| Author |
Message |
    
E
Citizen
Username: Scubadiver
Post Number: 75
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |     |
This censorship makes me sick. Reminds me of the Giuliani vs. virgin Mary/elephant dung picture.
Too bad the Catholic League doesn't object when South Park makes fun of EVERY other major religion.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20051230/en_tv_eo/18055
By Sarah Hall Thu Dec 29, 7:14 PM ET
Did Comedy Central grant the Catholic League its Christmas wish?
Following the Dec. 7 season finale of South Park, titled "Bloody Mary," the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights slammed the network for its irreverent portrayal of church icons and sought to block the episode from being rebroadcast.
It appears the group may have met with success. A repeat of the finale was scheduled to air Wednesday night, but was pulled from the Comedy Central lineup without explanation.
In the episode, a statue of the Virgin Mary is believed to be bleeding from its rear end, inspiring faithful parishioners to flock from miles around to be healed by the miraculous blood.
Eventually,
Pope Benedict XVI is called in to investigate, whereupon he determines that the statue is actually menstruating and thus is nothing special.
"A chick bleeding out her vagina is no miracle," the pope declares in the episode. "Chicks bleed out their vaginas all the time."
Somewhat predictably, the Catholic League was incensed by the satirical portrayal of the Virgin Mary and the pope and by the fact that the episode aired on the day before the Catholic Church celebrated its Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
The conservative group demanded an apology from Viacom, Comedy Central's parent company, to Roman Catholics everywhere and "a pledge that this episode be permanently retired and not be made available on DVD."
The Catholic League also sought a personal condemnation from Viacom board member Joseph A. Califano Jr., who the group noted is a "practicing Catholic."
Califano was only too happy to oblige. After viewing the episode, he released a statement calling the episode an "appalling and disgusting portrayal of the Virgin Mary."
"It is particularly troubling to me as a Roman Catholic that the segment has run on the eve and day of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a holy day for Roman Catholics," Califano said.
Califano also pledged to have Viacom president and CEO Tom Freston review the episode.
Comedy Central did not respond to a request for comment on why "Bloody Mary" was yanked from the schedule.
Screencaps of the episode were no longer available on Comedy Central's press site or on comedycentral.com's South Park section.
The Catholic League previously tangled with Comedy Central in 2002 over a South Park episode titled "Red Hot Catholic Love," but failed to produce any results. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 1:42 pm: | |
I am a practising Catholic but fail to see why the Church should be exempt from satire, even of the kind done by South Park, which I regard as similar to the humour of 5 year olds who love to talk about "poop" and "pee."
Authors such as Rabelais and Voltaire, to name but two of my favorites, have been taking "pot shots" at the Catholic Church for centuries, and for better or worse, the Church is still around.
My sensitive side appreciates that Comedy Central "yanked" the episode during Advent. It was doing only what it would do if a Muslim, a Jew, a Rastafarian, a Hindu, or a Southern Baptist objected to an episode's content, or an ethnic group or minority for that matter did so.
I hope that it makes the episode available for broadcast at another time so one could judge its merits. |
extuscan
Citizen
Username: Extuscan
Post Number: 571
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 2:02 pm: | |
South Park's funniest episode ever was surely when they ripped into the Mormons and how that religion was founded.
At the end of most scenes about the founding, they had what I guess was supposed to be the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing "dum dum dum da dum dum dum" or something to that effect. When the got to the parts where it would take some real faith to believe Smith lost the plates, or only he could see them in the bottom of a hat, or whatever it was... you realized suddenly (as they change thier tone of voice) that the choir is singing "dumb dumb dumb da dumb dumb dumb". I almost fell off the couch. I hope they keep playing that episode
But then again, censorship is fine with me when its not government censorship... Its absurd to say Viacom can't make a moral judgement. But I think its even more absurd that Viacom isn't consistent about it!
