Hacker News Reader

Comment by rglover | Hacker News Reader

Seeing them cover this thing up is a hideous moment in our history: https://vine.co/v/eBBvedaHtBz.

Shameful that something so harmless is immediately covered up (quite literally) because it challenges the state.

The U.S. is getting scarier by the day, folks.

If you'd done the same thing with a bust of your mother 10 years ago, they'd have covered it up as well. Try the same thing (with Snowden, or your mother) in France or China, and see what happens. Just because they parks department is doing their job doesn't mean democracy is ebbing.

I don't think so. If it is something unauthorized they probably would have removed it in due time. I.e., they would have taken a couple of days to hire professionals to do it. Now they immediately cover it up so that no-one can see it while they arrange for its removal. Why? Obviously they do not want anyone to look at it before it is removed. But why not? It is certainly not offensive in any way. It may prove to be a minor attraction and it will get Brooklyn in the national news.

It really does remind one of soviet style suppression.

I think you are looking at the situation from our little tech bubble. Regardless of all of our opinions on the situation, it is still very political. This guy is actively wanted by our government for possible treason charges. If you believe those charges have merit, then erecting a statue in his honor could easily be classified as offensive.

This is part of the problem with our side of the debate. We take it as a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees that Snowden is morally right and that the government is morally wrong. We need to do a better job of convincing the general public why issues like this are important. Erecting a statue of Snowden doesn't do anything besides antagonizing both sides of the debate.

EDIT: As this post currently stands at -2 karma, I have to say I am a little disappointed in HN. This isn't Reddit, we shouldn't have brigades of people downvoting comments that bring up gray areas in this debate. I don't think I said anything unreasonable in this comment. However if you do and downvote me, the least you could do is comment about how I am off base.

I agree with you. Comparing it to common graffiti is as much an exaggeration as comparing it to graffiti depicting genocide.

Some skaterz 'tag' is going to take weeks or months to be covered/removed. However, if instead they it was a picture likely to draw both political and media attention plus cause some individuals distress at a memorial they are going to move quickly.

The fact is in this case it was inflammatory toward the US government so we are quick to declare democracy and freedom of speech is ending. I don't think the parks department who franticly called a worker to get there and cover it up is part of this broader conspiracy to deprive americans of freedom of expression. They moved quickly on something they knew would get a lot of attention.

I listen to lots of progressive as well as libertarian radio/media, and they all support Snowden. He's not just a tech bubble sensation.

I might have agreed with you that erecting a statue does nothing. But that it was promptly covered with a tarp is more revealing than I would have expected.

The Weather Underground protested by blowing up a statue. This is pretty classy.

There isn't really a legitimate debate, there's the PR department of statism and fearfulness and then the reality-seeking people who decry government power-grabbing and anti-liberalism.

Dragnet surveillance is totalitarianism. I guess there are apologists for totalitarianism, but why, if we are a democracy, do we listen to those who actively advocate for tyranny?

EDIT: Haven't heard any objection to my points yet, primarily that it's not possible to argue in good faith that someone can be both be well-informed about the effects of dragnet surveillance and still be pro-surveillance.

Comments like this reinforce my point. You are basically framing this entire debate as good versus evil. That is not going to change anyone's minds and it serves no real purpose outside of rallying your own side. There is a middle ground between our government can read everything and our government can read nothing. I don't know where that line is, but the only way we find that line is through open debate. Except no side apparently seems willing to engage in that debate.

Middle ground does not always exist. For example, take the plans to set up decentralized networks outside of the government's control. There have been discussions on how to allow the government to still be able to fight certain forms of illegal data exchange (terrorism and child abuse) while banning it from being at all involved in the others (drugs). But there is no middle ground solution. Any network that comprises itself enough to allow the government in to monitor and combat certain data will weaken its ability to prevent the government from being able to do the same elsewhere.

As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. And with a history filled with governments always overstepping their bounds, the only real solution is to create something that cannot be read, as any limit that depends upon 'please don't' is only a temporary patch.

>As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended.

Isn't this potentially the real problem? It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The Internet doesn't have to be completely different than the offline world. The police can knock down my door if there is a threat of child abuse or terrorism, but aren't allowed to do the same for a traffic violation. Why would that system need to be different online? We just need to make the process of acquiring and executing a warrant more transparent. That political debate would take precedence over any technical problem like designing a distributed system that could accommodate this type of request.

