Should cities be in the business of drawing lines in the sand between what is free speech and what is not?
Or should the public -- the community of citizenry -- be the overlord of deciding what is and what is not acceptable conduct in the public square?
In a recent article -- Does Assassination Art Hate or Heal? -- I wondered on the topic of the New York Police Department shutting down a public expression of True Art that was decidedly unpopular and, perhaps, even craven and in bad taste.
Must True Art be acceptable to the mainstream in order to be heard?
Here's what I argued in the comments for that article:
What do you think?
Does the City own the right to mandate what is and is not to be heard and tolerated in the public square as free speech or not?
What is the danger of letting the citizenry decide what is and is not acceptable for expression within the urban core?
Must True Art be acceptable to the mainstream in order to be heard?
Here's what I argued in the comments for that article:
To preempt the necessary voice of the people only makes the people more suspicious of the strong fist of the government instead of the open hand of the misguided artist.
What do you think?
Does the City own the right to mandate what is and is not to be heard and tolerated in the public square as free speech or not?
What is the danger of letting the citizenry decide what is and is not acceptable for expression within the urban core?
If everyone talks all you get is noise. The city deciding what's right lets the right voices get heard.
Now I know you're being silly, Karvain -- because -- what if the voices that are being labeled 'Not Right" by the city are those trying to correct the city?
Then the state steps in... then the feds... then we go back to violence in the street to be heard against our repressors... and then the city decides... and then the state steps in...
Thought so, Karvain! SMILE!