-John |
msmith
Citizen
Username: Msmith
Post Number: 23
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 2:14 pm: | |
I'm not sure why the Catholic League should be responsible for identifying and targeting media that could be offensive to other religions. How big is their budget? I think most major religions have these types of groups.
I agree with extuscan. To me, censorship involves government action. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 4:30 pm: | |
Anyone who thinks South Park doesn't make fun of Catholics on a regular basis doesn't watch much South Park.
|
e roberts
Citizen
Username: Wnwd00
Post Number: 363
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 4:53 pm: | |
in general i feel there is a great deal of mocking aof the catholic church in most major media (simpsons, family guy, among others)
it appears to me that there is almost a media attack on the catholic church, everything is a scandel (news) poke fun of this and that (tv) and it seems to me most catholics and society as a whole see it as ok.
of course i dont think the catholic church should be exempt from satire but how come the standard is different between islam and the catholics.
if you show someone in a turban or other type of head wrap as a terrorist on anything it is immediately anti muslim and not ok. why? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11638
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 5:05 pm: | |
It's probably because the Catholic Church is (1) a hierarchy and (2) powerful. No other religious organization has those two attributes.
|
CM Townsend
Citizen
Username: Cm_townsend
Post Number: 104
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 7:14 pm: | |
This appears to be a case of tasteless defamation. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 7:19 pm: | |
...and it doesn't hurt that the Catholic church was recently at the center of a sensational sex scandal, either.
Sometimes real life is more interesting than fiction.
|
e roberts
Citizen
Username: Wnwd00
Post Number: 365
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 8:33 pm: | |
oh i totally agree and i am by no means attempting to defend some of the terrible actions of the church.
however i am saying i believe reality is the opposite of what E is implying. I believe that currently our society is very accepting of criticism of the catholic church whether it be humor based or serious as opposed to the same type of criticism directed towards islam.
any group can complain to a media outlet and i have no doubt many do, i just feel E missed the point in that the catholics didnt censor a thing, they complained, comedy central thought it had merit (i assume) and they adjusted their programming. |
fiche
Citizen
Username: Fiche
Post Number: 61
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 8:36 am: | |
I think Tom Lehrer did the Vatican Rag in 1965. Still funny!
http://www.turoks.net/Cabana/VaticanRag.htm
|
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 52
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 12:01 pm: | |
The Catholic Church represents a major force to be reckoned with. Like Tom says, its is powerful and at time mysterious. Most of the slaps that are thrown at it come out of jealousy for a church that does more good in this world than any other - and keeps on growing. A church that is continually expanding to include all races- one of the major contenders for the new Pope was a black Cardinal - the other from Brazil. It stands to reason that the power and formidable dominance of the Church is the source of all its rotten press- some of it deserved, but most of it written by the jealous.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11648
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 12:52 pm: | |
Alberto, as I said elsewhere, you should be proud of what you are, but don't let it turn into arrogance. That's not, uh, Godly. I'm not jealous, and I don't like being told I am. I'm proud of what I am, too.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1162
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 2:46 pm: | |
Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutum meum, as we say. |
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 54
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 4:47 pm: | |
Tom, you can feel as proud as you want about what you are/are not. This is not a competition - it a mere clarificaton of the source of a good amount of the sludge that is thrown to the Church.
It is what it is- |
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 55
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 4:49 pm: | |
Tom, you can feel as proud as you want about what you are/are not. This is not a competition - it a mere clarificaton of the source of a good amount of the sludge that is thrown to the Church.
It is what it is- |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3900
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 5:18 pm: | |
"The Catholic Church represents a major force to be reckoned with. Like Tom says, its is powerful and at time mysterious. Most of the slaps that are thrown at it come out of jealousy for a church that does more good in this world than any other - and keeps on growing."
Funny, I thought that the relative power of the Catholic Church has been in decline since Henry the VIII split from the Church.
