Boehner and Cantor call for closing of Smithsonian exhibit

[theeedude]

Pleaded in order to receive 300 hours of community service in the face of Felony charges.

http://patdollard.com/2008/03/student-sentenced-to-300-hours-service-for-toileting-koranin-new-york/

Community service on disorderly conduct, which throwing a book into a public toilet is. It's not a hate crime statute. So basically you have no example of anyone being convicted of a hate crime for defacing the Koran? You have no example of statute defining defacing the Koran as a hate crime.

 

[werepossum]

Do they call for your cancellation or attempt to have your funding revoked when you don't?

You miss the obvious, trying to get you to see a different viewpoint != making it mandatory that you abide by their viewpoints.

WTF? How about not supporting something offensive with tax dollars /= charging with a felony and sending your ass to prison for doing or saying something offensive? Personally I'm much more concerned with keeping my ass out of prison than with keeping my tax dollars from funding offensive displays, so when it comes to personal freedoms the Republicans are head and shoulders above the Democrats in my book.

Anybody else heard that this display is about "gay love"? If so, anybody heard how "gay love" is demonstrated by a video of ants crawling over a statue of Jesus on the cross? I'm reminded of the Underpants Gnomes, Step 2 seems to be blank.

 

[Craig234]

Pleaded in order to receive 300 hours of community service in the face of Felony charges.

http://patdollard.com/2008/03/student-sentenced-to-300-hours-service-for-toileting-koranin-new-york/

I'm slightly dubious over the criminal charges for this.

The guy is an obnoxious jerk for doing it, but I'm not sure it rises to criminality.

Disorderly conduct: "Many types of obnoxious or unruly conduct may fit the definition of disorderly conduct, as such statutes are often used as "catch-all" crimes. Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when a person is behaving in a disruptive manner, but presents no serious public danger."

Because the definition is so broad, judges sometimes dismiss the charge, when it infringes on people's rights.

This setting is not 'art', it's not really opinion but meant to provoke, IMO.

It's about as much opinion as punching them in the mouth to express his opinion about the Muslim religion.

It's a fine line to split, though, between 'expressing political opinion' - which can include some intention of provocation - and mere intent to provoke, as with hate acts.

 

[Scotteq]

Community service on disorderly conduct, which throwing a book into a public toilet is. It's not a hate crime statute. So basically you have no example of anyone being convicted of a hate crime for defacing the Koran? You have no example of statute defining defacing the Koran as a hate crime.

Thank you for your willful and complete misinterpretation in an effort to not be shown wrong: He plead guilty to disorderly in the face of FELONY charges.

So you damned well *can* be arrested, charged, and convicted for defacing a Khoran. Period. End. You lose.

 

[werepossum]

Community service on disorderly conduct, which throwing a book into a public toilet is. It's not a hate crime statute. So basically you have no example of anyone being convicted of a hate crime for defacing the Koran? You have no example of statute defining defacing the Koran as a hate crime.

From the linked article:

Shmulevich, a business major and immigrant from the former Soviet Union, initially was charged with two counts of criminal mischief as a hate crime. The charge is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

His lawyer, Glenn Morak, said he believed the disorderly conduct plea was an appropriate disposition.

Perhaps you could have someone smarter than yourself explain this to you. Any random stranger should do. In the likely event that you prove unable to convince anyone to waste the time, I will do so. This young man was charged with two counts of criminal mischief as a hate crime. This was pleaded down to disorderly conduct. If you cannot understand this, then an actual statute would do you no good anyway, even if someone wished to take the time to dig it up. But for the vast majority of us, someone being charged with a hate crime for a particular act constitutes ample evidence that someone can be charged with a hate crime for that particular act. This explanation really cannot be broken down any further.

 

[Scotteq]

I'm slightly dubious over the criminal charges for this.

The guy is an obnoxious jerk for doing it, but I'm not sure it rises to criminality.

