Comments on Censoring Art or Protecting Workers?

• Protecting Workers
• Posted by John C. Bonnell , Professor of English at Macomb Community College on October 21, 2005 at 7:55am EDT

• Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech unless it is convenient to do so. Any speech that can be construed as generative of a "hostile environment," and that includes any speech thus far imagined, may be restricted or banned whenever any reasonable person expresses a complaint. Complaints and complainers must always be accorded the utmost consideration, as long as they are truly reasonable. And a "reasonable" person is anyone beyond the age of two who can be identified as part of a protected category. Such categories (female, color, age, ethnic, religion, etc.) are now over a dozen at most public institutions. Not only are protected persons guaranteed a civil right to have any other persons' civil liberties canceled, they are further assured their identities (which may include specifics of the complaints themselves) will be shielded from public scrutiny. Every generation of Americans struggles to find an effective way to practice censorship. The current fashion may prove the most successful of all time.

• Posted by EB on October 21, 2005 at 12:04pm EDT

• Pornography is pornography regardless of the gender(s).

  And yes, free speech is important but it is not an institutions place to provide the forum for all expression.

• Posted by brett , student at Indiana University on October 21, 2005 at 12:04pm EDT

• Whenever censorship occurs in the academy, a partisan argument begins. In this case, a explicit transgender painting is the censored item. So obviously the offended parties will be parts of the gay/lesbian/transgender community, feminists, a good percentage of liberals. If it were a picture of Christ in a pornograhic position, then the picture might draw the Christian right. Free Speech in the workplace is highly partisan.

  While I am against censorship of ideas, I am, however, more lenient about art in a working environment. Drawing from the Supreme Courts famous argument about porn (everyone knows it, no one can define it...my paraphrase), I would catagorize this picutre in the same light. The picture might be vulgar; I don't know because I haven't seen it, but it sure sounds possible. Would the school allow a picture of people fornicating in the workplace, even if it were someones exemplified the "fluidity" of sexuality? Would it show a naked child? I am sure there are things it would and wouldn't show, even if they were the "highest" expression of the artist. Some artists like flowers, some like transgendered people, some like death, but we cannot give representation to all people.

  As a gay, I'll throw in my towel against the painting - the painting as I see it in my mind now - because I don't want my workplace full of nude pictures. We can't come naked at school; you'd be arrested for showing up nude, why should we have nude pictures in the work place. Unless, of course, your job was that of a curate and your job entailed working with "art," the painting should be removed.

  My last point. Freedom of speech also protects Facists and Nazis. Would the school hesitate to take down an idyllic painting of Hitler? Would the vast majority of teachers on this forum denounce it equally? I am sure they would, thus stamping out any illusion of "free-speech" within the workplace. There is acceptable working place decor and decorum, falling inside the social boundaries of the working place - we should honestly admit that openly and forthright. Free-speech in the academy means you have the right to raise a question, publish a paper or MAKE a piece of art. It does not guarantee the right to show them off in a public building.

• Posted by cary , Professor of English at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on October 21, 2005 at 12:08pm EDT

• The University of Michigan at Flint may be justified in declaring that it once honored free expression on campus, but no more. This crude effort at censorship should be roundly condemned and those who enforced it denied credibility in the future.

• hostile workplace
• Posted by Sheila Crowe , Director, ResNet at Montana State University on October 21, 2005 at 12:09pm EDT

• The employee has a right to express that he/she feels uncomfortable and that the art piece creates a "hostile environment." Removing the art does not constitute a hostile environment for those that oppose the removal. Case closed.

• Posted by Larry on October 21, 2005 at 12:12pm EDT

• Well, luckily these attempts at censorship on the grounds that it creates a “hostile environment” have all failed (strangely resulting in an alliance between firemen and the ACLU). Unlike Firemen, most students are too wussy to stick up for their First Amendment rights.