>It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances.

The problem is that current technology allows the government to hide behind 'you have no proof we did anything wrong' and 'state secret' defenses. Maybe a system that makes it clear when communications are being monitored, but the government is going to oppose that as much as a system that can't be monitored.

Also, there are few other considerations:

No foreign company is going to kick in your door, but they would be willing to hack your computer/listen to your chatter in an attempt to steal company secrets. Any weak point for the government is a weak point for all others.

Also, government is made up of some individuals that I do not want anywhere near any backdoors of my systems. Not to say everyone in government is incompetent.

Maybe they are if you are head of R&D for some massive project, at which point you would be taking extra precautions.

>Middle ground does not always exist

I think looking at issues with this lens is how the whole idea of "you're either with us or against us" gets started. It's possible to be less opinionated than that.

I think everyone should take a step back and actually analyze the situation for what it is, rather than immediately grabbing the pitch fork.

> >Middle ground does not always exist

He doesn't mean ideologically, he means technically. You're either encrypted or you're not.

This isn't about being opinionated, it truly is about whether or not we allow the government to monitor all the things.

The only options are all or none, there is no "just monitor some of the things" option.

The concern is that the technical binary nature of the issue does put pressure on the political sides towards being binary.

For example, those who want a system that protects jounalist in oppressive countries but that does not protect child predators have lots of positions to pick, but those positions (and the groups that hold them) can easily be divided along the lines of those who support a system that protects both and those that support a system that protects neither (it technically protects neither while it will often be sold as protecting one but not the other, and as such the majority of the group may fully believe it does protect one but not the other).

Not sure it's that simple. It's a given that everyone wants to be reasonable of course, but 1984 was framed precisely as a kind of political horror story. Should we really react in terms of compromise and middle ground if somebody proposes that we live in such a horror story?

My view is that this kind of thing is a part of what intelligence services are supposed to prevent, not implement, and they are therefore seriously failing to do their taxpayer-funded jobs. Not really sure of the point of employing smart people to protect you if they then use all of their wiles to weaken individual and state security.

That's still inside the tech bubble.

Talk to Old Lady A or middle-aged man B in any number of flyover states; the average American.

They have no concept of what type of data is available about them online. They have no worries about being watched by any agency, because they literally do not understand what is being watched.

Many, many people over the age of 40(ish) make assumptions about what is possible and what is not based solely on past experience. When it was nearly impossible to gather data, house data, and retrieve data about a monstrously large group, no one bothered. Therefore, average Americans from that time period have no idea what is possible.

Like the OP said - take the time to educate folks about what is possible and why they should worry, instead of argue for right versus wrong. All that does is make people pick sides, however irrational the side is.

Think of it from the point of the park officer. If they notice it, and not cover it up, then it will be read as an implicit endorsement, and will generate an unending amount of gossip and headache. Why would they want it.

The result would have been exactly the same if somebody put a bust of Hillary Clinton with letters "Clinton, 45th president of USA", even though Clinton would be a pretty safe choice for a lot of people (including those who hate Snowden).

I doubt the park officers decided by themselves to cover up the bust. I'm sure that they had orders from higher up to do this.

They have to wait for someone to move it (maybe someone within the Parks department, they have the equipment at least) but it's worth pointing out that a job in NYC Parks as highly bureaucratic it is desirable. Many employees are professionals (seriously, you have no idea if the guy throwing the tarp happens to have a masters in landscape architecture, or the next guy, or...) and park officers must be designated as special patrolmen by the NYPD. The very first rule of being an "Urban Park Ranger" is: "Under supervision, perform patrols of park facilities as part of a highly visible uniformed division. Ensure the safety and enjoyment of park users and the protection of park property." It's great that we can all discuss the merits of this from our own viewpoints– I fully support the artists here– but it is precisely the job of Parks employees to assist in the removal of any form of unauthorized modifications to the park. Simplest reason? Parks has no idea how the statue was made or how it was installed. What happens if it falls on someone? Or someone climbs it and a piece breaks off? We take it in good faith that this thing is just a harmless statement of expression– Parks employees most certainly should not.

