Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
Not really - you seemed to suggest that the First Amendment would have protected it? But it's there absolutely on sufferance of the owners of the wall on which it has been painted, without permission from that owner. Justbecause their reason for removing it is dubious - doesn't change their right to that removal for whatever reason.
Now - had it been hanging in a gallery and the council insisted it be removed - that would be an infringement of the artist's right to free expression.
|
Let me try again.
Two points here, it's graffiti and it has a perceived meaning.
As graffiti, the content notwithstanding, the property owner has the right to remove it. The end.
As to the meaning, I believe in the freest possible range of expression. Not anarchy, not unlimited "free speech". Words have power and power should be used with control. What I *don't believe* should be a control is a legal prohibition from giving offense. I don't think there is a right to be unoffended.
This is not a simple situation. Language is complex, people are complex. We have reasonable laws against slander and libel and pornography and such. What I don't think is a good threshold for the exercise of state power is "I am offended, make that stop."
Now, to the mural.
I don't think the message of the mural rises to the level of pornography, libel, defamation, etc. I don't see anything objectionable, I mean legally actionable in the message of the mural.
I can see that someone might dislike the message, or dislike the effect the message would have on other people, sure. Not in an illegal way though. Not enough to justify taking it down. Imagine that same mural was painted on a billboard, a space specifically designed for a big sign, a deliberate, public visual communication medium. I would think it should be allowed.
Same message, down here on the side of my building? I can easily see that someone would want it removed. Even it it said "I
Kittens!!!", I might want that removed.
Bottom line: I think we agree.