Freedom of Speech vs Inflammotry Expression

[Murad]

Angelique Chrisafis, Paris

April 20, 2011




ANDRES Serrano’s Piss Christ has been destroyed by Christians who broke into a French gallery and slashed the photograph after weeks of protests.

The New York photographer’s controversial work shows a small crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine.

It outraged the US religious right in 1987, when it was first shown. It was vandalised in Melbourne in 1997, and neo-Nazis ransacked a Swedish show by the artist in 2007.

The work has previously been shown without incident in France, but for the past two weeks Catholic groups have campaigned against it, culminating in hundreds of people marching through Avignon on Saturday in protest.

On Sunday morning, four people in sunglasses entered the gallery. One took a hammer from his sock and threatened security staff. A guard restrained one man but the others managed to smash an acrylic screen and slash the photograph with what police believe was a screwdriver or ice pick.

Last week the gallery complained of �extremist harassment� by Christians who wanted the image banned.

The Archbishop of Vaucluse, Jean-Pierre Cattenoz, called the work �odious� and said he wanted �this trash� taken off the gallery walls. Saturday’s street protest against the work gained the support of the far-right National Front.

The owner of the work, Yvon Lambert, had complained he was being �persecuted� by religious extremists who had sent him tens of thousands of emails. He likened the atmosphere to the Middle Ages.

French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand condemned the vandalism as an attack on the fundamental freedoms of creation and expression.

The gallery’s director, Eric Mezil, said he would keep the exhibition open to the public with the destroyed work on show �so people can see what barbarians can do�.
Source

Question for debate:
1) Are the above Christians against "Western Values" of "Free Speech" ?
2) How do we differentiate "Free Speech" & "Inflammatory Expression"?
3) Are the two phrases purely subjective & pre-defined by ones cognitive orientation ? Or, is there an objective method of differentiating the two?

[Furrowed Brow]

1) Are the above Christians against "Western Values" of "Free Speech"?

Western Values? How about enlightened values.

The Christians have a right to register the Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ is odious to them. They do not and should not have the right to prevent it being displayed. The actions of the demonstrators and the comments made by Archbishop of Vaucluse give a reason to why state and church need to be kept separate.

Some folk find aspects of the Old Testament, the life of the Prophet Mohammed, and the theology of the New Testament odious. We have a right to register our disproval, we do not have a right to prevent the publication of the Bible or the Koran. Whose sensitivities trumps whose? And the answer is that those “Western values� mean religion does not trump its critics.

2) How do we differentiate "Free Speech" & "Inflammatory Expression"?

Free speech is partly a negotiable concept. I do not have the right to stand on a box in my high street and argue that some minority group or other are evil, parasitic, not fully human etc and ought to be put to death. I’d get arrested.....and rightly so. Even those who live in the most open of Western societies accept curbs on their freedom of expression, even if in the limited case of not being free to incite murder.

3) Are the two phrases purely subjective & pre-defined by ones cognitive orientation ? Or, is there an objective method of differentiating the two?

The question poses a false dichotomy. Being provocative or inflammatory is not...or should not be a crime.....unless folk are being deliberately provoked to go out and hurt one another or deny some minority equality under the law. But we have to look at each case in context. The Pastor who burnt the Koran was literally being inflammatory and seems to have provoked some Muslims to commit murder, and in this I do not think he was guilty of inciting their crime. If however Christians went out and killed Muslims as a direct consequence then there would be a case to answer.

“Cognitive orientation�? Interesting phrase. Well yes I guess some folk have a “cognitive orientation� that recognises and seeks out cogency.

[Kuan]

Before I get involved further, can someone explain to me how thats art? He probably was drunk out his mind and dropped the crucifix in the beer.

[Furrowed Brow]

Before I get involved further, can someone explain to me how thats art? He probably was drunk out his mind and dropped the crucifix in the beer.

There is "art" in coming up with the idea he could sell it. That takes genius.

[Taek]

I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I believe in God and I believe that placing a crucifix in urine is detestable, and I am highly unlikely to support the artist in any way. I may even speak against him and encourage my friends to do the same.

However, I believe that he has a right to express what he wants. If he wants to burn Bible's that he acquired legally, let him do so. If he wants to pee on the Mona Lisa (which he acquired legally.... somehow...), let him do so.

I believe that something becomes inflammatory expression when the sole reason for the statement is 'inflammation.' If I honest believe that black people are supremely inferior, I should be able to say so and I should be able to say so in public places to people who want to listen to me. If a person does not want to listen, they have the right to walk away.

