Coulter -- Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion

Gumption? Cryptograms? You are always fun to talk to for such things. Moreso when you respond from left field.

My point was that ignorant people promote ignorant claims that have nothing to do with reality because it is easier. Mr. Coulter does not know too much 'bout no art, so I thought it was funny. not to mention the fact that she jumped on artists for using imagery that pro-lifers use constantly...which was the whole point in the first place. I made no value judgement, but I personally don't think the point of such a show was "this is contemporary art, love me" as much as it was social protest. That is the other mistake mister Coulter makes - she thinks such an exhibition was held up as fine art. She dumb. Silly monkey girlie.

Annie should come down to Texas in October and walk through Hell House and see if she is offended by the imagery there. Grahic depictions of incest, bleeding vaginas, Columbine-like school shooting re-enactments, etc.. Very artistically done, of course. That would be rad...to the power of X.

PS - stop playing with your significant gun. I am offended.

 

Chopping off your arm with a meat cleaver would be bad, but chopping off your head with a meat cleaver would be worse. Therefore, chopping off your arm is okay.

Not really sound logic, is it?

An argument based on one proposition being good because an alternate proposition is worse is not a valid argument. There are more than two alternatives in this case, as there are in most other cases. The world rarely operates on simple-minded "either/or" propositions.

This is not to say that I would classify all the examples Coulter gives as necessarily "bad," but to say that Coulter is using demagoguery, and not rational argument, to make her point. She is attempting to sway people by stating only two alternative possibilities of government funding (through some typical, and boring, framing tricks), and then making one of the alternatives so offensive that the remaining alternative (the alternative she obviously favors) appears as the only emotionally-correct alternative.

Just in case it needs to be spelled out;

Dictionary definition:
"a person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting people's emotions rather than by having good ideas"

Or, H.L. Mencken's definition of a demagogue;
"one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

 

There you go again...being all smart. That was the point, eh? Have fun in the kiddie pool today.

 

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

 

may 78?

well at that time he was a coked-up drunk who hadnt yet found god n' stuff.

people change dude!

 

Well Officially according to Bush himself.


1. He never answered to using Cocaine
2. His record of his drunk driving had been expunged, and had been sober since like 86 (not counting his drunken rant on video drink in hand at the wedding)
3. He found God in 76.

 

And of course Bush changes his mind.


He does this seemingly every few months on why we are in Iraq.

 

She's the most irritating human being on earth...I can't stand her!

 

That is absolutely disgusting.

 

giddyup-- If you can find a copy try to read the book "The Light and The Glory"- It is written (I think) by Peter Marshall Jr. - His father was the chaplain of the U.S. Senate for many years. It is thoroughly researched and details the founding of the colonies and goes through (I think) the Revolutionary War.

You will be greatly encouraged if you haven't already read this book. It clearly outlines the Bible's influence in the founding of this nation.

No need to argue about it. You don't even have to prove the truth, it is what it is. Just keep looking far enough until you are sure you have gotten past the educational spin of the past 50 years and you will find the truth.

Another website that would be helpful with historical material is Wallbuilders the website of David Barton. He is a historian with a focus on the religious heritage of the nation. He has the most extiensive library of founding documents this side of the federal govt.

 

Give an example of how the art in question creates a dangerous situation as yelling "FIRE" in a movie theater does. The reason that "FIRE" is an exception is because said "speech" creates a situation where people could be hurt or killed. Generally, artistic exhibits will not cause people to panic and run in terror and as such, cannot be restricted in the same way that you "FIRE" example can.

 

I think part of the point is that the free speech guaranteed in the Constitution is not without limit to the harm of society and a free people.

Art can also be determined to be obscene by both local, state or federal authority and where the public good is demeaned 'art' can be censored where
its prohibition serves to protect social interests in both order and morality.