> What happens if it falls on someone? Or someone climbs it and a piece breaks off?

How exactly does covering it up help with that? I agree that there are valid reasons for wanting to remove it, but covering it up before that is just ridiculous.

I said it elsewhere, but it's just a sign to the removal crew so that they don't have to look [hard] for it. It might be unnecessary, it might just be up the whim of whoever was working that day. We don't know, and so I'm not going to call it a conspiracy. An exception (i.e. protection for the display of public art, even if scheduled for removal) would be pretty great, just not a high priority for our public officials unless we're vocal enough in our support here.

Edit: Oh sorry, you meant how does covering up help with the potential of it falling... Not much, except to possibly prevent people from being interested in it and going near it. Only the people who know what it is already would be interested. But I don't think it's actually going to fall, just that if they're going to remove it there's no surprise that it's covered. It's not uncommon at all to see tarped statues in Parks when any sort of maintenance is being done for a variety of reasons.

"Not offensive in any way.." That' certainly subjective. Comparing Snowden as a war hero could be offensive to those that actually fought in wars. If they put it in the Nathan Hale statue at CIA, now that would be ironic.

I'm on a the fence about Snowden, however disrespecting a war memorial to prove a point seems to border on tasteless. How about putting a Snowden statue in front of an AT&T store; that would be better messaging in terms of protest without disrespecting actual war heros.

It's also arguable that what they did was disrespecting a war memorial. Today's wars are fought increasingly without conventional military units or weapons. I personally wouldn't consider Snowden a war hero, but I do consider him a hero, and I wouldn't begrudge people the opinion that he is indeed a war hero.

> It really does remind one of soviet style suppression.

If by "one" you mean "you", maybe.

No-one is getting gulag-ed or shot for doing this. To liken this response to Soviet-era human rights abuses betrays a pretty myopic view, IMO.

Hey man, we have Gitmo and all of our black sites around the world. Human rights abuses happen there with 100% certainty and 0% transparency.

Oh yeah, and we have the world's largest prison population by far.

So maybe not a real Soviet style gulag, just a bunch of smaller gulag-like places to store our undesirables.

Sure, it's not as bad as the USSR, but why is this sort of thing permitted whatsoever in a democracy again?

Not just Soviet-style suppression, but state sponsored censorship. While the local rules of the park may deem that this is simply vandalism, I fail to recall such instances in the US demanding this kind of censoring and it should be pointed out a little more saliently in the article for appropriate effect.

You are kidding right? This has nothing to do with "Soviet-style suppression, but state sponsored censorship". It is the Park service doing its job. It IS vandalism. Plain and simple.

I was pointing out the limited applicability of "Soviet-style suppression" in the above post - that much is obvious. The rest of my comment stands and your post counts as little more than needless handwaving.

Do you have examples of precedent where this occurred in the U.S.? If not, you're simply speculating based on your own opinion/mood/blood sugar level.

Graffiti is rarely covered up so quickly unless it is found to be particularly offensive. My personal belief is that this statue was deemed to be politically offensive and inciting as well as likely to draw media exposure and so was quickly removed from view even though this is not a required step in the process of restoring the monument to its former state.

Err... we're talking about an installation in one of the most heavily trafficked park systems in the world. I'm surprised it stayed up long enough for some stranger to get a video of it. Sure, there are neglected parks in NYC but the Ft. Greene / Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument is not one of them.

http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/fort-greene-park/inspection... For fun.

There have been many different opinions expressed here with regard to how quickly a politically innocuous statue would have been taken down, with different people claiming "it just makes sense" that such a statue would/wouldn't be covered and removed as quickly. This is a nice illustration of why the human intestine has such limited epistemic utility: my gut and your gut will rarely agree and there's no way based on gut feel alone to decide which if either is correct in any given situation.

So the right thing to do now is to put up a politically innocuous statue and see how long it lasts, or to find cases that are closer to this situation than graffiti, which is both commonplace and relatively less obtrusive, and less likely to be taken for an "official" statement of anything.

I used to live beside a park where a local artist erected an extremely strange Transformer-like statue in a central location that took several weeks to be removed, but it wasn't in the US and it was in the poorer area of a small town, so there are too many differences to draw any useful conclusions from it.