Craig - I agree wholeheartedly it was a crock of sh*t from beginning to end, and that the kid was clearly being a jackass to begin with. I opine that, if it weren't for Muslim students pressuring the school he never would have been arrested, let alone charged with Class E Felonys.

But I also think we can all agree that if it were a Bible then nothing would have happened to the guy. 'Apologise and Buy Replacements' at worst.

 

[jman19]

Okay, but color me confused.

How is this exhibit any different than burning the koran?

Seriously?

It's religiously offensive. OF COURSE people in that religion are going to object.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but there was a MASSIVE outcry from the left over the koran burning.

Now, to state my position: I am against ANY censorship of any kind. The artist is free to make his religiously insulting stuff, and people are free to protest it.

I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy here.

Of course there is hypocrisy. I don't think it does any good to bring it up though; that is just score settling which turns threads like this in to a pile of horse crap.

 

[theeedude]

From the linked article:

Perhaps you could have someone smarter than yourself explain this to you. Any random stranger should do. In the likely event that you prove unable to convince anyone to waste the time, I will do so. This young man was charged with two counts of criminal mischief as a hate crime. This was pleaded down to disorderly conduct. If you cannot understand this, then an actual statute would do you no good anyway, even if someone wished to take the time to dig it up. But for the vast majority of us, someone being charged with a hate crime for a particular act constitutes ample evidence that someone can be charged with a hate crime for that particular act. This explanation really cannot be broken down any further.

Charged is not the same as convicted. Ever hear of presumption of innocence? The prosecutor was unable to prove that a hate crime has been committed, because it hasn't.
You have not demonstrated either a statute that says defacing Koran is a hate crime, nor someone being convicted of a hate crime for defacing the Koran. All you have done is claim that it is a hate crime, without anything to back it up.

 

[Scotteq]

Naaaah - Not like a 24 year old would *ever* plead to a lesser charge in order to not have to spend 4 years in prison and have a Felony on his record for the rest of his life.

 

[theeedude]

Naaaah - Not like a 24 year old would *ever* plead to a lesser charge in order to not have to spend 4 years in prison and have a Felony on his record for the rest of his life.

He pleaded to what he did, which is disorderly conduct. Are you claiming that throwing any book into a public toilet is not disorderly conduct? You have yet to produce a statute that says defacing a Koran is a hate crime in itself.

 

[Scotteq]

(1) If he felt he would have beaten it, then he would have challenged it in court and walked away completely free.

(2) If the charges were baseless, then they would have been dropped. They were not.

We have proven that you CAN be arrested, charged with a Hate Crime, and go all the way through court for defacing a Khoran. The point is De Facto, because it's already happened.

Now - If you want to argue more, then Prove to me that is not the case. Otherwise, I'm done wasting my breath on this.

 

[werepossum]

Charged is not the same as convicted. Ever hear of presumption of innocence? The prosecutor was unable to prove that a hate crime has been committed, because it hasn't.
You have not demonstrated either a statute that says defacing Koran is a hate crime, nor someone being convicted of a hate crime for defacing the Koran. All you have done is claim that it is a hate crime, without anything to back it up.

If defacing a Quran is clearly not a hate crime, any competent lawyer would have moved for dismissal via summary judgment, NOT advised his client to cut a plea deal.

 

[theeedude]

So the two of you are claiming that merely charging someone with a hate crime is what makes an action a hate crime, and not the actual law which you have yet to produce ?

 

[sandorski]

If defacing a Quran is clearly not a hate crime, any competent lawyer would have moved for dismissal via summary judgment, NOT advised his client to cut a plea deal.

"Hate Crime" involves a lot of Intent. The Koran is only a minor detail of that Act.

 

[Linflas]

WTF? How about not supporting something offensive with tax dollars /= charging with a felony and sending your ass to prison for doing or saying something offensive? Personally I'm much more concerned with keeping my ass out of prison than with keeping my tax dollars from funding offensive displays, so when it comes to personal freedoms the Republicans are head and shoulders above the Democrats in my book.