In places like the Philippines, the Catholic Church is a status quo power losing ground to the Mormon Church and Iglesia ni Christo. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 5:29 pm: | |
tjohn has a point: pentacostal churches have been eating away at the Catholic Church by major inroads in developing countries in Africa and South America, long considered to be the "markets" where the Church would dominate. That domination does not look so secure any more.
While European Catholics are baptized, married, and buried in the church, that is just about all they do there. The rest of their lives are not involved with the church. That hurts the Catholic Church both financially and in terms of its influence. By the way, most Western European Christians, regardless of their affiliation, have the same attitude towards their churches.
So Christianity, not just Catholicism, is in for a hard ride in Europe while, as we said, Catholicism is losing ground in developing nations. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11653
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 7:55 am: | |
Alberto, how do you distinguish worthy criticism from jealousy?
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2083
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 3:18 pm: | |
Why would (and how could) any lay person be jealous of a religion?
If I like what Catholicism stands for, I can simply convert. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 188
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 6:29 pm: | |
People, people...how many of you even watch SP? They make fun of EVERYONE and EVERYTHING...
E-Rudy was right in getting pissed off over the cow dung deal since with public funds were being used...the artist was obviously going for shock value..I don't know, if someone gave me free money the last thing I would do is disrespect him/her with it...common courtesy... |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 189
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 6:31 pm: | |
E-
by the way, you know dam well this wouldn't fly with other religious groups...ok. Due to the PC world we live in, the idea of picking on jews and muslim don't ven making it off the conference room table... |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4919
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 6:52 pm: | |
South Park does make fun of everyone. And I think the article at the top of this thread is wrong - the South Park website has scenes from this episode, just like all the others.
Maybe it's an example of one of the oldest marketing tactics - spread the word that you've been "banned". William Donohue and his so-called "Catholic League" (he used to be just another nut with a fax machine, but with the internet he's gained "respectability") has always been useful to anybody who wanted people to think that they are so outrageous. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1560
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 7:00 pm: | |
Scrotis,
Quote:E-Rudy was right in getting pissed off over the cow dung deal since with public funds were being used...the artist was obviously going for shock value..I don't know, if someone gave me free money the last thing I would do is disrespect him/her with it...common courtesy...
I'm cribbing from someone here, but art IMO isn't about courtesy or matching your sofa, art is supposed to inspire and/or make you think.
Shocking? The Statue of David has full-frontal nudity.
Currier and Ives is art ("Art") but so is "Piss Jesus"
One person's offensiveness is another's inspiration. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3907
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 7:13 pm: | |
I have no time for the desecration of religious symbols. It says to me, "I hate you", in no uncertain terms. While I realize that are Constitution permits such desecrations when they masquerade as art, I think it perfectly appropriate for the voting public to cut off public funding of such art.
And I think that Scrotis is correct. If a similar desecrationo of Jewish or Muslim symbols had taken place, there would have been much more outrage. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 8:16 pm: | |
And if the voting public doesn't want coloreds using their water fountains, then by gum, let's cut them off.
Laws -- in this country, at least -- are meant to protect the minority viewpoint, not the majority. Luckily you live in a country where you can believe what you want, worship where you want, and choose which art to look at (or not). If someone comes to your church and paints a swastika on the door, I'll be the first one to grab my pitchfork. But if you're offended by art hanging in a museum that you've never visited (and likely never will), then your skin is a bit too thin for modern living.
Do you know there was a time when humor (of any sort) was considered blasphemy against the church, and warranted harsh punishment? As my pal Homer likes to say, it's funny because it's true.
Remember when religion was about a connection with the world, yourself, a higher being.... and not just about being offended? Offended by art, offended by gays, offended by "Happy Holidays," offended by science, offended by Tom Reingold..... Doesn't it get exhausting after awhile?
|
Cleve Dark
Citizen
Username: Clevedark
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 8:40 pm: | |
Oh my god, if the Catholic League doesn't get worked up over the Virgin Mary having her period on South Park, then they're not doing their job!
And the network chief probably realized his dear old mum was rolling over in her grave hearing about this controversy, and that's why he did what he did.
