Hacker News Reader

Comment by rosser | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com