Anybody else heard that this display is about "gay love"? If so, anybody heard how "gay love" is demonstrated by a video of ants crawling over a statue of Jesus on the cross? I'm reminded of the Underpants Gnomes, Step 2 seems to be blank.

I wonder what my chances would be of securing space in the National Portrait Gallery for an art exhibition of cartoons collected from Draw Mohamed Day funded entirely from private sources? All I want from the Smithsonian is "only infrastructure, curating of works, and staff". Think all the lefties expressing outrage would express the same level of outrage if CAIR was successful in getting my exhibit removed?

 

[dainthomas]

(1) If he felt he would have beaten it, then he would have challenged it in court and walked away completely free.

(2) If the charges were baseless, then they would have been dropped. They were not.

We have proven that you CAN be arrested, charged with a Hate Crime, and go all the way through court for defacing a Khoran. The point is De Facto, because it's already happened.

Now - If you want to argue more, then Prove to me that is not the case. Otherwise, I'm done wasting my breath on this.

Anyone can be arrested at any time and charged with anything. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

This whole thread is off-track anyway. I thought the whole point was to make fun of conservative blowhards who make big deals out of things like this, when they said they wouldn't?

 

[bfdd]

What group doesn't want to impose their view? Most liberals I know will certainly tell me their view if I say anything right leaning. When they try and "correct" me, how is that not in some degree imposing their morality on me? You can't say the left, or any other group doesn't do the same as what you mentioned about the right.

All groups are like this, this is why I don't affiliate with groups. A group of free thinkers is hardly a group of free thinkers.

 

[werepossum]

I wonder what my chances would be of securing space in the National Portrait Gallery for an art exhibition of cartoons collected from Draw Mohamed Day funded entirely from private sources? All I want from the Smithsonian is "only infrastructure, curating of works, and staff". Think all the lefties expressing outrage would express the same level of outrage if CAIR was successful in getting my exhibit removed?

Good point. Your chances would be exactly zero, and of course the same lefties defending this exhibit would be opposing yours. It's good to remember the Smithsonian's World War II exhibit, which totally deleted any mention of Pearl Harbor or Japanese war crimes and atrocities in favor of highlighting the suffering of the Japanese victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The Smithsonian is run and staffed by far left people with the same blame America and/or Christianity first attitude common to progressives. As for this particular piece, I'm glad they removed it, although I wouldn't have banned Smithsonian funding over it. It doesn't meet my personal art test, which is whether or not I can fundamentally reproduce it. But then, virtually no "modern art" meets that test. (And I'm still wondering that the hell this video has to do with "gay love.")

 

[RightIsWrong]

WTF? How about not supporting something offensive with tax dollars /= charging with a felony and sending your ass to prison for doing or saying something offensive? Personally I'm much more concerned with keeping my ass out of prison than with keeping my tax dollars from funding offensive displays, so when it comes to personal freedoms the Republicans are head and shoulders above the Democrats in my book.

Anybody else heard that this display is about "gay love"? If so, anybody heard how "gay love" is demonstrated by a video of ants crawling over a statue of Jesus on the cross? I'm reminded of the Underpants Gnomes, Step 2 seems to be blank.

Comprehension fail!

If you would have read the link and the rest of the thread, you would have seen that there are no tax funds being used for this exhibit. It is privately funded.

And who cares if it is about gay love? Does that make it any less artistic? I guess if we are going to boycott an work that was done by someone that is gay or had homosexual encounters, will will no longer be allowed to display any da Vinci, Michaelangelo or Andy Warhol works. You might want to throw out your David Bowie, Rolling Stones, Queen, Judas Priest and a host of other records/CDs too while you're at it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

(1) If he felt he would have beaten it, then he would have challenged it in court and walked away completely free.

(2) If the charges were baseless, then they would have been dropped. They were not.

We have proven that you CAN be arrested, charged with a Hate Crime, and go all the way through court for defacing a Khoran. The point is De Facto, because it's already happened.

Now - If you want to argue more, then Prove to me that is not the case. Otherwise, I'm done wasting my breath on this.

