Comments on: The Assassination of Hillary Clinton, The Assassination of Barak Obama

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:57:00 +0000

The artist could have easily used “The media Assassiniation of….” or “The character assassination of..” and avoided any issues…

The secret service is notorious for its diligence at squashing anything that even remotely insinuates an attack on a president or presidential candidate, and its probably just as well.

I presume the artist was released and not sent to Guantanemo

By: TranceMist

TranceMist — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:04:00 +0000

This is due to the poor education in this country.

People apparently do not understand the not so subtle difference between “The assassination of … ” and “Assassinate …”

Sad and ignorant.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:14:00 +0000

Yes, Im for freedom of speech, but Im also a fan of common sense. Thats why this world is so messed up because of people like you saying what you dont need to say. Just like our children how can we tell them you just cant walk up to the teacher, or anybody and say I dont like you and you should be shot. When some one like you is out there.

By: erebusrat

erebusrat — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:10:00 +0000

I disagree with the people above. It’s not suggesting action. It’s a title, like “The Assassination of Jesse James”. It’s not suggesting that you assassinate him, it’s stating that he has already been assassinated, like Hillary has been by the media which was the artists intent. “Assassinate Hillary Clinton” would be over the line, suggesting that she should or could be assassinated. If the former version leads to action against Mrs. Clinton, then anything could have set the person off. Rational people would not see it any immediately start planning her demise. It’s a silly notion; not one that warrants suppression of the freedom of speech.

By: KD

KD — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:46:00 +0000

Normally I would side with free speech, but I think this one borders on irresponsible. I think he could have thought of a better way to comment on the media. Choosing those particular titles sounds like something done more for shock value or to get attention.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:38:00 +0000

I'm a fairly ardent supporter of the ACLU, privacy and free speech. In fact, my pledge was to give the ACLU $20 per month every month George Bush is in office after the 2004 election. I've fulfilled that pledge and will continue to do so.

You can make a convincing argument that putting "The assassination of..." anyone on the side of a building is equivalent to yelling fire in a theater.

The question is where do you draw the line. Is the same text written in graffiti OK? What if it's written in graffiti and accompanied by a picture of a gun? What if you add a swastika? How about a picture of someone actually being assassinated?

And finally, how about adding a picture or representation of the person in question actually being assassinated? I think everyone would agree that crosses the free speech boundary into pure suggestion of the act.

It comes down to where you draw the line and I think the Secret Service is drawing the line appropriately.

By: reechard

reechard — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:14:00 +0000

A violation of some section of the patriot act I'm sure: a spelledwordcrime, (but not a soundcrime or a thoughtcrime.)