• Ridiculous, dangerous situation and precedent
• Posted by Nancy Buchwald on October 21, 2005 at 2:03pm EDT

• I am an art historian, specializing in modern and contemporary art. I will either reassure or alarm readers of this response that almost every major museum of contemporary art displays, at one time or another, images, whether 2-D, 3-D, or installations, of what some would consider graphic nude or sexualized images, including depictions of persons with dual or enlarged or distorted or missing genitalia. Many artists of the last 10-15 years have created art which struggles, in one form or another, with representations of sexuality and the sexualized body. In response to an earlier poster, yes, there are reputable museums which display images of Hitler, Stalin, and nude children. I'm not claiming that the public should not engage in a debate about the validity of the art; rather, curators and administrators of museums and galleries should not have a knee-jerk reaction to the complaints of one employer. That employer could simply avert his/her eyes from the offending hermaphrodite. This entire issue seems to reflect an individual's profound discomfort with alternative body-types and sexualities rather than judgement about good art. As the article mentioned, the museum makes no secret that its contents will include images which address transgendered sexuality. The censorship of the described image is more than unfortunately, for it sets a precedent for other galleries or museums to engage in the same kind of rendering invisible of the "deviant" body.

• Posted by Larry on October 21, 2005 at 3:28pm EDT

• Although FIRE is generally more interested in defending “Christians for Christ” than these artists, there are plenty of lawyers that are will to represent these students, for free. If they cared. But they probably are getting more attention without the picture hung on the wall, then with it displayed.

  As a practical matter, many of these decisions are made by non-lawyers and even non-professors who heard a few soundbites like “hostile environment” and did not even bother to research what the law on this subject might be. (In fact, hostile environment sexual harassment requires more than just a stylized pictured of a naked person, but I don’t think that people really care too much about this stuff these days.)

  There are some cute issues in the background, such as whether, for example, several pictures of hermaphrodite doing demeaning things could actually make an environment hostile to non-hermaphrodites within the meaning of a state civil rights act.

• Posted by dedalus on October 21, 2005 at 4:30pm EDT

• Hermaphroditic art has no place in America. It's so...so FRENCH.

  http://www.geocities.com/jade_stone_/SleepingHerm.html

• Hear no evil, see no evil...
• Posted by huntly on October 21, 2005 at 4:30pm EDT

• 1) Nudity is not "pornography." The prudes and conservatives need to clarify their stance on precisely what they mean by "pornographic." From the description above, it doesn't sound like any graphic sexuality, violence, or illegal activity is depicted. A naked body is not pornographic just because you're afraid of it. It sounds like what some of you find pornographic is the very existence of a center for bi, lesbian, and gay students.

  2) The "workplace" in question IS a center for bi, lesbian, and gay students, and none of them have apparently expressed any "discomfort" at the image. Just because one employee feels funny looking at a representation of the human body doesn't make it an inappropriate image. Does the employee at the museum gift shop get to censor the images that he or she has to see on a daily basis?

  3) Discomfort does not equal a "hostile environment." Art is often supposed to provoke discomfort, thoughtfulness, and discussion, particularly in a workplace designed for just those discussions. This center is not only an appropriate place for discussions of sexuality, but also part of a university where people are supposed to be exposed to new and challenging subjects. If you want a sterile and childlike environment, go work at a nursery school. This would be equivalent to my college students complaining that the sex in the novels we read is pornographic and should be banned from the classroom! The WHOLE school is a learning environment.

• Let them pay for it themselves
• Posted by R.A.S. on October 21, 2005 at 5:22pm EDT

• This is what got taxpayer funding for NEA cut -- lose 50.00% of your taxpayer-funded budget for something that 0.01% of the public cares about. Brilliant -- no wonder Chindia is winning the war for jobs.

• Censorship -R.A.S
• Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on October 21, 2005 at 7:48pm EDT

• In response to the comment by R.A.S., the NEA provides no economic benefit, and wastes a considerable amount of taxpayer money. It is wastes of money like those of that program that contribute mightily to the US debt and the high taxes that weaken our competitivity.

  By the way, if you can find less censorship in China and India, I sure haven't heard of it. (You may be able to find less in Holland or France - perhaps these artists should take their provocation there.)

