Free Speech US Style
The Happy Hippy
<quotes>
In a serious assault on freedom of expression and democratic rights, Lori
Haigh, the owner of Capobianco Gallery in North Beach, San Francisco, was
spat on and knocked unconscious last week
After displaying a painting of U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners, a
San Francisco gallery owner bears a painful reminder of the nation's
unresolved anguish over the incidents at Abu Ghraib -- a black eye and
bloodied brow delivered by an unknown assailant who apparently objected to
the art work.
[The attack was] only the latest in a string of verbal and physical attacks
that have been directed at owner Lori Haigh since the painting, titled
"Abuse," was installed there on May 16.
Among the messages left on the gallery answering machine were, "You f---ing
coward, you're dead" and "I think you need to get your gallery out of this
neighborhood before you get hurt."
On Thursday, someone knocked on the door of the gallery, then punched Haigh
in the face when she stepped outside
"I'm so sorry you got punched in the face, I would have used a flat nose
shovel or crowbar myself"
</quotes>
What sort of person punches a woman in the face because she displayed a
painting they don't like? Where are those who proclaim they support Free
Speech in condemning such violence ?
When it's something which upsets Muslims the Right applauds it and defends
it, when it upsets them they are against it and support and encourage
violence in response. Hypocrites, every last one of them.
George
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:AY9Kf.43856$494....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
One has to wonder how Hippycrit would react if someone exhibited a painting
of his mother being reemed in the arse with a large cucumber. Hey, free
speech is a great thing, yes?
George
Mr.G
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:AY9Kf.43856$494....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
This is the first I have seen of it, I think it's a very bad thing to
have happen. I hope they catch who ever assaulted her. At least
they didn't burn down the building or anything though.
Mr.G
Jim E
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:AY9Kf.43856$494....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> <quotes>
>
> In a serious assault on freedom of expression and democratic rights, Lori
> Haigh, the owner of Capobianco Gallery in North Beach, San Francisco, was
> spat on and knocked unconscious last week
>
> After displaying a painting of U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners, a
> San Francisco gallery owner bears a painful reminder of the nation's
> unresolved anguish over the incidents at Abu Ghraib -- a black eye and
> bloodied brow delivered by an unknown assailant who apparently objected to
> the art work.
>
Free speech has it's personal consequences, no governmental consequences.
Jim E
Jim E
"Mr.G" <mik...@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AlbKf.1021$S25...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Obviously not a muzlim.
Jim E
TWP
"Jim E" <YD64...@SEA.net> wrote in message
news:45t62dF...@individual.net...
That's true - it's not like the police came and burned the picture.
You could go to a bar, find a giant Hells Angel biker type then start
agressively questioning his sexuality and very likely obtain the same
result. Your freedom of speech doesn't absolve you of the consequences of
that speech - the consequences are all yours. I've heard of a few occasions
on UK television chat shows where someone has admitted something - I think
it was a dangerous thing they did at work - and lost their job because of
it. The only obligation here is that the government doesn't punish you for
or prevent you from expressing your opinion because of the disproportional
power it has over you.
There are such things as bodyguards if you insist on doing things that you
know will provoke people.
TWP
The Happy Hippy
"Mr.G" <mik...@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AlbKf.1021$S25...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
As has been frequently said, the US media keeps Americans in the dark on
what is happening around them and keeps them uninformed.
It also demonstrates that US Media is not liberal-biased because this is a
story which any liberal or anti-Right media would have leapt upon with
relish. The media obviously didn't.
> I think it's a very bad thing to
> have happen. I hope they catch who ever assaulted her. At least
> they didn't burn down the building or anything though.
Not sure what "or anything" means, because physically assaulting the woman
owner is something, as were the physical attacks upon her gallery. No they
didn't burn down the gallery, but who knows where it would have led to if
she hadn't stopped displaying the painting; it seems obvious to be that
anyone who thinks nothing of punching a woman in the face has the same sort
of mentality prerequisite to burning her gallery down.
