, and higher taxes on the rich to pay for that. :)
Funny. Socialism doesn't give you all that.
BR
with dread wrote:
> it's always easy for those who are moral cowards to blame the victime.
Namecalling's easy too.
BR
with dread wrote:
> The police do a job, and that is to keep the status quo and serve the
> interests of the ruleing classes. The police are the enemies of freedom
> and liberty.
And in other news. Great Britian has gotten rid of it's Bobbies. Freedom
loving brits everywere, cheer.
Brian O'Connell
news:cvup9p$6bq$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
Hmmmyep, and those kids who grew up to sue them are just making it all up.
Brian Henderson
<snowleopardt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I recall you advocated assassinating the president. Does that fall under the
>category of national combatant? What about the time you said, "Bush should
>be killed" and someone agreed with you? That'd make the two of you guilty of
>conspiracy to commit murder--25 to life in California, for instance. You did
>Behavior X. The punishment follows.
Well, it's only illegal to try to kill the President, or to say that
you are going to kill the president or to encourage someone to kill
the president. Frankly, I wouldn't be at all sad if someone did, but
I've never once suggested that anyone do so.
Brian Henderson
>Only if you'll accept the overturning of the law if it comes to that,
>without muttering the words "judicial activisim" or "special intrest
>groups"...
If it is overturned because it conflicts with other laws or because it
can be demonstrated that the law was applied unfairly, of course I'll
accept it.
Brian Henderson
F. Lara) wrote:
> People use the image of the child-molesting priest the same way they use
>the image of the Jewish usurer. Both are tools to generalize and dehumanize
>a group of people, be it Catholics or Jews, and promote bigotry against them.
Ah, that's why we're having successful convictions by the dozens
against Catholic priests for child molestation. It's not real, it's
just a tool!
How silly of us.
Brian Henderson
<doge...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Mmmmyeah, imagine how much trouble we would have been saved if George
>Washington, et al, followed England's laws. Would have prevented a whole ton
>of hassles, millions of deaths, etc.
They didn't follow the law and got into a rather large war over it,
with a whole lot of dead people on both sides. Action -> consequence.
Artist breaking the law. Action -> consequence.
Same thing, just a lot less blood.
Snow Leopard
> Precious Roy was this guy that made absurd products that Sifl & Olly would
> do skits about selling, such as edible sandals, plankton in a jar, etc.
Mayhaps you'd enjoy the "Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin" if you ever
manage to find it. After faking a suicide to get away from the oppressive
success of the Sunshine Desserts Company , he opens up a shop (called
"Grot") where he sells worthless items.
By the way, he wouldn't have sold edible sandals or plankton in a jar at his
shop. Far too useful.
*purr*
Snow Leopard
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:qok6219nddaqfbl2v...@4ax.com...
> Well, it's only illegal to try to kill the President, or to say that
> you are going to kill the president or to encourage someone to kill
> the president. Frankly, I wouldn't be at all sad if someone did, but
> I've never once suggested that anyone do so.
I seem to remember otherwise, and if I had Wanderer's inclination for
searching, I could pull it up for me.
Meanwhile, you are evading the point anyway. Whether you are actually
guilty of the crime or not, if you are convincted by a jury of your peers,
you deserve the punishment. That's your position. ANd the question you
didn't answer.
*purr*
Heavy boots of lead fill this vargr with dread
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:21:52 +0000, Heavy boots of lead fill this vargr
I can comprehensively outline why the profit system is bad and does
not give you all that and do so logicaly and scientificaly.
Thus it is only fair that you comphrehensively prove that socalism
does not give you all that.
Else I can only assume that you are speaking from knee-jerk
anti-socalist prejudice. :(
It is sad but true that people are indoctrinated with an anti-socalist
message almost from birth.
even misanthropy is better from the ruleing classes POV than socalism,
since misanthropes don't stand up for the rights of their fellow
(wo)man. :(
Heavy boots of lead fill this vargr with dread
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>> it's always easy for those who are moral cowards to blame the victime.
>
>Namecalling's easy too.
disgreement=flamewar.
Art not so.
Juan F. Lara
Heavy boots of lead fill this vargr with dread <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Go ahead and play dumb like that.
>PLease find me some working class people who don't want decent
>healthcare free at point of use and decent free education and lower
>taxes on them, and higher taxes on the rich to pay for that. :)
Please prove that you're actually fighting for that, instead of just using
political inanities to troll. You spew a lot of extremist garbage and when
you're confronted with that you hide behind easy mainstream stuff like "free
health care" like a spoiled toddler pretending to be good.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
Brian O'Connell <doge...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Hmmmyep, and those kids who grew up to sue them are just making it all up.
You'd have to go case by case to determine which accusation is the truth
and which is not. My point is that people pounce on these cases of child
molestation to make people think that all priests or all Catholics are child
molesters. The United States has historically been anti-Catholic and these
cases of molestation can easily be misused to perpetuate that bigotry. Same
as how interest racists always post some story about some African American
involved in a crime to spread their hatespeech around.
- Juan F. Lara
Brian O'Connell
It isn't a matter of going case by case. This sort of thing has been going
on for DECADES, while the Catholic church turned a blind eye and did
nothing. Compounding this, is that up until just a few years ago, the
Catholic church essentially said "We're sorry", not as in "We're sorry", but
as in "We're sorry you caught us", indicating that there has been a massive
coverup for well over the period of time that victims who lived long enough
to, could press charges.
And to derail your flag waving for the Catholics, every branch of
Christianity is guilty of child molestation, Baptists, Mormons, et al.
Hell, traditional orthodox Jewish tradition involves a literal blowjob as
part of the rites of circumcision (a rabbi transmitted herpes to a baby in
one case, due to this technique), presumably to remove any possible
contaminates from the snipped site. More than likely this is where the whole
blood libel myth originally came from.
Plonq
news:4222aec6$0$46546$c0de...@dsl.net:
> what sparked off the war was souley the nipples and none of the
> other ornamentation?
>
He had to paint them. Without the nipples, the mural would have been
pointless.
*plonq