Some "artist," Michael Petry, is making a bit of a name for himself with his art exhibit, America the Beatiful, that looks at our great country's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. One of the pieces is an American flag with pearls (left) sewn into the flag in the design of a cumshot by an actual gay man. It is by far the most crude, disgusting, shameful way to use the American flag I have ever seen.
On the other side, we have the continue battle raging over a single confederate flag flying on state grounds in the state of South Carolina. Black and other liberal groups have tried for years to get all confederate flags removed, but this one lone flag stands, and the state legislature refuses to remove it, saying that it represents an important part of state history (which is, of course, true). Now, some black coaches have gotten the NCAA to take aim at South Carolina's university, and the NCAA may strengthen its existing ban on postseason tournaments and games held in the state.
Various people would defend the sperm-covered flag; many others would defend the confederate flag. Unfortunately, few would defend both because political agenda, not individual rights, are what is most important to so many Americans today.
Though I personally find the former absolutely disgusting and I would like to see it gone, while I find the latter to be one group's fight for self-expression (the supports of the flag) against the ever-growing P.C. police (in this case the black coaches), I defend the right of both to exist.
Appreciate it for helping out, good information.
Posted by: monika | January 28, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Yes, of course it's different. Every analogy ever made in the history of mankind is between two different things with certain things that make them similar.
One has been voted on and endorsed by a state legislature, while the other has not. One is representative of the history of an entire section of our country, one is not. Of course, most importantly, one has a liberal slant (making it right and good to you) and one has a conservative slant (making it bad and evil to you).
Luckily, and for the last time this is my whole point, the First Amendment doesn't discriminate. It protects both forms of expression. I know you want to be able to tell certain people they can't say certain things or put forward certain symbols or ideas, but luckily you're prevented by the First Amendment from doing so.
Posted by: Cyd | January 16, 2007 at 08:01 PM
Agreed with Tim.
Your comparison is ridiculous but you refuse to address his point. Then you return to the place you feel most comfortable -- spouting hoary right-wing cliches about the "PC police."
Whose "freedom" is being impinged upon. Isn't every private citizen free to display the flag? Isn't the top of a public state house a bit different than a private museum?
Posted by: Karl | January 16, 2007 at 06:38 PM
You demonstrate my point. The First Amendment is there to protect all expression, all demonstration. It doesn't say anywhere that it excludes artists or state legislators. I don't like to see American flags burned, but that is an expression I wholeheartedly support protecting.
Just because you don't like the confederate flag doesn't mean that millions of other people shouldn't be allowed to fly it. The PC police would have us take down everything that one person finds offensive, from flags to Christmas trees. Protecting extreme forms of communication is of utmost importance in preserving every person's right to free speech.
Posted by: Cyd | January 16, 2007 at 03:06 PM
I have to agree about choosing sensational examples. You have chosen two very different uses of a flag to paint a picture about expression and about political agendas. In the end, no point is really made except to express dissatisfaction for one under the guise of proving a point about freedom.
Posted by: Brian | January 16, 2007 at 02:57 PM
Isn't this sort of apples and oranges? I mean, if an artist wants to use the confederate flag (or a sperm covered US flag) as some sort of form of expression, I see no reason why they should be stopped. If I think these are distasteful, then I won't go to the museum or gallery where they are displayed.
Also, neither flag as any business flying on state grounds either.
You really can't compare the two venues. You seem to have latched on to some sensationalist flag story and I think the comparison is pretty ridiculous.
Posted by: Tim Wilson | January 16, 2007 at 08:54 AM