"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1107756919.076859.86260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1107728684.129285.134740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1107712046.663508.51040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
news:v9pb0156i2gv5oth4cbtn4dsivhf52etou@4ax.com:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:19:21 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ku5a01hfro0pui8qbr573htl8kafpmb6s7@4ax.com:

On 5 Feb 2005 10:01:31 -0800,

alt.atheism:

Finally I see that let to a furor about the fuhrer.

11 03707679/img/1.jpg

This is the picture the right wing in the US got so

about?

So upset that they censored it, shut down an art show?

Most dictators don't allow themselves to be made fun of.

What is dictatorial about people protesting against

offensive?

Protesting is one thing, Fred. Censoring is quite another.

And

what's offensive and who decides?

Nobody censored the show. People protested, and the show
voluntarily shut it down.

In any case, I doubt this particular story is true, since

one, I can't find any reliable reference to it, and for
another, not even Dubya would be dumb enough to violate
anyone's first amendment rights in so obvious and

a manner.

Bush had nothing to do with it.

How do you feel about art being censored, particularly art

political content? How does that sit with you?

What censorship? The government didn't shut down the show.

The concept of "censorship" does not apply solely in which a

representative explicitly removes a piece of art from

In any case, what I asked you was "How do you feel about art

censored, particularly art with political content?"

Well?

I think that the left is being hypocritical about it,

I don't know about "the left", but if you see *me* being what you
consider to be hypocritical, then, by all means, call me on it.

If you don't share that position, why are you taking it personally?

with their
political correctness on the one hand and their refusal to accept
criticism of that which offends others on the other hand.

So, is this your answer to "How do you feel about art being

particularly art with political content?" ?

It sure doesn't seem to me that you actually answered the question

asked.

I already told you that I don't approve of censorship. That's not the
issue. The issue is that people complained and the show removed the
"art" in question. People *do* have a right to complain about things
they feel are offensive, whether those things are political or not.

I don't hear aa regulars complaining about the censoring of

they don't like, such as Christian t-shirt art by schools.

Then you are either not being sufficiently observant, or you are
being selective as to what you "hear." I, for one, object

to t-shirt art being forbidden when it (a) doesn't advocate the
restriction of rights of a particular group, or (b) is otherwise

direct advocation of violent action. Kids can wear "God lives

Jesus told me so" t-shirts to their little heart's content, but
"God hates fags" t-shirts are right out.

Clear enough?

Yes, it's clear that you too would "censor" certain kinds of art,
when you find the message to be offensive.

Your capacity for selective reading comprehension is astounding.

object to t-shirt messages that advocated violent action against a
group, regardless of the position of that group an a political
spectrum, or that of its opponents. I'd say that was pretty
apolitical, wouldn't you?

Does a picture of Osama with a target between his eyes count?

By the way, I find it offensive too, but "God hates fags" doesn't
advocate violent action. Phelps, may he burn in the hell I don't
believe in, is *very* careful not to step over that line.

I disagree. I think it *does* advocate violent action, and think it
does cross the line... particularly since the message isn't an
original message occuring in a contextual vacuum.

Several judges have ruled otherwise on that.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?

On 6 Feb 2005 22:15:19 -0800, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1107728684.129285.134740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

The concept of "censorship" does not apply solely in which a State
representative explicitly removes a piece of art from exhibition.
In any case, what I asked you was "How do you feel about art being
censored, particularly art with political content?"

Well?

I think that the left is being hypocritical about it,

Since the left wants no censorship of art, with or without political
content, how is it being hypocritical?

I don't know about "the left", but if you see *me* being what you
consider to be hypocritical, then, by all means, call me on it.

with their
political correctness on the one hand and their refusal to accept
criticism of that which offends others on the other hand.

So, is this your answer to "ow do you feel about art being censored,
particularly art with political content?" ?

It sure doesn't seem to me that you actually answered the question I
asked.

Fred doesn't answer questions, he posts non-Christian apologism.

Your capacity for selective reading comprehension is astounding. I'd
object to t-shirt messages that advocated violent action against a
group, regardless of the position of that group an a political
spectrum, or that of its opponents. I'd say that was pretty political,
wouldn't you?

But that's not the point Fred is addressing, even though it's the
question you asked.

On 6 Feb 2005 22:15:19 -0800, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1107728684.129285.134740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

The concept of "censorship" does not apply solely in which a State
representative explicitly removes a piece of art from exhibition. In
any case, what I asked you was "How do you feel about art being
censored, particularly art with political content?"

Well?

I think that the left is being hypocritical about it,

Since the left wants no censorship of art, with or without political
content, how is it being hypocritical?

I don't know about "the left", but if you see *me* being what you
consider to be hypocritical, then, by all means, call me on it.

with their
political correctness on the one hand and their refusal to accept
criticism of that which offends others on the other hand.

So, is this your answer to "ow do you feel about art being censored,
particularly art with political content?" ?

It sure doesn't seem to me that you actually answered the question I
asked.

Fred doesn't answer questions, he posts non-Christian apologism.

Your capacity for selective reading comprehension is astounding. I'd
object to t-shirt messages that advocated violent action against a
group, regardless of the position of that group an a political
spectrum, or that of its opponents. I'd say that was pretty apolitical,
wouldn't you?

But that's not the point Fred is addressing, even though it's the
question you asked.

In article <1107757333.511392.120400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote:

BTR1701 wrote:

In article

"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

What censorship? The government didn't shut down the show.

The concept of "censorship" does not apply solely in which a

representative explicitly removes a piece of art from

Actually, state action *is* the only meaningful definition of

since any private "censorship" is merely the private party's

their free speech right to not speak.

I disagree. I think the concept of censorship applies whenever

prevents ideas from being disseminated based on their dislike for

content of those ideas.

If I, as a private party, choose to not speak, that may or may not

due to pressure from outside. If an artist is told, "Use

subject matter in your art, and your funding will be cut", that's
censorship, IMO. If a corporation owns a communcations network
(newspapers, radio & TV stations), and decides to not air the work

particular artist because they don't like that artist's political
stance, that, too, is an act of censorship.

No, it's the corporation deciding not to use its own property to say
something with which it does not agree.