• Kevin, the Hannity know-it-all
• Posted by R.A.S. on October 21, 2005 at 9:17pm EDT

• "In response to the comment by R.A.S., the NEA provides no economic benefit, and wastes a considerable amount of taxpayer money."

  What's NEA's current budget? Who is Dennis Goia? What are his graduate degrees? From where? Who is Jane Alexander? What S.E. senator did she lobby to restore NEA funding?

  "By the way, if you can find less censorship in China and India, I sure haven’t heard of it."

  Have you ever been to China? Wuxi? Suzhou? Seen what TV is like there?

  Brilliant.

• Are there other nudes in the center?
• Posted by Kathy on October 22, 2005 at 2:15pm EDT

• As someone who has visited a fair number of LGBT centers and who is also a transsexual - I find it curious that so many centers have artwork in which the subject is the nude human figure - but they're not considered offensive. Just ours.

  This link to the picture (sanitized version) shows a thoroughly non-sexual portrayal of what some of our bodies look like - idealized with a set of angelic wings. A very appropriate corrective to all the negative images we face every day - what could be more appropriate for an lgbt center? What could be more appropriate for a young transwoman to see in her haven on campus than at least one place where our bodies and ourselves aren't considered an abomination?

• N.E.A.?
• Posted by Kathy on October 22, 2005 at 2:15pm EDT

• "He said that a transgendered artist gave the center the drawing a few years, after it was part of an art show organized on the Flint campus."

  Lord knows why the N.E.A. enters the discussion - the story itself notes this artwork was donted after having been shown on campus.

  It's also art coming from the community being served & being portrayed. Supporting this would seem an essential piece of the mission of an lgbt center. Unless the center just serves gay men as some students commenting seem to feel.

• Expression
• Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on October 22, 2005 at 3:20pm EDT

• I wonder if the whole concept of workplace discrimination by means of sexual depictions is going to be attacked now, or if you will only defend the ones that are out of the mainstream.

  I wonder if women who see a naked picture from playboy in a male coworker's office or posted on the company's wall will still get to complain (as per federal law) or if they should just live with the "free expression" too. (I suspect the answers will be a lot more sympathetic to her situation than the offended employee here.)

  We shouldn't have brought up the N.E.A. They don't have much to do with this.

• Kevin should be specific.
• Posted by Larry on October 22, 2005 at 3:38pm EDT

• Kevin, It might help your argument if you provide specifics about what laws you are talking about and how the NEA is involved at all. (Also, please try to cite to statutes that actually are in force – not nonbinding resolutions or things that were not signed by the president.)

• Government 101
• Posted by R.A.S. on October 23, 2005 at 5:33am EDT

• "Lord knows why the N.E.A. enters the discussion — the story itself notes this artwork was donted after having been shown on campus."

  Common element in this matter: taxpayer ownership of facilities. If the institution involved were private, this matter would not be under public review.

  Would-be geniuses of all kinds think they are doing the public a favor by hoisting their questionable work onto the publicly-funded commons. Unfortunately for them, others reserve their constitutional right not to have their tax dollars used to display that kind of work.

  Given the above, is it any wonder, public funding for higher education and the arts has declined? Classical music is one thing -- Piss Christ is another.

• P.S.: Flint, Michigan
• Posted by R.A.S. on October 23, 2005 at 10:36am EDT

• Hmm .. let's see ..

  Last week, major employer in town (Delphi) files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection .. town was featured in film (Roger & Me) by white Flint suburban kid (Mr. M. Moore) .. and Delphi's major customer (GM) is about two clicks from filing for Chapter 11 ..

  Why, of course, I can see, why this would be such an important topic at UM-Flint .. there's nothing else going on .. dang ..

• Posted by Kathy on October 23, 2005 at 10:36am EDT

• That the center not only chose to display the artwork but chooses to consider designating an area a gallery specifically so it can be viewed undermines the validity of your comparison.

  The center specifically states part of its mission to be providing a space for lgbt culture - through books, lectures, training & periodicals - but also through visual media such as videos and the means to view them at the facility.