"Obscenity Is Not Protected by the First Amendment
1. In Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the Supreme Court answered the question "whether obscenity is utterance within the area of protected speech and press." In holding that obscenity is "not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press," the Roth Court quoted from its earlier Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) decision:
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene....uch utterances are of no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
2. In Miller v. California, supra, the Supreme Court said:
"This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. . . . The dissenting Justices sound the alarm of repression. But, in our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a 'misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press . . . 'The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political or social changes desired by the people'. . .But the public portrayal of hard-core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the ensuing commercial gain, is a different matter." [Emphasis added by Miller Court]
Governmental Justifications for Obscenity Laws
1. Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in Roth v. United States, supra, said:
"[E]ven assuming that p*rnography cannot be deemed ever to cause in an immediate sense, criminal...conduct, other interests within the proper cognizance of the State may be protected by the prohibition placed on such materials. The state can reasonably draw the inference that over a long period of time the indiscriminate dissemination of materials, the essential character of which is to degrade sex, will have an eroding effect on moral standards."
2. In Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973), the Supreme Court identified several valid governmental interests that justify a prohibition on obscenity:
a. "In particular, we hold that there are legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, even if it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles and to passersby...These include the interest of the public in the quality of life and total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city centers, and, possibly, the public safety itself."
b. "Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature... could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly decided that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect the social interest in order and morality."
c. "The sum of experience...affords an ample basis for legislatures to conclude that a sensitive, key relationship of human existence, central to family life, community welfare, and the development of human personality, can be debased and distorted by crass commercial exploitation of sex."
d. "As Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated, there is a 'right of the Nation and of the states to maintain a decent society.'"
Federal Obscenity Laws
Federal laws relating to the crime of obscenity are contained in the following titles and sections of the U.S. Code:
• 18 U.S.C. 1461 -- Mailing obscene matter
• 18 U.S.C. 1462 -- Importation or use of a common carrier to transport obscene matter
• 18 U.S.C. 1464 -- Broadcasting obscene language
• 18 U.S.C. 1465 -- Interstate transportation of obscene matter
• 18 U.S.C. 1466 -- Wholesale and retail sale of obscene matter which has been transported in interstate commerce (must be engaged in business of selling or transferring obscenity)
• 18 U.S.C. 1468 -- Distribution of obscene matter by cable or satellite TV
• 47 U.S.C. 223 -- Making an obscene communication by means of telephone
Sections 1462 and 1465 cited above also prohibit distribution of obscenity on the Internet.

"Dealing in obscene matter" is also a predicate offense under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. (Title 18, Section 1961-1968).

TO OBTAIN TEXTS OF THESE SECTIONS, GO TO: HTTP://USCODE.HOUSE.GOV
The 93 United States Attorneys—appointed by the President, confirmed by the U.S. Senate and located nationwide (each state has at least one)—are responsible for enforcement of the Federal obscenity laws. The U.S. Attorneys work with the FBI, Postal Inspectors and Customs Officers to enforce Federal obscenity laws."

 

Of course said speech is not without limit. That is not the point that anyone is trying to make. Coulter attacks artistic exhibits as somehow dangerous to the moral fiber of the country and uses the most outrageous examples as reasons that the country is on some horrible slide into her imagined abyss. She uses spurious examples of art exhibits that were created specifically to protest pro-lifers and somehow equates that in her deranged mind to the reason that the USSC upheld limited bans on Ten Commandments displays while conveniently leaving out that the same court in the same decision upheld other displays and further defined what is appropriate and what is not.

Keep in mind that, as has been demonstrated in this thread, no NEA money goes directly to any artist and the entire "article" as well as giddy's defense of it becomes totally worthless.

 

Rhester did not "clear this matter up" in the least. The point I made is valid and has not been responded to in the least. Obscenity is but one more example of valid reasons to restrict speech and was not used in any of the situations Coulter mentioned, nor does it validate any of your points regarding "FIRE."

 

IMO, yes. It is just as appropriate as spending tax dollars on a war effort that most in this country see as the wrong way to go.

Coulter is using religious language and rhetoric to try to spur the religious right into acting against the NEA. The NEA did not directly contribute to any of the exhibits she mentions, nor was that money used to promote those exhibits. That money was used to assure that the museums, galleries, and other venues have the ability to continue to support the arts, whether that art is used to "protest the views of a significant segment of the US population" or to glorify the soldiers protecting our country (I am certain that there are such examples).

Coulter is an ignorant racist who is very skilled at using inflammatory language and outrageous examples to paint certain segments of society as being somehow undeserving of anything but ridicule. Your defense of her is telling indeed.