Unfair? Absolutely not. It's ridiculous to get upset over this. Catholics are mocked every single day, but we have a special devotion to the Virgin Mary. Make fun of us, condemn some of our priests and our heirarchy and our politics, laugh about silly Limbo, but not her! |
Joe
Citizen
Username: Gonets
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 8:59 pm: | |
One of my great regrets in life is that I only thought of urinating on the elephant-dung Virgin Mary and justifying this act as performance art after the painting was no longer on display. That would have been cool and excellent performance art too. Of course if it was hung high on a wall I'd have trouble hitting my mark. Then there's the fact that I abhor public urination. But sometimes you have to do reprehensible things for art's sake.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 9:48 pm: | |
Let the Catholic League do what it wants. Let South Park do what it wants. Let them argue it out with each other.
As far as shocking art is concerned, I find Picasso's Guernica a significant shocker as it represents brutality of the highest order visited on innocent people. A Virgin Mary menstruating is small potatoes compared to "man's inhumanity to man." |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11691
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 10:22 pm: | |
Rudy was right to say the art offended him. Rudy was wrong to try to cut the funding off. The law actually says that the mayor can cut funding but not in response to the art. What part of the first amendment does he not get? It includes the right to say offensive stuff, even with public money. The antidote to bad speech is more speech. To me, this was the lowest point in Rudy's reign as mayor.
Monty, one of these days, I'll figure out how to offend you. Just you wait.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3909
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 10:32 pm: | |
Right. The response is to cut funding, period.
What part of the conservative backlash does the socially liberal community not get? A lot of it would be my guess since Cmonty somehow tried to draw a some parallel between government enforced segregation and defunding public art because some find it deeply offensive. |
E
Citizen
Username: Scubadiver
Post Number: 76
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 10:37 pm: | |
tjohn,
How can you recognize that the Constitution permits such "desecrations", but if the voting public wanted to cut off funding, it would be OK? As cmontyburns points out, that line of reasoning would provide for very serious counterexamples.
And in the "dung" example it wasn't the voting public, it was just the mayor.
E |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3910
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 10:49 pm: | |
Easy. The Constitution does not mandate public funding for the arts. I fully understand that a decision to defund the arts is all or none.
I believe that Giuliani voiced the feelings of many people. In NYC, however, conservative groups are particularly organized or vocal. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11694
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 10:49 pm: | |
Cut funding to whom? Museums who have a history of showing offensive art? Or museums who might, in the future, show offensive art? No, I don't buy it. There is no test for what is offensive art, just as there is none for speech. The reason for that is that no one can design or administer such a test properly.
If the conservative backlash is to do away with free speech, the conservative backlash is wrong.
Once a museum has money, from wherever, it will do what it will. And you can guarantee that its art will offend someone. Offending the mayor is not really a special case.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3911
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 10:56 pm: | |
Well, the conservative backlash might be to do away with free speech or it might be people saying that if funding the arts means funding desecrations of religious symbols, then they want no part of it. The second reason is not an attack on free speech. |
CM Townsend
Citizen
Username: Cm_townsend
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 5:54 am: | |
http://www.catholicleague.org/04press_releases/quarter4/041210_vandalism.htm |
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 905
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 8:05 am: | |
When I hear censorship, I think of the government controlling what I can read or watch. In this case, a private, non-profit organization expressed its discontent with a TV show, and a private company has chosen not to air the show again. I don't see any censorship. If you believe Comedy Central is being irrational, write to them. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10149
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 8:30 am: | |
I am not a South Park fan, but even for them the show seems to be a little over the top. I don't know if the Catholic League threatened a boycott or not, but that is becoming an increasingly popular way for special interest groups to make corporations toe the line on many issues. I think current church leaders and doctrine is a fair subject for satire, but this one seemed to go beyond that point.
