“Whatever happened to freedom of expression?” What indeed? This is what happened to freedom of expression: Islamic jihadists began threatening to murder, and actually murdering, those who exercised it in a way they considered to be offensive to Islam. And suddenly the entire once-free West gained a new respect for Islam and willingness to adhere to Sharia blasphemy laws. For there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Nabil Mousa’s sculpture was judged too controversial and turned down not because of the burned Torah or New Testament, but because of the burned Qur’an, and only because of the burned Qur’an. The whole world is cowering in fear before these bloodthirsty assassins, not realizing or not caring about the fact that their cowering is only going to encourage the assassins to be even more bloodthirsty and demanding.
“Sculpture with burned Bible,Torah, and Quran banned from competition,” by Kaitlyn S Ross and Julie Wolfe, WXIA, September 17, 2015:
ATLANTA — An Atlanta artist is frustrated after his sculpture about 9/11 was turned down from a national competition for being too controversial.
It was a miscommunication between the city where the competition is held, and the curators who judge the competition. The piece was approved by the curators to be displayed at City Hall in Grand Rapids, Michigan for ArtPrize, an annual competition. But when the city saw it, they thought it was far too controversial to be in city hall. It is a provocative piece called “Paradise Built on the Bones of the Slaughtered.”
It shows the twin towers and then the burned religious scripts of the Torah, Quran, and Bible.
Atlanta artist Nabil Mousa says it’s influenced by his upbringing.
“Being born in Syria I grew up around all 3 religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism,” he said.
Raised as a Christian, he said the sculpture is meant to question what people do in the name of religion.
“When you look at 9/11 and you look at this sculpture, you have to think, how can someone commit these atrocities in the name of God and think that God is on their side,” he said.
He knew some people would take offense to the sculpture, but didn’t think it should be banned outright.
“Whatever happened to freedom of expression? Art is supposed to be a way for us to express ourselves and be able to do it without judgment, without censorship,” he said….
ECAW says
What a shame he didn’t previously submit and get accepted a similar piece with only the burned Torah and Bible.
That’s what scientists would call a control group.
jihad3tracker says
Hello again, ECAW — Superb suggestion, but even with the Qur’an as a follow up, Garland Two would have been planned by CAIR’s petting zoo.
mortimer says
Heckler’s Veto Definition: A controversial legal position taken by law enforcement officers based on an alleged right to restrict freedom of speech where such expression may create disorder or provoke violence.
The Heckler’s Veto allows jihadists to move forward without criticism.
mortimer says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto
Michigan State University professor of political science William B. Allen has used the phrase “VERBAL TERRORISM” to refer to the same phenomenon (HECKLER’S VETO), defining it as “calculated assault characterized by loud side-conversations, shouted interruptions, JABBERED FALSE FACTS, THREATS and PERSONAL INSULTS”.
Danny Ayalon has suggested that the tactic be combated by videotaping the shouters.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/offensive-speech-and-the-danger-of-granting-the-hecklers-veto/262434/
Offensive Speech and the Danger of Granting the Heckler’s Veto
-“The message (of Obama’s administration) to citizens: CERTAIN KINDS of political speech, while protected by the First Amendment, will trigger federal investigations into whether there’s any legal reason you can be arrested. And the message to illiberal Muslims: Speech offensive to you is protected by the First Amendment, but the United States government can totally lean on private companies to make them harder to access on the Internet, and investigate the speaker to see if he’s broken any laws, so next time you’re upset best to start demanding that those actions be taken. Those are foolish messages to send” …
“MODERATING AMERICA’S ABSOLUTIST VIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO AVOID FUTURE EXPLOSIONS WOULD SURELY HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.”
Angemon says
Who’s a good dhimmi? Who’s a good dhimmi? You are. Yes, you are.
*pats dhimmi on the head*
*throws ball*
Fetch, dhimmi, fetch! Fetch the ball!
Fr. Basil says
Freedom of speech protects a person from prior restraint by the government ONLY.
It does not guarantee a forum to express one’s views.
The artist has a right to make any sculpture he wishes, but the contest he wished to enter doesn’t have a corresponding obligation to allow him to enter his work.
Incek Mahallesi says
Fr. Basil:
“Freedom of speech protects a person from prior restraint by the government ONLY.
It does not guarantee a forum to express one’s views.”
__________________________________________
Nonsense. Go study. We have the freedom to associate and to petition the government with grievances. Those can be done on any public sidewalk or right-of-way or on so-called “federal lands”.
This is a guarantee of a forum.
