Quote:
Originally Posted by nguirado
Likewise, the artist and his work weren't targeted for being anti-Christian, but for being displayed in a public place. If the artist had displayed the art in his house, there wouldn't have been a problem.
|
As I said in an earlier post, though, it is controversial viewpoints, whether in speech or art, that
need the legal protection that guarantees freedom of speech. If you allow anyone the right to attack and destroy these works of art that they personally find "offensive", then you attack one of the purposes of art, which is to be provocative, and to make people think.