Seems like, on the whole, this was handled pretty well. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 9:15 am: | |
I don't blame the Catholic League any more than I do the Anti-Defamation League, NAACP or the Italian-American groups who safeguard the images of their constituents. It's what they exist to do. I enjoy the edgy humor, though and try not to take any religious/ ethnic group too seriously. Particularly my own. |
E
Citizen
Username: Scubadiver
Post Number: 77
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 12:41 pm: | |
Tjohn,
To your recent post, how is to be determined (and by whom) what are "desecrations of religious symbols"? And is this protection only afforded to religious symbols (vs. political, social etc.)?
What about public funding that "desecrates" religious doctrine (back to the intelligent design in public schools argument)?
E
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3913
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 1:34 pm: | |
E,
It's purely a political process constrained by the rule of law. If a voting majority decide to discontinue public funding of the arts, for whatever reason, then it is going to happen. The same is true of public education although there, the process is rather more complicated than simply discontinuing funding since there are laws and provisions in state constitutions mandating funding for public education.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 196
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 8:48 pm: | |
Lydia,
If a person gets inspiration from cow dung then I suggests he/she gives up art and sees a shrink! 
I am all for freedom of expression but not on someon elses tab (unless I got their permission)...if the the local orthodox jewish community gives me money to create art and my idea of art is to paint a menorah pink and piss on it, do you really think that is showing your appreciation?
In other words, is that a cool thing to do? I personally don't think so.... |
Cleve Dark
Citizen
Username: Clevedark
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 10:06 pm: | |
I think the cow dung has a different cultural significance in Africa (wasn't that artist African, or of African descent?) and the intention was not to smear poop on the Virgin Mary, but to show that she's important in other cultures besides the west. But I could be rusty, it's been a couple of years since that controversy. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3916
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 10:30 pm: | |
Cleve,
That could well be right.
http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/2000/012000/nA97.SensationC.html |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11714
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 10:38 pm: | |
How would that work? We could fund art until it becomes offensive? Who gets to decide what is offensive? What standards would that person or organization use?
The fact that my questions are impossible to answer mean that such a plan is unfeasible. You either fund art, or you don't.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2092
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 11:28 pm: | |
Scrotis, if the Catholic Church (or some other Christian group) was funding the art, your analogy would fit. But since our government is not a religious organization, it is not an appropriate likening. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3917
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 6:01 am: | |
Tom,
I said early on in this thread that there is no formula and the decision to defund public art would be complete and not subjective.
What I find entertaining about this thread right now is to see how the righteous intelligentsia of MOL are so indignant at the thought of cutting public funding for the arts that they seem to have lost any capacity to understand that a lot of people are a) sincerely and pointlessly offended by some art or b) see no value in it worthy of public funding.
As for me, I am sometimes a or b but not to concerned about cutting the funding since we aren't talking about deficit-impacting amounts. Moreover, since there are undoubtedly some museums and programs I like that benefit from public funds, I am not about to throw out the baby with the bath water. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11719
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 7:10 am: | |
Then what are you advocating?
I can see how the art was offensive, for whatever that's worth.
And I don't think I'm part of any intelligentsia. I consider you much smarter than most MOLers, though I realize the word refers to the elite, not the smartest. I don't think there is any sort of inner circle among us.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3919
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 8:17 am: | |
I'm not really advocating anything. I just find it a bit entertaining to see how so many people view public funding of the arts as being nearly equivalent to the Bill of Rights when, in fact, it is completely discretionary at the whim of Congress. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11725
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 8:29 am: | |
Oh, I realize that. I just want to make the point that the degree of offensiveness is not a reason to cut funding. NYC has a law that says this rather explicitly.
And that ties to the bill of rights, because my right to say what I want does not hinge on the value of what I say. So while funding isn't a right, the rules for funding decisions should be made the same way as the rules for deciding who gets to speak his/her mind.
Freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press. The Ross brothers don't have to let us say what we want, since MOL is their board. As long as there is a Brooklyn Museum, with money that comes from wherever it comes from, the museum gets to say what the museum will display.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page