Your point is easily proved false by the idiot, red neck "pastor" that was going to do it without any hint of criminal repercussions.

I could do it also, as long as I did the same to a bible and other "religious" books at the same time. A major part of the crime is intent. If the intent isn't or cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be of a hateful nature, there is no basis for prosecution.

In 2003, the SCOTUS ruled that burning a cross on someone's property to intimidate them is a hate crime while simply burning one isn't. Context matters. If you burn the Quran in an open field, like the idiot preacher was going to do, not a hate crime. If you do it on the steps of a mosque...hate crime. Pretty easy to understand, one would think.

http://dawudwalid.wordpress.com/201...t-mosques-are-not-expressions-of-free-speech/

 

[werepossum]

Comprehension fail!

If you would have read the link and the rest of the thread, you would have seen that there are no tax funds being used for this exhibit. It is privately funded.

And who cares if it is about gay love? Does that make it any less artistic? I guess if we are going to boycott an work that was done by someone that is gay or had homosexual encounters, will will no longer be allowed to display any da Vinci, Michaelangelo or Andy Warhol works. You might want to throw out your David Bowie, Rolling Stones, Queen, Judas Priest and a host of other records/CDs too while you're at it.

The exhibit contents might be privately funded, but the building, staff, and utilities - the vast majority of the costs of bringing this exhibit to the public - are all publicly funded. A corollary would be if the federal government decided to house the Vatican in the Smithsonian and make the payroll - but assured us the vestments and statues were privately funded.

I don't care if it is about gay love - I just completely miss what gay love has to do with ants crawling over a statue of Jesus on the cross. Sounds more like Christianity hate than gay love to me, although maybe I'm just missing the connection. And I don't think anything could make it less artistic. It's already a video of ants crawling over a statue of Jesus on the cross - nowhere to go but up.

 

[1prophet]

I wouldn't, because I think all of us need to be big boys and girls... and not get our undies in a bunch when we see religious symbols and imagery depicted, reverent or otherwise, in public-sponsored places or otherwise. Our sensitivities should not be so immature.

Everyone can be a big boy and/or girl when it comes to Christianity and depicting it in less than glamorous ways and calling it art because of the lack of fear.

The question then becomes how many of these so called big boys and girls are willing to put their lives on the line for their same artistic beliefs when at best they could end up like Sal man Rushdie or at worst like Theo van Gogh.

 

[shira]

As sure as you can count on Democrats to overspend, you can count on Republicans wasting time on things like this.

But let's face it liberals would be upset too if this was desecrating Muslim religious symbols.

I'm a liberal, and as far as I'm concerned, desecrating pretty much EVERY religious symbol at every possible opportunity is totally OK with me. Unfortunately, freeing 90+% of the population from their God delusion is going to take a lot more than simply mocking religion.

 

[zsdersw]

Everyone can be a big boy and/or girl when it comes to Christianity and depicting it in less than glamorous ways and calling it art because of the lack of fear.

The question then becomes how many of these so called big boys and girls are willing to put their lives on the line for their same artistic beliefs when at best they could end up like Sal man Rushdie or at worst like Theo van Gogh.

Everyone can, but will everyone? That's the question.

 

[Linflas]

Comprehension fail!

If you would have read the link and the rest of the thread, you would have seen that there are no tax funds being used for this exhibit. It is privately funded.

And who cares if it is about gay love? Does that make it any less artistic? I guess if we are going to boycott an work that was done by someone that is gay or had homosexual encounters, will will no longer be allowed to display any da Vinci, Michaelangelo or Andy Warhol works. You might want to throw out your David Bowie, Rolling Stones, Queen, Judas Priest and a host of other records/CDs too while you're at it.

Yet if some private group wants to put a crèche on a courthouse lawn during Christmas you would righteously be screaming about "no government support for religion". So the "wall between church and state" can be breached when government directly or indirectly provides support for denigrating religion but is impregnable when providing direct or indirect support for an expression of faith?