Wednesday, May 26, 2010

No freedom to sculpt?

Sculpting is surely a form of self expression and many forms of self-expression have been held to be covered as protected free speech
"In suburban St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge has sentenced Lewis Greenberg, 66, to 20 days in jail. Greenberg’s crime? Well, it would be silly to describe his offense as a ‘crime.’ He’s in legal hot water because his neighbors don’t like his art, because a judge agrees with them, and because he refuses to modify that art to the specifications of his critics.

Greenberg calls his yard sculpture installations a ’statement on the Holocaust.’ Local bureaucrats cite ’safety’ concerns and characterize their demands as being made on behalf of ‘the children’ who live near, but not on, Greenberg’s property.”


They sure look odd but most modern sculpture looks fit only for the rubbish tip to me. But it's his yard they are "adorning". What was that bit about a "free country"?

Considering the rubbish that passes as art these days, his problem must be that he is not anti-Christian enough. Anything anti-Christian is sure to be defended as "legitimate" art.


Anonymous said...

One would assume the aclu would be all over this, since it seems like a clear violation of his First Amendment right.

Anonymous said...

I'll bet if he placed large glass containers of urine encasing crosses and crucifixes, he'd be given an immediate pass.

stinky said...

Wait a minute, don't those sculptures kinda look like Mohammed? For shame on him!

I mean, in an abstract sorta way.

Anonymous said...

fuck this piss for brains judge. he needs to move to saudi arabia and become a member of the morality police. I could not care less what kind of art some one has in their yard. said...

My neighbor adorns his yard with car parts.

Anonymous said...

Might be an issue about "attractive nuisance", especially since children were mentioned in the complaint.

If kids are trespassing onto his property to play on the sculptures and get hurt, and he did nothing to prevent the children from trespassing he could be liable. Then it could be come a public health risk. Options would include no trespassing signs, a fence (doesn't need to be tall, just deter), or take down the art (move it to a secured location).