How many Muslims have burnt down anything in America as a result of this
cartoon row ?
How many Muslims have burnt down anything in Britain a result of this
cartoon row ?
How many Muslims have punched women in the face in America as a result of
this cartoon row ?
How many Muslims have punched women in the face in Britain a result of this
cartoon row ?
The Happy Hippy
"Jim E" <YD64...@SEA.net> wrote in message
news:45t62dF...@individual.net...
>
So you support punching women in the face. I thought you would.
George
No, what it demonstrates is that Britain is more parochial than the U.S.
In other words, we don't keep tabs on every bar fight or exhibition gallery
skirmish that occurs in every city, suburb, and hickville in the nation,
nor should anyone expect that the national media should. The minutia would
kill the media if such an attempt were made. No doubt, there was local
coverage, and no doubt, your leftist media goes out of its way to find such
obscure stories. But don't get your panties all in a bunch just because
Walter Cronkite didn't come out of retirement to cover the story.
George
George
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:AY9Kf.43856$494....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> <quotes>
>
> In a serious assault on freedom of expression and democratic rights, Lori
> Haigh, the owner of Capobianco Gallery in North Beach, San Francisco, was
> spat on and knocked unconscious last week
>
> After displaying a painting of U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners, a
> San Francisco gallery owner bears a painful reminder of the nation's
> unresolved anguish over the incidents at Abu Ghraib -- a black eye and
> bloodied brow delivered by an unknown assailant who apparently objected
> to
> the art work.
>
> [The attack was] only the latest in a string of verbal and physical
> attacks
> that have been directed at owner Lori Haigh since the painting, titled
> "Abuse," was installed there on May 16.
>
Gee, since you posted this here yesterday, I was originally under the
impression that this incident occurred recently. Then I noticed the May 16
date, above. I got to thinking about that, May 16. Umm, 2005? 2004?
2003? When? So I didn't some searching. Folks, this incident occurred in
2004, almost 2 years ago, and hippycrit is posting it now? Hippycrit, the
depths of your anti-Americanism never ceases to astound me.
So I did some more digging about this incident. Seems Ms. Lori is not
without controversy herself:
http://www.recirca.com/artnews/293.shtml
***In 1992 Haigh received US$1.2 million from the Catholic dioceses of Los
Angeles and Orange to settle accusations against Irish priest Father John
Lenihan for two years of sexual abuse which led to an alleged pregnancy and
abortion, paid for by the priest. Haigh's life spiralled downwards, leading
to drug and alcohol abuse, a failed marriage and she made several attempts
on her life.
In 1989 Haigh moved to Nashville and married a Hare Krishna. She embraced
the new life, stating "Eastern religion was as far away as I could get from
Catholicism." However, court documents held here show Haigh was dabbling in
more than religious pursuits. She was hired by Glen Trew in 1992 to work as
an office manager. In December 1994 Trew alleged Haigh had embezzled a
substantial amount of money. She was accused of engaging in:
...fraud, embezzlement, forgery, conversion, and misappropriation of
funds while working for him, resulting in damages of approximately
$107,109.78
In December 1994, Trew sued Haigh in a Tennessee state court. He attached
copies of cheques Capobianco had allegedly signed and issued without his
authorisation. At Capobianco's depostition she took the Fifth Amendment
privilege to avoid answering questions about these cheques. However, before
the trial began, Haigh moved back to San Francisco and in 1998 filed for
bankruptcy. She realised her 'life's dream' opening Capobianco Gallery in
the North Beach district in 2003.
Guy Colwell's exhibition opened 16 May 2004 and included the controversial
work Abuse hung prominently in the window of the gallery, where it provoked
a violent response (most of the exhibition comprised non-offensive abstract
artworks). It incited an unwitnessed attack on Haigh by an unidentified
assailant, giving her a black eye. In subsequent interviews, she stated:
This isn't art-politics central here at all. I'm not here to make a
stand. I never set out to be a crusader or a political activist ... I kept
thinking someday I'll have enough of a reputation where I could bring in my
heroes of the art world, people like Guy Colwell especially.