There was a guy that placed a bust of himself in a University library in Sweden. The bust is still there.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...

Or maybe they would've removed it, and until they did left it uncovered. Neither of us know what they would've done.

Not sure what China or France doing things has to do with how we do things in the US.

Well I can tell you 15 years ago Giuliani would have been up there with a sledgehammer himself taking it down, holding a press conference, and vowing the harshest consequences possible once the perpetrators were tracked down. By that scale can we say that the state of democracy in the US is actually greatly advanced?

I agree. The response depends on who is in charge. Maybe in a place like Berkeley, birthplace of the free speech movement, they might consider keeping the statue there.

Don't worry too much, U.S. couldn't become China in one day just like you couldn't build Rome in a day.

I notice this little detail in the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989, five years after 1984. After the students build the parts of the statute named Goddess of Democracy, the state security bureau declared that any truck drivers helping them would lose their license.[0] At first this amused me a little bit, seeing how pathetic the security bureau was, but soon I feel so frustrated and disappointed be cause it hasn't been any better about politics after 26 years. Of course they have learned how to frame citizen under the coat of "Rule by law". Government without its chain is just like the Smaug.

[0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess_of_Democracy

> Shameful that something so harmless is immediately covered up (quite literally) because it challenges the state.

Playing devil's advocate here, but would have they done differently with an other bust? maybe it's just forbidden to put a statue in a park without authorization.

Good question. Actually, I'd love to see what happens if someone takes the same exact concept but instead of Snowden or a political figure, they take the bust of Mickey Mouse.

Bonus points for a Vine of them covering it up while kids cry in the background.

Or how about an illegal bust of George Washington.

It'd probably hit the news with the headline:

"Anonymous benefactor donates $30k statue to city park"

The terrorist?

freedom fighter.

I guess you're not British.

That Tree of Liberty wasn't going to water itself...

You don't cover over forbidden things, only embarrassing things.

That is the scary part, although not new. Is the authorities deeming information and political statements as dangerous and needing to be censored. Make sure more people don't hear about this and start asking questions like why do some people venerate as a here, this guy the government says is a traitor.

"You don't cover over forbidden things, only embarrassing things."

What? Wrong. That's just silly. Really it is.

Someone put up a naked devil statue in a Vancouver park. It was removed pretty briskly.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/petitions-call-for-...

A naked devil grabbing his very erect penis. I can understand why some people may find that offensive but I personally wouldn't be any more offended by it than I was by the peeing "swordfight" statue at the Franz Kafka museum in Prague (with moving hips and penises no less) [1]

Art comes in all forms, including the goat f*cking variety [2] but that's another dimension of this argument that you aren't arguing against so I won't delve into it here.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lzZP36xVE

[2] http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130419-the-shock-of-the-o...

>The U.S. is getting scarier by the day, folks.

It really is. The facade of democracy is very quickly being peeled back to reveal something utterly terrifying. The response from the people has been the most disappointing and depressing thing though. The random sampling in NYC, of all places in the US, by Oliver's show was a brutal reminder of the mindset of the average person there.

Ignoring the republic/democratic state distinction, the US's democratic status has always been weak due to FPTP (ditto with the UK). It is essentially a system designed to keep the majority from even running and to keep the minority opinion silent.

If the US (or UK) cared at all about democracy like they always claim they'd move to something better (e.g. Open list, party list, full on proportional representation, or a number of other alternatives). Heck even run off voting (i.e. multiple votes) in FPTP is superior like the Alternative Vote.

But instead we have FPTP, and why? So we have this revolving door of "sameness" and monied politicians. Essentially bribery and corruption exist in the West, they're just completely legal and out in the open.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_cou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_repres... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

I highly recommend the following CGP Grey video for further detail about the problems of First Past the Post voting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo).

> But instead we have FPTP, and why?

Its the simplest and most naive electoral system so Joe Bloggs understands it. Its just "the person who gets the most votes wins". The problems this system causes are ephemeral statistical problems that require more than a 10 second soundbite to explain or even to detect happening. So from Joe Bloggs point of view, you want to change his fundamental right to vote based on the fact that your intellectual busywork has concluded that the wrong person can win the election. That's how the UK failed to get Alternative Vote passed in 2011.

