The Assassination of Barack Obama: Freedom of expression or racism?

[Elano]

A controversial art exhibit was raided and shut down before it could be viewed in NYC yesterday.

According to the NY Times blog: Cityroom, Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama”.

The artist thought his racist views were protected under the Constitution because he was expressing himself through his art. Wrong.

Not 30 minutes after Arboleda set up the gallery across the street from the New York Times building, police, feds and secret service swooped in to shut the art exhibit down. While police covered the offensive storefront window with brown paper, Arboleda was led away in handcuffs to be “interrogated”.

Arboleda, 27, learned the hard way that freedom has its limits. Later, in an interview, he said: “It’s art. It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media.” He added, “It’s about the media.”





(sandrarose.com)

[Australian Bastard]

If you are a good artist you should be able to successfully tackle the most confronting and controversial subjects in a clever manner.
These people got their exhibits shut down because their art is crude.

a clever assassin stays hidden
-Sick Jacken 'The Praying Mantis'.


I'd call it a political opinion piece, not art.
Alot of these people are simply fame chasing-attention seeking whores of Babylon, not genuine artists. 

[virtuoso]

Welcome to the new and improved America

[Kill]

If you are a good artist you should be able to successfully tackle the most confronting and controversial subjects in a clever manner.
These people got their exhibits shut down because their art is crude.

co-sign

[Teddy Roosevelt]

If you are a good artist you should be able to successfully tackle the most confronting and controversial subjects in a clever manner.
These people got their exhibits shut down because their art is crude.

a clever assassin stays hidden
-Sick Jacken 'The Praying Mantis'.


I'd call it a political opinion piece, not art.
Alot of these people are simply fame chasing-attention seeking whores of Babylon, not genuine artists. 

True, but either way your should be free to express yourself. That's what the 1st Amendment is suppose to protect.

[virtuoso]

Word, notice the obvious attempt at formulating your opinion for you also
The artist thought his racist views were protected under the Constitution because he was expressing himself through his art. Wrong.

It was of Hilary and Obama and yet that makes him a racist, ah anything negative or perceived to be negative which involves Obama and you are racist.

I guess my fuck Obama he is just a globalist puppet scumbag opinion means I am an evil racist then!

[Australian Bastard]

If you are a good artist you should be able to successfully tackle the most confronting and controversial subjects in a clever manner.
These people got their exhibits shut down because their art is crude.

a clever assassin stays hidden
-Sick Jacken 'The Praying Mantis'.


I'd call it a political opinion piece, not art.
Alot of these people are simply fame chasing-attention seeking whores of Babylon, not genuine artists. 

True, but either way your should be free to express yourself. That's what the 1st Amendment is suppose to protect.

I agree and concerning this particular exhibit, I believe it should have been allowed to stand even if it is a shit exhibit.
However that is not to say that I don't agree with the principle that there should be subjective limitations concerning racism, hate, sexual orientation and degrees of ultra violence for public viewing. If there wasn't you would have shit like political opinion pieces in the form of child torture snuff porn being passed off as public displays of art.

Just recently here in Melbourne police closed down an exhibition because it featured naked children. The artist said "blah blah blah its expression of the beauty of humanity and how children have been sidelined by society". Well, I agreed with her message, but you can portray that message in a rich variety of ways without crudely slamming a blown-up photo of a naked child on a canvas.

As like I said, throughout history artists have always managed to convey their desired message through their work to the public; despite and while often courting and even using the conventions of the time (which today, concerning freedom of expression, compared to history are very good and as it should be don't get me wrong im as libertarian as the next man). If you are good artist you can portray the most subversive content in a seemingly acceptable and conventional manner, there is an art to it (pardon the pun) and art like that is ually the best because it converges polarised views into the present with the audience. Im not saying art should adhere to the mainstream convention, but an artist engaging in political/social commentary who is oblivious to the context in which their work is going to be set isn't a very good artist if they haven't even thought that far ahead.

[Australian Bastard]

I guess my fuck Obama he is just a globalist puppet scumbag opinion means I am an evil racist then!

Beside the particulars, in general:
some of the time we need to work with what we have and that can require, to a degree, playing the part of the puppet inorder to be rewarded with some slack upon the leash. This goes for alot of what we do in life.

[M Dogg™]

the 1st amendment does not protect your right to yell fire in a theater and it does not protect your right to cause a riot and it does not protect your right to slander someone. in  the end, the 1st amendment protects your right to post porn, curse and say whatever you want to say about others, unless it does harm to someone which this art exhibit could do. If it was done right, then it would not be taken down.

[virtuoso]

Hurting others means? 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

the 1st amendment does not protect your right to yell fire in a theater and it does not protect your right to cause a riot and it does not protect your right to slander someone. in  the end, the 1st amendment protects your right to post porn, curse and say whatever you want to say about others, unless it does harm to someone which this art exhibit could do. If it was done right, then it would not be taken down.

Are you fucking serious? How is this hurting anyone? How is this not covered by the 1st Amendment.

[M Dogg™]

Hurting others means? 

the 1st amendment does not protect your right to yell fire in a theater and it does not protect your right to cause a riot and it does not protect your right to slander someone. in  the end, the 1st amendment protects your right to post porn, curse and say whatever you want to say about others, unless it does harm to someone which this art exhibit could do. If it was done right, then it would not be taken down.

Are you fucking serious? How is this hurting anyone? How is this not covered by the 1st Amendment.

promoting the death of a public figure. right now, tension is high on Obama, all we need is art work to rally people and actually do what is rumored to be done.