”It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” – Justice Black
See more at:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html#sthash.Xw079orA.dpuf
Incek Mahallesi says
Oh, and…Fr. Basil?
You might have missed this little nugget in the article:
“The piece was approved by the curators to be displayed at City Hall in Grand Rapids, Michigan for ArtPrize, an annual competition. But when the city saw it, they thought it was far too controversial to be in city hall.”
__________________________
So, the “city” deemed the curators fit to decide which pieces would be on display at the agreed-upon forum, but, subsequently, decided that the forum was not appropriate for the piece that the curators approved. Sound like pretzel logic?
That’s because it is… kinda’ like yours.
mortimer says
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HecklersVeto.aspx
In Startzell, Justice Sloviter made the court’s repugnance for an alleged heckler’s veto clear by adopting these words:
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government MAY NOT PROHIBIT THE EXPRESSION of an idea SIMPLY BECAUSE SOCIETY FINDS THE IDEA ITSELF OFFENSIVE OR DISAGREEABLE. In public debate our own citizens MUST TOLERATE INSULTING, and even OUTRAGEOUS, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
“A heckler’s veto is an IMPERMISSIBLE content-based RESTRICTION on speech where the speech is prohibited due to an ANTICIPATED DISORDERLY or VIOLENT reaction of the audience.”
Similarly, in Hedges, Justice Easterbrook:
“The police are supposed to preserve order, which unpopular speech may endanger. Does it follow that the police MAY SILENCE the rabble-rousing speaker? NOT AT ALL. The police must permit the speech and CONTROL THE CROWD. THERE IS NO HECKLER’S VETO. Just as bellicose bystanders cannot authorize the government to silence a speaker, so ignorant bystanders CANNOT make censorship legitimate.”
Joseph says
“When you look at 9/11 and you look at this sculpture, you have to think, how can someone commit these atrocities in the name of God and think that God is on their side,” he said.
______________________________________________________________________
Then his sculpture should have shown the twin towers and the burnt Bible and Torah with the Koran dominating above with the question of how and why. The Bible, Torah and non believers are the victims of evil Islam so why should a burnt copy of the Koran be included?
Better still he should have had the twin towers and the burnt Koran separated by a placard stating: *To Date* 26,906 victims of Islam. This would symbolize that Islam’s violence is its own destruction.
Why is the world putting up with evil Islam. If any single leader were this barbaric he would have been taken out long ago or at least contained. These stupid politicians and bleeding heart leftists want to spread this crap to the four corners of the Earth. Man isn’t getting smarter, he is getting dumber by the minute.
Sergio says
Hi Robert, Please let this Artist know that I am setting up a new Art gallery in Australia that is specifically dedicated to politically incorrect works, and the unwavering defence of freedom of expression.
regards
Sergio Redegalli
Kepha says
Hmmmm. Some more ideas to epater today’s bourgeoisie (not the one that’s passing into history).
1. Enter a sculpture featuring burnt works of Marx, Voltaire, Shaw, Darwin, and Rousseau.
2. Show a poster with a large crowd of all demographics, ages, and both (not all) sexes smiling while a rainbow flag burns.
3, Display the ISIS flag with footprints in pig manure prominently on the shehada.
4. Show a picture of a smiling Harvey Milk wearing a button saying, “I love your young son”.
5. Show a poster of Malcolm X looking ominous with a red X on his forehead bearing the legend, “Well done, Louie Farrakhan. Brotherhood!”
6.Show the Ben Shahn poster with the legend, “Just because you’ve silenced a man doesn’t mean you’ve converted him” with another, larger legend reading, “What a reactionary!!!!!!”
7. Display a poster of Khomeini flashing a V-for-victory sign while dropping his pants to reveal the imprint of Jimmy Carter’s lips on his scrawny backside. It should bear the legend “Allaho Akbar!”
Any other ideas? Bosch Fawstin, are you there?
More Ham Ed says
Time for another contest in Garland.
Draw the unholy ko ‘ran.
Jimmy says
There shall be freedom of expression under all circumstances. In case a person feel injured from another person’s speech/writing bordering on libel/slander, the purported injured person shall exercise his right to go to court. Nobody has the right to take law in his hands. Similarly, no government official has the right to go against the constitution, rather he is bound to protect the constitutional rights. Too sensitive to display is not a justification to give in to “Extremists”. By the same logic, will the official tell a rich man not to build a palace, lest it be targeted by the thugs? His job is protect properties and people and not giving excuses. His job is to sit down with community, law enforcement bodies to protect citizens’ lives and properties and ensure their right to free speech is protected as well.