Essentially bribery and corruption exist in the West, they're just completely legal and out in the open.

You can't bribe an officer of the USA govt, it's called facilitation payment and it's legal.

This is made even more funny by the fact that the USA law prohibits foreigners from engaging in that same behavior with other foreigners, in foreign countries. Foreigners have been convicted and indicted in USA for providing facilitation payments, in third countries, to third country citizens.

Wikipedia seems to disagree with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitating_payment#United_St...

FPTP = First Past The Post, for people whose first language isn't English. Took me a bit to figure out :)

Also for people whose first language is English.

The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for?

>The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for?

Yes. People should be free to elect whoever they want to represent them. I'm not a National Front supporter, but they clearly have support and why should they be withheld from running in a free election simply because others dislike their campaign platform?

The idea of "Only X parties that conform to Y beliefs should be able to run/hold government" is a very dangerous one.

I would rather see a world full of governments made up of mixed up groups of representatives than that which the US currently has - two sides of the same coin being flipped every 4 years with a very small number of families establishing themselves as political dynasties.

There's ~350m people in the US. There is no way the diversity of views in that 350m people is represented in the two parties that hold power there. Similarly, there are 350m people and yet those who hold the office of President are, and have been for decades, close relatives of former Presidents. 2016 is just around the corner and it's looking like the US may well have another Clinton or Bush in office. How the hell is that right?

A nation's power structure should be free to change as the people want it to. The government is supposed to represent and serve the people, not the other way around.

We're seeing former outlying political entities in Europe experiencing a large increase in support - UKIP in the UK, Syriza in Greece, Sinn Fein in Ireland, the separatists in Spain, etc. - because a hell of a lot of people feel the ruling entities there are no longer representing the people and are demanding change.

That is something that should be welcomed and embraced. A nation should be free to make its own choices and deal with the consequences, not be shackled to approved political ideologies.

Unfortunately, yes, I think they should have a seat.

While I disagree with everything they stand for, it isn't for me or anyone else to decide who should or shouldn't get their voices heard.

If they have enough citizens to vote for them, absolutely they should get a seat. In fact giving extremists a voice somewhat counter-acts extremism as they feel like they have an outlet for their perceived issues.

> In fact giving extremists a voice somewhat counter-acts extremism as they feel like they have an outlet for their perceived issues.

That's debatable. The ridiculous amount of coverage they have had in France has certainly improved their popularity.

The only good thing about them getting more power is that they can clearly demonstrate that they are just as incompetent and corrupt as the other parties.

Sponsored by the Kremlin from what I read recently. (And I'll don a tinfoil hat and bet all of the anti EU parties are getting backhanders from one of the other trading blocs.)

> The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for?

[Citation needed]. Sure, they have about 25% of the public now, but the next presidential elections are not before 2017, and two years is a long time in politics.

>The facade of democracy

>The response from the people has been the most disappointing

Which one is it? Is it that democracy has failed, or is it that the majority don't care about this particular topic?

You are supposing that they are separate/independent failings when in reality they are linked.

The way the government and the media demonized Snowden and fed the public misinformation was designed to get people to not care about this issue.

By attacking Snowden and misrepresenting the facts (such as congressmen claiming he was certainly working for foreign intelligence agencies), they muddied the waters and left people confused and consequently apathetic.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Not sure why HNers were so disappointed with people's response to Snowden in NYC. Isn't it easily possible that out of 200 people they questioned, only 10 didn't know about him but they of course edited out 190? That's how these comedy news shows work.

So it would be shameful of me to cover up your political speech when it's inflicted upon my property without my permission?

Look, I emphatically believe in what Snowden did (though I may have some quibbles with his methods, his reasons were exemplary). I don't think that justifies what amounts to glorified — if tastefully done, and in keeping with the aesthetics of the monument — vandalism.

This is a war memorial. How might it feel to those who have lost loved ones in one of this country's innumerable wars, to have the monument to their loss, their sacrifice, appropriated for someone else's speech?

Your property? The monument is no more yours than it is mine. And since you asked, it would feel like someone understood the relative importance of things. It would feel like they hadn't died in vain, for an unappreciative, lethargic citizenry.

>appropriated for someone else's ends?