However, if I am saying that black people are supremely inferior because I want to start a riot, then I should be persecuted. (If I claim to believe what I say, I don't think there's much you can do about it)

The other type of speech that should be banned is any speech that intentionally misinforms people in a way that causes danger/law breaking/disruption to the peace. A good example would be shouting 'fire' in a movie theater when I know there is no fire. Another example might be convincing someone that he will be killed by the bartender unless he kills the bartender first.

[Kuan]

Before I get involved further, can someone explain to me how thats art? He probably was drunk out his mind and dropped the crucifix in the beer.

There is "art" in coming up with the idea he could sell it. That takes genius.

Isnt tht called entreprenuership?

Anyways, I agree with what has been said above. I dont like it, but its well within his rights. I really liked what Taek said, and I agree a lot.

[bjs]

I think that Taek pretty well summed it up – if a guy legally obtains the Mona Lisa and then pees on, that is his right. If a guy wants to display a picture of a crucifix in a glass of urine then that is his right.

These are not commendable actions. Even if he believes in his message, he has delivered the message in a way designed to inflame and upset people. I would compare it to violent pornography – legal, but in no way good.

My only other thought is that the artist, Yvon Lambert, has no room to complain about “persecution.� That is the nature of free speech. Lambert is free to make a statement that intentionally offends millions of people, and those millions of people are free to say that they are offended.

I doubt all of the “tens of thousands of emails� that Lambert received where written in a spirit of Christian charity (though of course I don’t know that for sure). I would like to see Christian responded to even the vilest of messages with compassion and kindness, but I know we aren’t there yet. However, Lambert should recognize that we will all be treated the way that we treat others. When we treats others in an uncivil manner we should expect to be treated in an uncivil manner.

[Woland]

Dear Christians,

I hope that this is not too off-topic (I address the OP below), but I want to take a moment to say that I have much respect for your support of freedom of speech.

I don't just take it for granted that most of you, as I believe, will always and unfailingly support my right to disagree with your dearest religious beliefs in writing or in public without facing oppression or fearing violent reprisals.

I sincerely appreciate the fact that even though we disagree and have heated discussions on a variety of "sensitive" topics, we can agree that some things, such as freedom of speech, are just worth having even though they may eventually result in our being "offended".

There are quite a few people from "other religions" who simply wouldn't mind at all if people were gruesomely killed (by the state or by violent dogmatists) for "insulting their religion/god/prophet".

And the pathetic gang of vandals in the OP?
Now THAT is something worth calling "a tiny minority of extremists".

Concerning inflammatory expression vs "free speech", I would personally go with Taek's definition, as his stance seems most reasonable from my vantage point and in terms of having personal freedoms AND a peaceful, nonviolent coexistence as its highest ideals.

-Woland

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1) Are the above Christians against "Western Values" of "Free Speech" ?

Obviously.

2) How do we differentiate "Free Speech" & "Inflammatory Expression"?

"Free Speech" is when I agree.

"Inflammatory Expression" is when I disagree.

3) Are the two phrases purely subjective & pre-defined by ones cognitive orientation ?

Very much.

Or, is there an objective method of differentiating the two?

We differentiate between the two when we try to silence that speech with which we disagree.

[Choir Loft]

Question for debate:
1) Are the above Christians against "Western Values" of "Free Speech" ?
2) How do we differentiate "Free Speech" & "Inflammatory Expression"?
3) Are the two phrases purely subjective & pre-defined by ones cognitive orientation ? Or, is there an objective method of differentiating the two?

I note that nobody has addressed the second question. Is it, therefore, a true statement and acceptable by everyone that this rubbish, this pretentious insult masquerading as art, this affront to faith IS IN FACT INFLAMATORY?

I assert that it is inflamatory, but that it is something more. Prior to this artist's particular effort at insult, he was an unknown. One of the principles of marketing is that if one can establish a controversy, then one can more easily sell one's goods or services. My assertion is that this object was created for the purpose of inflamming the public. Having thus created a controversy, he becomes famous and can demand a higher price for his other works of lesser note.

It'a all about money and greed. That's all it ever is and this 'artist' has had to stoop to the device of crude showmanship to sell his trash.

Christian freedom of speech allows this man to keep his life. I note that he has published no such insult of Mohammad. If he had, he'd be dead by now. Not only is this person a cheap carnival showman, he is also a coward.