  Images of this nature exist throughout history - indeed one of the previous posters linked to a classical Greek example. These images were here long before not only "Piss Christ" but long before Christ. One could just as easily view it as a winged victory as angelic. Piss Christ - really - kinda nuts to drag that into this discussion. I won't speak of the works artistic merit - but it's value to the community served by this institution is amply illustrated by their reaction to it's removal -and by their choosing to display it not just for a short period of time after its' donation.

  Outside of whether this center is a cultural institution - I'm astounded that some seem to think Universities aren't.

  I guess people will have to start searching public universities and institutions for representations of the nude human figure and cover them up. Oh - wait - that was already done at the Justice Department. Though they removed the drapes upon Ashcroft leaving. Unless you're saying that it's just some types of bodies people have (and yes, that some are born with) that demand censorship. In which case - I'll gladly buy you a no fat chicks bumper sticker.

• The "rights" of taxpayers
• Posted by huntly on October 23, 2005 at 5:23pm EDT

• "Taxpayers" includes everyone living and working legally in this country--not just those of a conservative bent who decide that they don't like this or that aspect of the culture that they live in. I have just as much of a right to _expect_ my money to go to worthwhile artistic, educational, and publicly accessible projects that benefit diverse segments of the population as you do to whine about it. "Your" tax-money is no longer your exclusive property once it's been paid--it belongs to "us," and we all get to decide what's done with it, including supporting organizations like the NEA, PBS, public radio, community awareness projects, and universities. Those organizations then have an obligation to provide resources for ALL of their students or patrons, including the ones that individual "taxpayers" disapprove of or despise. Similarly, the art and other cultural resources supported by taxpayer money needn't appeal to or be approved by every individual who pays taxes. If you don't like one piece of art, step into the next room and look at another one--if you don't appreciate art, then go stroll in the park, or visit the public library, or otherwise take advantage of what your tax-dollars are paying for, so long as it doesn't impinge on my right to enjoy these resources too. I don't have a right to "withdraw" my funding from the park service just because I don't enjoy the outdoors or don't like the way they've arranged the picnic tables! My only "right" at this point is to use it or not use it, or to elect someone next term who supports my vision of the picnic grounds.

• Taxpayers and Responses
• Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on October 23, 2005 at 6:45pm EDT

• Huntly, you have basically given the classical liberal elite statement - people are too stupid to spend their own money and some group of government bureaucrats and politicians should do it for them.

  Why should I (or anyone else) fund your art? Because I like using roads and the two are somehow intrinsically and inexorably linked? Is art funding and park funding and other projects of this nature somehow a necessary evil of having useful public goods? I’m certain we could have one without the other.

  While it is unfortunate that the moment taxes are collected, their disbursal enters the realm of politics and the indignant “entitled” special interests who feel that society as a whole should be contributing to a project that they couldn’t fund themselves (largely because not enough members of society believe it is worth their money), this is hardly a laudable state of affairs or one that should not be considered ripe for criticism.

  Surely with the state of public waste today you can expect no less.

  Kathy, I have to question then, returning to my earlier question, if you believe workplace discrimination as a result of any sort of visual representation is valid.

  R.A.S. – the only difference between Piss Christ and classical music is how many people believe it is a waste of funding (that and how many people are offended). Both are an inexcusable waste of money that should be back in our pockets.

  If I want to go to a symphony, I’ll buy my ticket. If I want a picture or painting, I’ll commission it. Don’t steal my money and do it for me and then say it was for my own good.

• down the road to viewpoint discrimination
• Posted by Larry on October 23, 2005 at 8:48pm EDT

• Kevin, Since you still have not provided the statutes that you referred to above, can you please explain how you deal with the fact that the state made a decision to 1) set up and fund an art program; 2) set up a college; 3) provide ample opportunities for people to express themselves. Are you saying that it is acceptable for the state to fund some expressions, but not others ? Are you saying that state funding of the arts, once it decides to do it (which they did) can reflect only the viewpoints that you consider to be viable ? Just wondering.