If being political was not her intention, the question arises as to why she
hung such a provocative work in a position where it would certainly receive
a reaction? This kind of art was always going to elicit the fury of some of
the public, in light of the attention given to abuse of Iraqi prisoners at
Abu Ghraib.
Guy Colwell has a history of showing politically charged art. In 1968
Colwell was imprisoned for two years for draft resistance. He then began
his first comic book in 1972, Inner City Romance, which depicts tales of
political repression, violence and ghetto and prison life.
At best it appears Haigh was naîve - judging by her own statements - with
regard to the impact of such an potentially explosive exhibition. In the
worst light, savvy art dealers know political art will stimulate a strong
public reaction, which is inevitably given a good deal of press coverage
(CIRCA is as guilty of covering politically charge art as any other news
outlet). The coverage is usually not a hindrance to any art dealer or
artist's career.
In this case it seems irrelevant to doubt the authenticity of Haigh's
attacks. It is important to raise the issue of the nature of exhibiting art
that is going to elicit a strong public response, and examine the motives
behind doing so.***
Ok, so what else is there to this story? Well, see for yourself; you
decide:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7859
***1. The San Francisco Police Department has not produced witnesses to
confirm either the assault on Haigh or the vandalism at the gallery. None
of the news accounts provided any sources to collaborate any parts of her
story including Colwell or personal friends of Haigh. Also many of the
news reports show slight differences in her story (broken nose, concussion,
open fist, profanity, etc.)
2. The San Francisco Police Department has not issued a sketch of any
suspects, only a vague description of the first attacker that was featured
in some news reports. Hank Donat, a San Francisco-based journalist who
pens the ''Heart of the City'' column at MisterSF.com, wrote that a source
close to the police investigation says Haigh's story has ''all the earmarks
of a hoax'' and that she has not cooperated with officers investigating the
alleged threats. Despite Haigh's beatings being a high-profile local
story, the SFPD website doesn't include any mention of the incidents.***
I wonder if she filed an insurance claim for the "damages".
George
George
As my earlier post indicates, there is no way to know whether the incident
ever really happened. Given the history of controversy surrounding this
woman, there is no reason to expect that it did. Apparently, the police
have been skeptical. Given the fact that the incident occurred almost gtwo
years ago, yet you posted this only yesterday, one has to ask why you've
posted it now? If you don't support punching women in the face, why did
you wait so long to make us aware of this incident? I suspect that you
really don't give a shit either, but the fact that it makes Americans look
bad is all that concerns you, as is usually the case with your posts,
Hippycrit.
George
Docky Wocky
upwards.
Probably right up into the price range of some LA sheik.
The Happy Hippy
"Docky Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net> wrote ...
> All this hullabaloo ought to be driving the price tag on that painting
> upwards.
>
> Probably right up into the price range of some LA sheik.
Does the value of a painting have anything to do with the outrageousness of
punching a woman in the face and the issuing of death threats in relation to
it ? Would you be applauding Muslim anti-cartoon violence if it increased
the value of the cartoons they complain of ?
I think you are just try to steer the discussion away from the core issue;
it was an unwarranted physical attack on a person who was exercising their
right to free speech which other Americans didn't like.
Why won't you condemn an act of punching a woman in the face ?
George
"Docky Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net> wrote in message
news:89lKf.9421$GQ.7775@trnddc03...
> All this hullabaloo ought to be driving the price tag on that painting
> upwards.
>
> Probably right up into the price range of some LA sheik.
Docky, I responded to him earlier in a lengthy post, hoping that someone
would respond to it. He has me killfiled, so if you would so kindly read
the following and then respond with an "affirmative", he'll likely see it
(delete this if you like). He really needs to read it: