Rob Kall Post On Arrest And Bloodied Treatment Of Silent Hilary Clinton Protestor

(image from JusticeOnline)

The audience stood to greet and applaud Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she took the podium at George Washington University. But as the audience sat down again, a retired CIA analyst named Robert McGovern remained on his feet and calmly turned his back on Clinton in silent protest of her votes and policies regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rob Kall’s HuffPost article details how security handled the situation:

They grabbed me and the shock wore off. There was a real struggle. I shouted, ‘This is America.’ Then I said, ‘Who are you?’ This is a mystery to me. Who were they? The guy in the suit was the one who did the damage. He was brutal.

They took me outside, put two sets of iron handcuffs that pierced my wrists. The bleeding went all over my pants. One guy said, “I pricked my finger” like it was his blood.

I was bleeding in the car so I said ‘I think you need to put some gauze on me.’ They handed me to the DC police and they told I was being charged with disorderly conduct. I was booked, fingerprinted, mug shot taken. They put me in a little cell — must be the same size as Bradley Manning’s — about six by four feet.

It was about three hours that they held me until they let me out. I had to take a cab to the hospital where they x-ray’d me, treated me and dressed my wounds. Then the doctors told me that since this was an assault on me, I had to inform the police about who had assaulted me. A little humor helped then.

For months, McGovern stood in silence during Catholic masses to express dissent toward the church’s policy against ordaining female priests, without physical conflict. Do you think security handled the Clinton situation appropriately? What rights to expression should audience members at events addressed by political figures expect?

Controversy Around 89 year Old Statue in Queens, NY

Unveiled in 1922, Frederick MacMonnies’ Triumph of Civic Virtue was called sexist from the get go. And sexist it unarguably is (to an extent that it borders on a parody of sexism): Virtue is a club-wielding man, while Vice is two women being trampled beneath Virtue’s feet. The statue stirred up so much public debate that the city held a public hearing on its propriety. At the hearing, Elizabeth King Black of the National Women’s Party interpreted the statue as one that exposed (rather than perpetuated), the subservient status of women: “Men have their feet on women’s necks, and the sooner women realize it the better!” In spite of protests, however, the statue remained in City Hall Park until 1941, when Mayor LaGuardia – reportedly tired of being mooned by the nude figure – had the sculpture moved to its current site in Kew Gardens near Queens Borough Hall. It’s been gradually disintegrating there while Community Board 9 has been trying get funding for its repair. For all intents and purposes it has been invisible – the paradoxical fate of many a proud public monument.

But now U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner has brought new attention to the statue: he is on a campaign to get rid of it (sell it on Craigslist!), because it is “sexist.” Public monuments frequently become objects to such controversy: their stone or bronze grandeur appears eternal, yet times change, politics change, our values change and monuments frequently come to clash with the zeitgeist. So then what? Keep them around to remind us of the follies of the past of put them in a museum/sell them on Craigslist?

Dealing with historical public art requires a fine balance – we have no obligation to live with all the artistic choices of our ancestors, but we may want to keep them even when we don’t love them, because they tell the story of the past in a tangible way, they give us a glimpse of the values – and prejudices – of those who came before us and, finally, they put our own values in perspective.

In any case, decisions about permanently installed public art should be made carefully, weighing in the opinions of the entire community, as well as the history of the work, its aesthetic value, its importance to a particular place. Having one public official decide what stays and what goes based on his like or dislike of the ideas a work expresses looks a lit like censorship – today it is sexism that bothers Rep. Weiner, tomorrow his successor may be bothered by feminism, or nudity, or anti-war ideas, or anything else the politician of the moment decides will win him or her some easy political points.

Facebook Doesn’t “Like” Nude Art

(image from artinfo.com)

It turns out that the enclosure of the World Wide Web into propriety social networks like Facebook has a downside, as the global art community is discovering. Facebook’s censors reviewers have repeatedly disabled accounts for posting images of Gustave Courbet’s iconic 1866 painting, “The Origin Of The World”, a frank and naturalistic portrait of a woman’s genitalia.

(NCAC also attempted to post the image…it was removed and we received a warning that continuing to post it would result in a ban.)

The bans have instigated an uprising, and this isn’t the first time Facebook’s content “standards” have been utterly blind to artistic merit. In January, the social network insisted upon removing illustrated nudes from the New York Academy of Art’s page, prompting some pointed questions about Facebook’s self-appointed curatorial duties.

Facebook has become a de facto town square for much of the planet’s online population. Problem is, it’s not a town square or anything akin to public space. Rather, Facebook is more like a shopping mall: privatized, corporate space run by a security force that can kick you out just for looking funny.

For most people, life in the mall is great. It’s well-kept, there are always new products to ogle and, besides, all of your friends are there! As we saw in Egypt, people can use Facebook to create big changes in the world. But this recent outbreak of prudishness only highlights the fact that everyone from small businesses to social uprisings are increasingly dependent on a platform where the Terms Of Service currently treat us as consumers, not citizens. It is up to us to organize and motivate Facebook to create policies that more closely approximate our expectations of protected speech.

VIDEO: Policing The Sacred Panel at CAA, Organized by NCAC

Were you unable to make it to NCAC’s “Policing the Sacred” panel on religion and freedom of expression at this year’s CAA? Now is your chance to take in the discourse and debate with these full-length videos!

The National Coalition Against Censorship has edited video of “Policing the Sacred: Art, Censorship, and the Politics of Faith,” a session held during the 2011 CAA Annual Conference in New York, and posted it on YouTube in two parts. Links to the videos appear below.

In recent decades, the volatile relationships among art, politics, and religion have only intensified, as evident in the Culture Wars of the 1990s in the United States, the Danish cartoon uproar, and ongoing battles over artistic depictions of religious figures, including the recent removal of a David Wojnarowicz video from an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery. This panel, moderated by Eleanor Heartney, an art critic and the author of Postmodern Heretics: The Catholic Imagination in Contemporary Art, brought together five artists and advocates who discussed the above issues and more.

Participating were Richard Kamler, an artist and educator whose installation of intertwined pages from the Koran and the Torah incited controversy in New Haven in 2010; the Bulgarian video artist Boryana Rossa, who spoke on behalf of her husband, Oleg Mavromatti, currently wanted by Russian authorities for “inciting religious hatred” through a performance in which he had himself crucified; Iranian artists and filmmakers Shirin Neshat and Shoja Azari, who recently completed Women without Men, a film that evokes the religious, social, and political tensions surrounding the 1953 coup that brought the Shah to power; and Svetlana Mintcheva, NCAC director of programs, who recently wrote “Hide/Seek: Museums, Ethics, and the Press: A Symposium Report” for CAA.

In addition, the artist Joy Garnett reviewed “Policing the Sacred” for CAA’s 2011 Annual Conference Blog.

Moot Court Competition Examines Real Student Cyber-Speech Issues

David Hudson of the First Amendment Center is connecting the dots between the hypothetical case presented in the 2011 First Amendment Moot Court Competition (in which the College Of William and Mary Law School emerged victorious — Go Tribe!) and the questions of freedom and accountability surrounding online speech facing administrators and communities around the country:

Many questions remain in the area of off-campus student speech. How far does the arm of school authority reach and can public school officials punish students for speech created entirely off-campus? Is it enough to protect the speech if the student-creator’s friends are the sole intended audience?

…

In June 2010, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a pair of decisions involving students suspended for derogatory MySpace profiles of their principals. Two three-judge panels had earlier reached different decisions, compelling the entire 3rd Circuit to examine the issues. No one knows what or when the 3rd Circuit will rule.

But as First Amendment Center President Ken Paulson wrote: “The two cases involving Pennsylvania school principals and MySpace could hold the key to the future of free expression for public school students.”

We’ll keep an eye on the issue, as the case is likely to reach the Supreme Court on appeal.

(photo by noderat)

In Censoring Art Gainesville State College President Violates Academic Freedom

Stanley Bermudez’ Heritage? (above) had been displayed for just over two weeks at the Gainesville State College Gallery before Martha Nesbitt, the President of GSC, ordered its removal. The painting, which layers images of a Klansman and a lynching upon a Confederate battle flag, drew protests spurred by a post on Southern Heritage Alerts. The Heritage Preservation Association, which has since emerged as the initiator of the protests, is an organization dedicated to  preserving the “symbols, culture and heritage of the American South.” The Association saw the painting as part of a  “long line of systematic attacks on the values and history of the Old South” – as one of its members stated in a discussion about the censorship incident on February 16th.

The arguments are familiar: Supporters of the flag say it honors those who valiantly fought for the South in the Civil War. Critics say the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and an ugly reminder of slavery. A Mason-Dixon poll conducted in 2000 found that 77% of African-Americans believe the flag is a symbol of racism, and just 9% characterize it as a symbol of Southern heritage. Sixty-six percent of whites responding to the survey said the flag symbolizes Southern heritage, while just 21% describe it as a symbol of racism.

But should a university president take it upon herself to decide this debate and stifle criticism of the racist connotations of the Confederate flag?  The President of a state college should know that the First Amendment is meant to protect precisely expression that some dislike and find offensive and that free speech protections apply with greatest force where an institution of higher learning is concerned – a place where a wide variety of ideas are heard and debated. Nesbitt did not appear at the public panel discussing the censorship and sent no other member of the administration to represent her: my guess is, she could not defend her hasty decision to suppress the artwork.

Artists have used the confederate flag in art before and have faced controversy: An art installation by John Sims called The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag and consisting of a Confederate flag hanging from a noose at a 13 foot gallows, was set to be installed outdoors in front of Schmucker Gallery at Gettysburg College, PA in 2004. Sons of Confederate Veterans and other members of the community objected, claiming the exhibit was anti-southern heritage and could provoke violence.  Claiming safety concerns, Gettysburg College administration installed the work inside the Gallery.

Note the difference: Gettysburg College officials – unlike President Nesbitt – were all too aware that removing the piece because its ideas were disagreeable to some people was unacceptable in a democratic country. The inability of President Nesbitt to stand up for freedom of ideas when facing external pressures raises serious concerns her ability to lead an institution of higher learning.

Democracy Now: Journalist Searched On Return From Haiti

Democracy Now! reports the Obama administration is continuing the Bush regime’s policy of directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to search and copy computers, smartphones, cameras, and hard drives of “listed” Americans returning to the United States. ACLU (NCAC member!) staff attorney Catherine Crump says “many journalists and lawyers who often work abroad have also experienced similar interrogations.” The ACLU asserts these searches and seizures of data violate the 1st and 4th Amendment and eliminate a journalist’s ability to maintain the confidentiality of sources, creating a chilling on effect on overseas reporting.

The Weiler Affair and Globalized Censorship

Prof.  Joseph Weiler of NYU, and Editor-In-Chief of the European Journal Of Law, has contributed an incisive editorial regarding charges that he defamed an author through an unfavorable book review:

…I was summoned to appear before an Examining Magistrate in Paris based on a complaint of criminal defamation lodged by the author. Why Paris you might ask? Indeed. The author of the book was an Israeli academic. The book was in English. The publisher was Dutch. The reviewer was a distinguished German professor. The review was published on a New York website.

Beyond doubt, once a text or image go online, they become available worldwide, including France. But should that alone give jurisdiction to French courts in circumstances such as this? Does the fact that the author of the book, it turned out, retained her French nationality before going to live and work in Israel make a difference? Libel tourism – libel terrorism to some — is typically associated with London, where notorious high legal fees and punitive damages coerce many to throw in the towel even before going to trial. Paris, as we would expect, is more egalitarian and less materialist. It is very plaintiff friendly.

The piece provides a dramatic window into a case that could have a chilling effect on the academic freedom of reviewers around the globe. The verdict will be delivered March 3rd.

NEWSgrist Write-up On “Policing the Sacred” CAA 2011 Panel

Joy Garnett of NEWSgrist has posted her reflections on the NCAC’s panel at CAA:

‘Policing the Sacred’ broached the most interesting age-old conundrum of art, religion and censorship. It asked that we ourselves examine the lines between hate speech, critique, parody, and appropriation of the sacred and its symbols by artists as well as by governments. Several factors were noted as being particularly relevant now:

- An upsurge of religious values since the fall of Communist regimes;
- Muslims under fire since 9/11;
- The Internet and increased mobility/accessibility of artists and images, across cultures and contexts.

Check out her blog for great, in-depth analysis of the discussion. We’ll upload video of the complete panel this week, watch this space!

Amanda Palmer Asks Community For Response To Censored School Play

Amanda Palmer, co-founder of the legendary Dresden Dolls and known for a wide variety of solo work, is a damn-proud alumna of the Lexington High School drama program. She credits it for granting her the opportunity to work with avant-garde material and forms that continue to influence her as a performer and artist. Naturally, then, she felt particularly outraged by her alma mater shutting down a student theater production of Columbinus, a play based on the Columbine High School shooting. It also happens that Emma Feinberg, the student behind the production, has performed in one of Palmer’s collaborations with Lexington High.

Palmer has posted a response on her blog, calling for stories of how theater programs provided life-changing opportunities by allowing students to work with challenging, difficult material:

i want to ask you guys to do something.

writing complaint letters to the school at this point won’t help, it will probably only irritate them.

BUT i’d love for you, in the blog comments below, to share your own experiences of high school art/theater/music departments, especially if you had a good, cutting-edge teacher, program or opportunity that encouraged boundary-pushing and real art-exploring. tell how those experiences changed your life, opened your mind, made you braver, helped you see things.

i’d love to compile THOSE stories and send them along to the principal and superintendent all in one package.

Since Sunday night, her post has racked up 121 comments. Add your story now and help challenge assumptions about what books, theater, or art that young people may or may not be capable of “handling”. And for more on this issue, check out the NCAC’s Youth Free Expression Project!

(photo by Michelle Matheny on Flickr)