• Take your medicine
• Posted by huntly on October 23, 2005 at 10:00pm EDT

• Yes, Kevin, many people are too stupid to know what's good for them, which is why we have public schools and mandatory elementary education in this country; it's why educators and politicians alike demand "accountability" and minimum performance from those same schools; it's why children are required to receive a certain amount of basic health care (immunizations), and why we require licenses to perform certain jobs and basic activities (like driving). There's nothing "elitist" about insisting on a basic level of education or cultural knowledge from those who benefit from government services. There's also nothing elitist about using public funding to sponsor things that not all Americans appreciate or enjoy--in fact, it would be impossible to find such projects that everyone agrees upon. So what are the options? Fund nothing, fund only those things that the "majority" wants, or try to fund things in a fair and equitable manner for majorities and minorities alike. You and other fiscal conservatives seem to operate on the naive assumption that "majority rules" is somehow a just or sustainable form of government--which, from a great deal of historical evidence, we know to be false. This is why we don't take a vote on every issue or decision that's made by our representatives--we vote for that representation, and expect to have our "interests" voiced, weighed, and advocated. But occasionally, those representatives have to make decisions based on larger considerations than that of a handful of constituents (no matter whether they're in the majority or not). In this case, the interests of a specific group (the bi, gay, and lesbian students and staff who use this center), SHOULD outweigh the ill-formed opinions and prejudices of both the individual staff member and the larger "majority" who might agree with him/her. Their biases work against the purposes and interests of the university setting, which has an obligation to protect this space and this form of expression for the students who need it. And yes, the NEA should continue to support Piss Christ right along with all those "Madonna and Child" classics...because a significant minority of the taxpayers want them to, and they have equal claim to the uses of "our" money.

• Posted by Kathy on October 23, 2005 at 10:01pm EDT

• Kathy, I have to question then, returning to my earlier question, if you believe workplace discrimination as a result of any sort of visual representation is valid.
  =======================================

  I believe a question should be - is a claim of workplace discrimination as a result of THIS represenation valid. But - as has been asked - you need to provide some refrence for your assertion.

  I am not aware that any transsexual employees having raised concern over how transsexuals were depicted here nor that any claimed such depiction consituted a degradation of their work environment, lead to any adverse incidents for them nor limited there ability to take part in employment, training or promotion.
  Transsexual employees would of course be those who would have standing to make a claim about how they are depicted. Unless you're alleging the depiction is using transsexuals in a manner that is intended to make comments about or intimidate another group. There are no such reports here.

• Public funding & Kevin
• Posted by Kathy on October 23, 2005 at 10:01pm EDT

• Since we're discussing public funding taken from peoples pockets - do you attend a public college? Do you receive any government funded grants or loans through government sponsored or insured programs? If you are at a private institution - does it receive any funds from a government agency?

  I assure you - I haven't explictly consented to my tax dollars supporting your education.

  And in the case of this drawing - it's hard to see how any additional burden was placed on the taxpayer to display a donated piece of work that required no security. The walls were there. They'd have decorated them with something - so no additional cost for a nail to hang it.

• A little more info...
• Posted by Zea Miller , Student at University of Michigan-Flint on October 24, 2005 at 4:39am EDT