Appropriated for the same ends for which the original memorial was commemorating. The ends are the same.

Let's also include some perspective. The monument does not appear to be irreparably harmed. So, vandalism, technically, but definitely not comparable to the Sack of Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_%28455%29

To change the point of view of a monument or previous piece of art in a easily reversible way is not vandalism in fact. Is art.

Art is not a democratic thing at all. This is the same that Banksy does. Is also the "monna-lissa with moustache" from Duchamp, the picasso's versions of velazquez paintings, and the impresionists showing his pictures in the "salon des refusees". People changed his point of view for better and just learned to deal with it.

What was claimed as inaceptable vandalism and breaking of the rules yesterday, is just culture today.

More interestingly, the success of a work of art is not linked to the objet permanence. If damaged o destroyed will spawn more controversy and will spread the idea (the real work of art), probably spawning a miriad of "photoshop restaurations" on internet.

A very smart move.

>This is a war memorial. How might it feel to those who have lost loved ones in one of this country's innumerable wars, to have the monument to their loss, their sacrifice, appropriated for someone else's speech?

This is the top of Fort Greene park, not Arlington Cemetery. The park runs concerts, movies, and food stands here. On a given warm day it's full of sun bathers, picnics, couples making out, personal training sessions, yoga, martial arts, &c. It seems disingenuous to suddenly pull out the "loss, sacrifice" card only when confronted with controversial speech.

They took due care to choose materials that would not harm the monument. Public monuments and property are there for the enjoyment and use of the public, if that usage does no harm it should be allowed. The placing of this bust pushes the limits of this usage but should still be considered fair use and free speech since the artists did no harm. Even though it will cost whatever the wages and rates for the equipment needed to move it will be, I would argue that this cost could be avoided in a freer country by sanctioning this type of protest so that the artists could come forward to remove it themselves (I'm sure they would have interest from galleries or individuals for this piece) or better yet there could be a popular vote on whether to keep it.

There is NO WAY this is "fair use and free speech". You can't even make that argument with a straight face.

To me, this is akin to chaining yourself to a tree in a public park to protest its removal or to a fixture in a courthouse or city hall or placing posters or drawing with chalk in such locations. This statue is about as permanent a fixture or modification as that would be. https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-demonstrat...

It has been argued before http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe...

If there's a case to be made protecting graffiti on private property I would say there is a case for protecting graffiti on public property if it is the public's will to do so http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

EDIT: o_o

Interesting pattern of feigned disbelief in the comments here. Anyway, I thoroughly agree with your assessment.

My great-great-great-etc-grandfather fought in the war that monument commemorates, and I feel Snowden exemplifies the values he fought for.

That monument, if anything, belongs to the city and thus its people.

As for political speech I am quite okay with the rule that you can put up any bust that you have made for your own money, as a private citizen, so long as it is of that quality. I doubt the rule would be abused much.

You can be well assured some religious group is going to use this to put up some religious symbol, after which some non-religious group is going to put up another demonic thinking chair.

We have the establishment clause to deal with that particular kind of abuse - this is completely nonreligious.

The Establishment Clause is irrelevant to the behavior of private citizens.

It is, however, very relevant to the state's behavior in such a case.

So if I create the Church of Snowden, someone else can complain to have the statue removed?

In my hometown there's a mausoleum to a WW1 general that was built in Fascist times.

http://www.ecosistemaverbano.org/scheda.html?id=5955

The roof is held up by statues of service members from various branches... and a Blackshirt.

Every once in a while that gets covered (to signify anti fascism) or uncovered (to signify respect for the artist's intention). It used to be various local administration officials covering and uncovering it. Now it's just random people putting up tarps at night or cutting them down.

The town's official policy at this point is "we ran out of tarps in the early 1990s and don't care anymore".

I wonder how long that tarp will stay :)

It is almost funny how the "vandals" were careful, whereas the cop unceremoniously stands on the eagle while covering up the bust.

No wait - "symbolic". That's the word I was looking for.

Ha ha ha, the US has been scary for over a decade, and for the rest of the world, scary for many decades.

just start a fund or such to plaster billboards all over with his image

I don't think it's scary or represents the US changing in someway, but this vine is a great summary of the entire Snowden affair after he released the leaks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com