http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/
2007-04-05 19:30:49 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
Freedom of speech insures the artist a right to produce the "naked Chocolate Jesus" statue. It does not insure him the right to display it on someone elses property. The hotel that was sponsoring the exibit choose to not display this peice of (offensive) artwork after they received many complaints (People exercising THEIR freedom of speech). You may disagree withtheir choice, but it was their choice to make. No free speech was violated.
Now it the government mandated that the hotel could not display the piece, or mandated the peice be destroyed, THAT would be a violation of free speech!
2007-04-07 18:17:38 · answer #1 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only thing keeping it from exhibits is money; therefore, not a free speech issue. If the artist had enough money to exhibit it himself, he could. If the NEA (federally funded--our tax dollars) decides to lift a grant, free speech is not violated. If a gallery or exhibitor decides it does not want to display the work, the gallery/exhibitor is exercising free speech by choosing not to display it. If the guy has so many supporters that want to see chocolate Jesus, why don't they foot the bill?
2007-04-05 20:01:31 · answer #2 · answered by Jeremy B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A more pressing question in this age of narcissism, greed, corruption and psychopathy, might well be: Did the artist produce the work "with dollar signs in his eyes", or out of true prompting by aesthetic creativity?
I would hope the latter, but no longer hold out much hope for an absence of cynicism and profit mongering :))
2007-04-08 06:59:52 · answer #3 · answered by drakke1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It was basic economic pressure.
I don't consider it any more a violation of "free speech" than supermarkets being pressured into putting banded wrappers over mature content magazine covers ostensively to shield them from the eyes of minors and probably equally to serve as a sop for the easily offended.
Some folk will say "parts is parts" and shrug.
2007-04-05 21:38:29 · answer #4 · answered by h_brida 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Anyone who would create such a blasphemous thing is a dirtbag. At the very least, it is disrespectful to Christianity, and above all, it would be an abomination to God.
It's not "art", or "free speech", it's a slap at Jesus.
2007-04-05 19:35:22 · answer #5 · answered by C J 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i would love to suck christs delicious c0ck
2007-04-05 19:52:01 · answer #6 · answered by moderators are impotent 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am so disgusted by your question. Please delete it!
2007-04-05 19:35:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