• So, the university is now saying that it's a federal issue. This never happened. This is the university’s fourth incarnation of excuses. They first came to us saying that it was sexual harassment; we challenged their logic and demonstrated that the drawing could not sexually harass. They then said that it was a hostile working environment; we challenged and showed that it could not be hostile. They then came to us and said that it was the nudity that was the problem. If nudity were the problem, then why are nudes displayed all over campus? They said that nudity is acceptable in classical pieces of art. Ah, but that opens up a can of worms, doesn’t it? For who will decide classicality or neo-classicality? Bottom line: art is art; transgender art is controversial, never had a chance to be classical; some people like it, others don’t, is the nature of art any less?
  Beware, though, this was never about the art. This piece of art has been on display for over 2 years. The staff member who complained about it, they never saw it. Simply, this was internalized homophobia at play. The L.G.B.T. community is under attack at every remove by homophobic people on campus, this is just another one of such instances. He had heard about our art and complained about it. It was never sexually harassing him, never a hostile working environment for him; he never saw it! The people who do see it and who do work there are the ones who put it up; we like it. It demonstrates our commitment to our transgender community. It should not be all too quite that uncommon to find L.G.B.T. community artifacts within the L.G.B.T. Centre. This drawing has a place in the university, our office, where it belongs.
  Keeping it in the Centre would be the least offensive thing to do, on all levels. We shouldn’t have to alter ourselves and our manor of décor for one person who has never been into our office. This reeks of blatant hostility.
  The L.G.B.T. Centre is a public forum where artistic expression, choice, and display are valid and unquestionable acts within the established parameters of it; and, therefore, any restriction on the content of speech is subject to the same strict scrutiny applied to content based regulations of speech in public forums. Content based regulations must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling university interest; the University of Michigan has not met this standard; their burden of proof has not been attained. The University of Michigan’s efforts to shelter and protect employees against sexual harassment, and/or hostile working conditions with an outright ban on all nudity is overbroad. The University has not used methodical reasoning skills in their application of their rules; their rules are not a methodical exercise in logic. The University has created a hostile working environment to ensue for us. The University has not defended us and has also not been tolerant to our sensitivities. Our rights have been severly violated.

• Government
• Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on October 24, 2005 at 4:40am EDT

• "Since we’re discussing public funding taken from peoples pockets — do you attend a public college? Do you receive any government funded grants or loans through government sponsored or insured programs?"

  No to all of the above.

  Incidentally, I would much rather be responsible for raising money for my own education with the realization that I could pay off loans faster, my parents would have more money to pay directly, and could have saved more money were they not taxed to support the children of other people.

  Additionally, this still falls into the category of assuming that all government funding is linked - that this funding might be acceptable (though I disagree) but that all funding must be accepted as a whole or rejected as such.

  Are only hermaphrodites allowed to object to their depiction? I have been under the impression that any person could sue for workplace discrimination. If not, I am certain there are many images that will be going up on the walls of corporate America tomorrow.

  Larry, to clarify, I do not believe that the government should support visual arts in any form, whether it agrees with any particular group's beliefs or not (including any group I may agree with or belong to). This really doesn't fall under the role of government.

  I don't have access to the legal databases that your law firm or law library seems to, nor do I know how to search them. I don't have the time or money to aquire access to them and search for specific statues to reinforce my points. I wish I could offer more specific wording, but I can't.

  Huntly, I see no reason why my money, or for that matter that of others, should go towards any community. Any group can either fund its own projects or find people outside to contribute to it. If that funding is insufficient for its desires, that does not make our representatives responsible to provide what individuals would not provide on their own.

  What are the "larger considerations?" That a group must fund its own activities, rather than leeching off of society as a whole for funding?

  Also, the point that this constrains expression doesn't really fit. Free speech still applies - the government (via taxpayers) is not required to fund it, nor host it in places where it violates the law.

  Lastly, who decides what is "just" if not the majority? An enlightened elite of philosopher kings (like the Supreme Court or the NEA panel)? A group that considers itself above and beyond democracy and unconstrained by the views of the people it simultaneously claim to represent would indeed by considered elitist.

• A note from Miss Manners
• Posted by A.D. , Regular guy at An everyday job on October 24, 2005 at 4:41am EDT

• To paraphrase Miss Manners from her recent appearance on BookTV --

  If one is wondering about the appropriateness of an issue or item -- imagine if you were to introduce the issue/item at work, or at a job interview. What would the reaction be?

  IMHO, having worked in red and blue states, in this case, I don't think the reaction would be very positive. "Sophmoric" and "in bad taste" are the terms that immediately arise, with "puerile" following close behind.

  Well, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. If you don't like it -- move to Flint and use that drawing to try find an auto plant job (or wait on Mr. Michael Moore to fix General Motors).

  My reasoned guess is, if you showed that artwork in a GM plant, the phrases "f------ stupid" and "idiotic moron" would be immediately directed at you. And a female seat installer might "rap you, upside the head," for lack of common sense and good manners.

• Posted by Larry on October 24, 2005 at 7:20am EDT

• Kevin, Okay, well, next time you want to refer to something legal, make sure that you know what you can provide specifics. All of the US Code, all Supreme Court Decisions, all of the CFR, Fed. Reg., and most state statutes are available, for free, on line. (Granted, it might take a bit more than a “Google” search, but since you are a student, you shouldn't have any problem doing research.) This way, next time you support your position by referring to a particular law, you can at least not be incorrect on what the text of the law might be. This isn't rocket science, but I don't see what is to be gained by taking a position and then declaring that you can't support it, but that it still must be correct.

  Zea, I am curious as to what this sentence means, “The University has not used methodical reasoning skills in their application of their rules; their rules are not a methodical exercise in logic."

• For more information
• Posted by Zea Miller , Student at University of Michigan-Flint on October 26, 2005 at 1:37pm EDT

• http://www.notallowed.org/art/

  This site has more information and links to other sources of press coverage. It is in Flash; so, hopefully you will be able to see it.

  F.Y.I. We have contaced the ACLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship. We are not giving-up on this.

  Thank you all for your kind support.

• counter-majoritarianism
• Posted by Larry on October 26, 2005 at 1:55pm EDT

• As a legal matter, there are many counter-majoritarian institutions in the US, and most, if not all decisions are not made by majority voted or even some sort of proportional representation system. For one, the Senate doesn’t even pretend to be proportional. An individual in Alaska has a much greater say in the senate than an individual in New York or California, because the Senate pretends that all states are equal. Likewise, the executive isn’t even chosen by a popular vote, and most of the executive’s actions are not subject to popular review, except on regularly-scheduled elections! And, if the executive happens to do a good job twice in a row, the “majority” can’t re-elect him, anyway.

  It gets better. Minority religions can practice in the US, even if their conceptions of god are considered “false” by the majority. Political viewpoints that didn’t capture above-mentioned political organs are also protected by the First Amendment. If the government chooses to fund something, they must comport with all of these darn counter-counter-majoritarian checks. And that is just the first part of the First amendment. Most of the following amendments seems quite counter-majoritarian to me. Trials are by jury, and require a supermajority of the jury to convict (meaning that a minority can acquit.)
  Of course the Supreme Court (and all courts) is countermajoritarian but that seems rather small, as compared to the fact, that just about everything in else government can barely even pretend to be based on what the “majority” wants.

  But still, we survive. Indeed, rather than decide that the government shouldn’t help anyone express themselves, states and the federal government routinely fund various forms of expressions. Schools, libraries, museums, orchestras, movies, etc. all receive funding! Some states even require that a certain percentage of the budget go towards art! (E.g. Alaska Stat. AS 44.27.060 )

• Posted by John , What "uncomfortable" on November 2, 2005 at 2:32pm EST

• This seems a clear case of how people interperet. I mean, the world is not going to be perfect for everyone. If that one employee felt uncomfortable with the picture, don't look at it!!!

  Now from the other side. Some of you liberals seem to enjoy edging the conservatives because you hated how you felt isolated all your lives. Well again, if you feel isolated somewhere, don't go there. Stay in the gay bars and what-not. You all are constantly pushing for free rights and stuff like that. Well, what if I was looking at the picture and whipped it out to personally pleasure myself (i.e. masterbating)? Would you liberals find that a hostile environment?

• Hermaphro Christ
• Posted by susan 28 on May 7, 2006 at 7:00pm EDT

• http://evocc.com/

  FWIW, here's a link to a pic (left) from a church that depicts Christ himself as a hermaph, not because he was one, but because it is common in many religions to view the Divine (ie: all-knowing and all-inclusive) as encompassing the totality of the gender continuum. so it's not sacriligious or vulgar by historical or even Christian standards and the artist is in good company in portraying a hermaph as an angel.

  regarding the Hitler thing, i say if government buildings can portray the confederate flag, the "pride" of our nation's dark underbelly, then sure, why not Adolf? heck, it's well-documented that the Bush family was instrumental in funding his regime (google "bush nazi connections" or "trading with the enemy act"). he's as American as forced sterilisation!